Actions like this push users towards decentralization. Let them dig their grave
YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
571–580 of 701 posts
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#572Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone needs to tell Linus Tech Tips that. They mention the Twitch or Floatplane streams or streaming all the time. Either last week or the week before that they had an issue with the Youtube and Floatplane streams, but Twitch was doing fine. Would you link to those rules? Curious what the exact text is.
They did get a strike about that, or possible several times. For example, https://twitter.com/linustech/status/1008752236027973632?lan... talks about it and I strongly remember a wan show being almost dedicated to the same topic. If I recall right, they have said that there were not that many users who came from youtube so it doesn't matter much, and that wan show itself isn't really a money maker in the first place…
Here's where they talk about it: https://youtu.be/SKtJY6soCds?t=698
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#573A good reminder that NYC decided that viewing adult content on computers at city libraries was protected by freedom of speech and is therefore allowed: https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/04/25/watching-porn-at-nyc...
This is definitely relevant for multiple reasons. Pornographic content is legally protected free speech (except on broadcast TV for whishy washy reasons). Yet YouTube does not host pornographic content and is not required to do so. To my knowledge, no large groups of people have demanded that YouTube host pornographic content in the decade or so of its existence under free speech grounds. It's only when YouTube stops hosting stuff they like that they suddenly consider it to be a free speech issue.
And on the other hand, PornHub has offered to host the channels of people who were banned from YouTube. Few chose to move to PornHub because of the implications of this association, even though it is a more free option.
To me it's all nonsense. If you want to host your own stuff unrestricted, start your own site or something like peertube. The more decentralized things are, the freer they are. Alex Jones can still post crazy shit about Sandy Hook families on his own site and deal with his own legal consequences which I will not comment on. But it's pretty obvious why YouTube doesn't want to deal with him. And while it's a bummer for fans of these hacking shows that YouTube won't be hosting their content, perhaps it's an opportunity to work towards decentralization.
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#574I'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 t…
What you say is true, but the better solution is for huge corporations not to have a monopoly/oligopoly on channels for public discourse.
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#575Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose teaching people how to paint would also not be okay, as those people might now graffiti some wall and commit a crime!!
I know it's just a throwaway comment, but you don't take a course on "learning to paint" to do vandalism. You don't see courses on "ethical painting" like the person teaching it has to qualify that they're teaching the legal type of painting. You don't hear people talking about "white hack" and "black hat" painters. I assume you know hacking has a huge illegal component such that it always has to be qualified as good…
I see your point, but I don't think the fact that society has created a dichotomy of hackers means that we should ban all knowledge of hacking.
This might be a better analogy for my feelings on the topic. Abortions are determined to be legal or illegal based on the time you have one. This is the dichotomy that we as a society have created. The method to abort a child at 1 month, and 1 month and 1 day will be exactly the same, but the legallity might be the opposite. Does that mean we need to ban all information on how to have a safe abortion? No, it means we need to enfore the laws already on the books for those having unsafe/ illegal abortions.
The fact that knowledge is abused does not mean it should be censored. And on top of that maybe I want to know how to craft a pair of brass knuckles, or how to program a guidance system for a missle just because I'm curious.
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#576Earlier quoted context omitted.
He was accusing the parents of aiding a conspiracy to stage a fake shooting. I can imagine being a parent who has just lost a child, only to be told that I was lying, and that my child either never existed or was still alive. It's a real ideological litmus test - exactly how turned can your stomach get before you call for an exception to free speech?
Lets be clear with terms here; I wouldn't call for an exception to "free speech" even for Alex Jones. He has every right to say whatever he wants short of outright threats, etc. But I certainly don't think anyone should be forced or required to give him a platform for which to broadcast his speech.
> But I certainly don't think anyone should be forced or required to give him a platform
This is where I think most people on both sides of the debate miss the point. Section 203 of the communications decency act provides protection from liability for platforms that host content provided by others. This is a very important law that I think most people see the value in. However it has a Good Samaritan clause which allows them to arbitrarily moderate content without losing that protection. Should these large platforms be able to exert absolute editorial control over the content they host? I think yes, they most certainly should be allowed to. But they should not be entitled to the liability protections afforded to common carriers if they choose to do so.
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#577This comment thread says a lot about hacker news.
a) the flagged videos have already been unbanned, with YT saying it was a mistake and b) YT's policy exempts educational videos, which is why it was a mistake, and why e.g LiveOverflow et al should be fine.
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#578Well, this is dumb as hell. Basically, YouTube (i.e. Google) is unwilling to close the holes in their security systems, so they hope to keep everyone in the dark about them??? Any sane person would want people to find and report these vulnerabilities so they could be repaired...
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#579Emperor 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…
There are other cities which you can move to.
The problem is, Emperor G sells the only map to the Internet, and they're not shown on it.
Re: YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”
#580Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm afraid this comment may fall afoul of Poe's law - but I think I agree. In my elementary school, That Favorite Science Teacher made gunpowder as an in-class demonstration, as well as hydrogen balloons. Should that content be allowed on YouTube? There are plenty of college-level chemistry demonstrations which have serious safety concerns; if not in the performance, then in the safe and ethical disposal. Cody's view…
I think doing things in a safe method are fine. Channels like NileRed discuss that this is dangerous, that is dangerous, I'm properly venting and wearing a respirator, I have to do these steps so this is safe to dispose of etc. That is safe, channels like this are commendable. Channels like BackyardScientist and Cody's Lab where you are making your own nitro and whacking it with a steak knife or making weapons firing…
IIRC, even Cody's steak knife NG video had pretty serious "don't do this" disclaimers. And, I genuinely think it had educational value as an example of a project gone wrong.
The biggest problem for me in this train of thought is whether the danger lies in the danger (if emulated), the attractiveness, or the availability.
At what point do you start banning extreme sports videos from the platform? There are some activities which simply aren't safe, and are clear outliers. (Say, free soloing vs typical rock climbing.)