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

711–720 of 803 posts

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

#711

Post by imgabe »

einsteinx2 wrote: post #666
imgabe wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That’s the one

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt15028452/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk

There is a sequel, but I haven’t watched it yet

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

#712

Post by _heimdall »

ajuc wrote: post #699
_heimdall wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can move countries, I've done it myself. You can't escape the control of whatever single government claims authority over the land you live on though, and you likely can't/won't move to land that isn't claimed by a single government.

YouTube can censor what they want, you don't have to use it and they can't send police or military after you. You can't move to a land where a single government has control and can send police or military to impose their will on you.

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

#713

Post by _heimdall »

const_cast wrote: post #692
_heimdall wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 increase…

> It's plainly true that less masking, less isolation, and less vaccination leads to increased risk of death or injury to Covid.

When you say this is plainly true, how do you back that up exactly? I am unaware of any control tests that would prove out those claims with high certainty.

Our vaccine tests done during the pandemic also not focused on risk of death or injury, they were focused on the frequency of participants notifying of symptoms.

> 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.

I don't see it as over intellectualizing. To claim something is not true requires knowing what is true. We still can't make such claims on many of the pandemic issues, but in the middle of it we absolutely couldn't make such claims.

We also can't make an assumption that a claim being false directly leads to deaths. I can make plenty of false claims that would have absolutely no impact on anything, to say such claims must have led to deaths is ridiculous.

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

#714

Post by _heimdall »

slg wrote: post #557
_heimdall wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should Youtube be obligated to host hardcore porn or gory violence? YouTube can decide to host, or not host, whatever it wants. The challenge is with unclear terms of use. They have a habit of taking down videos with little or no reason given, and it isn't clear what terms the video content would have violated. Of course they can draw their own lines, but they should be clear and consistent.

>but they should be clear and consistent. As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously said in Jacobellis v. Ohio [1], "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not…

In my opinion that's a better argument against the usefulness of a supreme court than it is a justification for allowing leeway in censorship.

The justice is claiming that said illegal content cannot be described or identified in law, that it must be up to a judge to make that call. Such a system is insane to those being ruled by it - we can't know if we are breaking the law, but at any time a judge could decide of their own accord that we are.

We must live under a system of laws that can be comprehensible enough for a reasonable person to be able to tell when they cross the line and are likely breaking the law.

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

#715

Post by _heimdall »

shakna wrote: post #519
_heimdall wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Disinformation got people killed Back this up with data if you want to keep stating this as fact. How do you know know disinformation got people killed, and what specifically are you defining as disinformation?

Hundreds verifiably died, after following misinformation [0]. And I would define misinformation as claiming something has health benefits, when very clearly, it will kill you. Like when Gary Lenius believed that hydrochloroquine was a cure. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-52731624

> A BBC team tracking coronavirus misinformation has found links to assaults, arsons and deaths. And experts say the potential for indirect harm caused by rumours, conspiracy theories and bad health information could be much bigger.

The claims in the article, which is notably from very early in the pandemic, are focused mainly on looting, rioting, etc.

There are also stories of people poisoning themselves with household cleaners that they believed to be doses of hydroxychloroquine sulfate.

I'm not sure how that's relevant though, they were dosing themselves with household chemicals based on what they heard from the then (and unfortunately now) president who notably has no medical background.

If a person says advil is useful for headaches and someone is harmed when they take a whole bottle, I wouldn't blame the first person for that decision and I definitely wouldn't begin to say speech should have been censored to avoid it.

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

#716

Post by _heimdall »

strangattractor wrote: post #601
_heimdall wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Disinformation got people killed Back this up with data if you want to keep stating this as fact. How do you know know disinformation got people killed, and what specifically are you defining as disinformation?

In March 2020, an Arizona man died and his wife was hospitalized after ingesting chloroquine phosphate, a substance used in fish tanks to clean aquariums, in an attempt to prevent or treat COVID-19. They reportedly mixed the substance with liquid and drank it, experiencing immediate effects. The man's wife told NBC News she had seen televised briefings where President Trump discussed the potential benefits of chloroq…

I don't like the president, but I don't remember seeing him say to take chloroquine phosphate tablets. I definitely heard him say that he though hydroxychloroquine might me a possible treatment, presumably referring to hydroxychloroquine sulfate tablets.

More importantly though, the then (and unfortunately now) president isn't a doctor and didn't directly tell people to take it. If a person heard that and decided to eat a bottle of pills meant for a fish tank, I don't know who we could lay blame on other than the person that made that choice.

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

#717

Post by shakna »

roenxi wrote: post #705
shakna wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if we assume that's true (everything I've seen says it isn't), then a sole individual always affects others. Humans do not exist as lone monks in the hills, generally speaking. When they are ill, it affects their workplaces, it affects their families, it affects their friends. When they die, it's worse - it affects all of those, but also has tail effects on the health industry. Nothing you do, ever, is in isolat…

I mean, ok. Everything is connected to everything else, true enough. That seems a bit vague. Do you have a specific example to illustrate what you are talking about? Because the 'disinformation' that I saw being banned was typically people with PhDs in vaguely related fields talking about scientific papers. Disagreeing with them seems like a fair play, deplatforming them seems actually damaging. If I can't listen to…

The disinformation I saw turned into accidental deaths. By attempting to treate the virus with alcohol, horse tranquilisers, and more. And those deaths are verified.

People weren't listening to PhDs getting banned. They were listening to influencers get banned.

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

#718

Post by brigandish »

Defletter wrote: post #318
brigandish wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're leaving out that he travelled across the country to burn it outside Turkish consulate in London What's the relevance? You can burn a Quran without anyone knowing but if anyone knows then it's forbidden and criminal?

Not to be glib, but yes, that's what Public Order Offences are . Society and law exists so that we can co-exist, and people going out of their way to be offensive and provocative by, say, setting things on fire in a public space and saying hateful things... yeah, that's eminently antisocial. If you want to frame this as criminality coming from mere knowledge, you can do that, but you're obscuring context... you're li…

Offense is taken, not given. Unless it's harassment or assault (both forms of violence) then the response to speech should always be either speech in return, or to ignore it, not to use violence - either through the state's monopoly, in this case via the police, or through vigilante action.

To say using one's freedom of conscience and freedom of expression is beyond the childish "cringe", it's illiberal, dogmatic, and authoritarian.

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

#719

Post by thrance »

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #698
thrance wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

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

Please, enlighten me. Tell me of a place that went from functional democracy, then started policing hate speech and ended up a totalitarian state because of it.

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

Uh, good for you I guess? But what do you even mean by that? That you are magically immune to censorship? Because you aren't.

> 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.

Literally why should I hold nazis to a higher standard? You seem oblivious to the very real danger of far right extremism. Being charitable to nazis is how they get into power, and how you actually lose your freedom.

Those aren't just "idiots" or "assholes", they're very dangerous people, and have nothing good to contribute to society. Tolerating their behavior for too long is how you get masked ICE agents abducting American citizens in broad daylight.

> It is because by undermining asshole speech, you undermine your own.

This is simply not true. Look at how hate speech is implemented in European society. There are clear, legal boundaries. Simply being an asshole online does not get you censored. You have to go much, much further.

That is the slippery slope fallacy. Policing neonazi activity today doesn't lead to censorship of all political opponents tomorrow.

To the contrary, controlling nazi speech and other hateful ideologies helps guaranteeing the perennity of the freedom (of speech, and others) of the rest of the citizenship.

If you reject this basic idea, I fear we have nothing more to exchange.

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

#720

Post by Latty »

Izkata wrote: post #671
Latty wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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 with no due process anyone can be targeted. Reread what they quoted. The statement as a whole is not true, he was correcting the latter part of it that made it false.

What latter part? They did not get due process. They were targeted for their speech, the administration explicitly said so. The post-hoc rationalisation by claiming they are gang members with laughable evidence (mostly having completely and obviously unrelated tattoos) doesn't mean it wasn't for speech, and without due process they can grab anyone and make that claim without any proof.
Post reply on HN