Live data from Hacker News

Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

jeffgeerling.com

761–770 of 803 posts

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

#761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

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

What leads to fascism? Discontent stemming from decades of neoliberalist policies, that left many impoverished and without social nets to catch them. Neoliberalism doesn't sell anymore, so the choice is now between social-democracy and far right populism. Guess which one the capital class preferred and championed? Same story as always.

What do you think led to Trump's government? Cancel culture? Don't be ridiculous.

> 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 feel like you are victim blaming here. Do you mean to say that ICE's behavior is a consequence of a will to hold people accountable hate speech?

ICE makes use of new tools that were created under the current administration. They make no use of prior laws that may have been diverted from their original purposes.

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

I think you mean something like "they go low, we go high", which is a terrible idea in my experience.

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

#762
post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By then we will have real-time AI detectors to identify and remove ads. Begun, the LLM ad wars have.

Laws of thermodynamics suggest it will be easier for ad companies to find a way to spam you, than for you to bypass all of their ads. These real-time AI detectors cannot be very cheap to run/train.

If a human can tell what content is an ad (which is also required to be disclosed by the platform anyway), then an AI should be able to detect it fairly easily too.

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

#763
post #447
post #423

I'm just waiting for the day Youtube permanently blocks me from using an adblocker. It's so kind of them to at least make me wait for 5 seconds to acknowledge that using an adblocker is illegal.

It's illegal? Under what laws I wonder?

I think they mean YouTube says in their anti-Adblock popup that it's against their terms of service.

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

#764
post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. A family member of mine had a helpful amount of income coming in from a channel of his that was gaining momentum. The point of the channel was to teach gun safety to people new to guns. Keep in mind that where we live, all of this is 100% legal and even encouraged, yet, YouTube threw so many ridiculous barriers in the way that he could not create much content That didn't end up getting removed. He eventually…

But the tech companies all replaced the gun emoji with a squirt gun like a decade ago, I thought all gun violence ended after that?

Emojis being so sterile is so funny from the perspective of human communication. The fact that there isn't an 18+ pack and shit like eggplant and water spray get co-opted to fill the gap is such puritan thinking. There's such a fundamental disconnect with the standards bodies and implementers about what real people actually want to say to one another.

At least with letters we're free to say and invent words as we see fit but emojis have to be filtered by companies that consider ketchup to be spicy. You can say the most fucked up sexual shit with letters no problem but an emoji butt would be a bridge too far.

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

#765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

> Interesting. I suppose I was not wrong with my assumptions. More to the point, what do you think led to Trump's government? What leads to fascism? Discontent stemming from decades of neoliberalist policies, that left many impoverished and without social nets to catch them. Neoliberalism doesn't sell anymore, so the choice is now between social-democracy and far right populism. Guess which one the capital class pref…

It is an interesting question and we may be actually getting to a more interesting piece of this conversation ( I was mildly concerned we will not be able to get there ). I think opportunity met an opportunist, but that may be tad too glib. Allow me to elaborate as it partially builds on what you wrote.

Way back when I remember going on a mini vacation driving through some states, which included Ohio, West Virginia and few others. I think that was before Trump was elected the first time, but just after Vance started to promote his memoir on just about every show ( not a bad read, I might add ). I had good time overall despite seeing some of the things Vance talked about on that road trip. Probably the saddest thing I saw was a sign saying 'save us Trump'. Chappelle picked up on that too in one of his bits, but I digress.

Why do I mention it? After first Trump win, all the networks tried to do attempt some soul searching with added bonus of melodramatic hand wringing ( whether it was sincere or theater, I leave up to you to interpret ) on how could this have happened, and, amusingly, Vance actually said the why with a simple 'can you hear us now?'. That was obviously in ancient times when CNN thought Vance was a good guy and therefore could be allowed to make such brazen statements.

My subtle point is that folks were already desperate then. The discontent is not discontent anymore. It likely borders on barely contained anger since, to your point, policies did not change much despite, seemingly, party colors changing at the White House.

Having wrote all of the above, I can give you that 'cancel culture' as you chose to frame it was not a sole reason for that anger, but I think you severely underestimate the very human need for a safety valve. Hell, systems' need for a safety valve. Believe it or not, soviet communists understood that fairly well. It is possible it was just one more thing that pushed some over the edge.

I will be mildly blunt. I don't really care how you feel. For every action, there is a reaction. In that sense, human interactions are practically newtonian. I get that you may be sad that I told you your very own actions and stances may be the culprit for the issues you rail against now, but the sooner you recognize this, the sooner you can make reasonable adjustments. Or not.

I have three questions for you. And? So? What? Every single power center is pushing in their own direction for their own benefit using every tool at their disposal. None of this is new. Narrow facts may be different, but the basic principle remains the same. And you focus on what? Theater.

You might not be wrong here. However, I would like you to entertain the alternative, because I am not sure you did that in any kind of serious way. "They go low, we go high" at its core is adherence to the existing standard, which is basically what the society is built around. If you tell me that standard is degrading. Maybe the degradation does not quite make it null and void, but it further erodes existing standards eventually leading to societal collapse and a vacuum and I hope that you do understand that humans are not exactly great in a vacuum.

If you see me arguing for status quo, this is exactly the reason.

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

#766
post #734

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

An oligarchy is only one of many outcomes. We could end up with a totalitarian state, feudalism, or a monarchy to name a few.

I do agree, though, that media plays a large role and (should) hold a strong responsibility for where we end up.

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

#767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 in…

I get your concerns, but I see it in a different way. I think we are at risk either way.

I think when people are actually vulnerable is when they are using an account-based service, for free. In your example, Gmail. If Google is being a bitch about my Premium service, I will just not pay it, and move on with my life. What does someone do when Google is being a bitch to them with Gmail? Do they change their email at all 100 places they have given their email to, just to resist a small monthly subscription for example, or ads or whatever? So if talking about risk, I'd rather look there.

Wrt ublock, similar deal. They would do that anyways. It's just unimaginable that such a power position as Google's wouldn't get abused.

Bottom line, I don't see how it's a bad thing paying them when they actually offer a paid service. I rather wish that these venture capital magic money free services would go away instead. Services should have a cost, and users should pay those costs as directly as possible. The weird things happen from all the indirections providers employ.

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

#768
post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By then we will have real-time AI detectors to identify and remove ads. Begun, the LLM ad wars have.

Laws of thermodynamics suggest it will be easier for ad companies to find a way to spam you, than for you to bypass all of their ads. These real-time AI detectors cannot be very cheap to run/train.

They have a financial incentive to bypass our LLM ad-blockers but visual recognition is a fairly milquetoast function for LLMs even today. They will attempt to present ads in an unusual way to fool the models; the models will get updated; they will change their tactics again. It's the same cat and mouse game we play today but fought with LLM models instead. I'm confident we win such a fight.

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

#769
post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I have de-Googled my family - at least for the most part. The hardest part was Gmail. Hundreds of services and accounts relied on that email address for 2FA. If I were to be blocked from it, I would be screwed. So I bought a domain and spent the next couple of years migrating everything to it. Pain in the ass, but now no one can ever ban me from my own email address. Worst case scenario my provider blocks…

Just a suggestion but make the canary/alias less obvious. Companies caught onto this and are treating aliases with their name in it as "fraud" which is of course a load of crap. That is how tractor supply stole a gift card from me so I have turned many of their customers away from them and they have lost exponentially more than they stole from me. So now I use realistic looking aliases and just have my own lookup tab…

Thanks for the heads up. It hasn't caused me any issues yet but if it does, I will think long and hard about whether I want to use that service.

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

#770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I have de-Googled my family - at least for the most part. The hardest part was Gmail. Hundreds of services and accounts relied on that email address for 2FA. If I were to be blocked from it, I would be screwed. So I bought a domain and spent the next couple of years migrating everything to it. Pain in the ass, but now no one can ever ban me from my own email address. Worst case scenario my provider blocks…

takeout.google.com backs up watch history, google maps locations (probably)

The problem is not saving my data, it's losing access to the email account. I have hundreds of accounts like trading, social media, forums, GitHub, media, etc, which require access to my email account for 2FA. If I lose access to my email accounts, I lose access to those accounts. Some might be recoverable with a lot of effort, but many would be gone forever.
Post reply on HN