Live data from Hacker News

Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

jeffgeerling.com

501–510 of 803 posts

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

#501

Conservatives should think of the right to personal computing with the same ideological concern they have for the right to self defense.

I agree, but actually also think this is on the rise. Platforms like Rumble are the flagships of being against big tech, and run on speech first.

As the next generation of conservatives grows up, them being "behind" the "more likely to be pioneering" crowd in tech will lessen in effect, while big tech is starting to hit a bit of an identity crisis.

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

#502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Zionism is the notion that the state of Israel has the right to exist. No state has a right to exist; people have a right to self-determination, and a state of a particular form, and territorial extent may or may not be an realization of such a right, so even in that minimal framing (which I would say is more the motte Zionists retreat to when challenged than the bailey of the actual substantive meaning of the term…

Well, if your logic is pretending to be universal, then it should apply to Palestinian Arabs as well. Why they should have the right to their state and Israeli Jews don't? (Or vice versa)

> Well, if your logic is pretending to be universal, then it should apply to Palestinian Arabs as well.

It applies to the State of Palestine as much as to the State of Israel, correct.

Of course, while I have heard many arguments for recognition of a State of Palestine with twrritory including some parts of the area bounded by the Mediterranean Sea and the internationally recognized borders of Egypr, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, none of them have been that that State has a “right to exist".

And I haven't, in this discussion, stated a position on whether either Israel-within-some-borders or Palestine-within some-borders are proper realization of the right of self determination of some people living in the area described above. You’ve just assumed a position out of nowhere because I argued that a “right to exist” if the State of Israel is a fundamentally flawed and problematic position, with a reasoning that on its own terms applies equally to the same argument if it were made for the State of Palestine.

FWIW, I think the best realization of the self-determination rights of the people in the region would probably, in the near term at least, involve both a Jewish and a Palestinian Arab State within some borders, a situation to which there are many obstacles, not least of which is Israel’s long (consisting of most of the time since 1968 at least) campaign of genocide against the Palestinian Arab people, callibrated largely to avoid excessive blowback from the West (and particularly the US), with strategies enggaged in to preserve pretexts for continuing and escalating that campaign with reduced resistance, both direct and dippomatic (which includes, among other things, fostering the formation of Islamist network that gree into Hamas to split Palestinian resistance and have a less sympathetic organized opposition during the occupation of Gaza.)

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

#504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Covid disinformation got people killed. You know this claim can never be substantiated right? You will never be able to show causation like that and we would never allow some controlled trial to see whether giving people whatever information you deem as misinformation actually increases the death rate relative to a control group.

Come on, man. COVID deaths per capita were highest in countries that had very active vaccine skepticism. While this is not causation establishment, it is super highly correlative: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-... gives good estimates of COVID death impact using a very reasonable methodology. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.27.22271579v... illustrates that it's hard to na…

Right, but covid disinformation != vaccine skepticism.

As a sibling commenter pointed out, a big part of the covid disinformation that was removed at the time was by established researchers in respected institutions or countries such as Sweden whose pandemic strategy was just different from what many US state institutions implemented.

Sweden turned out to have one of the highest vaccine acceptance levels and also lowest deadliness in the disease. One cofounding factor is the purported high trust in institutions, but such trust is built on having clear and direct communication, and the perception of information being filtered for policitcal or personal career reasons can never yield rust.

Pandemic awareness is a much too complicated issue to be simplified into crazies and vaccine skeptics against everyone else.

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

#505
I've had 2 of my videos taken down - they were educational videos teaching how to use Microsoft Access (I know, I know, but lesson plans are lesson plans). We were using a fictional medical database to help explain tables and general querying.

BUT whatever the reason, be it a user or YTs moderation team, showing table records was deemed inappropriate because I was "sharing PPI". I appealed both cases and got rejected. Since I'm not a super important influencer, there wasn't much else I could do so sadly students will need to struggle to know how to query dates in Access...

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

#506
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is why I have de-Googled my family - at least for the most part. The hardest part was Gmail. Hundreds of services and accounts relied on that email address for 2FA. If I were to be blocked from it, I would be screwed. So I bought a domain and spent the next couple of years migrating everything to it. Pain in the ass, but now no one can ever ban me from my own email address. Worst case scenario my provider blocks…

Just a suggestion but make the canary/alias less obvious. Companies caught onto this and are treating aliases with their name in it as "fraud" which is of course a load of crap. That is how tractor supply stole a gift card from me so I have turned many of their customers away from them and they have lost exponentially more than they stole from me. So now I use realistic looking aliases and just have my own lookup table that describes which one is for which company.

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

#507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mine is now being limited to 3 videos and a warning we will block you next time. They also removed the wide view button. I just copy the link and watch it on Firefox nightly not logged in to youtube with adblock and youtube does not complain. A bit of a hassle but I can still watch.

You don't have videos stop playing after exactly 1 minute ?

I had that for a while but it turned out to be due to having both uBlock and NoScript on that machine. Now it's good for me.

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

#508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

And I would argue that lives have value even when people have preexisting medical conditions.

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

#509
post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's everyone's. Herd immunity can only be achieved if a sufficiently large part of the population is vaccinated. Also, and I know basic empathy is a foreign concept nowadays, but what if I wished for my fellow to not die of a preventable disease because a grifter sold them on an insane idea?

there is no long term herd immunity with coronaviruses; which is why they are often use in disaster prevention scenarios... what you call "herd immunity" is merely letting people die and then go "we have herd immunity" as part of your survivor bias only solution that works most of the time, regardless of pathogen (including covid): air filtration (respirators and/or whole room)

There absolutely is. You just think the word immunity means something else.

After vaccination or a passed infection the immune response is there. When a sufficient immune resopnse from a large enough portion if the population is enough to lower the critical cases below some threshold, we call that type of immunity herd immunity.

It's not binary, but a useful concept nonetheless, and one that some people devote their professional lives to. It can be observed every flu season.

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

#510
post #59

This is the problem I had with all the content removal around Covid. It never ends with that one topic we may not be unhappy to see removed. From another comment: "Looks like some L-whateverthefuck just got the task to go through YT's backlog and cut down on the mention/promotion of alternative video platforms/self-hosted video serving software." This is exactly what YT did with Covid related content. Here in the UK,…

Yeah because if it wasn’t for COVID YouTube, Facebook, et al would never have removed any content on their platform, unlike what they had been doing all this while… There are so many issues with this. Being able to pick what content they host is fundamental to freedom of speech for private entities. The real problem is twofold. 1. A few platforms hold monopoly positions. Who else can compete with Youtubr? And the rea…

> Being able to pick what content they host is fundamental to freedom of speech for private entities

I simply don’t think this applies to places like YouTube.

But if does then they also must be responsible for the content. It makes no sense that curating content is their free speech but at the same time it’s not their speech when the content could have legal repercussions to them.

The argument that removing videos is their speech implies that hosting videos is their speech. So they should be liable for all content they post.

Post reply on HN