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

381–390 of 701 posts

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

#381

Post by syn0byte »

davesmith1983 wrote: post #238
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 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…

To piggyback your comment and the depth of the analogy: Mein Kampf is still in publication today. Does any otherwise rational person want it stopped and all copies removed from public libraries in the way they seem to expect from Youtube/Facebook et al? Would they want Del Ray Books be held accountable for the content of The Turner Diaries?

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

#382

Post by ryanmarsh »

floatingatoll wrote: post #147

One effective way to protest this would be to report videos by high-profile companies such as Microsoft, Amazon, and Google itself. Take a few minutes to look for a video about Azure or AWS or GCP, or a video of a presentation at a conference around such things, and report it as Inappropriate content citing the relevant terms of service. Be very careful only to report content that conforms to the above description —…

I can say from experience this does not work at scale. YouTube has allowed large public accounts to be in blatant violation of the terms of service. They are selectively enforced.

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

#383

Post by analognoise »

starik36 wrote: post #351
analognoise wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only a fallacy if you think YouTube owes anyone free platform access and to uphold free speech as a private entity. They don't.

They are acting like a monopolist. And they are an effective monopoly.

There's tons of other video sites that people are free to use. Nobody "requires" you to use YouTube.

"But more people are there, my videos won't be see elsewhere!" does not count as a monopoly.

Host your videos elsewhere, nobody's "owed" access to Youtube.

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

#384

Post by darkpuma »

castis wrote: post #335
gambiting wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's probably a great way to get your own Google account banned, and there is no way in hell I'm risking that.

This is a good example of what people do in real life when confronted with change they want vs repercussions. Compounded by the fact that it was posted by username 'gambiting'.

At least in real life you get a chance to face your opponent, even if it's a goliath and david mismatched weight-class scenario. An angry mob may be outgunned by the police, but at least they can still throw bricks. What can realistically be done online to hurt Google? Does there exist a digital brick heavy enough for google to even notice you throwing it?

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

#385

Post by ravenstine »

raisedbyninjas wrote: post #300
ravenstine wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, I've never heard of that, and just a suggestion, but you should think twice before assuming what someone might be implying, especially if it can any way be insinuated as a defense of "literal Nazis". (versus, what, figurative nazis?)

My point is that it logically follows that people being banned from YouTube is fundamentally the same thing as being banned from another layer of the communication stack, whether it be the web host, the ISP, the telecom, the payment processor, etc.

Hell, why even stop at the technology stack? Maybe apartment complexes shouldn't rent to people with unpopular views. Perhaps grocery stores should refuse to sell food to those who say bad things about the LGBTQ+ community. /s

> Political party is not a protected class and nobody is guaranteed any internet service until internet service is deemed a human right.

Do you see the problem with this? When the internet is the virtual town square and the way to mass communicate, having no protections for free speech by either individuals or groups is a recipe for tyranny. Maybe this doesn't feel concerning to those whose views are currently the popular ones, but with the centralization of the internet and our increasing dependence on it for everything, that's a fascistic situation waiting to develop.

Just as we allow private businesses to have their own rules and practices, while simultaneously forbidding privately-owned cities from violating the US Constitution, there should come a point where the "private business" excuse is no longer valid once a small group of corporations have a stranglehold over the way that everyone communicates.

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

#387

Post by analognoise »

rolltiide wrote: post #358
analognoise wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only a fallacy if you think YouTube owes anyone free platform access and to uphold free speech as a private entity. They don't.

Is this an argument about free speech? Its more about the arbitrary practices which affect people’s livelihood while youtube retains all the profits from content it eventually disagrees with This anticompetitive behavior can be curbed using the people’s government in ways that have nothing to do with free speech

Are there alternatives?

Yes, tons of them. Don't like Youtube? Don't use Youtube.

Simple.

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

#388

Post by hitpointdrew »

jlmorton wrote: post #70

There's a lot of bad content on the Internet, and a lot of people wanted to ban it. And the free speech absolutists said, that's a slippery slope. Once you start restricting speech beyond whatever is illegal, there will be no end to the demands to ban certain content. And a lot of us said, slippery slopes are silly arguments. All we're asking is to ban overt racism and calls to violence. We can evaluate these things…

> It may turn out the absolutists had a point.

It is almost as if the founding fathers gave a lot of thought and consideration to the first amendment. Maybe we shouldn't willy nilly stomp all over it.

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

#389

Post by jtr_47 »

starik36 wrote: post #351
analognoise wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only a fallacy if you think YouTube owes anyone free platform access and to uphold free speech as a private entity. They don't.

They are acting like a monopolist. And they are an effective monopoly.

They are a for profit company and can do what ever they want. regardless if their membership is free or not.

There are other choices out there. They may not be the best. People can build their own youtube if they want to.

At least in the USofA you can build something similar with your own rules.

youtube can be taken down, but people appear to be too lazy or unaware of what youtube is doing slowly. Taking away certain liberties that used to be available in YouTube.

peace

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

#390

Post by otakucode »

harshreality wrote: post #357
ac29 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

But they are not instructionals on how to commit crimes. They are instructionals on how to bypass security systems, and that may or may not be a crime depending on your relationship with the entity controlling the security system. The same argument could be used to ban any videos showing weapons being used (target practice or demonstration dummies) or any martial arts. Because who knows whether viewers will use that…

Videos that involve weaponry are already either banned outright or heavily hidden and demonetized on YouTube. There was a channel (not sure if it still exists) that was about making different kinds of slingshots. SLINGSHOTS. And YouTube came for them a few years ago. The content was popular and the audience loved it. Google, however, did not. They declared it in violation of their community guidelines and swiftly stripped away the creators livelihood.

It's important to realize that we're not just talking about "oh some entertainment is no longer available" here but, in most cases, someone or groups of people just went from being able to feed their families to not.

Post reply on HN