Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube • Hacker News Board

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

#591

Post by tzs » Fri, Jun 06, 2025, 4:54 PM UTC

torstenvl wrote: post #549

tzs wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Please don't post deliberately false information on HN. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Let me rephrase, since saying they lose their safe harbor was a poor choice of words. The safe harbor does indeed prevent them from being treated as the publisher of the illegal content. However illegal content can incur liability for acts other than publishing or distributing and section 230's safe harbor won't protect them from that.

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

#592

Post by herbst » Fri, Jun 06, 2025, 4:56 PM UTC

mardifoufs wrote: post #552

herbst wrote: post #160

I would love to see an European YouTube alternative with less morals being enforced through demonistation. TV is literally way less self censoring at this point And don't get confused. Most videos would be allowed on YouTube content creators just prefer to monetize them.

Copyright laws are usually more strict in Europe. Yes it's a broad generalization and Europe has a lot of different jurisdictions, but the biggest European countries all have worse Copyright laws. France has HADOPI, Germany has its own mess, and the EU itself is extremely pro-copyright.

Copyright maybe. Talking about normal human things like sex or dangers definitely not

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

#593

Post by zmgsabst » Fri, Jun 06, 2025, 5:01 PM UTC

mbrumlow wrote: post #510

hshdhdhj4444 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah because if it wasn’t for COVID YouTube, Facebook, et al would never have removed any content on their platform, unlike what they had been doing all this while… There are so many issues with this. Being able to pick what content they host is fundamental to freedom of speech for private entities. The real problem is twofold. 1. A few platforms hold monopoly positions. Who else can compete with Youtubr? And the rea…

> Being able to pick what content they host is fundamental to freedom of speech for private entities I simply don’t think this applies to places like YouTube. But if does then they also must be responsible for the content. It makes no sense that curating content is their free speech but at the same time it’s not their speech when the content could have legal repercussions to them. The argument that removing videos is…

That’s my opinion:

If you exhibit pre-publication restraint, you’re an editor of an anthology — and not an information service hosting user content.

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

#594

Post by jll29 » Fri, Jun 06, 2025, 5:06 PM UTC

People complain about big tech, but they use their free services all the time for convenience.

I wish more people would self-host or use paid services so that the influence of big tech could decline based on an economic chance of balance; complaining about something while keep using it sounds hypocritical.

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

#595

Post by kube-system » Fri, Jun 06, 2025, 5:08 PM UTC

freedomben wrote: post #515

kube-system wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I would argue that lives have value even when people have preexisting medical conditions.

I certainly don't disagree with that, and I would imagine there aren't many people who would, but it is not in any way an argument against how many otherwise healthy children died of covid. If you want to make an argument that an overweight child should still be considered otherwise healthy, that would be a welcome and relevant argument, and also an interesting one.

I am saying that narrowing the discussion to "otherwise healthy children" is a reductive to a silly degree. The point is to protect all children, many of which are not otherwise healthy, or for that matter, may become unhealthy at some point.

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

#596

Post by amlib » Fri, Jun 06, 2025, 5:08 PM UTC

Xelbair wrote: post #406

DoctorOW wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You absolutely need some rules. Let's say I have a video called "Why Efitz is a serial killer". Sure, you can block my video, and the topic entirely but that doesn't really solve your problem. You're not really worried about you seeing it, but others. I didn't aim the video at you, but rather at a group that already hates people with your race/gender/orientation/religion/etc. They're already vaguely talking about tha…

Now a counterpoint: we banned government censorship for a good reason(or tried to). Why would a private 3rd party be allowed to do so? especially if government can heavily incentivize the 3rd party(using either stick and/or carrot) to be basically outsourced censorship office? Why do we give power of censorship to private entities that can shape public opinion in a way that brings them the most profit? you can fix fo…

Censorship by private parties is only a problem when they are allowed to be a monopoly in that market segment. If we had hundreds of viable and independent youtube sites and hundreds of viable and independent social networks around the world private censorship wouldn't be much of a problem at all, you just take your junk to whoever accepts it, be it from a jurisdiction point o view or from a policy point of view. If none of them accepts you, you likely need to spend a long time reflecting upon yourself... or try creating your own service (which has a much bigger chance of staying afloat on such fair market) that accepts your junk.

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

#597

Post by carlosjobim » Fri, Jun 06, 2025, 5:09 PM UTC

genewitch wrote: post #573

carlosjobim wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without even the opportunity to make money, there's very little incentive for creators to spend time and effort making videos for these channels. The reason YouTube is huge is because they invite anybody in to try to get paid for their content, and nobody else does that. This is why most content which should be an article or even a podcast is instead posted as some guy talking in front of the camera on YouTube.

> ... they invite anybody in to try to get paid ... I have over 100k views on youtube and i've received $0.00 from youtube. This is like "they invite anyone to try and pull the sword from the stone" or something. however look from the other angle: People give their content freely to youtube, a content platform, which benefits youtube, because of this idea that "you might make it big." it's like scratch-offs. Nearly a…

I agree that they should divide compensation more fairly among creators, but what are you comparing YouTube to? What other company has a standing offer to anybody to upload their content and get paid for it?

There are plenty of competitors to YouTube for video creators: Netflix, all of cable and on-air TV, all of Hollywood, Amazon, etc. How big are your chances of getting paid for your creativity by any of these companies without being born into the right family and without performing sexual services to their representatives?

How much would you get paid by Google adwords for 100 000 visitors to your website? I doubt it would cover hosting costs. How much does Instagram or Facebook pay a user who gets 100 000 likes on their post?

YouTube (and Spotify) should distribute their pay-outs more fairly among creators, instead of making a casino/lottery system. But right now, they're the only shop which is open for everybody.

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

#598

Post by lurk2 » Fri, Jun 06, 2025, 5:10 PM UTC

genewitch wrote: post #38

hardwaresofton wrote: post #14

> In that case, I was happy to see my appeal granted within an hour of the strike being placed on the channel. (Nevermind the fact the video had been live for over two years at that point, with nary a problem!) Looks like some L-(5|6|whateverthefuck) just got the task to go through YT's backlog and cut down on the mention/promotion of alternative video platforms/self-hosted video serving software. Quick appeal grant…

There's peertube and Pixelfed and someone was working on an activitypub version of Instagram, but really it's like Pixelfed but more ergonomic for video. So the next stage, ideally, would be everyone kinda sharing hosting responsibilities, and if you like a creator, you just follow them. This has the benefit of possibly caching/mirroring all the videos, too. My Fediverse server was chewing through disk, one of the re…

> Pixelfed

I suspect a lot of these projects are being held back by bad branding. The first time I heard the term “fediverse,” I assumed it was alluding to Facebook’s Metaverse being a project of the CIA.

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

#599

Post by arcastroe » Fri, Jun 06, 2025, 5:10 PM UTC

542354234235 wrote: post #462

sph wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s an hypothetical stack for illegally downloading movies and TV shows, for those interested. They all run on Docker: - QBittorrent: torrent client - Prowlarr: offers an API to torrent search services, connects to qbittorrent - Sonarr: uses Prowlarr to search latest episodes of TV shows, submits torrent file to QBittorrent for download, neatly categorises the completed file - Radarr: the same as above, but for mo…

Some to add -Plex or Jellyfin: Netflix like interface to organize and watch your content. -Overseerr: Managing your movie and tv show requests for you and people you share your media with. Works with Radarr/Sonarr/etc. -Watchlistarr: syncs your Plex Watchlist with Overseerr.

> Watchlistarr: syncs your Plex Watchlist with Overseerr.

Overseerr already supports syncing your plex watchlist out of the box.

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

#600

Post by ndsipa_pomu » Fri, Jun 06, 2025, 5:14 PM UTC

Duwensatzaj wrote: post #577

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are being incredibly disingenuous and missing out the very important points that ALL of those instances were designed to be provocative and make people feel in fear for their own safety. e.g. the people being arrested for silent praying (wasn't it just two people?) were breaching specific PSPOs that are specifically designed to provide a safe buffer zone around abortion clinics so that people can receive their he…

>provocative So what? >make people feel in fear for their own safety. Private chats and bad taste Halloween costumes are designed to make people fear for their own safety? At least you're honest about your censorship and oppression of anything anyone dislikes.

Well the point is that we don't want people forcing religious views on a mainly secular society. If people have strong views on abortion, then they should abide by those views themselves, but we don't want them harassing people using legal health services. It's fine to protest about abortion etc, but not in a specific buffer zone which has been set up (via a PSPO) to protect vulnerable people visiting the clinic.

I don't know what you're on about with Halloween costumes - I can't see the relevance. Are there PSPOs designed to prevent scary costumes and has anyone been prosecuted for deliberately flouting the PSPO?