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”

#601

Post by vangelis » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 3:07 AM UTC

jlawson wrote: post #303

raisedbyninjas wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I actually watched the video. Jen Gennai said that if Google is broken up the pieces won't be as effective at thwarting the next "Trump Situation". The frauds a Veritas interpret this as preventing the free and fair election of their favored candidate. Mrs. Gennai said she used imprecise words in a bar conversation when she didn't know she was being recorded. She likely meant that are making an attempt to reduce t…

The idea that a single group of people should be 'auditing the identification of truth' with no transparency, no diversity of viewpoint, and no accountability is frighteningly Orwellian. We are headlong sprinting towards a dark future of corporate control over human expression and democracy itself. And you're helping the megacorps consolidate power because the already convinced you that the people criticizing them ar…

You're free to not give Google money and to create your own services. Otherwise buddy, that's just capitalism.

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

#602

Post by vangelis » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 3:08 AM UTC

nudpiedo wrote: post #169

ryanmercer wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Not anymore a conspiracy theory. This is the actual big brother modeling our futures, No. This is a company that gets 99% of its income from selling ad space doing what they need to do to keep advertisers, their customers, happy. It is not a conspiracy, Big Brother isn't trying to censor you, YouTube is trying to keep their customers happy to keep money flowing in. I'm tired of people complaining YouTube demonetizin…

When they have more influence on citizens than governments, perhaps we should revisit our definition of what public means. In the other hands, there has been already ideology ban and promotion of their own, and recently in a leaked video, they affirmed how they will stop promoting certain political views and promote the ones they find correct for the 2020 elections. Laugh now at the leolingua described by George Orwe…

Why do you want the government to intervene in the affairs of private business?

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

#603

Post by captainredbeard » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 3:15 AM UTC

First they came for the right-wingers...

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

#604

Post by missingrib » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 3:16 AM UTC

da_chicken wrote: post #600

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.

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 unles…

I'm so torn on this issue. I dislike the idea of the government interfering with private business very much, and I can see how easily it can get scary.

That said, it really is insane how influential and widely used a well made application/website can get (youtube/discord/etc). I really cannot think of something that YouTube could do that would make people leave the platform. The amount of users and content on there just totally cements their position.

In this specific situation I think tech-savvy people can find where these videos will be located. In other situations, it's pretty strange/scary. I wish people were more open to alternative platforms. Sometimes I talk about DuckDuckGo and get the weirdest stares

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

#605

Post by mantap » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 3:18 AM UTC

sjy wrote: post #554

lone_haxx0r wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All we're asking is to ban overt racism and calls to violence I agree that it's reasonable to ban "calls to violence", but the "overt racism " part is extremely subjective. Why is racism worse than hacking? I, based on my own principles, think racism is 'worse' than hacking, but most people's principles are completely different from mine, and I think a considerable part of the population thinks that hacking is mora…

Different people might have different views about whether "racism is worse than hacking," but that doesn't mean we just throw our hands up and concede that everyone is entitled to their own views. Explicitly racist policy still exists, and racism became socially unacceptable in the first world only very recently (in historical terms). But the fight against racist policy has partially succeeded in changing the world,…

Behaviour that is racist or illegal in one place is very often acceptable in another. YouTube as a global website has to remain fair.

For example, Cape Town puts on a minstrel festival every year[1]. Should YouTube ban videos of it? It is surely intensely racist and offensive from an American perspective, yet it is also a culturally significant event in Cape Town and it seems unreasonable to apply American/Anglo definitions of racism to South Africans thousands of miles away who see the world from a different perspective.

I don't think YouTube could exist without banning certain kinds of content. But at the same time, I wish they do so lightly. Because homogeneity of thought is far more dangerous to a society than any video.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaapse_Klopse

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

#606

Post by missingrib » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 3:18 AM UTC

loudmax wrote: post #377

taurath wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd be real nice if we could make an expeditionary force and start setting up more cities outside, to continue the analogy. At the moment, most groups wanting to leave the city contain too many undesirables, but eventually there'll be enough critical mass. What does that look like? At first - an ecosystem of services, packaged together, rather than piecemeal. Firefox, duckduckgo, an open calendar. I don't think it m…

> The OS doesn't matter as much anymore. I disagree. Everything described above applies to the Microsoft Windows monopoly. The monopoly was shaken by the web, then by mobile in general, but lots of traditional businesses are still locked into the Windows stack. Non technical businesses in particular are locked into MS Office. Given that the world basically shrugged and let MS keep their stranglehold over the enterpri…

Let me tell you, technical businesses are too.

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

#607

Post by brianpgordon » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 3:21 AM UTC

mythrwy wrote: post #531

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…

Good analogy, but lets not forget Emperor G has to keep the Gods happy. Or at least the federal government(s) and to some extent the press and public. If he keeps allowing blue houses the few people who want blue houses are happy but the Gods may become angered. Given this, Emperor G's staff of highly paid lawyers have suggested cutting off the degenerates who want blue houses.

> the degenerates who want blue houses

Are we still talking about computer security tutorials? I'm not aware of any federal law prohibiting those.

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

#608

Post by techslave » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 3:28 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’s not.

for your first account, it is not required. once they think you are opening more than one, or they think you may be a bit, a working non-voip humber is required.

tragedy of the commons.

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

#609

Post by philliphaydon » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 3:31 AM UTC

belorn wrote: post #494

csdreamer7 wrote: post #366

Earlier 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…

Doesn’t floatplane stream to multiple services? You have 1 system to stream to many.

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

#610

Post by wvenable » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 3:32 AM UTC

AmericanChopper wrote: post #590

wvenable wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 broa…

> If I made Knitter News, and somebody posted a thread about gardening, then nobody would comment on it or up vote it.

What if you posted about gardening every 5 minutes, every day, from morning till night and every thread about knitting is drowned out completely. I've run a forum, this happens all the time.

> If I went into a knitting thread, and started posted gardening comments, then they would be downvoted.

OH! So now it's not enough to provide a forum, it also needs to have upvoting and downvoting?! How much other software must I develop? And censorship is ok as long as democratic? How much effort must I put into the software to ensure this?

> 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.

That's exactly the point. If they were common carriers, they wouldn't need that protection under the DMCA. I don't see how having moderation control means that they should be liable for content of their users. They are not editing the content, they are just allowing or disallowing. If you run a platform, you should under the same concepts of free speech be able to control that platform. In fact, that's really what a platform is -- it's not just a blob of disk space somewhere. Youtube is fundamentally different from Pornhub. How is that distinction possible in your mind?

> The law was specifically created to protect free expression online, and in the mid 90s, that’s exactly what it did.

Free expression online in any form would be impossible without it, even now.

> 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.

And yet there is literally nothing stopping you from posting a video to your own website that you pay for and distributing it to as many people as you want.

To say that the moment I put a blog online with comments that suddenly I have to host, with my own money, any comment that gets posted there is ludicrous. On the face it's completely illogical and completely against the very idea of free expression.

The most interesting thing here is really that there is no commercial transaction going on here. Common carriers charge for their services. YouTube doesn't charge you to host your video under the condition that they can remove anything they want. That's the terms. So now you're suggesting that they have to host everything for free? What if that isn't even economically possible?