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”

#621

Post by apatters » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 4:40 AM UTC

jefftk wrote: post #587

apatters wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

You can use other search engines, but the only one Mr. G tells you about is their own, and it consistently features YouTube above other sites.

If this kind of behavior from a market leader isn't a textbook anti-trust concern I don't know what is. It's remarkably similar to Microsoft featuring and promoting its own browser at the expense of others. The level of bundling and integration that they were attempting between IE and Windows, and which ultimately got the DoJ to act, has been going on in Android with Search and Chrome from day one.

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

#622

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 4:44 AM UTC

mensetmanusman wrote: post #619

sjy wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rejecting that 'definition' does not imply the truth of any slippery slope argument. I think it's easy to distinguish between communist leaning YouTube channels, and communist leaning YouTube channels that contain explicit calls to violence. A 'slippery slope' argument assumes the opposite: that once we accept that some content is prohibited, we cannot avoid the conclusion that all content is prohibitable by an arbit…

Youtube is banning racist videos with no explicit calls to violence. Communism has killed more people than racism. Maybe the truth does not matter though, people are just doing what they can to not get sued...

[deleted]

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

#623

Post by OCASM » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 4:59 AM UTC

Zak wrote: post #569

OCASM wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who defines who's toxic and who's not? That's right: the censors.

Or in the censorship-free scenario, the other potential users who stay away because most people find hate speech distasteful (for example) and don't want to spend time somewhere they're exposed to it frequently.

Another buzzword used and defined by censors: hate speech.

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

#624

Post by AnthonyMouse » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 5:09 AM UTC

FooHentai wrote: post #598

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.

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 philoso…

> If the suggested replacement is something the government operates

No. That is the exact opposite of helpful. What you need is something that nobody/everybody operates, in the style of email. A protocol (like SMTP), not a platform (like Facebook).

A government could usefully fund the development of such a thing though.

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

#625

Post by wvenable » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 5:23 AM UTC

AmericanChopper wrote: post #616

wvenable wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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! S…

According to your analogy, YouTube is no different from a news paper. All they do is collect content and publish it. The content can be user generated, it can written by people who don’t work for the news paper, it can be written by journalists from other papers. All they’re doing is decided what is and is not published, right? When I read it for free on their website, there is also no transaction taking place. So if…

> According to your analogy, YouTube is no different from a news paper. All they do is collect content and publish it.

The alternative is that all websites do, in fact, become exactly like newspapers. Every bit of content would have to be submitted behind the scenes to editors who, in turn, would decide exactly what to publish, ensure nothing is libelous or copyrighted elsewhere, and edit the content appropriately.

Obviously, the Internet already existed as a place where content was posted immediately, openly, and moderated. So in order to continue to enjoy doing exactly what we were already doing here, then such an exception has to be made. That's it. It's not rocket science. It's not about free speech or freedom of expression. It's just about making the Internet possible.

> The law is currently having the opposite of its intended effect at the time of legislation. It has simply allowed a very small number of companies to exert editorial control over most of the worlds internet traffic, without having to accept any of the liability that should have come attached to that.

The point of the law is to not require editorial control. Some editorial control is always necessary. It would be impossible to run any website on the Internet without some editorial control just as it would be almost as impossible to run anything other than a newspaper on the Internet if editorial control was mandatory.

The fact that we are here having this conversion is proof that the law is having the exact intended effect it was supposed to have. You are the one trying to give it far more meaning and scope. And the more you expand the scope the more it goes into ridiculous territory that you have no good answer for.

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

#626

Post by da_chicken » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 5:24 AM UTC

missingrib wrote: post #604

da_chicken wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 j…

> 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.

When corporations were first created, they used to have to show how what they were doing was for the benefit of the community. The protections against risk afforded to companies was once granted only in exchange for the ability of a company to add real value to the people and the state. This made sense because very few people would primarily profit, so it made sense to get a guarantee or promise that the company would invest into the community. Companies had a responsibility to ensure that happened.

None of that is true anymore, but that's not because it's immoral to require companies to invest in and have a responsibility for improving and supporting the community. Those corporations only exist by the leave of the state, and in a western republic, that means the leave of the people.

Food companies are responsible for producing healthy food. Automobile companies are responsible for producing safe vehicles. Social media services should be responsible for creating environments and discussions that benefit the people.

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

#627

Post by wvenable » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 5:28 AM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #617

wvenable wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, the Soviet Constitution promised every comrade a printing press... To speak to your market freedom point, imagine a community of racist business owners who all refused to sell to an outsider. If every business owner was equally racist, the outsider would be forced to leave, even if there was no law stating that they couldn't live in the neighborhood. Markets have an answer to this - any defector will make more…

As a society , we deem specific groups as protected classes and I don't think it's good to mix concepts about protected classes with just being an asshole.

We make specific laws to protect people from racial or religious discrimination. We don't, however, make the same considerations if you're just an asshole.

Would your argument have the same effect if there was a community of fed up business owners who all refused to sell to a big jerk?

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

#628

Post by wortelefant » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 5:53 AM UTC

Some Hacker communities already have their own video platforms - I only know of CCC so far but I bet there are others: https://media.ccc.de/

This knowledge will become even more isolated and harder to find for beginners.

But these communities have so much content already, together with banned 'security bypass'-videos it could be combined (or cross-referenced somehow) to an impressive collection.

Aggregators and links to similar platforms play an important role whith 'illicit' content. Porn is not allowed on YouTube as well, it is hosted on different platforms and yet people still manage to find it somehow.

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

#629

Post by gerikson » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 5:53 AM UTC

da_chicken wrote: post #626

missingrib wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 j…

> 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. When corporations were first created, they used to have to show how what they were doing was for the benefit of the community. The protections against risk afforded to companies was once granted only in exchange for the ability of a company to add real value to the…

> Food companies are responsible for producing healthy food. Automobile companies are responsible for producing safe vehicles. Social media services should be responsible for creating environments and discussions that benefit the people.

Are you proposing regulation/legislation for social media services?

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

#630

Post by makapuf » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 5:56 AM UTC

apatters wrote: post #621

jefftk wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

You can use other search engines, but the only one Mr. G tells you about is their own, and it consistently features YouTube above other sites. If this kind of behavior from a market leader isn't a textbook anti-trust concern I don't know what is. It's remarkably similar to Microsoft featuring and promoting its own browser at the expense of others. The level of bundling and integration that they were attempting betwee…

Look up "search engine" on google and you find link to alternatives to google, and not google (of course you need to know what a search engine is and that it exists)