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

751–760 of 803 posts

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

#751

Post by Xelbair »

DoctorOW wrote: post #516
Xelbair wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

does bandaid help for broken arm or cancer? Censorship makes things worse, by entrenching different group - it's just that you like that one.

Bandages are very common, even at hospitals. The solution isn't just to pretend nothing's wrong until the patient bleeds to death. There's other steps here too, I continue to advocate for education and culture shift. I've spoken specifically to both the public and lawmakers about the importance of inclusion. The work isn't done. Don't get me wrong, YouTube is deeply flawed in its implementation of moderation. The web…

I've just seen too much abuse stemming from censorship, including second hand accounts(From friends and family) of people getting dissapeared due to it.

as soon as you propose me a system that will stop such abuse and have censorship i'll concede.

but for now it seems like moderating free speech(which in itself is already an ironical statement) is just marginalizing groups which have genuine concerns - and push them further and further to the extremes. It's like sweeping problems under the rug, and you lose all the signals of problems in soceity as a policymaker.

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

#752

Post by kassner »

npodbielski wrote: post #739
kassner wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I should have used different words. I wouldn’t care much about using yt-dlp, as I barely use Google and would survive an account ban. Other family members _in the same household_ could be immensely more affected by my actions.

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

#753

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 »

thrance wrote: post #740
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #735

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

Interesting. I suppose I was not wrong with my assumptions. More to the point, what do you think led to Trump's government?

You have some sort of a point which broadly happens to coincide with one the previous one's I have made. But I won't offer a rebuttal before you answer the question in the first paragraph.

You seem frazzled. My personal recommendation is to take a step back and reconsider your argument. I will offer a minor response here so you do not feel ignored. None of this should be a surprise to anyone, who has been paying attention. I will add that it does not escape me that current set of circumstances would not be quite so easily generated were it not for the oh so helpful hands of those, who cheerfully signed up for being able to silence dissent. Great job there.

I hate to repeat myself for fear of people accusing me of being formulaic, but what do you think it means?

Hmm? I deal with people as they are; warts and all. You seem to want to live in alternate reality pretending they ( and their opinions ) don't exist and have no bearing on you. I honestly do not think I am the one ignoring things. All I can say is, good luck.

What would you like me to do instead?

I honestly disagree. I mean, maybe it was for you, but I did derive something useful from it.

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

#754

Post by hsbauauvhabzb »

npteljes wrote: post #748
soraminazuki wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need an explanation for why people don't want to be extorted?

Yes, please. I need explanation why "you’ll be a target demographic for future premium services" is a threat to any Premium subscriber in any way.

Because google sell more than just YouTube premium.

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

#755

Post by npteljes »

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #754
npteljes wrote: post #748

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, please. I need explanation why "you’ll be a target demographic for future premium services" is a threat to any Premium subscriber in any way.

Because google sell more than just YouTube premium.

But what is the risk? What is the potential downfall, that I am helping with the Premium subscription?

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

#756

Post by Rebelgecko »

philistine wrote: post #614
sp0ck wrote: post #107

This is mass problem with almost any topic you want to share. I'm sport shooter, range officer and competition jury. You have no idea what crazy stunts YouTube do for Gun/Sport Shooting related content. YT terms containt some weirdest restriction for things like "shown magazine capacity". Wrong angle on video and your 10 round mag is seen by YouTube as 30 round and your video is gone. You can show silencer disconnect…

Are you aware that gun laws are not the same around the world and that YouTube likes to enjoy revenue worldwide? I see all the rules you describe as an American company trying to marry the gun culture of the US with the far more reserved stance of the rest of the world.

Much of the world actually has less restrictive rules on silencers than the US, I think in a lot of European countries they're regulated comparably to or even law then firearms. I think the restrictions are more closely tied to the state where YouTube is based than to the overall gun laws of any particular country.

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

#757

Post by mbac32768 »

logifail wrote: post #313
peterclary wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you don't care about those people, what about the people who would be affected by them? A would-be bomb-maker might only blow themselves up, or they may kill many in a crowd. Somebody walking around with a deadly pathogen infects and kills others. Children die because their parents believe in anti-vax nonsense. Individual freedom ends at the point at which it causes real harm to other people. Also, you know w…

> Children die because their parents believe in anti-vax nonsense Do we know how many otherwise healthy children caught Covid and died from it? My impression from the official figures is that in most countries the number is vanishingly small if not zero.

In my state it was 2.

The absolute number.

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

#758

Post by hsbauauvhabzb »

npteljes wrote: post #755
hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #754

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because google sell more than just YouTube premium.

But what is the risk? What is the potential downfall, that I am helping with the Premium subscription?

- they start using per-person pricing or continually increase the cost now that they know a nag > purchase workflow works

- that they start applying per-person based costs to other searches (just because gmail is free for me, maybe your account has ‘reached a maximum usage’ and now you must pay, or they just drop storage limits of free to 500kb)

- that they plug that data into their analytics platform and sell the information that you personally will purchase services if nagged enough

Should I continue?

To add, I think the biggest difference here is google is actively engineering detection mechanisms for ublock, and then nagging users who use ublock, most of the people who use ublock probably wouldn’t pay for premium. I’d sooner pay for floatplane than do that.

Edit: and all that in conjunction with abusing their browser monopoly control to reduce the effectiveness of ublock and similar plugins.

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

#759

Post by nobody9999 »

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #198
Lutger wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how one necessarily leads to the other. There's obviously already filtering going on in youtube, even before covid, on illegal content and also on legal content that is against the policy (adult content for example). How is Covid desinfo during the pandemic suddenly a slippery slope for anti-competitive measures, while all the other moderation measures aren't? Whats so special about anti covid desinfo rul…

> Whats so special about anti covid desinfo rules? - The magnitude of content involved. - The fact that there exists a significant part of the society which is vocal about not endorsing these particular deletions. - The fact that many people became aware of the moderation ("censorship") that YouTube does and its power. - The fact that these COVID information videos (despite being perhaps wrong) formed important patte…

I respect that view. And I think you (and anyone else who shares that view) should be able to access any legal content, should they wish to do so.

That said, what does what you or I think have to do with YouTube's policies?

If you disagree with some or all of their policies (I certainly do), you are free not to use YouTube.

I tend not to use that site because I don't like ads and I don't like being spied upon.

No one is stopping you or anyone else from creating a platform for the topic(s) you'd like to see disseminated and discussed.

Or is it (and I'm not saying it is) your contention that YouTube should be required to provide both hosting and ad monetization to everyone, without regard to the content of those hosted videos?

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

#760

Post by _heimdall »

const_cast wrote: post #725
_heimdall wrote: post #713

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 particip…

> 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. Well... they exist. All the covid vaccines were tried against placebo, and I mean true placebo as in saline. But even if you're distrustful of that it's just common sense. I don't want to get the flu. Okay, the less people I'm around the lower the chance I have…

> Well... they exist. All the covid vaccines were tried against placebo, and I mean true placebo as in saline. But even if you're distrustful of that it's just common sense.

Are you referring to the original vaccine trials? I don't remember them being compared against a saline control, but maybe I'm misremembering there.

What I do remember is that they were only run for roughly 4 weeks before unblinding the results and losing any chance at studying the long term affects, both good and bad, of the injections. I also remember that those trials were only converting symptomatic infection during that short period and could tell us nothing of transmissibility. When it came to the children studies, the one study I found proper results for tested the vaccine on 30 children before it was approved for use of kids down to something like 2 years old.

Seatbelts are a whole different thing in my opinion. We do know that seatbelts work, but they work specifically at protecting the person that decides to put one on. I have never understood why we legally mandate seatbelt use when it only helps or hurts the individual using it.

Post reply on HN