Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

jeffgeerling.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 803 posts

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#171

Post by atemerev »

ben_w wrote: post #147
atemerev wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zionism is the notion that the state of Israel has the right to exist. Opposing Zionism is the call to destruction of the entire nation-state, and, therefore, a call to genocide. (Opposing the actions of said state is, of course, a natural right and can be freely expressed by anyone).

Unfortunately for that meaning of the word — and a few million people stuck in the middle — two completely different groups of racists are both simultaneously coopting it to stir up hatred for their enemies, who are the other group. > (Opposing the actions of said state is, of course, a natural right and can be freely expressed by anyone) Unfortunately, the "soldier mindset" (as opposed to scout mindset) is dominant…

Well, the soldier mindset and "us vs them" mindset is deadly, and the history is littered with mountains of corpses of people who subscribed to this world view, as well as millions of their innocent collateral victims.

Hate is deadly and useless. Israel is a nation that is tightly bound and has the right to exist, as there are millions of people who consider themselves Israeli. Palestine is a nation and has the right to exist, as there are millions of people who consider themselves Palestinians. Zionism is the affirmation of the Israelis to be a nation proper. Palestinian identity is the affirmation of Palestinians to be the nation proper. Both things are OK, even if I will be promptly hated by both groups, I won't give the words meaning beyond what was originally given to them.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#172

Post by InternetUser »

fortran77 wrote: post #122

Every time I sit down at my own piano in my own living room and record something written by a composer who died 150 years ago or more, I get a copyright strike on YouTube--often by a big label (BMI, etc). Last week it was a Robert Schumann piece, composed in 1848. The strike is still there, even though I contested it. (The form to contest it doesn't even have a good box to check for this scenario.) I would love it if…

Rick Beato has talked about this problem; in one video, he was even talking about how 5-second snippets of jazz were causing videos to be taken down, but the algorithm didn't even identify the right song. It reminds of how, in using the Shazam app, I've had numerous instances where it will wrongly identify a track 2 or 3 times, and even stick with the wrong answer. But even bands like Guns N' Roses and The Eagles will get videos of cover performances quickly blocked for sounding too close to the originals. Here's a great video where he talks about YouTube's recklessly draconian algorithms:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5lY_DbUsok

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#173

Post by tmtvl »

Lio wrote: post #93
anonymousiam wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Don’t be silly. The UK may not be perfect but no one’s going to complain if you compare the Prime Minister or the King to a cartoon bear. Or you talk openly about a government fuck up. Or about one part of the country maybe deciding to become independent. You just can’t shout fire in a crowded cinema and you can’t say “let’s all meet at the local hotel at 3.30 and burn the immigrants to death” during a riot. I’m ok w…

> You just can’t shout fire in a crowded cinema

This meme needs to die. You absolutely can shout fire in a crowded theatre. If there is a fire or some other emergency or you have a reasonable belief that there is a fire or other emergency.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#174

Post by AStonesThrow »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #52
AStonesThrow wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripping#Circumvention_of_DVD_c... Software tagged as "no longer available" is due to New York federal court by AACS group legal action in later March, 2014.[12] Remaining existing US software have disabled the decrypt / unencrypted / de-lock feature that allows bypass the Blu-ray disc protections. As from October, 2014 ... able to decrypt Blu-ray disc protection as being are freeware app…

The DMCA is a morally bankrupt law whose only purpose is to engage in economic protectionism. You know it, the media industry knows it, Congress knows it, and so does everyone else. Citing it as an example of why the content is "dangerous" or "harmful" is a very poor argument indeed.

This is such a terrible fiasco. You know, I chose to criticize the one video that Jeff singled out as offending. And Jeff has a lot of great content on his channel. Jeff has good and fun DIY projects. Jeff has also said that he is supporting his family, feeding his children, paying for health insurance and medical bills with the earnings from YouTube. This is a legitimate line of work, and Jeff is honestly doing what he can in good faith. Jeff is open to complying with the rules on YouTube, if he knew what they are and they didn't subtly change all the time (he released that video last year!)

And seeing that Jeff is 100% honest with his endeavors there and promoting his channel, rather than choosing a life of crime, or taking wages under-the-table, or abandoning his spouse and children... he chose a virtuous way. But what is HN telling Jeff?

HN is telling Jeff that his entire ecosystem is irredeemably evil. These fundamental protections that Jeff enjoys, the ones that get him paid, those are abominations and must be destroyed. That YouTube is wrong, DMCA is wrong, advertisements must be blocked, advertisers are pure, unadulterated greed incarnate; that copyright has gone too far, that anyone should be able to grab Jeff's videos off YouTube without being offended by an advertisement or a paid sponsor.

So do you want Jeff to feed his family or not? If you want to burn it all down and leave Jeff unemployed? Is that the undercurrent we are feeling here? You have come out against YouTube as if against a band of robbers, and Jeff feels abused and used and exploited right now, but still Jeff tells us that he's legally earning an income, and he's deriving that income from the infrastructure and legal framework that Hacker News hates with a white-hot hatred.

So that's an overwhelming tsunami of cognitive dissonance for this self-righteous keyboard warrior tonight.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#175

Post by detourdog »

cookiemonsieur wrote: post #117
Lio wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t be silly. The UK may not be perfect but no one’s going to complain if you compare the Prime Minister or the King to a cartoon bear. Or you talk openly about a government fuck up. Or about one part of the country maybe deciding to become independent. You just can’t shout fire in a crowded cinema and you can’t say “let’s all meet at the local hotel at 3.30 and burn the immigrants to death” during a riot. I’m ok w…

> The UK may not be perfect but no one’s going to complain if you compare the Prime Minister or the King to a cartoon bear. But if you compare Zionism to another eerily similar 20th century europe ism, a lot of people will, indeed, complain.

The comparison is not accurate.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#176

Post by Glittergorp »

neepi wrote: post #162

Yeah YouTube are getting shittier by the day. I keep getting banners telling me that ad blockers aren't allowed on YouTube. Stuff is pretty unwatchable now without them. Well fuck you I'll just download the videos with yt-dlp instead. If that stops working, I'll not bother.

You can use piped.

https://github.com/TeamPiped/documentation/blob/main/content...

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#177

Post by Glittergorp »

herbst wrote: post #160

I would love to see an European YouTube alternative with less morals being enforced through demonistation. TV is literally way less self censoring at this point And don't get confused. Most videos would be allowed on YouTube content creators just prefer to monetize them.

There would be more enforcement of this if it was the EU / UK.

Generally anything that looks or smells like hacking or copyright infringement isn't a good idea to put on your YouTube channel. I upload Linux videos and I will not mention youtube-dl (or equivalents), anything torrent related even torrenting legal things like Linux install media.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#178

Post by nottorp »

hardwaresofton wrote: post #120
nottorp wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's automate the stomping then. If people are bothered by this and it keeps happening, then that should create demand for someone who is able to scour YouTube and sue the appropriate parties/do the appropriate reporting. But it's already automated. Where do you think those completely wrong DMCA claims that people complain once in a while about come from?

Ah, but IMO not for smaller creators -- and at some point, if the DMCA claims are legitimate and not being heeded in a timely manner, more litigation aimed at YouTube should be started. This likely has bad effects for the internet as a whole (more efficient legal action can make those who abuse the system more powerful), but if it's something that needs to happen, then it should happen.

How does Google's "AI" distinguish between small or large creators?

Or some smaller platform that doesn't even have google's resources.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#179

Post by kassner »

charcircuit wrote: post #71
kassner wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t downvote, but: > It is illegal to break the encryption of DVDs and BluRays Laws have limited jurisdiction. There are quite a few jurisdictions that allow ripping for personal use/not-for-profit.

In this thread we are talking about a US based youtuber uploading to a US based video sharing service. Those jurisdictions where it may be legal are out of scope.

If this issue was related to infringing US law, specifically, region-locking out of the US would have been a fair and sane approach. YouTube has the tools for it.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#180

Post by jorams »

znpy wrote: post #100

@geerlingguy: First things first: I'm on your side. But the whole content-creator industry should really start looking for and pushing alternatives to Youtube. Floatplane from LTT folks looks promising, I wish it got more attention. It seems that only Linus and Luke actually had the balls to come up with a business model and implement the darn thing. Otherwise you (and other content creators) sooner or later will hav…

Nebula[1] is an alternative to YouTube for and by youtubers. I'm fairly certain it's much bigger than Floatplane. It has ad-free versions of the creators' youtube videos, early access for new videos, and exclusive content. It seems to be pretty successful.

It is also, like Floatplane, totally irrelevant without the pull from YouTube, because that's where the audience finds these creators in the first place.

[1]: https://nebula.tv/

Post reply on HN