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

YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 701 posts

Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”

#201

Post by whatshisface »

homonculus1 wrote: post #193
tasty_freeze wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your edit doesn't go far enough. He encouraged hate against the parents of the children killed at the Sandyhook mass shooting. Yes, Jones has a right to be a crackpot, but it ends when it infringes on the rights of the people Jones' audience harassing.

I'm out of the loop--was he directly inciting action against the parents?

He was accusing the parents of aiding a conspiracy to stage a fake shooting. I can imagine being a parent who has just lost a child, only to be told that I was lying, and that my child either never existed or was still alive. It's a real ideological litmus test - exactly how turned can your stomach get before you call for an exception to free speech?

Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”

#204

Post by joshschreuder »

gen3 wrote: post #31
EnFinlay wrote: post #17

There are thousands of hours of excellent cybersecurity content hosted on YouTube. The possibility of losing this wealth of information and history is shocking to me. Time to start the archive effort. And to finally appreciate what so many other communities have gone through when they've found themselves on the wrong side of one of the internet behemoths. I feel naive.

Do you have any recommendations on channels to archive?

LiveOverflow is great also

Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”

#206

Post by kd0amg »

ianstallings wrote: post #125
nudpiedo wrote: post #49

Not anymore a conspiracy theory. This is the actual big brother modeling our futures, a group of people powerful enough, with their own interests and their own agenda with access to most peoples minds/lives, and who already publicly explained how they plan to influence on global geopolitics and society building. I find it disturbing this level of censorship. At first, it was pedophiles, murders and violent criminal a…

Agreed. Being of the Libertarian mindset, I was at first completely okay with it under the argument of personal liberty and personal property. It's a private company and they can do what they want. But the closer I looked at it the more I realized that it truly is a public space. And then when powerful political figures started influencing what was okay to censor on it I realized they are trying to do an end-run arou…

Past thought about free speech seems to be based on the assumption that people can communicate without having some third party approve the sender/receiver/message. Now we mostly use a communication medium that involves a lot of third parties. How many private companies carried this comment to your screen? The bakery whose WiFi I'm using now, their ISP, some unknown backbone carrier, YCombinator, your ISP. Maybe a CDN provider and some others I can't think of.

We already have an answer about a government-operated communication medium: the government (including those acting on its behalf) must uphold our rights. That implies an obligation to keep storing/hosting/delivering things we say. It costs money, but society is more or less ok with the idea of a government having a legal obligation to spend resources on something. But what do we do with a private entity which spends a lot of money to operate and maintain a communication medium?

Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”

#207

Post by pfortuny »

insickness wrote: post #86
rubicon33 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could definitely get behind your point if the subject were the government. It's not, though I understand the sentiment is the same. At the end of the day YouTube is a private company. Yea, a very big one with huge reach, but private nonetheless. Taking a subjective moral position is something companies have been doing for a long time. If you disagree with them, don't give them your $ (don't use youtube).

Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk, even though the sidewalk was part of a privately owned company town. The Court based its ruling on the provisions of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.…

I guess the thing is similar to a “right of way”. You cannot create and facilitate a common behaviour and suddendly prevent it.

Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”

#208

Post by chrisco255 »

kelp wrote: post #157

Lets keep in mind that YouTube has been around for 14 years... In societal terms that's a relatively short amount of time to have a free platform where anyone can post their ideas, no matter how crazy or toxic. Before that, you could blog. Before that, you could stand on a street corner and yell, or maybe use a megaphone. The platforms for broadcasting your message to a large audience were mostly gated, often by larg…

Neither TV nor radio quite fits the analogy... because these are broadcast 1:many mediums.

And the idea that no one has a right to have their message amplified to millions is sort of insidious and evil.

Because the consumers choose what to watch on YouTube. And the users produce the content. So this more like a virtual community with billions of micro-interactions.

Of course it scales. The internet is a testiment to that. What's different today is only sentimental.

Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”

#209

Post by mrkstu »

writepub wrote: post #133
lallysingh wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vimeo? Facebook?

I've heard of scores of YouTube millionaires. How many Vimeo millionaires have you heard of? Does anyone make a living off of Vimeo?

I'm more concerned that if a migration happened to Vimeo, you'd end up in the same spot. Speech doesn't presume an easy to reach audience. I'm fine with YouTube and its ilk not surfacing things organically if they don't want to or even de-monetizing- but I do object to total de-platforming based on non-illegal content. People have to have /somewhere/ to go.

Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”

#210

Post by 1337biz »

unreal37 wrote: post #13

I know this might not be a popular opinion. But showing people how to hack systems... that seems like an OK thing to ban. It's a crime. Teaching people how to commit a crime has always been not OK.

This is a very important argument. It may sound stupid. But the point is the recent censorship efforts had even lower levels of pseudo logic.

They censored away voices that were fully covered under free speech. To be honest I can sympathize with your 'crime tutorial' argument even slightly more than banning hate mongers. Hate is not a crime.

Post reply on HN