451–460 of 795 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://vimeo.com/ ? Although they seem to market themselves more towards the indie filmmaker market.
They have live streaming available now, which is more of a Twitch thing than even a Youtube thing, though YT does offer it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you also say if I were to ask you to leave my house because I got tired of listening to you, I'd be infringing on your free speech rights? Is that different than me removing your book from my store?
The difference is that you would be forced to hear the speech in the house, but you are not forced to read/buy the book from the bookstore. Removing it from the bookstore prevents those who wants the book from getting it. Having it in the bookstore doesn't force those who don't want it from reading it!
Instead, you can choose to not support that bookstore owner by shopping somewhere else and rewarding the bookstore owner that -does- carry it. Bookstore owners are not the government, they're free to do all sorts of things and you're free to be a patron or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Do you want a video platform that deletes stuff? Or one that doesn't? If I have to choose between a platform that let's anti-Semitism run rampart and Youtube I'll pick Youtube. However the actual solution is a platform that that develops enough tools and hires enough human moderators to thwart blatant racism or hateful content while not accidentally kicking creators off the platform. This is mostly a question of eff…
You don't have to choose. There are anti-Semitic books in libraries, yet libraries are not overrun with them. The problem here is not that lbry endorses or embraces bigots, it's that the non-censoring platforms are new/wonky/unpopular enough that no one uses them except people who are banned elsewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disclaimer: I have extensive knowledge about YouTube Content ID (CID) and DMCA notices, but I'm not a lawyer. This isn't legal advice. He received a DMCA takedown, which is different from a copyright claim. Copyright claiming is a system made by YouTube for copyright owners to easily monetize/monitor reuse of their content instead of having to take down the content. It also allows splitting revenue in cases where one…
> the service provider needs to reinstate the content I believe this is may reinstate the content, I don't think they're obligated too. Also not a lawyer.
The DMCA provides wide protection to the service provider against liability for taking down stuff due to a DMCA notice (e.g. contractual SLA with customers mean nothing). However that protection disappears if the correct counter claim steps are followed, at which point the service provider becomes liable for not providing a service.
Of course with YouTube, they almost certainly have broad T&Cs that let them delete/disable your content for any reason at anytime (it’s not like creators are paying for hosting). So YouTube never had any liability to be protected from.
The net result, YouTube can do whatever they want with your content, and you have little to no recourse.
Alternative Video Sites : https://lbry.tv/ https://www.dailymotion.com/ https://www.bitchute.com/ https://dlive.tv/ https://bittube.tv/
https://battlepenguin.com/tech/moving-from-youtube-to-peertu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes Google unique here? I can think of many other companies who have similar scale or even larger incentives for abuse but never seem to fail to engage to the same degree as Google does.
Nothing other than Google is obsesed with automating things with half baked machine learning solutions and thinking they don't need a service desk with humans. Other companies automate a lot but its way easier to get to a person. Twitter, Facebook, Amazon - they will all get back to you in under 48 hours and actually undo what the machines have done.
I say hidden because there's a hard to find page that lists all of the contact forms, except the platform contact form isn't on there. You just kinda of... have to know it exists somehow.
> I run a YouTube channel that is over 10 years old , has over 770,000 subscribers , almost 600 public videos , 120,000,000 views When writing software involved in managing a live, public, massively multi-user system, the traditional unix-style commands that are immediate, often silent, and capable of damaging effects become a really easy way to shoot yourself in the foot. Worse, some commands might let you accidenta…
and if you start implementing these sanity checks, they better be everywhere. Operators will start to rely on them and might become careless - they believe the system will catch any egregious typo. The one spot where the sanity check isn’t implemented will become more vulnerable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Video explicitly shows it's a manual complaint.
There's a difference. If someone manually claims a video through YT's content-ID system, they have to provide timestamps (this is enforced by Google). If someone just sends a regular DMCA notice, they're only required (by law) to provide the URL, and Google has no choice but to take down everything at that URL, until/unless they receive a counter-claim from the poster. The content-ID stuff is a convenience outside th…
You can’t just go “this video infringes on my copyright, but I’m not going to tell you which copyright”. That isn’t a valid DMCA notice at all.
[1] § (512(c)(3)(A)(i-vi)) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never understood people's conflation of "I do not like your speech" with "censorship." A bookstore refusing to carry books by certain authors is in no way censorship, for instance (the books still exist, just not in that bookstore), yet when we bring things into the digital realm for some reason people seem to lose the distinction. Let me put it this way. Nothing is stopping hateful people from creating their ow…
Gab looks like it's doing well, being the largest mastodon node with lots of non technical users. That's about as 'mainstream' as you can get in the fediverse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Landlords and tenants have contracts, and there are rules about what and how these are enforceable.
Then this is a case of a tenant agreeing to onerous terms before setting up shop in a retail space, terms which allow the landlord to kick the tenant out at their whim, with no legal recourse. I can't believe this needs to be said literally every time one of these types of articles gets posted on HN: if you build your business on top of someone else's platform, and have no contracts in place to protect your interests…