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

651–660 of 803 posts

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

#651

Post by LocalH »

bigbadfeline wrote: post #646
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…

> A decently functioning anti-trust system... Unfortunately, it's a tall order in the current political environment for the same reason open source funding isn't forthcoming, these are just parts of a bigger problem which is best discussed elsewhere. With that said, you're absolutely right in your assessment, this is approximately what needs to happen in order to improve the current sorry state of media and public di…

> Sadly, as evidanced by the other replies to your comment, the public at large simply doesn't get it and the situation is even worse with the structural changes needed to make a real solution possible.

The ones with money and power (which are effectively the same thing) want it to be this way, as it makes them richer and more powerful. The masses are just pawns literally being moved around on the chessboard of society.

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

#652

Post by godshatter »

throw7 wrote: post #423

I'm just waiting for the day Youtube permanently blocks me from using an adblocker. It's so kind of them to at least make me wait for 5 seconds to acknowledge that using an adblocker is illegal.

You're just accessing a publicly-available service with no authentication required on an open protocol using a designated tool for that purpose and deciding not to view (or possibly download) parts of it. I highly doubt it's illegal, but things are so strange these days, who knows for sure?

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

#653

Post by [deleted] »

gspencley wrote: post #521
dcow wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t really what’s being argued. We’re not talking about a knitting forum. We’re talking about content neutral hosting platforms. There is a distinction in the law. If you want to not be liable for the content posted to your platform then you may not moderate or censor it seems like a fair compromise to me. Either you are knitting forum carefully cultivating your content and thus liable for what people see ther…

> We’re talking about content neutral hosting platforms. There is no such thing as a "content neutral hosting platform." I know that people like to talk about social media services in the same umbrella as the concept of "common carrier", which is reserved for things like mail service and telecommunications infrastructure. And that might be what you're conflating here. If you're not, then please point me to the law, i…

[deleted]

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

#654

Post by stale2002 »

gspencley wrote: post #521
dcow wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t really what’s being argued. We’re not talking about a knitting forum. We’re talking about content neutral hosting platforms. There is a distinction in the law. If you want to not be liable for the content posted to your platform then you may not moderate or censor it seems like a fair compromise to me. Either you are knitting forum carefully cultivating your content and thus liable for what people see ther…

> We’re talking about content neutral hosting platforms. There is no such thing as a "content neutral hosting platform." I know that people like to talk about social media services in the same umbrella as the concept of "common carrier", which is reserved for things like mail service and telecommunications infrastructure. And that might be what you're conflating here. If you're not, then please point me to the law, i…

> the concept of "common carrier"

So then, your actual opinion is Yes a "content neutral hosting platform." does exist?

Its seems very obvious here that people are saying that the laws that apply to common carriers could be changed so they apply to social media platforms.

Problem/confusion solved here, and the world doesn't fall apart. As we already have these laws, and the world didn't fall apart before.

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

#655

Post by npteljes »

neepi wrote: post #162

Yeah YouTube are getting shittier by the day. I keep getting banners telling me that ad blockers aren't allowed on YouTube. Stuff is pretty unwatchable now without them. Well fuck you I'll just download the videos with yt-dlp instead. If that stops working, I'll not bother.

>Stuff is pretty unwatchable now without them.

Subscribe to Premium, and the Google ads are gone. I think it's only fair, given how vast and complex YouTube is as a service.

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

#656

Post by npteljes »

butz wrote: post #503

It is bad that youtube became only video hosting platform and everyone is putting videos there, even government institutions. That leads to many annoyances, where critical information is blocked by myriad of ads. This should be illegal.

>This should be illegal.

I agree. Governments relying on private parties at such a degree is a disservice to the public they serve. As an alternative, or mirror, it's fine to upload, but to use Facebook, Xitter, YouTube as primary source for anything government related is pathetic. Govs should have their own IT running their own cloud and services, utilize FOSS entirely and work and contribute the software and data they produce.

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

#658

Post by npteljes »

hello_computer wrote: post #321

The good news is that LLMs + growth in storage & bandwidth will eventually put Google in its place. The full texts of stack exchange and wikipedia (kiwix) are only a few gigs. Same for offline models like llama/gemma/qwen. As the wizards keep finding new ways to pack more bits on metal plates, we will be able to store more video than we will ever watch, just as we now store more text than we will ever read.

>just as we now store more text than we will ever read.

Yet, we are not reading, but hanging on social sites instead. Same with this supposed video cache. People go to YouTube not because of the platform, but because of other people. As long as they are there, the ones who are curious about them will also go there.

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

#659

Post by logifail »

kube-system wrote: post #508
freedomben wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing with GP, but I would imagine they would argue that an overweight kid is not "otherwise healthy children."

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

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

(Otherwise healthy) school-age children - and younger adults - always faced a very low risk from Covid-19, and we had solid statistical data on this from at least May 2020 onwards.

Maybe we need to look at where our decision-makers get their information, and their incentives?

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

#660

Post by logifail »

kube-system wrote: post #595
freedomben wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The point is to protect all children

You'd close schools to protect a minority of children with comorbidities from a virus which doesn't threaten the vast majority of children, knowing that school closures will definitely damage all children?

Umm.

Post reply on HN