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

Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

jeffgeerling.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 803 posts

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#441

Post by HideousKojima »

atemerev wrote: post #322
chris12321 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After German reunification the states of East Germany and West Germany ceased to be. Was that two genocides?

That was their voluntary decision supported by the population of both states. A closer analogy would have been some proposals to dissolve the German state forever after WW2, and get its parts annexed by other states. But that didn't happen. Not to mention that Nazi Germany was actually doing an actual genocide. But that wasn't sufficient to warrant the same fate for them as a nation.

>But that didn't happen.

The latter part definitely did. See Konigsberg (now Kaliningrad, a Russian exclave) and all the parts of Germany that were ceded to Poland.

And the expulsion of ethnic Germans living in non-German lands across Europe postwar was certainly a form of ethnic cleansing, even if you believe it was justified to remove the justification Germany had for prewar annexations like the Sudetenland.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#442

Post by ajuc »

_heimdall wrote: post #399
ajuc wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very hard to find a law without exceptions. It's forbidden to kill people. But if you are defending yourself it's not. And if you're a soldier you are indeed required to kill. It's forbidden to break other people's property - but if you're trying to save somebody's life you can break a window to get to them. It's illegal to capture and keep people imprisoned. But state can put you in prison no problem. Etc. Free…

I haven't seen anyone here claiming that freedom of speech is the only fundamental rule of society. It is an extremely important one though, there's a reason the US founders listed it first. What often gets missed or misunderstood is who our speech is protected from. It doesn't matter what YouTube, or any other company or person, restricts. It matters what our government restricts. The government isn't supposed to li…

> It doesn't matter what YouTube, or any other company or person, restricts. It matters what our government restricts

If there is a monopoly - what the monopoly owner restricts matters just as much as what the government restricts. More in fact - because youtube has more influence over what people watch than any single government.

These monopolies should be broken up, obviously - but internet is the perfect example of network effects and there's no regulation - so of course it's monopolized to a degree unimaginable before.

Governments should break up such monopolies, obviously - but they aren't, so far.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#443

Post by _heimdall »

pmarreck wrote: post #415
_heimdall wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, you can absolutely claim correlation there and say something like "information making people hesitant to get the vaccine may have increased risk of death." That's wildly different than claiming that misinformation killed people. Comparing country level statistics is also pretty inaccurate. The populations aren't controlled at all, here you are assuming the only meaningful difference in the populations are vacci…

> the data itself isn't reliable due to differences in reporting and testing That is why The Economist used excess-death estimates, skipping right over the whole "death caused by COVID" vs. "death caused by comorbidity" debate. Since COVID was arguably the only worldwide difference between 2019 and the following years, a presumption that the very-statistically-significant excess deaths were largely due to COVID was t…

Excess deaths is an interesting one, and again can show correlation, but it still can't distinguish cause. Obviously the death numbers were much higher those years, but two major factors were different - the virus was spreading and society responded to it in drastic ways. We can't say how many people died due to lack of access to care for example, or how fear and loneliness factored into death rates.

Excess death rates, at least in the US, are particularly interesting because they didn't follow the pattern I would have expected. Pandemics will effectively pull forward deaths, that didn't seem to happen here. Our all cause mortality spiked noticeably during the pandemic but it came back down to a more normal rate, I would have expected it to be below normal for at least a year or two. Its not as simple as pointing to all cause or excess deaths and saying it must have been vaccine hesitancy - we can't distinguish why those people died and it wouldn't explain the mortality rate after the pandemic.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#444

Post by gorbachev »

kassner wrote: post #62
gloosx wrote: post #49

Since Youtube started to show me funny "TURN OFF THE ADBLOCKER!!!" notices, I just started slamming links in yt-dlp and watching them offline. No drawbacks so far.

It will become harder to ignore the possible retaliation Google can make against your/your family’s Google accounts.

I've stopped logging into YouTube for this reason. Next step is to install a "YouTube browser" and configure my VPN to make sure all connections from that browser go over the VPN rather than my ISP's direct connection.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#445

Post by _heimdall »

ajuc wrote: post #442
_heimdall wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't seen anyone here claiming that freedom of speech is the only fundamental rule of society. It is an extremely important one though, there's a reason the US founders listed it first. What often gets missed or misunderstood is who our speech is protected from. It doesn't matter what YouTube, or any other company or person, restricts. It matters what our government restricts. The government isn't supposed to li…

> It doesn't matter what YouTube, or any other company or person, restricts. It matters what our government restricts If there is a monopoly - what the monopoly owner restricts matters just as much as what the government restricts. More in fact - because youtube has more influence over what people watch than any single government. These monopolies should be broken up, obviously - but internet is the perfect example o…

If YouTube is legally a monopoly that's a separate issue that already has defined legal solutions (well, responses at least since they may not solve it).

Considering it a monopoly and putting a higher bar to their moderation policies takes away agency from the public though. We don't have to use YouTube and there's nothing stopping competitors from entering the market. If people cared that YouTube was a monopoly, or if people cared enough about the moderation policies, they would go elsewhere.

The reason we have to specifically be protected from government censorship is because we don't realistically have that option. Those with the means could move to another country, but that would only dodge one problem for another. When you live in a country ruled by a single government you can't escape their censorship.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#446

Post by RajT88 »

KurSix wrote: post #72

YouTube's moderation feels like it’s being done by a drunk Roomba half the time... totally missing context, especially when it comes to open source and self-hosting content. Meanwhile, there's a flood of actual piracy tutorials that stay up for years. Your video gets flagged for showing people how to use LibreELEC, but somehow there are entire channels pushing borderline NSFW content under the guise of "body art" or…

You can find entire albums and movies - but I get a copyright strike if I try and post a video of a live performance of an orchestra for a piece composed in 1954.

It's bizarre.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#447

Post by tim333 »

throw7 wrote: post #423

I'm just waiting for the day Youtube permanently blocks me from using an adblocker. It's so kind of them to at least make me wait for 5 seconds to acknowledge that using an adblocker is illegal.

It's illegal? Under what laws I wonder?

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#448

Post by achrono »

neepi wrote: post #162

Yeah YouTube are getting shittier by the day. I keep getting banners telling me that ad blockers aren't allowed on YouTube. Stuff is pretty unwatchable now without them. Well fuck you I'll just download the videos with yt-dlp instead. If that stops working, I'll not bother.

I think it's time for creative solutions on this front. This plugin business is a little like a cop living in a house of thieves.

For instance, how about an app that will basically detect an ad and visually overlay a blank blob over the ad video (and of course mute, or even just transmute, the audio).

We'd still pay that tax in terms of time, having to sit through those 30-60 seconds, but it's way better than also surrendering your mind to the utter intrusion.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#449

Post by jcranmer »

Glittergorp wrote: post #369
Latty wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always funny seeing Americans who have clearly got their news about the UK from questionable sources telling us how actually we live in a dystopian open-air prison. In the US, you have people being literally grabbed off the street and sent to foreign prisons because of their speech with no due process, but the UK is the one close to a loss of freedom of speech because checks notes you can be convicted in a court…

Yes the American media overblow some of the issues for clicks. However you can be arrested for speech and it isn't just threats to violence. > In the US, you have people being literally grabbed off the street and sent to foreign prisons because of their speech with no due process. This isn't true. Many of these people were arrested because they had entered the country illegally and then sent to foreign prisons. You a…

> Many of these people were arrested because they had entered the country illegally and then sent to foreign prisons.

Actually, most of the illegals being arrested didn't enter the country illegally; they legally entered the country (for example, to file an asylum claim), but for various reasons, they're no longer legally allowed to be in the country.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#450

Post by freedomben »

pmarreck wrote: post #390
logifail wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Children die because their parents believe in anti-vax nonsense Do we know how many otherwise healthy children caught Covid and died from it? My impression from the official figures is that in most countries the number is vanishingly small if not zero.

Well, it's CERTAINLY not ZERO... I recall seeing numerous articles about overweight children dying of it, for example Remember that even polio only put like 1% of its victims into an iron lung

I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing with GP, but I would imagine they would argue that an overweight kid is not "otherwise healthy children."
Post reply on HN