Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

jeffgeerling.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 803 posts

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

#621

Post by mrkramer »

AlienRobot wrote: post #561
mrkramer wrote: post #556

Federated video platform PeerTube[0] can be a good alternative. [0] https://joinpeertube.org/

>Some in the fediverse ask why I'm not on Peertube. Here's the problem (and it's not insurmountable): right now, there's no easy path towards sustainable content production when the audience for the content is 100x smaller, and the number of patrons/sponsors remains proportionally the same.

Damn, usually I'm not this dumb but thx for the reference I didn't even see it. My take is; YouTube is currently your only option if you want to try to make a living as a video content creator but if you want to casually make content and share it with your audience or your friends and family then you can definitely try PeerTube.

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

#623

Post by Capricorn2481 »

jll29 wrote: post #594

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.

There will never be enough people that care about this to make a dent. For every person complaining about Youtube censorship, there are 10 that are offended you would tell them what platform to use, and don't understand the implications.

It's only content creators that can make the difference, and not the quality ones who have sizeable but niche audiences. The big ones, like Mr Beast. And why would he care? He's consistently spoken about Youtube like it will be THE platform of the next 40 years.

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

#624

Post by camgunz »

mardifoufs wrote: post #607
camgunz wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm gonna skip way to the end of this: * masking saved lives * vaccines saved lives * kids could spread COVID-19 * even young, otherwise totally healthy people died from COVID-19 We knew all these things basically immediately, but because of intense brainrot tons of misinformation spread on the internet. YouTube pulling down videos about COVID-19 misinformation saved lives. The end.

So, no actual proof? And actually no, at least where I live, for the first two weeks masks were strongly discouraged and were said to be useless by our local government (Quebec). That was for the first 2 weeks of the pandemic, which were the most important in terms of spread. Even hospital staff were told to not wear them. I'm glad YouTube didn't ban anyone who didn't agree with our local government's opinion on mask…

It's truly bewildering how people on HN can have powerfully strong beliefs that are dispelled by the simplest of Google searches.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258979182...

https://www.afro.who.int/news/implications-social-media-misi...

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10578995/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10122563/

etc etc etc etc

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

#625

Post by ajuc »

_heimdall wrote: post #445
ajuc wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't matter what YouTube, or any other company or person, restricts. It matters what our government restricts If there is a monopoly - what the monopoly owner restricts matters just as much as what the government restricts. More in fact - because youtube has more influence over what people watch than any single government. These monopolies should be broken up, obviously - but internet is the perfect example o…

If YouTube is legally a monopoly that's a separate issue that already has defined legal solutions (well, responses at least since they may not solve it). Considering it a monopoly and putting a higher bar to their moderation policies takes away agency from the public though. We don't have to use YouTube and there's nothing stopping competitors from entering the market. If people cared that YouTube was a monopoly, or…

> We don't have to use YouTube and there's nothing stopping competitors from entering the market.

There is - network effect.

> If people cared that YouTube was a monopoly, or if people cared enough about the moderation policies, they would go elsewhere.

They would not, because of network effects. Coordination effort required to jump ship from a billion user website is impossible to overcome. You could have all of Americans stop using youtube, and it would still have more content than whatever competitor they turn towards.

> The reason we have to specifically be protected from government censorship is because we don't realistically have that option.

There's more examples of people overthrowing a government than people succesfully boycotting a social media platform once it gets big enough.

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

#626

Post by rat87 »

PaulKeeble wrote: post #233
KurSix wrote: post #72

YouTube's moderation feels like it’s being done by a drunk Roomba half the time... totally missing context, especially when it comes to open source and self-hosting content. Meanwhile, there's a flood of actual piracy tutorials that stay up for years. Your video gets flagged for showing people how to use LibreELEC, but somehow there are entire channels pushing borderline NSFW content under the guise of "body art" or…

The entire thing is being done by an algorithm by Google and the various legal groups that scour youtube for infringement. The review process is equally automated as well. Google seems perpetually allergic to having humans involved at any point and so it continues to compound the mistake the algorithms make by making them unfixable.

That's because of the amount of content which keeps increasing. Even outsourcing to low cost countries it wouldn't be cheap to hire thousands or tens of thousands of people to review cases. Still you need to have humans in there somewhere.

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

#627

Post by lurk2 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #616
lurk2 wrote: post #606

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. YouTube had plenty of content on it before the partner program was launched, and the content was better. Some kinds of high-production value content like Wendover Productions or Tom Scott’s channel would become less common, but it would also remove the incentive for the f…

> YouTube had plenty of content on it before the partner program was launched, and the content was better. It's not even comparable, not by a long shot. There is an immense amount of the highest quality video content you can find on YouTube, and the trend has only accelerated in the past few years. The ratio of good to bad content was better in the past, but that doesn't matter to the watcher. You subscribe to good s…

> There is an immense amount of the highest quality video content you can find on YouTube, and the trend has only accelerated in the past few years.

This has not been my experience.

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

#628

Post by Capricorn2481 »

timeon wrote: post #571
neogodless wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may have missed the point of the parent comment. Without defining the experience you can call it better or worse than any random thing! But if the video stops every 0.1 seconds to buffer for two hours, is that better than stopping very 25 minutes for a 30 second ad? If the video must be 24 x 32 pixels for the bandwidth to be low enough for your server restrictions, is that worse than the above scenario but a 4k 6…

I think no video is better than one that starts with ad. At least for long term mental health.

> I think no video is better than one that starts with ad. At least for long term mental health

That's vague. I think most people would disagree, and the commenter is right that people put up with ads for a certain degree of quality. We used to have 4 minute ad breaks on TV. The only reason people moved to streaming is because the quality was the same.

I can't imagine ads are doing much more damage to our mental health than the content we consume in the first place. Likely less.

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

#629

Post by s1artibartfast »

myrmidon wrote: post #578
s1artibartfast wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There are a lot of non-jews living within Israel's borders, and Israel (as a state) fails those people regularly (and, arguably, by design: it does not really want to protect interests of citizens that deviate from that jwewish national identity). I dont think this is well supported, or the source of conflict. The state seems to do a fairly good job of providing for citizens within boarders. Arab Israeli citizens ha…

Do you consider Westbank and/or Gaza a full state independent from Israel? Because to me, those are (somewhat) autonomous regions under Israels control-- so still responsible for people living there.

I think that is the central question: Can you exert control while avoiding representational responsibility, and how much?

Nation states influence each other all the time. They threaten, sanction, and impose restrictions, especially when in conflict without invoking responsibility.

Now I agree that isnt a very accurate characterization of this situation. It is much more of an occupation. I still dont think that invokes a responsibility of enfranchisement, but it certain invokes some responsibility for the occupier. The US occupied Japan following WWII, but that doesnt mean Japanese became US citizens, but there are moral obligations.

I model the Palestinian situation as a failed occupation where there is no progress towards end of occupation criteria. Neither party want integration, nor are they ready for peaceful coexistence.

I dont think Israel has a responsibility to enfranchise or integrate, but it does have a obligation to provide and maintain an option for coexistence, and perpetually put real effort towards achieving it. That means giving 2nd, 3rd, or 100th chances.

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

#630

Post by Capricorn2481 »

lokimedes wrote: post #330

The phrase “considered harmful” should be “considered harmful”. It’s basically an argumentation trick, raising a subjective conclusion to a neutral and objective conclusion without any qualification.

I mostly hear it sarcastically nowadays.
Post reply on HN