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

581–590 of 701 posts

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

#581

Post by will4274 »

Aelius wrote: post #356
SamReidHughes wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If demonstrable harm is your standard, please just announce you don't believe in free speech and move along. Everybody advocating for the wrong stance on politics creates demonstrable harm.

Free speech means he can say (edit) legally protegted speech* on his own platform. No company is obligated to provide that platform for him. When judging a company for what content they decide they don't want to host, spinning "vimeo banned Alex Jones" as negative is ridiculous. Edited: he can't actually say whatever he wants even on his own platform. There's actually a lawsuit against him right now. Too many interne…

Actually, free speech is an ethical concept, not a legal concept. The first amendment is a legal concept. Free speech means means enabling the free exchange of ideas. Free speeches as a concept applies to private platforms and organizations too, it just isn't mandated by law.

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

#582

Post by tkxxx7 »

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

Flippant comments like these are not only frustrating, they are misleading. I know you realize now that you were wrong, but your short, dismissive comment following a substantive paragraph makes it seem much less substantive without having read it. Which would be great, if you weren't wrong.

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

#583

Post by terminalhealth »

AdeptusAquinas wrote: post #577

This 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.

What are concrete videos that they consider worth banning? Videos explaining 0-day exploits? Where do they draw the line?

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

#584

Post by AdeptusAquinas »

terminalhealth wrote: post #583
AdeptusAquinas wrote: post #577

This 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.

What are concrete videos that they consider worth banning? Videos explaining 0-day exploits? Where do they draw the line?

Probably something like a how-to guide to hack into a specific site. An analogy might be that a video on how to lockpick a door wouldn't be banned, but a video on how to lockpick your neighbour's door (with his/her address) probably would be.

The whole hullabaloo seems to be semantics about the meaning of educational vs instructional.

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

#585

Post by wvenable »

whatshisface wrote: post #543
wvenable wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm glad you brought up the platform distinction because I've also been thinking about that one. I could deny Alex Jones a soapbox in my yard, because it has little value and there are plenty of others. If there are only two soap boxes in the world and I coordinate with the owner of the other box to silence somebody, then I have become functionally indistinguishable from the government for the purpose of free speech,…

Not even the government has to provide you with a soap box -- so being functionally indistinguishable from the government makes no difference.

If you cannot find a platform, can't buy one, can't build one because nobody will work with you then tough shit.

We talk about how developers shouldn't work on projects that are morally questionable but here you are suggesting that they must because a platform must be provided. That sounds so much worse to me. How would that even work?

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

#586

Post by wvenable »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #576
wvenable wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 all…

So basically you're suggesting that a forum about knitting couldn't restrict their content to just knitting topics without losing their copyright infringement protection?

I see the point you're trying to make but it's completely wrong. Platform like this one would be impossible without Section 203; I don't see why it's necessary to tie that together with other requirements. It's certainly not a logical follow on.

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

#587

Post by jefftk »

apatters wrote: post #579
Liquix wrote: post #117

Emperor 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.

Is your analogy trying to say that Google is the only search engine you can use, and that it doesn't list rival video sites?

(Disclosure: I work for Google)

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

#589

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

peu4000 wrote: post #301
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…

There's no such thing as a free speech absolutist and YouTube was never a free speech platform.

Right. Most "free speech absolutists" are only absolutists when it comes to viewpoint neutrality, not when it comes to issues like incitement, false advertising, or defamation.

And frankly, a lot of people who loudly proclaim their love of free speech aren't even close to being absolutists in that sense; they'll talk up the marketplace of ideas and the importance of rational discourse as long as they're under threat, then suddenly lose interest in the issue when restrictions are applied to the outgroup.

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

#590

Post by AmericanChopper »

wvenable wrote: post #586
AmericanChopper wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 all…

So basically you're suggesting that a forum about knitting couldn't restrict their content to just knitting topics without losing their copyright infringement protection? I see the point you're trying to make but it's completely wrong. Platform like this one would be impossible without Section 203; I don't see why it's necessary to tie that together with other requirements. It's certainly not a logical follow on.

> I see the point you're trying to make but it's completely wrong.

If it is, then it’s not for the reason you provided. If I made Knitter News, and somebody posted a thread about gardening, then nobody would comment on it or up vote it. If I went into a knitting thread, and started posted gardening comments, then they would be downvoted.

It’s also not just copyright infringement protection, it protects against a broad range of liability.

The reason common carrier protections exist, is because the service providers do not control the content they disseminate, or the goods they transport, etc... Providing common carrier protections to platforms that exert editorial control over the content they publish is granting common carrier protections to service providers that are not common carriers.

Logically, this is precisely equivalent to providing common carrier protections to an ISP, but completely removing all regulations that mandate any form of net neutrality.

The law was specifically created to protect free expression online, and in the mid 90s, that’s exactly what it did. However since then, most online expression as become concentrated into a small handful of platforms, who all leverage their position (often in concert) to restrict expression to only that which they deem acceptable.

Regardless of what you think about their judgements of what is acceptable, the law is not consistent with other common carrier regulations, and it is absolutely not doing what it was originally designed to do.

Post reply on HN