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

691–700 of 701 posts

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

#691

Post by intopieces »

homonculus1 wrote: post #161
intopieces wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The correlation between the digital town square and the physical one is often cited but tenuous at best. Other video streaming sites exist. Moving to them is a click away - no need to pack up your family and put a deposit down.

The digital town square is where the people are at. Moving to other streaming sites is more like having your expression relegated to some dusty back road. If YouTube wants to be editor over the content they host, then they ought to be subject to the same liabilities as a publisher. If they want to be considered a platform then should be forced to remain neutral. The conflation of these mutually exclusive roles serves…

Freedom of Speech is not the Obligation to be Heard, nor is it the Freedom to Exploit Private Businesses to Promote Your Opinion.

The case cited was one where a piece of land was being used, passively, by individuals requiring no unique support or upkeep by owner in order for the plaintiffs to enjoy those freedoms. To make it relevant to YouTube, the court would have had to rule that the private business was required to provide shade, iced tea in sweet and unsweet varieties, as well as free megaphones.

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

#692

Post by hjek »

emiliobumachar wrote: post #277
Rooster61 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot the part about how Emperor G would come and burn your house to the ground if you tried to build outside the city because building houses was his idea. But wait, they didn't invent building houses. But Arbiter W lives in the walled city and the Emperor gives him gifts. Arbiter W considers Emperor G to be the person who owns the idea of building houses, and Aribter W is the one that sent the arsons out to yo…

I'm sorry, this just flew over my head. What is this analogy about? Is Google DoS'ing third party websites? Deranking them? Suing for patent infringement? Who's W?

Not OP, but reminded me of the X-Plane developer who was sued for publishing an app to Google Play[0].

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4523380

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

#693

Post by AnthonyMouse »

lucb1e wrote: post #651
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the suggested replacement is something the government operates No. That is the exact opposite of helpful. What you need is something that nobody/everybody operates, in the style of email. A protocol (like SMTP), not a platform (like Facebook). A government could usefully fund the development of such a thing though.

I like your idea since it would mean more self-hosting and decentralisation, but I'm afraid it's the much more complicated way of doing things, and if it could ever happen, I'm not sure it can anymore given that we already have these platforms and especially the USA government would never shut them down, citing economic and national security (everyone's data now has to pass through the USA) reasons.

"More complicated" isn't really the issue. It's the same amount of complicated as email and people use that. And people use it by mostly using gmail and other big providers -- but that's not really a problem as long as setting up your own and still communicating with everybody who uses gmail continues to be an option. It means Google can kick you off of gmail but they can't kick you off of email.

> especially the USA government would never shut them down, citing economic and national security (everyone's data now has to pass through the USA) reasons.

On the other hand, it means every other government has every incentive to make the alternate succeed so that doesn't happen. How about the EU take that fine money they've been sucking out of Google and use it to fund a solid free competing social media protocol implementation.

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

#694

Post by analognoise »

alasdair_ wrote: post #657
analognoise wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your local auto parts store prices oil lower than a mechanic can get it for, just to bring people in the door to sell them other items. This is a well known tactic; these items are called "loss leaders". The fact that in this environment other people have successfully made video sharing websites (without a billion dollars, no less) means that the environment is competitive, even with the loss leader tactic. On TOP of…

>Your local auto parts store prices oil lower than a mechanic can get it for Why doesn't the mechanic just buy their oil from the auto parts store?

They do! But they charge you full retail price on the bill, without the loss leader pricing.

If you've ever had an oil change and thought, "I can get oil for less" - you're right.

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

#698

Post by jquery »

perl4ever wrote: post #509
jquery wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been saying for a while that we'll get to the point where anyone fighting for Free Speech will get painted as a racist because the censors will claim "free speech is a racist idea" and it appears we're pretty close. How much of our classic liberty are we willing to lose in the pursuit of tribalism? The retort I hear when I complain about censorship is "haha you conservatives used to love the free market", not re…

Free speech has become a meaningless slogan since it's now used as if there was a wide consensus against all property rights. But nobody is against property rights, just property rights of other people , maybe. I support your right to perform necessary bodily functions, just not on my living room carpet. I wouldn't say that's "tribalistic", more like "territorial".

I think we've had a wide consensus against commercial property "rights" since the Civil Rights Act, and probably long before that, but I'm not a historian. AT&T doesn't get to listen to my calls to decide whether carrying them on their network is good for their brand. The big tech companies shouldn't get to claim they're a platform and then arbitrarily censor whoever they want without any due process.

It's 2019 and everyone talks online, it's time to stop pretending that the public sidewalk is the only place people have a right to protest. Telling someone they have to go use gab.ai (which is blocked on both on both app stores and has had its payment systems pulled) is like telling a sidewalk protestor they have the right to protest as long as it's somewhere in the wilderness where they will not be discovered, alongside the other miscreants who have a beef.

Nobody has ever been against the right of people to protest in invisible places, even China lets you do that. It's like the old saw, that Stalinist Russia had free speech as long as you were praising the party or nobody could hear you.

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

#699

Post by TheOperator »

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…

Who cares about 97% of society? They can enjoy their shit.

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

#700

Post by drak0n1c »

jjulius wrote: post #306
drak0n1c wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They post the entire unedited footage soon after the initial reveal, for years now. That's much better than CNN, MSNBC, Fox, late night shows, etc. Should the findings of muckrakers be discarded because the practice of muckraking is dishonorable?

And how many times (ACORN, NPR, etc.) have the full versions of those videos shown something different than what the edited versions portrayed? It's been six days since the "initial reveal"[1] of the video and documents (which, if you read them, are incredibly unbiased). Care to share a link to the entire unedited footage of these new interviews? [1] https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whis...

Here is a rebuttal to the claim of persistent misleading editing, and also an expose of how outlets such as the Washington Post deliberately engaged in purposefully misleading edits in their coverage of the incidents you name: https://youtu.be/_6SPN03SxM8
Post reply on HN