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

551–560 of 701 posts

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

#551

Post by ruste »

gambiting wrote: post #453
castis wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good example of what people do in real life when confronted with change they want vs repercussions. Compounded by the fact that it was posted by username 'gambiting'.

I'm always curious what people think my username means. I thought of it when I was only starting to learn English at around age 10, and my young brain thought it would be amazing to combine "game" and "biting" (as in, eating games, since I loved playing them). I only discovered the word gambit much later.

I read it as gam-biting. Seemed nice enough if a bit out there for hn.

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

#552

Post by novok »

corndoge wrote: post #542
notafraudster wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me retell your story from my perspective. Some random guys built a beautiful walled city inviting everyone in, encouraging them to paint their houses whatever color they like. Before the walled city, almost everyone was homeless, and the few people who had houses were rickety and constantly needed upkeep. (Before YouTube, most people couldn't do video sharing, and tech-savvy people could but it was more complicat…

Except this is about hacking videos not white supremacy videos

Like most odious behavior, there is a scale. It doesn't have to be super odious for it to be banned anyway, just look at your local HOA board and how petty they can be.

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

#553

Post by notafraudster »

corndoge wrote: post #542
notafraudster wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me retell your story from my perspective. Some random guys built a beautiful walled city inviting everyone in, encouraging them to paint their houses whatever color they like. Before the walled city, almost everyone was homeless, and the few people who had houses were rickety and constantly needed upkeep. (Before YouTube, most people couldn't do video sharing, and tech-savvy people could but it was more complicat…

Except this is about hacking videos not white supremacy videos

I know my post was a little long for HN, but I think you need to follow the through line. Let me re-iterate:

Policy decisions and how people respond to them unfold in chronological order, and so the chronology is important. I was responding to a metaphor that imagined Google as an Emperor of YouTube, subjecting its subjects to a series of terrible decisions. It was framed as a "first they came for..." style argument for why we should believe today's decision tells us something about previous decisions. In the original metaphor, no hacking videos is like the emperor taking away another colour, after having previously taken away other colours.

I rewrote the metaphor as a chronology of what I think were some of the major inflection points for YouTube, and why a) this is different than previous cases; b) but the previous cases do lead us to this; c) I can support the goal of restricting some content on YouTube and not support this; d) I disagree with it and believe it to be stupid and arbitrary, but also I don't think the end point here is "Abandon YouTube and reclaim the free web!" for a few reasons.

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

#554

Post by sjy »

lone_haxx0r wrote: post #227
jlmorton wrote: post #70

There's a lot of bad content on the Internet, and a lot of people wanted to ban it. And the free speech absolutists said, that's a slippery slope. Once you start restricting speech beyond whatever is illegal, there will be no end to the demands to ban certain content. And a lot of us said, slippery slopes are silly arguments. All we're asking is to ban overt racism and calls to violence. We can evaluate these things…

> All we're asking is to ban overt racism and calls to violence I agree that it's reasonable to ban "calls to violence", but the "overt racism " part is extremely subjective. Why is racism worse than hacking? I, based on my own principles, think racism is 'worse' than hacking, but most people's principles are completely different from mine, and I think a considerable part of the population thinks that hacking is mora…

Different people might have different views about whether "racism is worse than hacking," but that doesn't mean we just throw our hands up and concede that everyone is entitled to their own views. Explicitly racist policy still exists, and racism became socially unacceptable in the first world only very recently (in historical terms). But the fight against racist policy has partially succeeded in changing the world, and racism no longer falls within the Overton window.

Almost everyone agrees that there should be some room for objectionable and offensive content, but 'the worst' content must be censored and criminalised. There is very little consensus on where to draw the line. Banning hacking videos (if that's an accurate description of what occurs in practice) crosses the line for me, but at the same time, hackers don't need YouTube to share videos.

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

#556

Post by Krasnol »

the_pwner224 wrote: post #519
b2600 wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t need a phone number to open a google or gmail account. It asks for it but it’s a skippable step

That hasn't been my experience on a few occasions over the last few years. Guess they changed it.

Nah it still occurs from a desktop browser.

Though I learned it does not ask for one (or is skippable) if you create an account on an android device (I use a tablet for that).

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

#557

Post by PavlovsCat »

paulmd wrote: post #498
syberiyxx wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you moved to Europe yet?

I’ve thought seriously about it; the biggest thing holding me back being the lack of a job waiting for me there. Perhaps I could pick my German back up. Why do you think that’s relevant? In your mind, you can’t comment on something unless you’re personally involved in it? It is plainly evident that Europeans enjoy a high degree of freedom and a broad and open discourse despite the lack of an unlimited freedom of spee…

> In your mind, you can’t comment on something unless you’re personally involved in it?

Well, as a German, it's just another instance of Americans who don't know 5% of what is going on here, using simplifications so gross they might as well be completely fabricated memes, to sidestep actually making a solid argument. I'm fine with it, I'm not going to fight that particular windmill. But it's really astonishing how a few scraps here and there tend to make Americans experts on Germany in their mind, as a general observation. It's flattering, like being pestered by someone you aren't interested in is still flattering.

> one that we as a society have decided to value

Individuals decide things, "we as a society" is BS, it doesn't exist, though it rings familiar. Nazis "as a society" decided Jews and others don't "have value". You need to be more precise than that.

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

#558

Post by throwaway2048 »

OrgNet wrote: post #499
moneytalks wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lighting a fire is a crime. (When it's arson.) Painting a wall is a crime. (When it's vandalism.) Jumping a fence is a crime. (When it's trespassing.) Not going to be much left to watch if every act that could be a crime is banned.

No, but the big corps like that because it lets them selectively ban pretty much whatever they want.

Dosen't really have anything to do with it, YouTube can already selectively ban anyone they want (and do), its already a part of the TOS.

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

#559

Post by sjy »

starik36 wrote: post #533
jlmorton wrote: post #70

There's a lot of bad content on the Internet, and a lot of people wanted to ban it. And the free speech absolutists said, that's a slippery slope. Once you start restricting speech beyond whatever is illegal, there will be no end to the demands to ban certain content. And a lot of us said, slippery slopes are silly arguments. All we're asking is to ban overt racism and calls to violence. We can evaluate these things…

> calls to violence Would you then agree that any communist leaning YouTube channel is by definition a "call to violence", since communist movements have resulted in deaths of 110 million people in 20th century? And therefore the channel must be shut down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_... No? Don't agree? Well now you see why slippery slope is not a silly argument.

Rejecting that 'definition' does not imply the truth of any slippery slope argument. I think it's easy to distinguish between communist leaning YouTube channels, and communist leaning YouTube channels that contain explicit calls to violence. A 'slippery slope' argument assumes the opposite: that once we accept that some content is prohibited, we cannot avoid the conclusion that all content is prohibitable by an arbitrary censor.

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

#560

Post by junar »

And here's the resolution:

> In a subsequent comment, a YouTube spokesperson confirmed to The Verge that Cyber Weapons Lab’s channel was flagged by mistake and the videos have since been reinstated. “With the massive volume of videos on our site, sometimes we make the wrong call,” the spokesperson said. “We have an appeals process in place for users, and when it’s brought to our attention that a video has been removed mistakenly, we act quickly to reinstate it.”

https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/3/20681586/youtube-ban-instr...

Post reply on HN