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

561–570 of 701 posts

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

#561

Post by sjy »

Jedd wrote: post #505
sjy wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

Most enterprises depend critically on being able to view and edit Word and Excel documents. If there was some urgent need to get rid of Microsoft, they could get by with non-Microsoft applications that support the same file formats. It's easier and cheaper to stick with Microsoft because of the huge ecosystem Microsoft built. That's no accident, it was good business, aided by some questionable business practices which were noticed by antitrust regulators at the time. But it doesn't give Microsoft unlimited power – if they hike licensing fees, the available alternatives will start to look more appealing, despite the (currently) higher cost of finding staff to support them.

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

#562

Post by da_chicken »

I've been trying to argue for awhile that if the major public venues become privately moderated that it would have a chilling effect on free speech. I continually get the rhetoric that free speech only applies to the government (it doesn't; the First Amendment only applies to the government but the ideal of free speech is a universal human right) and that censorship is something only the government can do (also not true for the same reason).

This is not a new concept. In 1859, John Stuart Mill argued in On Liberty that the tyranny of the majority and the de facto censorship that they can create is just as if not far more dangerous to actual liberty than government control.

If we have laws for common carriers, and laws like network neutrality, then there must also be laws protecting the right of the people to participate in public discourse even when the venue is privately held. It is vital to the existence of a free state!

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

#563

Post by PavlovsCat »

danem wrote: post #471
damq wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that private company has a monopoly like youtube does, they should absolutely be forced to carry your message.

I'm not well versed in anti-trust law, but how does Youtube's popularity (monopoly as you put it) prohibit you from hosting your content on the 100s of other video hosting services available to you? How does Youtube's popularity prevent you from hosting your videos yourself? You're expecting them to use their own money and their own resources to broadcast messages they don't want to broadcast, for free.

> How does Youtube's popularity prevent you from hosting your videos yourself?

It doesn't. It "prevents" most people from looking for videos anywhere except the youtube search bar.

> You're expecting them to use their own money and their own resources to broadcast messages they don't want to broadcast, for free.

Well, does that prevent them from starting another business, that doesn't seek to grow so big and pervasive that it should be considered common carrier?

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

#564

Post by taurath »

CM30 wrote: post #547
taurath wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd be real nice if we could make an expeditionary force and start setting up more cities outside, to continue the analogy. At the moment, most groups wanting to leave the city contain too many undesirables, but eventually there'll be enough critical mass. What does that look like? At first - an ecosystem of services, packaged together, rather than piecemeal. Firefox, duckduckgo, an open calendar. I don't think it m…

The solution to alternative communities having too many 'undesirables' is pretty simple; you focus on a specific niche/field that YouTube or whatever doesn't do well, then build up from there. That's how Twitch took off. Started off being gaming focused, became a bit more open to other content later on. Same with Discord compared to say, Reddit or Twitter or Slack or what not. The reason most alternatives attract the…

The part that people always miss is the “don’t sell out to the big bad companies after you get traction”.

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

#566

Post by 50656E6973 »

root_axis wrote: post #489
50656E6973 wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it's not insulin or a house. Again, it's a video entertainment site. It is wholly unimportant in reality. It's the greatest library of educational content in human history.

Why do you think that? YouTube has lots of content, some of it excellent, but the vast majority of it is of dubious educational quality with tons of trash and misinformation. Much of the educational content that is worthwhile is also superficial compared to other sites on the internet that have quality and accuracy standards for their content. Some examples include khan academy, coursera, and udemy. I'd even include…

Yes it is moreso full of garbage of course, but still contains a wider variety and higher quantity of educational content than any other site.

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

#567

Post by pietroglyph »

floatingatoll wrote: post #535
ajross wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!" vi…

Sadly, this is the moment where the terms of service that do permit such work would have been precisely what we need to counter the direction of the entire post. I hope you or someone are able to discover it and cite it here. (I couldn’t manage to find the terms from my device, but that’s likely more my device’s fault than any. I’ll try again later if I remember, but it might be too late for today’s comment.)

Ok, here we go:

In section 6.E. of the YouTube ToS (https://m.youtube.com/static?template=terms), they say you cannot submit content contrary to the Community Guidelines.

On this page (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964?hl=en) of the Community Guidelines they say you may not post “Instructional hacking and phishing [content]: Showing users how to bypass secure computer systems or steal user credentials and personal data.”

Interpret that how you will. It seems broad enough to include academic/security work.

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

#569

Post by Zak »

OCASM wrote: post #319
Zak wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have no idea how thinkspot is going to play out. I do. The uncensored alternative to a popular platform consistently attracts all the toxic users, making it a place nobody else wants to go. Voat is a relatively recent high-profile example.

And who defines who's toxic and who's not? That's right: the censors.

Or in the censorship-free scenario, the other potential users who stay away because most people find hate speech distasteful (for example) and don't want to spend time somewhere they're exposed to it frequently.

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

#570

Post by boyobo »

ysavir wrote: post #348
Liquix wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if it exists Herein lies the problem.. Most creators/uploaders know on some level that YT is a toxic monopoly and would be happy to jump ship. Granted some more than others, but I've never observed any sense of loyalty towards the platform - it's just where everyone goes to share and watch videos. However, switching to vimeo/DTube/flixxo/etc means less views and smaller paychecks. Why would content creators in the…

I'm glad you brought this up. This was the exact question I had a few years ago, when I began developing my idea for a solution. What I considered to be the best approach is to break apart the idea of hosting content and sharing content with your audience in the same place. If you can share in one place and host in another, then switching content hosts ceases to be a problem; You can transfer your content to a differ…

I don't see how this solves the problem. What happens when your 'link aggregator'? decides to ban certain content?
Post reply on HN