Live data from Hacker News

Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

jeffgeerling.com

581–590 of 803 posts

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

#581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think an administration that was happy to spread disinformation and cast doubt on vaccination had an outsized impact. YT ain’t the problem.

> cast doubt on vaccination This seems like a bizarre retcon. No only did Trump fund "Operation Warp Speed" but he still (occasionally) expresses pride at funding the vaccine research. This is not "casting doubt on vaccination". I think the US right was generally doubtful of vaccination, but I'm fuzzy about whether this started before or after the vaccine mandates. Certainly I remember it being more of a phenomenon o…

They are casting doubt on the vaccine currently by prohibiting access to it, downplaying the disease, and removing science funding.

The very first commercial I saw after Biden was sworn in was a government ad telling people to get vaccinated.

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

#582
post #551
post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh? Veo 3 is arguably the result of owning YouTube and tapping into its content. No need to torrent much if you store the largest amount of footage on Earth.

The Veo demos I saw all looked like Hollywood productions. Not like YouTube videos which are 99% garbage you wouldn't want to train off of.

Those Hollywood style videos are just more impressive, especially for people who will pay. Veo can produce any style or quality of video, it's just not impressive to demo a video that looks like one any run-of-the-mill YouTuber can make in their bedroom.

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

#583
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These slippery slope comments always seem a little naive to me because they imply there is some pure way to handle moderation. In practice, you have to be an extremist to think literally no content should be removed from Youtube with the most obvious example of something nearly everyone wants to be removed being CSAM. Maybe you would respond by saying that is illegal and only illegal content should be taken down. Acc…

The problem is the nature of YouTube, which is a platform with the main purpose of generating revenue based on advertisement while minimizing their own operational risk. YouTube does not care one bit about whether the content they show is informative, harmful or entertaining, they care about maximizing the amount of ad impressions while avoiding legal repercussions (only if the legal repercussions carry a significant…

There has never ever ever been a time where you could disseminate your idea to more than about a hundred people for free.

The vast vast vast majority of the good ideas disseminated to the public in human history required someone to go pay a printing press operator to print them hundreds and hundreds of pamphlets.

This is literally how the American revolution happened. Not by requiring existing newspapers to carry opinions they didn't have (though some newspapers were literally owned by friends or people sympathetic to revolution and carried the message).

It's perfectly fine that you have to pay someone to carry your message or print pamphlets. That was always the intent of free markets and free speech together. It wasn't that anyone would be forced to carry your message (which is why the first amendment is extremely clear that you also have a right of association and can therefore not be forced or compelled to carry speech you do not want to), it was always that someone surely would be willing to make a quick buck to cater to your speech, no matter how fringe.

And it's entirely correct. Nobody at any point was unaware that Sweden had a different approach, and there was lively debate about it from day one, primarily about how "just trust people to stay home when they are sick" literally doesn't work here in the US.

It doesn't matter that Youtube took some of that discussion down, because it happened everywhere else too. Youtube is NOT your property.

Youtube cannot prevent you from talking about anything to your family.

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

#584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are describing is called "ad-subsidized", you pay less than the full cost and get ads to cover the difference.

Which affects the decision making of the company. There are things they won’t platform for fear of offending an advertiser. The effect is pervasive, regardless of whether you are paying the full rate or not.

Frankly people should stop paying for anything with ads. But they don't. They love them. If netflix had a free tier with tons of ads, it would be by far the most popular.

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

#585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"They" are me, I am a religious Zionist Jew. I believe that Palestine has the right to exist, just like Israel. Israel is the land of our ancestors, which was ruined by Romans and then settled through Arab conquests (Arabian colonialism was a thing). This is fine, this was a long time ago. We were there even longer, but it is not the time to compare. If Palestinians consider themselves a nation, they are a nation, ju…

As Zionists go I think you only disagree on how quickly and blatantly you should perform the genocide.

[deleted]

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

#586
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These slippery slope comments always seem a little naive to me because they imply there is some pure way to handle moderation. In practice, you have to be an extremist to think literally no content should be removed from Youtube with the most obvious example of something nearly everyone wants to be removed being CSAM. Maybe you would respond by saying that is illegal and only illegal content should be taken down. Acc…

> Should Youtube be obligated to host hardcore porn or gory violence? YouTube can decide to host, or not host, whatever it wants. The challenge is with unclear terms of use. They have a habit of taking down videos with little or no reason given, and it isn't clear what terms the video content would have violated. Of course they can draw their own lines, but they should be clear and consistent.

The first amendment gives them the right to literally be capricious and malevolent in their hosting choices.

Your right is that, if you don't like it, you cannot be forced to use it.

And that is true. Nebula exists because all those people were getting fucked by Google's capricious actions. Armchair historian made his own platform because Google wont pay you ad dollars if you show actual historical war footage, because god forbid you learn history.

Youtube is not a platform where anyone can say anything. There's no such thing as a "digital town square" that is owned by a private company. Even real, actual, public squares have some limits on speech nowadays.

If you want some sort of digital public square where anyone could host literally any video content, it will be funded by taxes and run by the government.

I would however hold strong support for reforms that limit the shenanigans and nonsense in Terms of Use. You shouldn't be able to put utterly unenforceable or even illegal things into a Terms of Use without penalty. Contract law has a principle of separability that means Google can put literally as many scary, illegal, unenforceable claims into it's contracts and a court would still enforce it, just without those specific parts. That gives Google a huge incentive to put even impossible things into their ToU hoping you will buy that they could enforce it, even when they know they cannot.

I also think it should not be possible to make a contract that says "we can update this at any time and change everything about it without your consent" just entirely. All contract revisions should require mutual consent.

IIUC, ToU have also just not been tested in court very well. So we should stop beating around the bush and just make a real legal framework for them.

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

#587
post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being able to pick what content they host is fundamental to freedom of speech for private entities Interesting position - when somebody posts illegal content on YouTube, they are not liable, it’s not their speech. But when I want to post something they don’t like, suddenly it’s their freedom of speech to remove it. A lot of breakdown in society lately is clearly coming from the fact that some people/companies have…

Your premise is incomplete. When someone posts illegal content on YouTube they are not liable if they are not aware of the illegality of that content. Once they learn that they are hosting illegal content they lose their safe harbor if they don't remove it.

i find it hard to believe there is any content on YT platform that they are unaware of.

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

#588
post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t really what’s being argued. We’re not talking about a knitting forum. We’re talking about content neutral hosting platforms. There is a distinction in the law. If you want to not be liable for the content posted to your platform then you may not moderate or censor it seems like a fair compromise to me. Either you are knitting forum carefully cultivating your content and thus liable for what people see ther…

> We’re talking about content neutral hosting platforms. There is no such thing as a "content neutral hosting platform." I know that people like to talk about social media services in the same umbrella as the concept of "common carrier", which is reserved for things like mail service and telecommunications infrastructure. And that might be what you're conflating here. If you're not, then please point me to the law, i…

> The beautiful thing about freedom is that along as people don't infringe upon the rights of others, they don't need your permission to just go build things and exist

This is hollow sophistry, and it’s not how things actually are.

You don’t have freedom for Self dealing, price fixing, collusion, bribery, false marketing, antitrust violations, selling baby powder with lead and many other things.

In some states you can’t even legally collect rainwater.

Also the government will come after you with guns and throw you in jail if you violate some bogus and fictitious “intellectual property rights” that last for 70 years after creator has died.

It’s u helpful to pretend we live in Wild West of liberty

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

#589
post #107

This is mass problem with almost any topic you want to share. I'm sport shooter, range officer and competition jury. You have no idea what crazy stunts YouTube do for Gun/Sport Shooting related content. YT terms containt some weirdest restriction for things like "shown magazine capacity". Wrong angle on video and your 10 round mag is seen by YouTube as 30 round and your video is gone. You can show silencer disconnect…

Indeed. A family member of mine had a helpful amount of income coming in from a channel of his that was gaining momentum. The point of the channel was to teach gun safety to people new to guns. Keep in mind that where we live, all of this is 100% legal and even encouraged, yet, YouTube threw so many ridiculous barriers in the way that he could not create much content That didn't end up getting removed. He eventually…

That's because they are not a platform for education. They are a platform for ads and encouraging hyperconsumerism. They merely allow educational material, sometimes. Expect more videos to be removed over time that don't align with their goals. e.g. I would not expect playlists of hour-long MIT lectures to stay there for the long term as the platform moves more toward shorts and algorithmic recommendations. Or their vast library of people's old random amateur videos that barely get any views/generate almost no revenue while costing them money.

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

#590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the part we have a problem with. It's that there was already people living there before and now they're using this supposed right to exist to wipe out the local population. Ironically they don't believe that Palestine has the right to exist. Colonialism has always been bad, Israel is clearly no different.

"They" are me, I am a religious Zionist Jew. I believe that Palestine has the right to exist, just like Israel. Israel is the land of our ancestors, which was ruined by Romans and then settled through Arab conquests (Arabian colonialism was a thing). This is fine, this was a long time ago. We were there even longer, but it is not the time to compare. If Palestinians consider themselves a nation, they are a nation, ju…

[dead]
Post reply on HN