241–250 of 701 posts
I agree with others here, YT and it's like are de facto monopolies by their size and market share. PeerTube [1] is a Mastodon [2] offshoot project that might allow users to get off YT, no idea where it's at though. "One project, Peertube, does exactly this. A federated, decentralized video sharing platform using the same back end as Mastodon, but around the sharing of video clips."[3] [1] https://joinpeertube.org/ [2…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EDIT: Removing my uncivil post. I'm happy to see your well-articulated post at the top.
Or maybe instead of this being a conspiracy of brigades, more people are waking up the dangers of too much control in the hands of a few powerful people?
I am of course very happy to see more people waking up to the dangers of too much control in the hands of powerful people. I'll edit my other post to remove the accusation, it poisons the well. I've been whinging on about this for years and it's definitely worn on my ability to be civil about it when we're at the "I told you so" stage of censorship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they are talking about the project veritas video from supposed googlers... yeah, project veritas has been thouroughly discredited for a long time now.
No more so than CNN.
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…
I don't think anyone is stopping you from putting your hacking video on your own website and letting users download it. That would be censorship. This is merely an aggregator/community that doesn't want to pay to distribute your content. So pay someone else!
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).
The US is weird in that a lot of commonly expected services aren't supplied by the government, if there was a wewillhostyourvideos.gov site out there then I'd definitely agree with you - I still _mostly_ agree with you since youtube now has semi-legitimate competition from vimeo - vimeo fails hard as a browsing platform but is fine as a place to host your video. This sort of censorship by a private company is only ac…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 wh…
Beyond that, I'm not even going to bother with videos. Like you said, O'Keefe has a very selective/gotcha method of editing his videos, and his claims and methods have long been both suspect and invalidated. Were I to have found anything worthwhile in the documents they dumped or the quotes in the article on their site, I might have given the video a view, but there's nothing "suspect" against Google in the dumped documents to begin with.
This, like most other PV work, is bogus.
[1]https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whis...
[2]https://www.projectveritas.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/SS...
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).
When they have more influence and impact on citizens than governments, perhaps we should revisit our definition of what "public" means. They can close businesses, make disappear the reach of specific competitors and do all sorts of things that governments cannot do because they agreed with their respective societies to limit their own power after thousands of years of history. Right now the only part in which are the…
Devil's advocate: There's a very thin line between e.g. the Lockpicking Lawyer doing reviews of different padlock brands and e.g. an instructional video about how to break into someone's house. YouTube knows that if someone posts home invasion instructions, and then someone else watches those instructions and commits a crime, the news media will absolutely 100% blame YouTube, and politicians will jump on them to scor…
I wonder why YouTube has to be the go-to source for useful video in the first place. Seems steps like this drive important content to other, hopefully more privacy-conscious platforms. This is a bigger loss for YouTube than the security community.
> I wonder why YouTube has to be the go-to source for useful video in the first place For the same reason Google became #1 in search: it's easier to look for something in one place than half a dozen miscellaneous places.