Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

Post by Izkata » Fri, Jun 06, 2025, 8:48 PM UTC

Latty wrote: post #380

Glittergorp wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes the American media overblow some of the issues for clicks. However you can be arrested for speech and it isn't just threats to violence. > In the US, you have people being literally grabbed off the street and sent to foreign prisons because of their speech with no due process. This isn't true. Many of these people were arrested because they had entered the country illegally and then sent to foreign prisons. You a…

> This isn't true. Many of these people were arrested because they had entered the country illegally and then sent to foreign prisons. You are falling for the same rage bait media (except it is left leaning). You say it isn't true, but then say "many", so it is true, just not in all cases? Just because others are being deported alongside you doesn't change that you are being sent to a foreign prison for speech, and w…

Post by tshaddox » Fri, Jun 06, 2025, 8:49 PM UTC

somenameforme wrote: post #398

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…

I think their real edge is a practically free and practically infinite bandwidth/capacity global CDN setup. There's no real technical reason for this still to be the case, but bandwidth costs are significant for people relying on other services to provide such. Or they're cheap and slow/capped. This is the main reason I think alternative sites have a hard time competing. Play anything on YouTube from anywhere and if…

Post by tshaddox » Fri, Jun 06, 2025, 8:56 PM UTC

beej71 wrote: post #537

mbrumlow wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being able to pick what content they host is fundamental to freedom of speech for private entities I simply don’t think this applies to places like YouTube. But if does then they also must be responsible for the content. It makes no sense that curating content is their free speech but at the same time it’s not their speech when the content could have legal repercussions to them. The argument that removing videos is…

They are two different things, though. One is actually producing content, and the others deciding which content host and share. And there are all kinds of various legal and illegal combinations, here. For instance maybe they decide that it's okay to host Nazi content, something that is absolutely protected under the first amendment. Or maybe they decide that it's not okay to host Nazi content, even though it's defini…

Post by tshaddox » Fri, Jun 06, 2025, 8:57 PM UTC

brookst wrote: post #570

mbrumlow wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being able to pick what content they host is fundamental to freedom of speech for private entities I simply don’t think this applies to places like YouTube. But if does then they also must be responsible for the content. It makes no sense that curating content is their free speech but at the same time it’s not their speech when the content could have legal repercussions to them. The argument that removing videos is…

That would make sense if this were a math theorem, but law and liability and society don’t usually work like math. Theee things can be true: 1. YT and similar give people a platform for speech 2. So long as they make a good faith effort to identify and remove content that is illegal, the hosted speech is not theirs. 3. As platform owner they are also free to exercise speech by moderating topics for any or no reason

Post by amrocha » Fri, Jun 06, 2025, 9:01 PM UTC

freedomben wrote: post #478

sp0ck wrote: post #107

This is mass problem with almost any topic you want to share. I'm sport shooter, range officer and competition jury. You have no idea what crazy stunts YouTube do for Gun/Sport Shooting related content. YT terms containt some weirdest restriction for things like "shown magazine capacity". Wrong angle on video and your 10 round mag is seen by YouTube as 30 round and your video is gone. You can show silencer disconnect…

Indeed. A family member of mine had a helpful amount of income coming in from a channel of his that was gaining momentum. The point of the channel was to teach gun safety to people new to guns. Keep in mind that where we live, all of this is 100% legal and even encouraged, yet, YouTube threw so many ridiculous barriers in the way that he could not create much content That didn't end up getting removed. He eventually…