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

501–510 of 701 posts

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

#501

Post by ajna91 »

sequoia wrote: post #406

The "solution" is choosing your priorities and being willing to make sacrifices, which, in my experience, many people are not willing to do. "I don't want to be on a censorious megacorporate platform." Great! You can do this, you'll just have to be on the #2 platform rather than the #1 platform, and there won't be as many "free" tools & services. "What?? How can you suggest I abandon the #1 platform? I need all those…

I wonder if all this online complaining is worse than useless, but actually counter-productive by acting as a release valve for real grievances.

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

#502

Post by Scoundreller »

mbesto wrote: post #422
otakucode wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A reply to you makes the unsubstantiated claim that YouTube is a profit-seeking company. They ignore the fact that, no, YouTube has not operated as a profit-seeking company. The reason YouTube is, and will remain, the pre-eminent video platform is because it was run at a profound loss for over a decade, losing hundreds of millions of dollars at a clip, for no reason other than to totally suppress competition. Framing…

> The reason YouTube is, and will remain, the pre-eminent video platform is because it was run at a profound loss for over a decade, losing hundreds of millions of dollars at a clip, for no reason other than to totally suppress competition. No one actually knows whether YT is technically profitable as a sole entity. So the premise of your argument and the argument you're referring to is basically flawed unless you ha…

And practically impossible to determine. How much does Google "earn" by having a better idea of who its audience is?

How much does Google "earn" by keeping its competition weak(er)?

How much does Google "earn" by being able to speech-to-text all video and increase its corpus of knowledge?

How much does Google "earn" by being a better search engine because it can provide video results?

How much does Youtube bandwidth "cost" Google when it has links into every exchange there is anyway?

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

#503

Post by jjulius »

malvosenior wrote: post #409
afthonos wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Pro…

That's a really dangerous attitude to take. Are you really not curious what your own company is up to? Does it matter where the leak came from? How about this. Go to google.com and type the following: "women can" vs. "men can" The bias is clear as day and you don't need Project Veritas to tell you. There were also numerous documents leaked showing extreme left wing bias. You'll probably have seen them as an employee…

Please source these leaked documents you're referencing. If you read through my posts, I've pointed out multiple times in this thread that the docs Project Veritas leaked pertaining to their latest Google video show no attempt at being biased, nor do they single-out right-wing/Conservative/etc. viewpoints.

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

#505

Post by Jedd »

sjy wrote: post #496
loudmax wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 enterpri…

I work in a non-technical business that depends critically on MS Office, but it's not a very pernicious form of lock-in. Honestly, we could probably get by with LibreOffice or Google Docs, and with VMs or terminal servers as a backup, we could ditch Windows as our main desktop OS. But retraining non-technical users is disruptive and expensive, not to mention retraining helpdesk staff who were hired from a massive poo…

What an exuberantly generous take on the relationship that exists between your company and Microsoft.

'depends critically' vs 'we could probably get by [with alternative]' - which?

> So we're 'locked in', but it's not really Microsoft's fault.

It's conceivable that some of the wealthiest people on the planet have accidentally arrived at a situation whereby myriad users are 'locked in' to a situation whereby their on-going wealth is assured.

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

#506

Post by ajross »

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 —…

> Bonus irony points will be conceded to correctly flagging a Google Project Zero video, or a YouTube security team video, as in violation of the terms of service as stated.

Without reading the ToS too carefully, I'm all but certain academic and industry-leading security work is deliberately carved out. Clearly this rule is designed to disallow liability concerns like a viral "how to see someone else's snapchats!" video, etc...

In the case of the linked tweet, it seems to have also hit a legitimate-seeming-if-not-industry-leading security source as a false positive. And that's bad, and a reason to oppose this policy in general.

But treating this as an "Ah hah! Hypocrisy!" kind of thing is missing the point and not going to help anyone. You know what they're trying to do.

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

#507

Post by unreal37 »

vortico wrote: post #482
unreal37 wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? "It shall be unlawful for any person... to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction..."[1] Teaching bomb making is not legal. Passed the senate 94-0, no objections. There are things you can't teach. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/842

You omitted the important part: "...with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence." The teaching alone is legal. The intent to set up someone to commit a crime is what makes it illegal. I can legally teach you how to make a bomb if I do not intend for you to use it for crime.

That is an awfully thin hair to split.

I challenge you on that last point. If you tried teaching bomb making in the United States, you would likely have be visited by a couple of ATF folks to have a talk.

They would advise you strongly not to teach that.

Anyways, best of luck. :)

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

#508

Post by ehsankia »

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…

Except replace "the color blue" with one very specific shade of blue among millions of possible shades.

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

#509

Post by perl4ever »

jquery wrote: post #129
deanCommie wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this is just going to be an opportunity for someone to post the "first they came for the and I didn't speak out because I wasn't " copyasta, but.. I wish the only people fighting against censorship by trying to build their own platforms weren't actual white supremacists and bad-faith pseudo-intellectual charlatans. (Note, I"m only placing Peterson in the second category. He's not a white supremacist. He IS how…

I've been saying for a while that we'll get to the point where anyone fighting for Free Speech will get painted as a racist because the censors will claim "free speech is a racist idea" and it appears we're pretty close. How much of our classic liberty are we willing to lose in the pursuit of tribalism? The retort I hear when I complain about censorship is "haha you conservatives used to love the free market", not re…

Free speech has become a meaningless slogan since it's now used as if there was a wide consensus against all property rights. But nobody is against property rights, just property rights of other people, maybe.

I support your right to perform necessary bodily functions, just not on my living room carpet. I wouldn't say that's "tribalistic", more like "territorial".

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

#510

Post by hrktb »

effie wrote: post #476
hrktb wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically you can. In practice it’s playing the outrage lottery: you can’t complain not winning if you don’t buy into it, but you only have one in a million chance to have your issue blow up to any proportion, and then some more astronomically low chance it leads to anything. I am still thinking about the Vox presenter Carlos Maza who painstakingly documented and published how youtube didn’t enforce its hate speech…

Do you have a link where this is documented? Reports on this seem quite polarized.

It seems to be very polarizing yes. Then Steven Crowder's channel has 4 000 000 subscribers, so someone asking youtube to punish the channel is garanteed to have "strong opinions" facing him.

This is the original tweet series: https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1134263774591037441

The final response from the youtube team: https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1136056663927087105

Post reply on HN