Fuck you Google.
Please don't do this here.
YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
271–280 of 701 posts
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#272The stigma IT gets from society with regards to security is abundant.
The term hacker for a geek is not the definition the media uses - I often correct people and ask - should Burglars be called Locksmiths? Which is absurd, but then the term hacker has been subverted to mean a computer thief, vandal, burglar or any form of digital crime.
As for showing how to break into a compter - the legal and valid reasons outway the criminal ones and yet this is a blanket ban mentality taking the edge cases and projecting them.
Forget your password - well thanks youtube for banning all valid digital locksmith usage.
So by doing this, it is akin to closing down a road because somebody got caught speeding, or banning anybody learning to drive because somebody got caught speeding. An extreme comparison, but is it?
Bigger issue is such digital rules are automated in action, so less due process, more so with some companies whose support due process depends upon you knowing somebody at the company to `actually` look into the automated oversights.
So what next, p2p and the darkweb have already been demonised by the media. So any attempt to offer an alternative will get negatively associated, and deemed guilty of a crime they did not commit. Which is nice for the establishments in our digital age, as it protects their effective monopoly.
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's called selective enforcement.
You can make it a PR issue. Go through reporting and if the videos clearly violate TOS and aren't taken down, point out the double standard to the activist press.
Technically you can.
In practice it’s playing the outrage lottery: you can’t complain not winning if you don’t buy into it, but you only have one in a million chance to have your issue blow up to any proportion, and then some more astronomically low chance it leads to anything.
I am still thinking about the Vox presenter Carlos Maza who painstakingly documented and published how youtube didn’t enforce its hate speech rules, gathered 20 000 retweets, got an official youtube account reply to assure they’ll look into it. And nothing (well, some more harrasment and hate speech)
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#274Earlier 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?
So I actually watched the video. Jen Gennai said that if Google is broken up the pieces won't be as effective at thwarting the next "Trump Situation". The frauds a Veritas interpret this as preventing the free and fair election of their favored candidate. Mrs. Gennai said she used imprecise words in a bar conversation when she didn't know she was being recorded. She likely meant that are making an attempt to reduce the spread of fake news, information silo-ing in their news aggregation and still keep user engagement up. Automating the identification of truth is certainly hard, and maybe harder without the resources of a unified Google.
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#275Not 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 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).
> At the end of the day YouTube is a private company
I can’t argue that it isn’t, and I’m not sure I’d be comfortable with somebody saying “you have to host whatever is uploaded”… on the other hand, AT&T and Comcast are “private companies” that host the backbone of the internet and could at any time start refusing to route traffic for, say, a YouTube competitor. Some banks are already refusing to do business with vendors that also sell guns… there is a point where censorship become discriminatory.
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#276There's a lot of bad content on the Internet, and a lot of people wanted to ban it. And the free speech absolutists said, that's a slippery slope. Once you start restricting speech beyond whatever is illegal, there will be no end to the demands to ban certain content. And a lot of us said, slippery slopes are silly arguments. All we're asking is to ban overt racism and calls to violence. We can evaluate these things…
I don't think this changes the idea that the slippery slope is a silly argument. Aren't we evaluating these things on their own terms now? It's definitely possible to have a YouTube that is harsh on calls to violence but allows cyber-security instructionals. We're not sliding down the slope just yet. We took a step too low and need to climb back up. edit: I should not have used "we" above, since only Alphabet control…
Every other HN discussion I've seen about YouTube banning content lately has been full of people insisting that because Google moderates their content at all, they are morally obliged to use their powers to police the politics of the nation. That's not so much a slippery slope as it is a slippery cliff face. Probably the only reason this one is different is because they're going after something HN regulars care about.
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#277Emperor G built a beautiful walled city, inviting everyone in, encouraging them to paint their houses whatever color they like. A year later, Big G banned blue houses. If you didn't like the rules, you were more than welcome to build your house outside the city and paint it whatever color you like. Only most people don't leave - blue is just one color and they weren't very interested in it anyway. Besides, the city i…
You forgot the part about how Emperor G would come and burn your house to the ground if you tried to build outside the city because building houses was his idea. But wait, they didn't invent building houses. But Arbiter W lives in the walled city and the Emperor gives him gifts. Arbiter W considers Emperor G to be the person who owns the idea of building houses, and Aribter W is the one that sent the arsons out to yo…
I'm sorry, this just flew over my head. What is this analogy about? Is Google DoS'ing third party websites? Deranking them? Suing for patent infringement? Who's W?
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not going to be able to take a look for a few days, but I'd be grateful if someone made sure that most of the Defcon talks were archived or mirrored somewhere.
https://media.defcon.org/ https://media.ccc.de/
You will also find recent ccc conferences on peertube nodes.
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#279Not 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!
> I don't think anyone is stopping you from putting your hacking video on your own website
Yet.
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
How about they disallow all the illegal content you are using as examples? Legal speech should not be censored.
Safe harbor laws make it generally legal for a platform to host such content until certain notification provisions are met. There's a specific process for handling child porn in the US, which you can easily find if you want that in your search history.
Advocating violence against specific people is not illegal in the US unless it is likely to produce imminent lawless action. Saying "[racial slur] should be exterminated" doesn't rise to that standard. A live video saying "everybody get your guns and meet me at [location] - we're gonna slaughter those [racial slur]" probably does, but would be subject to safe harbor protections for the platform.
Libel also falls under safe harbor. The platform could eventually be ordered by a court to remove the content, but not until many people have had the opportunity to see it.