Shouldn't this apply to lock picking videos too?
YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
281–290 of 701 posts
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#282Earlier 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?
Years ago, Bill Kristol accused the lawyers representing Guantanamo Bay detainees of being anti-American for doing so. Up until that point, Bill Kristol has been a pundit I read semi-regularly as a reasonable voice I disagreed with. From that point on, I have never read anything else he had to say. Ever. If an article mentions him, I stop reading. If I accidentally end up on a column of his, I immediately hit the back button. If I happen to be watching TV (very rare) and he appears, I change the channel. By trampling over a foundational precept of justice to get his rhetorical points du jour, he forever forfeited his right to my time.
You may say that is extreme. I say: anything worth saying has dozens of people saying it already. If I want diverse points of view, the internet has them in abundance. So I lose nothing and, in a small way, I can try to make things better.
The point is: Project Veritas is comically partisan. Literally nothing has been too underhanded for them: taking things out of context, outright lying about what they found, splicing video to make it look like people said things they didn’t, you name it and they’ve done it.
So no, they don’t get to be listened to. Ever. No one who worked there gets listened to. Ever. Someone else will speak whatever truths they speak, and meanwhile we need not listen to their lies.
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, whether it's a crime depends. Is it a crime to teach people how to pick a lock?
>Is it a crime to teach people how to pick a lock? I imagine that depends entirely on where the viewer lives, it wouldn't surprise me if some countries had laws that made it so. Mere possession of lock picks themselves, according to this site https://tihk.co/blogs/news/116232133-lock-pick-legality , appear to be enough to get you arrested for intent to commit a crime in 5 states. Given that laws vary wildly from coun…
There is a difference however between demonetizing clips (ie not showing ads associated with certain content) and outright banning them. I feel the latter should be reserved for very few types of contents (mostly contents that is illegal to host).
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#284Lets 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…
I suspect many people were saying the same about the printing press when that was invented. "If anyone can print something quickly, how can will we stop the peasants from printing their own books". Many would could say same about open source software, people developing their own technology. They are doing their own thing, there is a lot of rubbish code (noise) to good open source code (signal). Maybe a large company…
1) you make some good points.
2) I think you could make them without jumping to conclusions about what I believe, and without assigning intent that isn't there.
But let me try to clarify my point.
I'm not saying that YouTube doesn't scale, or doesn't have a ton of value. Obviously both are true.
I'm saying that laissez faire freedom of speech doesn't scale on platforms like YouTube. There needs to be some set of standards for acceptable behavior.
I think a lot of subreddit's do a good job of this with their moderators and rules. I think HN does a good job with it's down voting, etc. (I suspect my unpopular opinions here will get me some down-votes though....)
But YouTube, Twitter, etc, don't seem have the same community enforcement mechanisms, but something is needed. It's unfortunate that it ends up being a kind of arbitrarily enforced set of rules through an opaque process... But I feel like that's better than just letting anything go.
Also, to be clear. I don't think I do actually agree with the YouTube policy of blocking hacking videos. But I'm trying to make a larger point that I think there does need to be some standard of what is ok or not to be broadcast.
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
So he wasn't directing anybody to commit a crime? It's a deplorable scenario, but free exchange of ideas and beliefs still requires protection. The consequences of losing it are in the long-term far greater than personal grief.
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#286Not 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…
Oh come on, YouTube isn't banning content "showing users how to bypass secure computer systems or steal user credentials and personal data" because it somehow offends their moral sensibilities.
They're doing it because they know that if there was a major hack and whoever did it learned from YouTube videos, there would be widespread outrage.
The headlines would be "YouTube teaches hackers how to steal your private data", and there would be calls for more regulation on what YouTube can and cannot do, which is something that they probably want to avoid at all costs.
So we end up with rules like these. You and I might disagree with them, but they come about because it's what we (collectively as a society) have demanded.
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#287Below the original comment in a reply is YouTube's full list. One of the items bans videos about "hard drugs" which it defines as any drug that causes a physical addiction. Is there an incoming wave of coffee- and tea-related takedowns? Because I'm pretty sure that headache you get when you don't drink caffeine for a day is not your brain longing for the rich aroma of freshly-ground beans. It's a physical addiction t…
What about the premium series they produced, Mindfield? A good number of the episodes are about Michael Stevens (Vsauce) taking hallucinogens and describing the experience.
On second thought, I guess most of those aren't addictive. It still seems like a really odd line to draw.
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#288Emperor 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…
While Google created that walled city, they also destroyed every other city into a pile of rubble after tapping into endless resources from a completely unrelated industry. YouTube had an unfair advantage over just about any other company trying to build something similar. Google is famous for making things free until they are not, than your screwed. I like when they arbitrarily change rules about SEO, AMP's and such…
Many of the of the same pundits supporting censorship on Google search and Youtube used to be extremely critical of Walmart's business practices. This isn't about principles.
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#289Earlier 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 the recorded Google employees were deepfakes?
Nobody said he used deepfakes. I'm sure that the interviews with Googlers whose faces/voices were on camera were legitimate, and selectively edited just like every single one of his videos. Contrary to other media outlets whose track records of honesty can lend credence to their anonymous sources, O'Keefe's extensive track record of dishonesty and deception casts a long shadow of doubt on his shadowy, voice-modified interviewee that provides additional context to the unbiased documents PV leaked.
>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?
Machine learning-based search suggestions are probably going to be a little weird for a while. That's literally all that is.
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#290Earlier 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.
What I was trying to paint was a slippery slope of cases -- start with something illegal and move towards things which are grey to legal.
The question is every such business would need to face, including youtube, is where to draw the line. Child porn clearly is illegal and very few people would object to such a ban. But legal/not legal isn't always so clear, eg, what statement constitutes libel and is a given person enough of a public figure that less stringent standards apply.
Say I create a video saying "zcid lives at 123 Merry Lane in Westchester, MA. I'm not advocating violence happen to him, I'm just stating a fact." Is that legal? (Note: not only is the address made up, I double checked that no such address actually exists)
If there was a bright line then I don't think there would be as much controversy around the issue as there is. Pretending there is a simple solution (just ban illegal things and allow legal things) doesn't mean the distinction really is clear.