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

731–740 of 803 posts

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

#731

Post by npteljes »

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #709
soraminazuki wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subscribe to Premium and pay ever-increasing prices [1][2][3] so that Google can track you better with you always being logged into an account with payment information attached. While still being exposed to ads for VPNs, cryptocurrency, scams [4], and more. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41626035 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36807803 [3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33279998 [4]: http…

Also sign yourself up for googles database of ‘people who will actually pay money if we annoy them enough’ meaning you’ll be a target demographic for future premium services

What exactly is the risk in that?

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

#732

Post by npteljes »

amrocha wrote: post #695
npteljes wrote: post #684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes to all points, and the subscription still makes sense. Why not make your life easier and less cognitively burdened for a few meager dollars per month? And then re-think the plan when you are uncomfortable with it in the future.

I understand the yearn for stability, but it's futile. With services, there is no permanence, and so it's unreasonable to expect such. Even the very legal and social structure that underpins it all is constantly shifting. I suggest a hybrid solution: really take part in systems that you find worthwhile, like YouTube. Pay for it so that you can feel you did your part. And take care of yourself with a plan B, in case plan A betrays you. For example, keep a public playlist with the videos you really don't want to lose, and sync them to your hard drive from time to time with yt-dlp.

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

#733

Post by npteljes »

soraminazuki wrote: post #704
npteljes wrote: post #684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I feel the outrage against the free YT, the free Spotify, and probably other services is misplaced No, it's not misplaced. - https://consumerrights.wiki/YouTube - https://consumerrights.wiki/Spotify

Nice lists!

But the outrage here is not about these, but about how "Stuff is pretty unwatchable now without them.", them being ad blockers.

One can decide that "okay, if you're not nice to me, I won't be nice to you as well". And that's fair. But then, the complaints of one party giving more hurt to the other doesn't make sense - they were in a fight to begin with. Then it's the name of the game. Ad blocking is a cat and mouse game in the first place, so if it looks like that the cat upgrades, so should the mouse.

Or, make all of this headache go away with YT Premium.

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

#734

Post by ajuc »

_heimdall wrote: post #712
ajuc wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Who controls the media - controls the population. Who controls the population controls the government.

Every democracy will become oligarchy eventually if we don't regulate social media. Most of them won't even be controlled domestically (because the media are global).

There's like 50 people who decide 99% of information people consume worldwide. Or at least what algorithm should decide.

These people know what power it gives. That's why it was worth it for Elon to buy Twitter. It was trading money for political power. And there's nothing anybody can do. This IS oligarchy.

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

#735

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 »

thrance wrote: post #719
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ar…

I am ok with that.

I am assuming a fair bit about your mental model of the world, but, ehkm, the United States of America.

Yes, freedom can be dangerous and scary. There are things I wish people did not do, but they do it anyway. As for the contributing, at best I can say that you are not being objective, reasonable or charitable with that statement.

Friend, you misunderstood. Not nazis, you. Hold you to a higher standard. We are expected to be better, because we know better ( or at least we should ). This is also why I am mildly amused, when the first cry I hear from people, when they see something online is to cry for more control of what they can see/say/do. It is beyond ridiculous.

We absolutely disagree on that point. Your "much further" is already ridiculous. It is simply not factually accurate. Not in the EU. Not in Germany. Not in GB.

Friend, we disagree. And that is ok. Know that I love you despite your deep character flaws.

edit: minor edits for syntax/grammar

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

#737

Post by extraduder_ire »

hbn wrote: post #551
fer wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh? Veo 3 is arguably the result of owning YouTube and tapping into its content. No need to torrent much if you store the largest amount of footage on Earth.

The Veo demos I saw all looked like Hollywood productions. Not like YouTube videos which are 99% garbage you wouldn't want to train off of.

If you want to use content-ID on youtube, you need to upload a copy of your content to youtube itself.

Both legit and illicit, there's all types of videos on youtube.

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

#738

Post by shakna »

roenxi wrote: post #728
shakna wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So are you talking about your neighbours and relatives here? Like someone next door tried feeding someone else alcohol when their spouse got COVID? What actually happened? > People weren't listening to PhDs getting banned. They were listening to influencers get banned. I'm a people, you know.

People died. [0] I'm not talking anecdotes, because that's pointless when discussing why a company acts.

[0] https://www.ajtmh.org/view/journals/tpmd/103/4/article-p1621...

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

#739

Post by npodbielski »

kassner wrote: post #612
npodbielski wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sorry but what kind od argument is this? Do what Google told you to do or it will retaliate? Are you talking about some dystopian overlord? Your statement alone should force your to rethink what you are doing and change your online behaviour.

Haven’t you seen people getting their Google accounts banned out of the blue? Haven’t you seen the great lengths that YouTube goes (in terms of content control) to please its advertisers? Haven’t you seen the cat-and-mouse fight between YouTube and yt-dlp (and similars)? There is no “if”, but only a “when” for all of those things will be connected. It’s naïve to think you can make YouTube not get paid without them tr…

Of course I have seen it. This is exactly what I meant. If you are doing something because you are afraid of 'retaliation' you should not use those services at all. For anything.

You can be afraid of heights or earthquake or driving fast on mountain roads. Not google. For all that is holy: corporation should not make you afraid of doing something.

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

#740

Post by thrance »

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #735
thrance wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ar…

I am ok with that. I am assuming a fair bit about your mental model of the world, but, ehkm, the United States of America. Yes, freedom can be dangerous and scary. There are things I wish people did not do, but they do it anyway. As for the contributing, at best I can say that you are not being objective, reasonable or charitable with that statement. Friend, you misunderstood. Not nazis, you. Hold you to a higher sta…

Please stop it with your insufferable patronizing. This whole conversation is a waste of time.

You keep ignoring the basic material fact that respecting fascists' free speech is a sure path to losing it for everyone, as is the case in the US, and in many places before it.

You suggest nothing except "holding oneself to a higher standard" (whatever could that mean?). Can this help you face ICE agents when they abduct you in the streets and ship you to a foreign black site?

> I am assuming a fair bit about your mental model of the world, but, ehkm, the United States of America.

Ok, you're completely deluded. Do you seriously think hate speech policing was what led to Trump's government?? Fascists have been able to say whatever they want for ages now in this country.

Post reply on HN