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

511–520 of 803 posts

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

#511

Post by Bender »

sph wrote: post #158
qilo wrote: post #63

I purposefully avoid demonstrating any of the tools (with a suffix that rhymes with "car") that are popularly used to circumvent purchasing movie, TV, and other media content, or any tools that automatically slurp up YouTube content. Can't figure out what tool Jeff is writing about.

Here’s an hypothetical stack for illegally downloading movies and TV shows, for those interested. They all run on Docker: - QBittorrent: torrent client - Prowlarr: offers an API to torrent search services, connects to qbittorrent - Sonarr: uses Prowlarr to search latest episodes of TV shows, submits torrent file to QBittorrent for download, neatly categorises the completed file - Radarr: the same as above, but for mo…

My theoretical preference: as a file hosting provider, in Minecraft

- SFTP with anonymous login on disposable VM's, LFTP+SFTP for automation of batch transfers and rsync-like behavior in a chroot sftp-only login. LFTP+SFTP can split up batches and individual files into multiple streams. sch_cake balances throughput to and from each person, in Minecraft.

- Nginx+autoindex for people preferring happy-clicky access

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

#512

Post by arrosenberg »

Bender wrote: post #499
mhuffman wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If you want youtube (or any other platform) to not suck...pay for it. Like Netflix and Amazon Videos?

Like Netflix and Amazon Videos? People can't share their content on Netflix and Amazon without becoming a professional movie producer.

Their point is that people do pay for these services and they have still introduced ads to squeeze out more revenue. Ergo, paying for a service guarantees nothing.

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

#513

Post by Bender »

arrosenberg wrote: post #512
Bender wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like Netflix and Amazon Videos? People can't share their content on Netflix and Amazon without becoming a professional movie producer.

Their point is that people do pay for these services and they have still introduced ads to squeeze out more revenue. Ergo, paying for a service guarantees nothing.

I pay for those services and do not get ads and that is on a machine dedicated to corporate crap. No addons installed. I even use Microsoft Edge so they think they are tracking me.

The one and only exception was the movie "Person of Interest" which was FreeVee only for reasons I do not understand so I put up with their ads and then purchased the box set on DVD. The ads were so weird it was entertaining to watch them. They were clearly all created in China and I am still not convinced the actors were real people.

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

#514

Post by kuschku »

Mindwipe wrote: post #485
kuschku wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DVD encryption is not considered DRM or encryption in the EU, as it is too weak to provide any meaningful protections. If ripping DVDs is not allowed in the US, then the video should be region locked (just like Pride Month content us blocked in certain arabic countries), but not removed.

> DVD encryption is not considered DRM or encryption in the EU, as it is too weak to provide any meaningful protections. Yes it is. Where on earth did you get that idea from? Heck, even YouTube's rolling cypher has been found to be sufficient protection to quality from anti-circumvention provisions, and no actual encryption was used there.

> Where on earth did you get that idea from?

Well, countless court rulings in Europe?

e.g., https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2007/05/finland-court-br...

That's why you can play or a rip a DVD with common open-source software (e.g., VLC) without requiring any special piracy tools.

See https://www.videolan.org/developers/libdvdcss.html for details.

> libdvdcss is a library that can find and guess keys from a DVD in order to decrypt it.

> This method is authorized by a French law decision CE 10e et 9e sous­sect., 16 juillet 2008, n° 301843 on interoperability.

> https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/ceta/id/CETATEXT000019216315/

Btw, that - as well as software patents - is why the official binaries of VLC and ffmpeg are illegal to have or use in the US.

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

#515

Post by freedomben »

kube-system wrote: post #508
freedomben wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I certainly don't disagree with that, and I would imagine there aren't many people who would, but it is not in any way an argument against how many otherwise healthy children died of covid.

If you want to make an argument that an overweight child should still be considered otherwise healthy, that would be a welcome and relevant argument, and also an interesting one.

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

#516

Post by DoctorOW »

Xelbair wrote: post #433
DoctorOW wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can fix former issue by education and culture shift - censorship is just a bandaid. Bandaid is a surprisingly apt similie. It'd be nice to just be healed and healthy, but in the meantime we do have to stop the bleeding.

does bandaid help for broken arm or cancer? Censorship makes things worse, by entrenching different group - it's just that you like that one.

Bandages are very common, even at hospitals. The solution isn't just to pretend nothing's wrong until the patient bleeds to death. There's other steps here too, I continue to advocate for education and culture shift. I've spoken specifically to both the public and lawmakers about the importance of inclusion. The work isn't done.

Don't get me wrong, YouTube is deeply flawed in its implementation of moderation. The website is borderline unsupervised when it comes to human beings, and the algorithm/AI has been very destructive. That's not the fault of rules as a concept though. There are so many rules, which in theory, I'm prepared to defend even if they aren't working in practice. Does it suck when I'm falsely accused of violating copyright? Yes. Would it also suck to have no recourse if my work got stolen? Absolutely. Could they allow adult imagery and I just filter it out on my end? Yes. Is it a huge overreach that they don't allow child pornography? No. The line does have to be drawn somewhere.

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

#517

Post by foldr »

haswell wrote: post #481
foldr wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re referring to the comment upthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44198428

Yes, I’m aware. I should have said “referred to” instead of “replied to”.

Hmm, to me that comment is clearly making a comparison between the US and the UK and suggesting that the UK is in a worse position with regard to freedom of expression (“from across the pond”).

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

#518

Post by mousethatroared »

threetonesun wrote: post #458
christophilus wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same for tobacco stuff. I follow a few pipe-tobacco reviewers, and YT has begun to tighten the clamp there, too. It wouldn’t bother me if YouTube wasn’t basically a monopoly. I know some of them have been switching to Rumble, but to be honest, the competition is so fragmented that I don’t see any of them gaining critical mass.

Host your own content, monetize your own blog. I get that not as many people can do it without access to the big platforms but... that's ok?

And break the big tech monopolies is also... ok?

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

#519

Post by shakna »

_heimdall wrote: post #364
shakna wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disinformation got people killed. That creates liability. The causes a platform to suppress information. Information, backed by experts, usually requires intervention by a higher power to supress - because it doesn't carry the same liability.

> Disinformation got people killed Back this up with data if you want to keep stating this as fact. How do you know know disinformation got people killed, and what specifically are you defining as disinformation?

Hundreds verifiably died, after following misinformation [0]. And I would define misinformation as claiming something has health benefits, when very clearly, it will kill you. Like when Gary Lenius believed that hydrochloroquine was a cure.

[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-52731624

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

#520

Post by flyinghamster »

Helmut10001 wrote: post #89

A bit off topic, but still: Why do we need YouTube and other "Video Hosting" platforms at all? Simply upload your video (webm, or MP4) to any static Webserver and embed in HTML5. Plays nicely and no adds. I don't get why some sites still embed their movies stored on YouTube.

Unfortunately, data transfer requirements for video are through the roof compared even to audio, let alone text. Self-hosting is great if your audience is in the tens, but if your video goes viral, you'll get slammed with terabytes of egress.
Post reply on HN