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

371–380 of 701 posts

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

#371

Post by afthonos »

jlawson wrote: post #293
afthonos wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sam…

This isn’t about Google. I reject Project Veritas as a source of evidence. I take no public position on Google, not least because I work there and don’t speak for them.

This isn’t a demand for rigor, isolated or otherwise, because I genuinely didn’t know what this was about before your comment. The history of the thread went:

- Some vague statement - Someone expressing confusion - Someone else supposing it was a Project Veritas story and discarding it. - Parent to my comment asking how its parent thought the evidence was flawed.

My comment was that in some cases, including this one, the source should be dismissed out of hand. No reading, no weighing evidence, nothing. In SSC terms, this source defects while wearing a T-shirt that says “I cooperate”. You don’t entertain such sources unless you want to poison your discourse and your ability to trust evidence.

None of this has anything to do with whether PV’s accusation this time around is true.

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

#372

Post by davesmith1983 »

kelp wrote: post #284
davesmith1983 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stan…

You keep on saying that it doesn't scale without qualifying it. What does this mean? What is acceptable behaviour?

My idea of acceptable behaviour is probably very different to yours (I almost guarantee it).

There is a really good example of this recently. Tim Pool was talking to Jack Dorsey on the Joe Rogan podcast. Near the end of the podcast they were talking about why an individual (can't remember who it was) got banned from Twitter. When Jack's legal counsel (that was what she was really there for) found out via her phone on the show she claimed it was a "threat of violence", I instantly recognised it as a well known internet meme. But because everyone in that room wasn't aware of the meme, it would sound to the outsider as a threat of violence.

So we have a situation where people that don't understand the "lore" (because with some communities there is a lot of in-jokes, history, characters to get your head around) deciding whether something should be on the site because they don't really understand years worth of previous material. How can they possibly make any sort of judgement on whether the material is acceptable?

The answer is they can't.

The only good answer is to just allow anything that is to have some clear and concise rules e.g. no doxing, no harassment and just allow anything that is considered free speech under US law. Sure you will probably get some idiots streaming an animation of a rotating Swastika for 6 hours at a time, but not only will be swamped by other people's worth while content, it is trivial for people to just tell Youtube via clicking the video menu to not show them that channel's content again.

It is a SELF policing system if you let it be.

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

#373

Post by throwawaywego »

homonculus1 wrote: post #193
tasty_freeze wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your edit doesn't go far enough. He encouraged hate against the parents of the children killed at the Sandyhook mass shooting. Yes, Jones has a right to be a crackpot, but it ends when it infringes on the rights of the people Jones' audience harassing.

I'm out of the loop--was he directly inciting action against the parents?

There is an ongoing lawsuit against Jones. The lawsuits contain unproven claims of harassment.

There is no direct inciting, and the indirect inciting claims are half-baked. There is a class action lawsuit office looking for a pay day, so they benefit by keeping Jones in the news.

All people factually saying that Alex Jones incited harassment against the parents, are parroting a non-concluded court case PR campaign ("OJ did it!"), and much like these behemoth companies, are playing judge, jury, and executioner. They most likely haven't seen a clip of Alex Jones inciting, or when they have, it is taken grossly out of context.

Remember, when CNN was targeting Jones for weeks, going through his hours of video, and noting anything they found controversial. "Alex Jones is transphobic, which is against Youtube TOS, but Youtube does nothing". Alex Jones was talking about "public library drag queen reading hour". He said these drag queens looked demonic and that it is not normal to normalize this for little kids. Now, just recently, someone ("a Trump supporter") showed up with a gun to these reading hours. Two possible conclusions: "Alex Jones is a transphobe and incited his followers to violently get rid of them". "Alex Jones practices unpopular, but legal, free speech, and they try to punish him for what any of his million followers might do that is against the law". I am leaning heavily towards the latter and it is a downright shame that the first conclusion is drawn by many, without doing any deeper research.

Imagine what you could do if you knew that many people would go for the first conclusion, regardless of the facts?

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

#374

Post by scruple »

csdreamer7 wrote: post #366
19870213 wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to livestream on Youtube, you aren't allowed to mention or link to other livestreaming solutions, such as Twitch.

Someone needs to tell Linus Tech Tips that. They mention the Twitch or Floatplane streams or streaming all the time. Either last week or the week before that they had an issue with the Youtube and Floatplane streams, but Twitch was doing fine. Would you link to those rules? Curious what the exact text is.

I don't know the rules, I'm not a YouTuber. I don't think anyone has ever accused Google or YouTube of applying their rules equally, though.

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

#375

Post by moneytalks »

djflutt3rshy wrote: post #343
gen3 wrote: post #15

Does this mean that all the reverse engineering videos, con talks, prof of exploit demos, CTF walkthroughs', and fuzzing tutorials will be removed? What about videos showing me how to use tools like Twistlock? Will they be exempt, but videos about burp be banned? What constitutes a "secure" computer system? Side note, I guess its time to fire up youtube-dl. Are there any channels that need to be archived? I normally…

Next up, banning video tutorials on how to use youtube-dl.

And loading apps outside the Play store on Android.

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

#376

Post by sampo »

jquery wrote: post #258
deanCommie wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's unnecessarily alarmist. Nobody is saying "Free Speech is a racist idea. However, Free Speech OF racist ideas is a racist idea.

In the age where people like Ben Shapiro are identified as "alt-right white supremacists" I don't have much confidence in the ability of people to identify racist content. Here's a post where I go into more thinking on the matter that doesn't need to be repeated here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20184914

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1YENAvOveE

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

#377

Post by loudmax »

taurath wrote: post #326
Liquix wrote: post #117

Emperor 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…

It'd be real nice if we could make an expeditionary force and start setting up more cities outside, to continue the analogy. At the moment, most groups wanting to leave the city contain too many undesirables, but eventually there'll be enough critical mass. What does that look like? At first - an ecosystem of services, packaged together, rather than piecemeal. Firefox, duckduckgo, an open calendar. I don't think it m…

> The OS doesn't matter as much anymore.

I disagree. Everything described above applies to the Microsoft Windows monopoly. The monopoly was shaken by the web, then by mobile in general, but lots of traditional businesses are still locked into the Windows stack. Non technical businesses in particular are locked into MS Office.

Given that the world basically shrugged and let MS keep their stranglehold over the enterprise market, I don't expect Google to be treated any differently.

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

#380

Post by JetSpiegel »

jammygit wrote: post #330
chrshawkes wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is there a way to disable amp in my browser? It’s hard to get to the real sites

Yes, install Firefox Mobile.
Post reply on HN