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

Newpipe.net removed from Google search results due to DMCA take down request

newpipe.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 348 posts

Re: Newpipe.net removed from Google search results due to DMCA take down request

#301

Post by kerkeslager »

blackbear_ wrote: post #121
kerkeslager wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertising is inherently immoral and it's our moral obligation to drive advertisers into bankruptcy. All advertisers are liars. Even when they're not directly saying untrue things, they're presenting a one-sided view of the truth, to the extent of being intentionally misleading. The harm done by these lies is incalculable. The distraction. The loss of self-esteem caused by ads always telling us we aren't enough, don…

> Advertising is inherently immoral Why? In principle, advertising is a way to propagate information in a market, trying to match offer with demand. Without any such mechanism, markets would be hugely inefficient (i.e., it would be annoying to find a shop selling what you are looking for, since you would need to visit many before finding one that sells that thing). The problem with ads, like you are saying, is that b…

> In principle, advertising is a way to propagate information in a market, trying to match offer with demand.

No, that's what a Consumer Reports-style review site is. Independent review matches offer with demand. Search engines (not including the ads on search engines) match offer with demand.

There's no "matching" with ads: the goal is to jam your product in front of people as much as possible. And in fact there's often no demand to match with. Ads are just rich barging into your attention to beg for more money with lies.

> Without any such mechanism, markets would be hugely inefficient (i.e., it would be annoying to find a shop selling what you are looking for, since you would need to visit many before finding one that sells that thing).

I'd caution you against trusting anyone who talks about "efficient" without talking about what benefit is being maximized and what cost is being minimized. Ads are efficient in the sense that they help maximize sales for minimum quality of product: that's not a desirable efficiency. If we (consumers) want to maximize quality and minimize cost, then independent review is a much better way to find products.

Re: Newpipe.net removed from Google search results due to DMCA take down request

#302

Post by kerkeslager »

robertlagrant wrote: post #210
t0bia_s wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that is a huge part of problem with sustainability and magnification of problems that would otherwise stay local. PFAS, microplastics, pollution... It's all consequence of overproduction of useless things that are consumed by society manipulated by ads. The product is "ad" itself if it is good. If not, you need extra advertisements. For me it is immoral to consume ads.

I think this is a category error. Those bad things aren't driven by ads. Ads drive economies of scale possible if people have heard of your product without word of mouth, which lower prices and help producers understand what people want. Productiveness will sometimes drive things like microplastics, as it's hard to know the effects of doing something new without doing that thing. That's the theoretical response. In p…

In a functioning society, ads would be illegal, and we'd have independent review sites you could submit your car to, which would give consumers true information about your car in comparison to other cars.

In the society we have: you have to advertise. I don't blame companies with a product for advertising it, because that's the only way to sell a product within our broken system. But I do insist that we identify this blight correctly and stop pretending that it's a necessary thing, because that's the only way we fix it.

Re: Newpipe.net removed from Google search results due to DMCA take down request

#303

Post by kerkeslager »

midoridensha wrote: post #160
kerkeslager wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertising is inherently immoral and it's our moral obligation to drive advertisers into bankruptcy. All advertisers are liars. Even when they're not directly saying untrue things, they're presenting a one-sided view of the truth, to the extent of being intentionally misleading. The harm done by these lies is incalculable. The distraction. The loss of self-esteem caused by ads always telling us we aren't enough, don…

This is really extreme and reductionist. Without advertising, you wouldn't even know that many products and services exist. You can't rely on word-of-mouth for everything. Of course, so many advertisers have abused their power that blocking ads is a good choice for many reasons, but don't make the mistake of calling all advertising "evil". Without it, how do you know a new movie is coming soon, or that someone's inve…

> Without advertising, you wouldn't even know that many products and services exist.

This is a vastly positive tradeoff. The number of products which would improve my life, versus the number of products I am inundated with daily, is a negligible ratio.

> You can't rely on word-of-mouth for everything.

That's true. However, I can rely on independent review sites, and I could probably rely on search engines to find me products that solve problems when I search for them, if they weren't controlled by advertisers.

Nobody is saying rely on word-of-mouth. That's a straw man.

> Of course, so many advertisers have abused their power that blocking ads is a good choice for many reasons, but don't make the mistake of calling all advertising "evil". Without it, how do you know a new movie is coming soon, or that someone's invented and is selling a new computer peripheral, for instance?

There are a number of movie reviewers I follow, and a few friends who have similar taste in movies as me. I'm not interested in computer peripherals, but if I were, I imagine Wirecutter contains information, and there are probably other similar sites.

Advertisers are not helping me find movies to watch or computer peripherals I need. They're helping themselves, and in a way that's aligned with harming me. I never saw an ad for Everything Everywhere All At Once, which was my favorite movie last year--my friend Adam invited me to see it. I did see a ton of astroturfing for White Lotus, which was a complete waste of my time to watch two episodes of. Why would I want ads?

Stop this nonsense about how we need ads. We don't.

> The old-style small, highly-targeted, text-only ads that Google used to show alongside search results really were the pinnacle of advertising I think. They were great for learning about something that would fix whatever problem you were googling about.

God forbid Google return the solution to your problem as a search result, you know, like a functioning search engine.

This really is the most absurdly missing-the-point example you could have chosen.

Re: Newpipe.net removed from Google search results due to DMCA take down request

#304

Post by kerkeslager »

robertlagrant wrote: post #214
hughesjj wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Micropayments will never be a thing Why not? I'd love to see something like "I donate xx CPU cycles upon viewing this content" or something. Computebis a resource, same with networking, and there's already a lot of them demanded by shitty ad platforms. I'd much rather donate those cycles to BOINC or hell, even ETH over ads

Isn't that just gating websites with crypto payments?

Cryptocurrencies would be an extremely poor way to implement micropayments, as their high transaction fees make them inefficient and their fluctuations in price make them unsuitable for payment in general.

The banking system moves at glacial speed, but I do believe we'll see banking plugins integrated with browsers at some point.

Re: Newpipe.net removed from Google search results due to DMCA take down request

#305

Post by katbyte »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #164
katbyte wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that actually why RARBG was taken down? Because their notice did not mention that. The only reasons I’ve heard have been deaths, health issues/Covid, and the war in Ukraine

Sure, but the truth is they had no choice but to shut down after their life was made ever increasingly harder running a torrent website in a country where authorities were passing stricter anti-piracy laws and started going harder after pirates, after the US and the big movie and games studios started putting pressure on Bulgaria. Same thing happened in Romania a couple of years earlier where the original domain of t…

ok so you don't have any other actual information or source to contradict the official reasons other then some assumptions and what you think was going to happen.

Re: Newpipe.net removed from Google search results due to DMCA take down request

#306

Post by Kerbonut »

Gareth321 wrote: post #279
varispeed wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because Yandex passes the test, doesn't mean the can be relied upon. Remember, because they are Russian, it is in their interest to show you content that US corporations censor, but they may be censoring the content that Russia wants to be censored or manipulate it for the benefit of Russian propaganda. What I am trying to say is that it is probably better to get information from many sources as every can be bia…

You are absolutely right. I’m certainly not claiming Yandex passes these tests either. They’re clearly guilty of censoring content critical of Russia. So far only Kagi has passed all my tests.

Where does brave search fall in?

Re: Newpipe.net removed from Google search results due to DMCA take down request

#307

Post by hunter2_ »

Mindwipe wrote: post #141
hunter2_ wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very interesting. I feel like any type of digital storage or transmission format (PCM audio formats like CD Audio, packet switched networks like Internet Protocol, etc.) could also be described thusly, given that a typical human can't readily consume it. We use a tool that parses it using some algorithm, not a tool that avoids/breaks the algorithm. The error correction of a CD or the sequence number of a packet surel…

The difference is also intent. YouTube implemented the rolling cypher to satisfy music industry demands that the files were not permanently downloadable (and it appears they were able to provide abundant evidence that Google has communicated that to them in court, I don't think this is a controversial point). That wasn't the point of the red book spec. Intent matters significantly, legally.

If the rolling cypher they implemented truly exceeds DASH in such a way as to exert control, then I think that would convey intent. If it's substantially DASH alone and DASH requires the equivalent of a rolling cypher just to work, that's rather meaningless; the intent of implementing DASH certainly would've had most to do with adaptive bitrate UX.

Based on some other comments, it sounds like they added something like this for music videos and the like, so it may hold up.

But I'm armchair judging at this point, and IANAJ.

Isn't a rolling code how RF locks (car fob, garage opener, etc.) operate? Those are actually good at keeping out third parties, though.

Re: Newpipe.net removed from Google search results due to DMCA take down request

#308

Post by hunter2_ »

rocqua wrote: post #145
justinclift wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> YouTube does implement a trivial sort of DRM/encoding Nope. Youtube break their streams up into a number of tiny pieces so they can adjust bandwidth dynamically extremely easily. It's just the RIAA and friends looking for an excuse, so they've attempted (and likely will continue attempting) to make people believe that's "sort form of DRM". Don't get fooled by their bullshit.

As I understand the 'cipher' is in how you find the next tiny piece of stream. I haven't grasped fully how that works for Youtube but it is certainly more than 'increment a counter'. I believe it is something like 'read a variable in the previous packet and decode it'. If they wanted any semblance of an argument, decoding that variable should require a session key that is set on log-in or after a captcha. But I doubt…

Interesting. So instead of authorizing the fetching of pieces by way of authentication, they're just saying "you can have another piece if we've been talking since the very first piece". I guess that's a bit of a control, just not secret whatsoever.

I feel conditioned to equate the two, but they're distinct concepts I suppose. A CAPTCHA is an access control, and one that doesn't rely on secrets.

Re: Newpipe.net removed from Google search results due to DMCA take down request

#310

Post by benj111 »

wkat4242 wrote: post #72
hgsgm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The client is French. Including a French copy of the message is entirely mundane.

The French invented the word chauvinism :) They take their language very seriously likewise. I work for a French company and even though the official language is English you're kind of a second rate citizen if you don't speak it. Or write last names in all caps or quotation marks like > :) They just are that way :P

If I were to send a document overseas I would make sure to also include my native language.

A) because if there's confusion at my translation, it's possible for them to translate the original to make sense

B) if it goes to my local court, we can discuss what was said in my local language.

Post reply on HN