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

291–300 of 701 posts

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

#291

Post by oreo83 »

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…

>I'm really not convinced that providing a cheap / free platform for anyone to amplify their message was actually a net good.

Only people you agree with should be heard right?

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

#293

Post by jlawson »

afthonos wrote: post #282
dekrg wrote: post #199

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?

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 bac…

They posted the full unedited video. It doesn't reveal anything deceptive about the editing of the first edited-for-time video.

EDIT: Going to the substance - you really think Google employees don't want to prevent Trump's re-election? Because every possible indicator (campaign donations, personal speech, company policy) says that they do. The Veritas video is part of a massive pattern of evidence pointing to the same conclusion.

They've got a dog in the fight, and there is no mechanism to stop them abusing their non-accountable, opaque, non-democratic power over the modern mediums of communication.

Another question - If this isn't enough evidence to convince you, what would be? What's the standard or proof? Would you apply that same standard to accusations that, say, Trump wants America to be just white people? Or are you just using an isolated demand for rigor [0]?

[0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demand...

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

#294

Post by Aelius »

whatshisface wrote: post #222
Aelius wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> And there is no "who draws the line‽" argument here That's exactly the argument, not everybody thinks Alex Jones went too far. In fact, I bet a lot of people who listen to Alex Jones would find something you supported to be miles beyond what is ever OK. That's part and parcel of living in a diverse, cosmopolitan society. Sometimes, other people's opinions are miles beyond OK, but that's still okay. ;)

You seem to be willfully ignoring the demonstrable harm he causes. You're promoting a false balance. You're saying "Alex Jones robbed a bank, other people eat their coworkers' lunch, so who are we to judge?"

Absolute nonsense.

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

#295

Post by bad_good_guy »

emiliobumachar wrote: post #277
Rooster61 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I believe it is W for Washington

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

#298

Post by DavinMiler »

emiliobumachar wrote: post #277
Rooster61 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Presumably OP was referring to big companies skirting around data laws and heavy lobbying by said companies. W would be the US government or similar.

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

#300

Post by raisedbyninjas »

ravenstine wrote: post #187
jrockway wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

That is until your web host decides to play by the same game, or is scared into doing so by activist mobs. Even if you do host your own videos, good luck getting anywhere near the same amount of traffic that you'd get by hosting it on a site like YouTube. I suppose the next answer would be to host on one's own servers. Well, great. Up until the ISP, domain registrar, or payment processor decides it doesn't like what…

I suppose you're alluding to issues like Cloudflare dumping literal Nazis off their service. The same issue still applies with all of those entities. Political party is not a protected class and nobody is guaranteed any internet service until internet service is deemed a human right. Until that time, Nazis are free to preach and prattle on physical town squares instead of virtual ones.
Post reply on HN