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

661–670 of 803 posts

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

#661

Post by arrosenberg »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #584
arrosenberg wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which affects the decision making of the company. There are things they won’t platform for fear of offending an advertiser. The effect is pervasive, regardless of whether you are paying the full rate or not.

Frankly people should stop paying for anything with ads. But they don't. They love them. If netflix had a free tier with tons of ads, it would be by far the most popular.

Yes, it’s an anticompetitive tactic, but we refuse to update our antitrust laws for the internet era.

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

#662

Post by kube-system »

logifail wrote: post #659
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 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?

Again, that's all fine and great. However, many people are not "otherwise healthy" today, and nobody knows who is going to be "otherwise healthy" tomorrow.

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

#663

Post by timewizard »

slg wrote: post #170
timewizard wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a line somewhere for normal people to actually want to use the site. Youtube is a private company. They can make whatever additional moderation decisions beyond the law they want. Which are in no way based on what you want but are entirely based on what advertisers want. This control effectively answers every question you raised. In any case, Youtube is the size where it can grapple with all these questions you jus…

>Youtube is a private company. They can make whatever additional moderation decisions beyond the law they want. Which are in no way based on what you want but are entirely based on what advertisers want. This control effectively answers every question you raised. This is effectively the same thing. Advertisers care because the users have different moral judgments on different types of content which impacts their opin…

> Users and advertisers started this debate.

I submitted that users have no power and advertisers have it all. So, no, not "users and advertisers," _JUST_ advertisers.

> There was definitely public pressure for Google to take down Covid discussions

There's public pressure for Google to take down information about abortion. So what's the difference? When does "public pressure" reach a point where they act? And is the pressure truly public and organic? Or fake and astroturfed?

You ignore more than you answer.

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

#664

Post by timewizard »

slg wrote: post #563
friendzis wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Advertisers care because the users have different moral judgments on different types of content which If users were happy seeing Ford ads on porn, Ford would likely be fine advertising on Pornhub. Was this hypothesis ever actually even remotely tested or is it advertising agencies deciding what content is no bueno?

We don't need to hypothesize. If you pay attention to this space, you will see it play out in real time in the news. Over the last several years, there have been multiple public pressure campaigns against the advertisers on Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter.

> you will see it play out in real time in the news.

Which is always fair and accurate and is in no way under similar pressure from advertisers. So this is an awesome yardstick to use.

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

#665

Post by kube-system »

logifail wrote: post #660
kube-system wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nobody suggested anything of that sort in this entire thread.

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

#666

Post by einsteinx2 »

imgabe wrote: post #199
lynx97 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a movie or TV show Any movie or TV show recommendations from the past 10 years that is actually enjoyable? I am pretty much done with movies. I don't even remember the last one I really enjoyed. Sunshine, Interstellar, Hateful Eight, Once Upon a time in Hollywood... Nothing notable in the past 5 years though. TV shows? Most require a subscription, which I am not willing to do for just a show or two.

I've enjoyed quite a few movies from the past 5 years, but I don't know what you like, so who knows. Baby Assassins - japanese movie about two teenage girls who are assassins. Very weird and funny movie and the fight choreography I found fascinating. I can only describe as "floppy". Tetris - this was on Apple TV. A fictionalized retelling of the story of getting Tetris out of the USSR and licensed to distribute in th…

Baby Assassins sounds interesting, I see there’s a few movies with that name from the past few years, maybe some are sequels I’m not sure. Is the one you’re talking about from 2021 with director Yugo Sakamoto?

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

#667

Post by d4v3 »

btbuildem wrote: post #365
w14 wrote: post #59

This is the problem I had with all the content removal around Covid. It never ends with that one topic we may not be unhappy to see removed. From another comment: "Looks like some L-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." This is exactly what YT did with Covid related content. Here in the UK,…

> all the content removal around Covid What are you referring to?

read this report:

"The White House Covid Censorship Machine"

https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115561/documents/...

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

#668

Post by hello_computer »

npteljes wrote: post #658
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.

Obviously, but that's not what I'm getting at. Due to present technical limitations, "influencers" have to sharecrop for Google/Facebook/Twitter/etc. Bandwidth/storage/software improvements will allow successful "influencers" to flee the plantation.

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

#669

Post by _heimdall »

ajuc wrote: post #625
_heimdall wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Ame…

You're conflating the risk of a monopoly in a market and the absolute monopoly of a government.

I'm not arguing why people choose to use YouTube, I'm arguing that it is a choice. Staying in a country is technically a choice, but as long as you live there you have no choice in your government and can't opt out of their rule.

Its very different. Our speech is protected specifically from government censorship because their control over us is a monopoly by design and their will is enforced through mechanisms like prison and military.

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

#670

Post by genewitch »

carlosjobim wrote: post #597
genewitch wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... 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 comp…

> What other company has a standing offer to anybody to upload their content and get paid for it?

my first sentence bears out that this isn't true, it's like a scratch-off ticket. i understand you spoke to this, but it's worth re-iterating. If 100k eyeballs isn't enough to earn me even a penny, then what chances does 99.9999% of "content creators" stand?

secondly, amazon pays twitch streamers. or so i hear. who knows, i said monetization isn't my wheelhouse. Nor does it have to be to suggest technical solutions to what people perceive as problems with youtube/ABC/goog

also onlyfans.

Post reply on HN