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

691–700 of 803 posts

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

#691

Post by int_19h »

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.

Is it really true about "vast majority"? In US, at least, it seems that the number of children with comorbidities such as obesity would actually be pretty high. You could argue that it's still a minority so long as it's under 50%, but I think that closing schools to protect, say, 20% of kids from a virus that can kill them is eminently reasonable.

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

#692

Post by const_cast »

_heimdall wrote: post #672
rat87 wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good. We should be praising Google for that decision. That made many bad ones but that seems obviously good and saved a number of lives

> obviously good and saved a number of lives You would really have to show your work on that claim. "Good" is a judgement call, it may be obviously good to one and obviously bad to another. Claiming that a number of lives were saved by aggressive YouTube censorship of specific content is also quite a claim. What is the number, and how can you show a direct link between censorship and any one life saved?

It's really quite simple, and we don't even require proof, just logic.

It's plainly true that less masking, less isolation, and less vaccination leads to increased risk of death or injury to Covid. Therefore, having more content promoting those things must lead to increased risk of death or injury to Covid.

We really don't need to over-intellectualize these things. Saying things that are just not true, which increases someone's risk, results in lives lost.

It would be the same as if I made a PSA telling people to not wear a seatbelt. Or to not wear sunscreen. But if I did that, there would be zero dispute, no? So I think we all understand the concept.

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

#693

Post by int_19h »

zanfr wrote: post #298
belorn wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since Swedish policy during covid, produced by medical professionals and researchers, was contrary to US policy during covid, this kind of information was also removed. You do not have this kind of disagreement within the professional field with bomb making materials. Pandemic prevention is an on-going research topic where a lot of different professionals has wild difference in views and approaches, and the meta stud…

Sweden is widely recognized as the example to absolutely not follow in handling pandemics. N95s (and above) definitely work, so does filtered air. But sweden has a long standing history of eugenics

> Sweden is widely recognized as the example to absolutely not follow in handling pandemics.

Is it? There were some very scathing attacks on their COVID policy back in the first two years of the pandemic, but when you look at more recent retrospectives that have the benefit of hindsight, it seems that they didn't actually do worse than countries which went full lockdown.

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

#694

Post by sfn42 »

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…

I'm not really disagreeing with you but I have a 700/700 fiber connection that generally works perfectly for anything I do, and youtube craps out pretty frequently. It'll just fail to load videos and I have to refresh up to multiple times before it starts working properly.

Also the frontend is generally very wonky, I'm wondering if its severely over engineered or something. It seems very simple, but it's failing at all kinds of stuff all the time. Shorts fail to load when scrolling, the scrolling just stops working, some times it keeps playing the previous video's audio while the current video is frozen.

Some times if I write a comment and try to highlight and delete some of it, when I hit backspace it deletes the part that wasn't highlighted. A normal does not do that. Have they implemented their own text inputs in JS or something? All you need for that component is a form with a textfield and a submit button. As far as I know that won't behave this way so I'm not sure what they're doing but it doesn't seem great.

I went and checked, it's a div. No idea why they would do that for that simple comment form.

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

#695

Post by amrocha »

npteljes wrote: post #684
amrocha wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a headline here the other day that Youtube Premium Lite will now have more ads. Eventually Premium will have ads too. It’s just a matter of time.

I don't think I can solve these problems that far ahead. Currently, and for some good years now, YT Premium has not had any Google ads. I think subscribing to it it's presently a good value, and that's about it. We are free to cancel our subscription and do whatever adblocking we can when the ads eventually come. I feel the outrage against the free YT, the free Spotify, and probably other services is misplaced, since…

You’re right that you can always cancel your subscription.

Personally it just feels kinda like buying time, so I’d rather have a more permanent solution.

The enshittification seems inevitable.

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

#696

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #413
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> If it is not against the law, it should be up. Does this mean it would be illegal for private platforms to take down legal content? All platforms or only those that are defacto public spaces?

I have no clearly defined strong feelings on that part of it yet. I am leaning towards the latter, but I honestly dislike the approach, because its a given that any factor used to determine what a public space is will be played with.

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

#697

Post by touristtam »

Glittergorp wrote: post #385
touristtam wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has continuously curbed free speech over the past few decades mmm do you have example at hand or you are just repeating this in the hope that other with voice the same opinion? The UK has a freedom of expression law: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part... 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart informati…

That law has so many caveats to it that it is essentially worthless.

I respectfully disagree with this assessment. A law is not an absolute boundary, but a societal construct—established collectively and open to reinterpretation as public consensus shifts. As such, it can be enforced as written or challenged and ultimately overturned. That doesn't make it worthless as a trial can lead to a confirmation of the rules considered.

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

#698

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 »

thrance wrote: post #438
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> As history has shown No the hell it didn't. When has policing nazi speech ever led to authoritarianism? It's quite the contrary, let the bigoted invade public space and you end up with a fascist government, like the one currently in the US, who won't give a fuck about your free speech. Paradox of tolerance [1]: > If a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks enabling the eventual dominance of…

Heh. You know what. I will let you figure it out on your own. I am ok with waiting.

I claim neither though. What I do claim, however, is that playing that game of whack-a-mole is not only a waste of time, but actually counter-productive. You may be able to pat yourself on the pack and quote paradox of intolerance at people until cows come home, but it won't change that simple reality. And I am ok with that too. Not that long ago, I was a little more annoyed with people devoting their limited lifespans unto that goal. Now I know better.

Correct.

With you so far.

Honestly, I have realized that no one is actually going to stop me from saying what I want to say.

Because, friend, in the words of one supreme court justice ( and ,I might add, opinion of a fair part of the legal community ) is that it typically is not nice people or nice speech that needs protecting. It is the assholes and the 'bad' speech. But just because they are assholes and 'bad' speech, does not make the rights not apply. Do you understand why?

If not, allow me to spell it out for you, because I do feel charitable today. It is because by undermining asshole speech, you undermine your own.

You do realize this is not a great argument right? You are supposed to be held to a higher standard. Just because an idiot does idiot things does not give you a license to be an idiot.

You tell me what you think is right. Clearly, it seems you don't like US version of legal speech already.

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

#699

Post by ajuc »

_heimdall wrote: post #669
ajuc wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

There's 200 countries. You can move. There's democracy in many of them - you can vote people out.

How many youtubes are there? How do I vote for the people running it?

I'm not conflating, I'm abstracting from artificial distinction designed to keep the loophole safe from regulation.

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

#700

Post by neilcj »

tshaddox wrote: post #677
brookst wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What then is the distinction between YouTube and a newspaper?

In your analogy, YouTube is the paperboy and the video producer is the newspaper.
Post reply on HN