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

181–190 of 803 posts

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

#181

Post by Hikikomori »

atemerev wrote: post #124
cookiemonsieur wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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).

That's not the part we have a problem with. It's that there was already people living there before and now they're using this supposed right to exist to wipe out the local population. Ironically they don't believe that Palestine has the right to exist.

Colonialism has always been bad, Israel is clearly no different.

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

#182

Post by InternetUser »

snovymgodym wrote: post #61

Feels like YouTube is ripe for disruption. In the recent past (say up to the mid 2010s) it was a really good product and there was a reason nobody gave a shit about Vimeo et al, YouTube as a site, app, platform was so far ahead of the competition. But now? Youtube is full of slop, search barely works, and Google is on an endless campaign to make ad-blocking and free downloading impossible. Even most of the "good" cha…

There are many genres of content where other video platforms--all of them entirely entirely or mostly premium--are bigger than YouTube, for instance, for:

- movies (Netflix, Hulu, HBO Max, Paramount+, Disney+, Turner, Criterion)

- old as well as current TV shows (Netlix, Hulu, Amazon Prime)

- cartoons (Netflix, Hulu, Disney, Tubi)

- pro sports (ESPN and league-specific platforms)

- video game videos (Twitch)

And for short advice videos (I call it "advice-ology," and there are tons of people doing it, whether about relationships life, nutrition, health, or fitness), comedy shorts, and prank videos, a video app called TikTok has been the biggest app in the U.S. and the world for the past 6 years, and Instgram, with its video "Reels," is also bigger for such videos.

So, my question to you is: What are 2 of more types of videos you'd like to get YouTube get disrupted in? Music videos? Podcasts? Movie trailers? Here's the current "Trending" list:

https://www.youtube.com/feed/trending

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

#183

Post by zimpenfish »

Duwensatzaj wrote: post #155
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…

I agree that comparing the UK to the PRC is ridiculous, but you seem to have missed that UK policing goes far beyond your example. Hamit Coskun was arrested and convicted for burning a Quran, reintroducing blasphemy laws but only for Islam. Multiple cases of people being arrested for silently praying around abortion clinics. Arrest and conviction for dressing up as the Manchester Arena bomber for a private Halloween…

> Hamit Coskun was arrested and convicted for burning a Quran

Wasn't just for burning a Quran though? He was doing it whilst shouting Islamophobic abuse outside the Turkish embassy.

"[Judge McGarva] said that burning a religious book, although offensive to some, was not necessarily disorderly, but that other factors (including Islamophobic comments made in police interviews) made it so on this occasion."[0]

> Multiple cases of people being arrested for silently praying around abortion clinics.

I could only find three - two had their charges dropped[1] and one was charged for not leaving a safe zone after being advised[2] (not silently praying.)

> Arrest and conviction for dressing up as the Manchester Arena bomber for a private Halloween party.

Definitely agree that one would have been better as a warning not to be such a twat rather than arrest and conviction.

> Arrest and jailtime for sharing offensive memes publicly

> Arrest and jailtime for sharing offensive memes between a group on WhatsApp

"offensive" is doing a lot of work there given they were, in the first case, "racially aggravated online social media posts linked to national civil unrest" and, in the second case, just plain racist.

I'm ok with racist content being policed, personally?

[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9v4e0z9r8o

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gze361j7xo

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g9kp7r00vo

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

#184

Post by hardwaresofton »

nottorp wrote: post #178
hardwaresofton wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think we may be discussing different things. When I talk about the DMCA machine, I mean the cottage industry of firms that make it their job to check the internet for infringement and file the appropriate claims. I'm not referring to Google's AI.

My point was that those firms currently cater to large creators/the cost only makes sense for firms with lots of IP. BUT, if it was cheaper/more accessible (and profitable to litigate in this area) then more small creators can do it, and the problem becomes more acute for large content hosters.

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

#185

Post by atemerev »

Hikikomori wrote: post #181
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).

That's not the part we have a problem with. It's that there was already people living there before and now they're using this supposed right to exist to wipe out the local population. Ironically they don't believe that Palestine has the right to exist. Colonialism has always been bad, Israel is clearly no different.

"They" are me, I am a religious Zionist Jew. I believe that Palestine has the right to exist, just like Israel. Israel is the land of our ancestors, which was ruined by Romans and then settled through Arab conquests (Arabian colonialism was a thing). This is fine, this was a long time ago. We were there even longer, but it is not the time to compare.

If Palestinians consider themselves a nation, they are a nation, just as we are. Neither of us should try to destroy each other.

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

#186

Post by decremental »

Latty wrote: post #156
anonymousiam wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It's always funny seeing Americans who have clearly got their news about the UK from questionable sources telling us how actually we live in a dystopian open-air prison. In the US, you have people being literally grabbed off the street and sent to foreign prisons because of their speech with no due process, but the UK is the one close to a loss of freedom of speech because checks notes you can be convicted in a court…

[dead]

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

#187

Post by kassner »

gloosx wrote: post #115
kassner wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will become harder to ignore the possible retaliation Google can make against your/your family’s Google accounts.

Would not be an easy one to swallow but I don't have a false expectation that these accounts are mine in any sense. They are Google's, and I'm just renting it paying with my personal data to feed the AdSense machine. Any day they might decide to do what they want with it, there might be a bug or a technical issue which will lock me out, and I doubt I would have a single way to influence it, the customer care or user…

I can control my own digital life, but I don’t have the resources to do the same for every family member. An old age family member owning Android devices for a decade is virtually impossible to untangle from Google.

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

#188

Post by InternetUser »

internet101010 wrote: post #67
snovymgodym wrote: post #61

Feels like YouTube is ripe for disruption. In the recent past (say up to the mid 2010s) it was a really good product and there was a reason nobody gave a shit about Vimeo et al, YouTube as a site, app, platform was so far ahead of the competition. But now? Youtube is full of slop, search barely works, and Google is on an endless campaign to make ad-blocking and free downloading impossible. Even most of the "good" cha…

All they need to do is fix the abomination that their search has turned into. 3 relevant, shorts carousel, 9 irrelevant "people also watched", then back to relevant. It's truly awful.

To solve that problem: when you're logged in, go through the suggested-videos margin and right-click on the suggested videos that appear irrelevant or awful to you, and you can click either "Do not recommend channel" or, more mildly, "Not interested." Do that a few times and you'll see the suggested videos get far more relevant to what you want to see. Yes, they definitely have an agenda in terms of the channels they push, whether it's political news clips, late-night talk show interviews, celebrity gossip, or zany pranks and challenges, but you can block them all. They love CNN, Joe Rogan, the Kardashians, and New York City real-estate mogul Donald Trump, but you don't need to see them if you don't want to. I've also done this with my Instagram "Explore" page and now it's always nearly all posts I'm definitely interested in, like about technology, science, astronomy, history, archaeology, coins, all sorts of stuff I like, it's great.

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

#189

Post by Lutger »

w14 wrote: post #59

This is the problem I had with all the content removal around Covid. It never ends with that one topic we may not be unhappy to see removed. From another comment: "Looks like some L-whateverthefuck just got the task to go through YT's backlog and cut down on the mention/promotion of alternative video platforms/self-hosted video serving software." This is exactly what YT did with Covid related content. Here in the UK,…

I don't see how one necessarily leads to the other. There's obviously already filtering going on in youtube, even before covid, on illegal content and also on legal content that is against the policy (adult content for example).

How is Covid desinfo during the pandemic suddenly a slippery slope for anti-competitive measures, while all the other moderation measures aren't? Whats so special about anti covid desinfo rules?

I think we really need a better argument than 'making any rule leads to making bad rules, so we better have no rules'.

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

#190

Post by Freedom2 »

Defletter wrote: post #113
achooie wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol free speech is for citizens

How can someone be so confident but also so wrong? --- EDIT: Let's remind ourselves of where FEDERAL freedom of speech comes from. Firstly, of course, is the First Amendment: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government…

> How can someone be so confident but also so wrong?

Welcome to Hacker News, where "curious discussion" is more important than anything else.

Post reply on HN