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

211–220 of 701 posts

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

#211

Post by tomp »

jjulius wrote: post #167
corndoge wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's citing Project Veritas: https://spectator.org/google-removes-project-veritas-video-f... https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/6/27/18760463/projec... Just a couple google results, cbf to find the actual video, I'm not promoting any particular viewpoint etc

Thank you. If Project Veritas is indeed what OP was referencing, then the claim can be easily dismissed without viewing the "source" footage, given Veritas' and O'Keefe's extensive history of selective editing, fraudulent claims, dubious methods and borderline entrapment[1]. Edit: If you're going to downvote me, note that I have no problem discussing why we should lend credence to claims from an individual with a lon…

I don't care much about his history. But the video is pretty damning. Unless it's "deceptively edited" in the sense of cutting up her speech and merging it together to form completely different sentences (which seems unlikely, as the video is smooth) or she was just kidding (sure, Trump is "just kidding" all the time!) or deepfakes (possible, but so far noone alleges that)...

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

#212

Post by Retra »

lone_haxx0r wrote: post #188
insickness wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

That's wrong decision on a fundamental level. If you apply that principle consistently, then property doesn't exist.

Property is no less a social construct than law is. That decision draws a spectrum between individual property and public property that is modulated by use; if you allow public use of your property, it will be regulated by the public, proportional to the degree at which you open the property to public use.

Without doing this, the government only has the authority to guarantee your rights on government property, which would effectively be no different from granting complete sovereignty to private entities.

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

#213

Post by JoshTriplett »

diminoten wrote: post #130
JoshTriplett wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's certainly the (false) belief under which many legislative and governmental bodies operate.

Isn't that how most home door locks work, though? Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water here, it's pretty helpful to have legal deterrents to amoral actions...

> Isn't that how most home door locks work, though?

Not at all. Short of building a fortress, you won't stop someone determined to get inside, but you can make it sufficiently difficult that they're more likely to be noticed, or more likely to seek out an easier alternative.

> it's pretty helpful to have legal deterrents to amoral actions...

Nobody is suggesting otherwise; rather, the issue is that legislating against something doesn't stop it from happening, and therefore you do still need to secure against it as part of your threat model.

Furthermore, laws tend to paint with a very broad brush; changing a number in a URL isn't "hacking", for instance. Laws should work with technical measures. Climbing a fence makes it much more obvious that you're trespassing.

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

#215

Post by Faark »

homonculus1 wrote: post #161
intopieces wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The correlation between the digital town square and the physical one is often cited but tenuous at best. Other video streaming sites exist. Moving to them is a click away - no need to pack up your family and put a deposit down.

The digital town square is where the people are at. Moving to other streaming sites is more like having your expression relegated to some dusty back road. If YouTube wants to be editor over the content they host, then they ought to be subject to the same liabilities as a publisher. If they want to be considered a platform then should be forced to remain neutral. The conflation of these mutually exclusive roles serves…

I agree, I feel like they should host pretty much anything. But they are absolutely responsible for what they promote, since their algorithms select what to recommend. This makes it impossible to remain "neutral". And they are also responsible for effects their algorithms have on society. At the very least will less people want to work for a company who caused the next civil war by spreading divisive content.

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

#216

Post by Macross8299 »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #143
AWildC182 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless they themselves are also terrible people, I can't imagine that they don't have some plan to combat this given how obvious of a problem it's been. They mention respect in the header at least...

How do they combat that without being accused, as youtube is here, of censorship? Will they disallow child porn? How about videos advocating violence against specific people? How about obviously libelous videos, like ones claiming, say, Donald Trump is running a child prostitution ring from the basement of a pizza parlor? When they get sued for hosting such content, who is going to pay their legal bills?

For anything that isn't illegal -- offer user controls to block unwanted content.

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

#217

Post by Aelius »

whatshisface wrote: post #116
Liquix wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if it exists Herein lies the problem.. Most creators/uploaders know on some level that YT is a toxic monopoly and would be happy to jump ship. Granted some more than others, but I've never observed any sense of loyalty towards the platform - it's just where everyone goes to share and watch videos. However, switching to vimeo/DTube/flixxo/etc means less views and smaller paychecks. Why would content creators in the…

Vimeo isn't clean, they banned Alex Jones for believing (edit: and yes, saying) unacceptable things.

Your definition of "free speech" includes not taking action against truly malicious and slanderous and manipulative people like Alex Jones?

And there is no "who draws the line‽" argument here, Jones exists miles beyond what is ever ok.

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

#218

Post by calcifer »

floatingatoll wrote: post #180
asdf21 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's called selective enforcement.

What is?

Reporting their own content doesn't matter, because the rules don't apply to them. Ergo, selective enforcement.

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

#219

Post by komali2 »

dekrg wrote: post #199
jjulius wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. If Project Veritas is indeed what OP was referencing, then the claim can be easily dismissed without viewing the "source" footage, given Veritas' and O'Keefe's extensive history of selective editing, fraudulent claims, dubious methods and borderline entrapment[1]. Edit: If you're going to downvote me, note that I have no problem discussing why we should lend credence to claims from an individual with a lon…

So the recorded Google employees were deepfakes? Or are you saying that autocomplete results for "men can " in Google search are totally natural and not at all political engineering done by Google?

I don't trust project veritas or its motives, at all.

There will be possibly be a time in the future when we can reasonably prove our identities and all things we have done with those identities. In this future, Reputation will be at least as valuable as any other form of measure of worth, because it will also be a world filled with bullshit. In that world, we will want to be very selective with our attention, and who gets that attention.

In the past, project veritas has gone out of their way to misrepresent those they are "interviewing," has lied and made hilarious, absurd, claims to "gotcha" people. They engage in rhetorical dishonesty and fallacy.

They aren't worth anyone's time. I won't waste my valuable attention and time "disproving" every heaping pile of dung that Veritas shits out. They already lost my trust ages ago.

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

#220

Post by testvox »

diminoten wrote: post #130
JoshTriplett wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's certainly the (false) belief under which many legislative and governmental bodies operate.

Isn't that how most home door locks work, though? Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water here, it's pretty helpful to have legal deterrents to amoral actions...

Most people do not live in houses that I would call "secure systems". The reason locks in residential homes are not that sophisticated is because it's not worth the cost to make them secure when there is still going to be a glass window right next to it.
Post reply on HN