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

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

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

681–690 of 701 posts

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

#681

Post by sadris »

cannonedhamster wrote: post #391
homonculus1 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So he wasn't directing anybody to commit a crime? It's a deplorable scenario, but free exchange of ideas and beliefs still requires protection. The consequences of losing it are in the long-term far greater than personal grief.

He flat out lied about the Sandy Hook massacre and slandered victims of murder. He absolutely encouraged people to "take action on their own by looking into it". You can't claim satire on flat out repeated lies. Lies are not protected speech. This wasn't about the free exchange of ideas, this isn't a disagreement on policy, it was about propogating lies to people in order to make money.

What evidence do you have that he knowingly stated that falsehood at the time of saying it?

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

#682

Post by edanm »

tripzilch wrote: post #678
edanm wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In theory you are correct. In practice, if 97% of society exclusvely uses said aggregator/community to find videos - 97% of your potential audience will never know the video exists - is that not still censorship? I mean... no? I think it's useful to have a separate concept for actual censorship (government-mandated), and just "someone built a really great way to connect to a bunch of users, that didn't exist 20 yea…

Government-mandated or capitalism-mandated? What's the meaningful difference? Well, maybe, historically, many governments have proven time and time again a meaningful capability to not simply turn Evil for many decades, centuries even. For corporations it seems utterly inevitable ; they either grow and become evil, or they don't grow and die. Which happens over the span of one or two decades at the most. Clearly, we…

I totally disagree.

For the most part, if I don't "do what YouTube/Google wants", then I'll just not use their products. If they want to "censor" me by not allowing me to post certain content, then I can put that content elsewhere.

On the other hand, if my government decides to censor me, they can force me to be quiet, either by monetary threats or physical threats. This is obviously much more of a deterrence.

> For corporations it seems utterly inevitable; they either grow and become evil, or they don't grow and die. Which happens over the span of one or two decades at the most.

Not really? Most corporations are not "evil", even if you choose to personify the corporation, which I think is a mistake.

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

#683

Post by pgt »

earenndil wrote: post #652
pgt wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, but we do know how to navigate the wilderness. You see, we built this city. We built it on ARP and IP. And we can build it again - next time with better foundations. The gatekeepers underestimate how long tastemakers are willing to go without them to discourage long-term bad behaviour. My only regret is that I did not contribute to building DuckDuckGo.

Who is 'we'? You know, and I know. Most users of youtube do not.

Yes, not everyone needs to need to invent the future to enjoy it. A few rogue engineers are enough.

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

#684

Post by zcid »

root_axis wrote: post #254
zcid wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about they disallow all the illegal content you are using as examples? Legal speech should not be censored.

What if I decide that the goal of my business is to create a platform that excludes particular perspectives I disagree with? Why should the government force me to host things I don't want to for free?

No problem. I don't see a problem with exclusionary platforms as long as they aren't using their extreme dominance in multiple areas to maintain a monopoly. I guess what I am looking for is a cap on wealth and power.

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

#685

Post by wvenable »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #650
wvenable wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I have with your argument is that your proposed solution is worse. And just because one holds a value most dearly doesn't mean that I'm willing to trample on the freedom of others to get it. Take your example: the community derides walled gardens. I personally dislike walled gardens and I move away from iPhones mainly because of that. There are plenty of ways that I feel that they're bad. But at the very…

Except this isn’t an accurate representation of what the alternative actually is, and it avoids acknowledging what the problems actually are. > Is YouTube really going to be required to host every piece of video published to it forever? This is a pretty blatant reductio ad absurdum. If YouTube want to clear out some of their content, they don’t have to exert editorial control to do so. Deleting every video that is mo…

> Deleting videos based on their content is.

What about spam? What about nudity? What about content designed to be denial of service? What about content that just isn't related to the purpose of the site?

> They’re a publisher that is deciding what content they want to publish. Expecting them to take responsibility for that isn’t trampling their freedom.

I think I've already clearly expressed why this isn't viable.

> The problem is that this situation has allowed a very small group to control most of the speech that takes place on the internet.

Your logic is that this exception has allowed for this but there is no logical connection here. If all publishers need to vet all user submitted content that doesn't preclude the possibility of there becoming a single large video site or large content site. What it does do is make small sites, like Hacker News, practically impossible.

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

#686

Post by whatshisface »

jmkni wrote: post #661
whatshisface wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may be applying an uneven standard by wanting to ban the speech that turns your stomach, but not the speech that turns the Corporate Overlord's stomachs. You could argue that hacking videos encourage computer crime - the counterargument would be that there are plenty of reasons to talk about something other than to actually encourage people to do it. In fact, Alex Jones' defense in one court case he was in was th…

Didn't Alex Jones basically dox the parents of dead children and encourage his viewers to phone them?!

He wanted the parents to research it for themselves, which usually means "Google around until you see some more conspiracy websites with the same story thereby becoming even more convinced." It's not entirely clear to me that he advocated for anything bad, although I will admit I don't watch his show. I do know that some of what people are repeating is not exactly true.

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

#687

Post by apatters »

makapuf wrote: post #630
apatters wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

It was also possible to use Windows to download alternatives to Internet Explorer.

Microsoft got into hot water not because Windows blocked alternatives, but because it gave preference to Microsoft's own browser. Which is something that is normally perfectly legal and fine, but under US antitrust law it stops being fine once you're the market leader.

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

#688

Post by [deleted] »

sjy wrote: post #554
lone_haxx0r wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All we're asking is to ban overt racism and calls to violence I agree that it's reasonable to ban "calls to violence", but the "overt racism " part is extremely subjective. Why is racism worse than hacking? I, based on my own principles, think racism is 'worse' than hacking, but most people's principles are completely different from mine, and I think a considerable part of the population thinks that hacking is mora…

Different people might have different views about whether "racism is worse than hacking," but that doesn't mean we just throw our hands up and concede that everyone is entitled to their own views. Explicitly racist policy still exists, and racism became socially unacceptable in the first world only very recently (in historical terms). But the fight against racist policy has partially succeeded in changing the world,…

[deleted]

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

#689

Post by vincent-toups »

dhritzkiv wrote: post #395
vincent-toups wrote: post #236

Time to plug MeansTV: http://means.tv/ Hardly politically neutral but also not owned by a giant corporation!

> Time to plug MeansTV: http://means.tv/ This appears to be a parked domain?

Sure is: https://means.media/

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

#690

Post by ummonk »

edanm wrote: post #648
Liquix wrote: post #117

Emperor G built a beautiful walled city, inviting everyone in, encouraging them to paint their houses whatever color they like. A year later, Big G banned blue houses. If you didn't like the rules, you were more than welcome to build your house outside the city and paint it whatever color you like. Only most people don't leave - blue is just one color and they weren't very interested in it anyway. Besides, the city i…

> In theory you are correct. In practice, if 97% of society exclusvely uses said aggregator/community to find videos - 97% of your potential audience will never know the video exists - is that not still censorship? I mean... no? I think it's useful to have a separate concept for actual censorship (government-mandated), and just "someone built a really great way to connect to a bunch of users, that didn't exist 20 yea…

There is nothing in the definition of "censorship" that implies it has to be government-mandated.

Also, you're free to leave the country if you don't like what it is censoring.

Post reply on HN