Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

mintpressnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 103 posts

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#31

Post by judge2020 »

doh wrote: post #21
meibo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very true and the main point people brought against the EU's article 17(the "upload filter") mandating a scan of all user-generated content for copyrighted material that was put in place by oh so many very well paid(and not just by the EU), conservative MEPs that have no clue about technology. Countries are struggling hard to put this into local law right now since it has to be by July this year - and as it t…

> it's basically impossible to do so. Well, not true. I built whole company that does exactly this. It's disappointing that YouTube is used as the standard of what technology can do and how these systems can work. We built system with the creator as a first class citizen. This means they are able to claim exceptions (as defined by law) before any action is taken. They are also able to utilize outside arbiters (WIPO,…

Do you plan to offer wide access to peertube instances once your product is GA, or will it be up to maintainers to pay for and integrate the platform into their upload pipeline? Your system sounds like it would immediately solve the problem of compliance with this law for the PT instances that are afraid that they might be required to block access from the EU.

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#32

Post by swiley »

meibo wrote: post #6
ladyanita22 wrote: post #3

Many will disagree, but this is the result of holding the plataforms accountable for what the users upload. The traffic is so inmense that they have to resort to shitty algorithms. Because given Google's (any big tech company really) lack of morals, I don't believe they'd care to censor anything at all.

This is very true and the main point people brought against the EU's article 17(the "upload filter") mandating a scan of all user-generated content for copyrighted material that was put in place by oh so many very well paid(and not just by the EU), conservative MEPs that have no clue about technology. Countries are struggling hard to put this into local law right now since it has to be by July this year - and as it t…

The past few EU laws had some modicum of reason and I thought people blocking the EU were stupid.

But for this one, if I were running a Peertube instance I would block EU IPs and tell people to use TOR or at least ssh to a lineode if they wanted to see things.

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#33

Post by motbob »

Jabbles wrote: post #2

Google is claiming these videos were never on YouTube? That seems... odd? And surely easy to refute, if they were public? Internet Archive would at least have scraped the channel's page. TFA links to https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGPZJTVIpNe-hroLo-CQ9wQ/vid... which currently 404s... But which indeed did contain many videos... https://web.archive.org/web/20201101020416if_/https://www.yo...

Fwiw, there have been instances of Google straight up not being able to restore deleted content. When you go to delete videos, you do get warnings that deletion cannot be undone. I wouldn't be surprised if Google didn't have great records of deleted content.

Maybe Google deleted this tiny channel, or maybe it was user error by Project Censored (the apparent organizers of the conference), or maybe it was a publicity stunt by Project Censored. All three possibilities seem about equally likely.

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#36

Post by dang »

blauditore wrote: post #9
heimatau wrote: post #5

deleted

Ah, this comment again. I had it on my bingo card before I even clicked the link.

Please don't post predictable flamewar comments to HN. We're trying for curious conversation here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#37

Post by exolymph »

pjc50 wrote: post #12

Bizarre. Anyway, I did a quick check of their website, and they have a really interesting list of "censored" stories: https://www.projectcensored.org/category/the-top-25-censored... (I've not seen any of the usual right wing free speech faction stand up for these...)

> (I've not seen any of the usual right wing free speech faction stand up for these...)

Hi! Part of the right-wing free-speech faction here! (Well, I don't consider myself a rightist, but you probably would.) This incident sucks just like all the other ones! Hope this helps.

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#39

Post by heimatau »

dang wrote: post #35
heimatau wrote: post #5

deleted

Please don't post predictable flamewar comments to HN. We're trying for curious conversation here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It wasn't a predictable flamewar. Maybe for you but it wasn't for me nor could you cite any observable evidence for my contribution in this.

The other commenter was trying to flame, now that others seemingly piled on by needlessly flagging. I was generous and didn't engage in anything but a nudge to what I was implying/saying.

Google's behavior might be 'obvious' to some but it's not obvious to everyone, hence why I posted what I did in a public forum where ~2 billion people have access to this website but don't have uniform understanding of all things Google, that Google's behavior was hypocritical. The commenter expected me to say one thing or another and that's where the disconnect is. Not me. If you can cite my error, I'll happily provide 1 BTC for you clearly proving my error. But you can't. I don't come here to blame/flame. I come to contribute what I find valuable to the community. Others didn't find it valuable, that's fine but I tried.

When dealing with trolls. There is nothing wrong with giving them a gentle nudge, which is what I did. I didn't engage past my initial comment and one additional.

Finally, when dealing with people. Don't prejudge, even if you are the judge, when dealing with the community. I've done nothing wrong and the only problem is the narrative in people's head and their expectations to ~'not rehash what others have said' as @blauditore and @saagarjha were implying.

What others may have said in the past doesn't inform my experience, I wasn't there. I'm speaking for myself and there is nothing wrong with what I said. And still isn't.

For @blauditore and @saagarjha, I'd say their comments were trying to flame. Don't project their bad behavior on me.

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#40

Post by doh »

meibo wrote: post #30
doh wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's basically impossible to do so. Well, not true. I built whole company that does exactly this. It's disappointing that YouTube is used as the standard of what technology can do and how these systems can work. We built system with the creator as a first class citizen. This means they are able to claim exceptions (as defined by law) before any action is taken. They are also able to utilize outside arbiters (WIPO,…

It's nice that there's ways to make this friendlier for creators, but wouldn't most bigger services rather block and build a cheap system in-house than rely on a SaaS/b2b product, if you don't give it away for free or price very competitively? Are they actually open to implement better systems? Hope it's alright to ask this, it's obviously a very important thing that will be coming up for all of us in the future. Goo…

> Hope it's alright to ask this

Absolutely! We need to be held accountable.

> It's nice that there's ways to make this friendlier for creators, but wouldn't most bigger services rather block and build a cheap system in-house than rely on a SaaS/b2b product, if you don't give it away for free or price very competitively?

The biggest innovation of our company is not its technology but the business model. We in fact do give it free to all platforms, rightsholders and creators equally. How do we make money? When there is monetization occurring on the platform, we take %. It's literally the same model of VISA, where cards are free (ok, not all of them) but you pay for the transaction.

Some platforms will still try to build their own internal system, similarly to YouTube's Content ID. However as it stands right now, they are not complaint with EUCD and even they do become complaint, they are retaining extreme liability. We, on the other hand, created a setup where we are able to take this liability from the hands of the platforms while providing best service possible.

We also aligned our incentives with the success of everyone involved. If rightsholders over block, we don't get paid. If platforms can't attract creators because the system is too intrusive, we don't get paid. If creators don't benefit from our system, we don't get paid.

We intentionally built this way. We made it free to allow widespread adoption. We can scale much further than CID (currently can process 1,100 hours of content a second, or 66,000 hours a minute; while guaranteeing 5 second response time with full license being issued) but we also spent last two years working with civic societies, copyright scholars and others to help us build balance system with processes that don't favor one side over the other.

We have still long way to go, but I believe we are on a good path.

Post reply on HN