YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems” • Hacker News Board

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

#591

Post by solveit » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 2:33 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #574

da_chicken wrote: post #562

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 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.

Economies of scale and network effects mean that government (or comparable entity) will have to go out of their way to foster competition way beyond what the market will bear. How can we make this happen?

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

#592

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 2:38 AM UTC

solveit wrote: post #591

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you say is true, but the better solution is for huge corporations not to have a monopoly/oligopoly on channels for public discourse.

Economies of scale and network effects mean that government (or comparable entity) will have to go out of their way to foster competition way beyond what the market will bear. How can we make this happen?

[deleted]

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

#593

Post by bloaf » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 2:44 AM UTC

anbop wrote: post #340

ac29 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Except that slopes are actually slippery sometimes. Look at the recent, and quite rapid, normalization of physical violence in American political argumentation.

Are politicians literally shooting each other again, like Aaron Burr & Hamilton? In all seriousness, if anything is new in our political discourse, it is sensitivity to violent language.

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

#594

Post by petermcneeley » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 2:44 AM UTC

jjulius wrote: post #289

dekrg wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the recorded Google employees were deepfakes? Or are you saying that autocomplete results for "men can " in Google search are totally natural and not at all political engineering done by Google?

>So the recorded Google employees were deepfakes? Nobody said he used deepfakes. I'm sure that the interviews with Googlers whose faces/voices were on camera were legitimate, and selectively edited just like every single one of his videos. Contrary to other media outlets whose track records of honesty can lend credence to their anonymous sources, O'Keefe's extensive track record of dishonesty and deception casts a lo…

I went through the okeef wiki and ya it certainly seems like there is a great deal of dishonesty in his "reporting" style. But the dismissive "that's literally all that it is." Makes me wonder who is it you are trying to convince.

Like how does that cognitive device work on more clear examples like in the case of http://www.unz.com/isteve/great-moments-in-google-american-i...

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

#595

Post by Sylamore » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 2:45 AM UTC

b2600 wrote: post #500

the_pwner224 wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a number of years now you have to give a phone number to make an account. Doesn't need to be a one-to-one mapping, but it still connects the accounts. It can be evaded by using multiple phone numbers, but if you're working that hard to not be violated by Google then chances are you aren't using Google in the first place.

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

It depends, if you are signing up on a mobile device (say creating an account as part of an Android device setup) it is absolutely required in my direct experience with no way to bypass it.

However if you create a new account via a desktop browser, it's not been required.

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

#596

Post by visualphoenix » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 2:46 AM UTC

From the wayback machine... looks like it changed sometime between Feb 3rd and April 5th...

It wasn't there on the Feb 3rd crawl... https://web.archive.org/web/20190203030524/https://support.g...

Pops up on the April 5th crawl. https://web.archive.org/web/20190405094852/https://support.g...

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

#597

Post by ysavir » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 2:47 AM UTC

boyobo wrote: post #570

ysavir wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's where the business model comes in. To focus on being a positive tool for content creators, I decided to charge them a monthly fee to have their page on the platform. And I maintain absolutely no other means of revenue. The entirely of the business depends on creators finding it a useful, reliable, and trustworthy tool that is worth their money.

I know that doesn't strictly forbid banning certain content, but without the pressure of having to satisfy advertisers, etc., I don't expect to need to ban content. The only exception that comes to mind would be restricting certain content in order to comply with laws.

Please do follow up with any questions or concerns you have. My goal is to be transparent and to build trust, so I'm happy to address them.

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

#598

Post by FooHentai » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 2:55 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #574

da_chicken wrote: post #562

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 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.

Better perhaps, but what's your proposed path to implementing that? Is it achievable, and what eggs get broken in the course of cooking that omelette?

One huge roadblock I can see is that you would need to address the question of what would replace privately held platforms? If the suggested replacement is something the government operates, you now have to address how that conflicts with the overall neoliberal philosophy of government that we've been operating under for the past couple of decades that precludes the notion of such a thing being operated in that manner. So now we're looking at quite a lot of smashed eggs.

Whereas the former suggestion is something that has, at first glance, a reasonably straightforward path to implementation via legislation, and related precedent to boot. It's easier to make a targeted override of a behavior that is an inherent part of the system under which it emerged, than it is to overhaul the entire system to correct that particular behavior.

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

#599

Post by tamrix » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 2:56 AM UTC

Rooster61 wrote: post #136

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…

You forgot the part about how Emperor G would come and burn your house to the ground if you tried to build outside the city because building houses was his idea. But wait, they didn't invent building houses. But Arbiter W lives in the walled city and the Emperor gives him gifts. Arbiter W considers Emperor G to be the person who owns the idea of building houses, and Aribter W is the one that sent the arsons out to yo…

And if you built a really nice house and people saw leaving the city to join your new house community. The G would just buy your house and move everyone in the walled city.

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

#600

Post by da_chicken » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 3:00 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #574

da_chicken wrote: post #562

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 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.

That's an extremely difficult problem given the speed at which social media changes and the slowness of legal changes. Look at the explosion of Discord. Also, social media isn't a commodity service. What happens if YouTube is broken up? Facebook? Instagram? Twitter?

It seems safer to also require that any platform that offers free, open access to social media style content not show any bias towards that content unless it is otherwise illegal. If you want to pretend to be a public venue, you've got to have the responsibility of keeping a public venue.