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

791–800 of 803 posts

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

#791

Post by freedomben »

const_cast wrote: post #781
Mawr wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Guns are not safe. No matter what you do, accidents will happen. By that reasoning, nothing is safe. Not a useful statement. Guns are certainly safer than e.g. cars - you control everything about your gun, but have no control over the environment you drive in. > I don’t think Youtube is the place to look for education, and neither does youtube apparently. Then you're horribly wrong of course. Youtube just hosts vid…

> By that reasoning, nothing is safe. Not a useful statement. The difference is, I think, that guns are specifically designed to be destructive. Their purpose is to kill things, and not only is that their purpose, it's actually their only purpose. They can't do anything else. This is in direct contrast to, well, everything. Knives, automobiles, you name it.

> The difference is, I think, that guns are specifically designed to be destructive. Their purpose is to kill things, and not only is that their purpose, it's actually their only purpose. They can't do anything else.

Strange, I've been to the shooting range maybe hundreds of times in my life and I've never seen anything killed (or even injured), and a siginificant number of people got a lot of enjoyment and entertainment out of it. Perhaps alumnimun cans, plastic bottles, and paper targets are actually alive?

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

#792

Post by Defletter »

brigandish wrote: post #784
Defletter wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Assault is a very old law with a lot of case law behind it (that is the answer to the who decides) that is very easy to understand As too with hate speech, or rather, speech that is considered harmful to society. Blasphemy used to be amongst that list but we have since moved on from the state protecting the majority from religious affront to instead protecting vulnerable minorities from attack and dehumanisation. H…

> "punishing those who act violently because of their supposed hurt feelings?" comment. I have my suspicions on who you're referring to and > Who precisely are you talking about here? Don't hide behind implication, name them. Are the same question. His name is Moussa Kadri[0], the person who brandished the weapon ( actus reus )in order to physically harm another ( mens rea ). The man he attacked, the one whom you wou…

It was already getting tiresome responding to you, but now that you're comparing harmful speech with the "but what was she wearing", I've about had enough. Let me know when a woman's short skirt leads to the systematic extermination of millions. It seems you have no comprehension that speech can be harmful, until suddenly it is (assault and harassment). Such a binary worldview is catastrophic to civil society (again, see America). Have a nice day.

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

#793

Post by brigandish »

Defletter wrote: post #792
brigandish wrote: post #784

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "punishing those who act violently because of their supposed hurt feelings?" comment. I have my suspicions on who you're referring to and > Who precisely are you talking about here? Don't hide behind implication, name them. Are the same question. His name is Moussa Kadri[0], the person who brandished the weapon ( actus reus )in order to physically harm another ( mens rea ). The man he attacked, the one whom you wou…

It was already getting tiresome responding to you, but now that you're comparing harmful speech with the "but what was she wearing", I've about had enough. Let me know when a woman's short skirt leads to the systematic extermination of millions. It seems you have no comprehension that speech can be harmful, until suddenly it is (assault and harassment). Such a binary worldview is catastrophic to civil society (again,…

> Let me know when a woman's short skirt leads to the systematic extermination of millions

You seem to be unaware of the violence, subjugation and rape that women are experiencing in societies, en masse, where that logical form is prevalent and accepted. Or, you're waving it away because, like all collectivists, the rights of any group are ignored in the "progression" towards utopia. The ends justify the means.

> Such a binary worldview is catastrophic to civil society (again, see America)

You mean, that place that, since its inception, unlike the rest of the world except for the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ (what could link those, I wonder?) and the Swiss, that has never had a totalitarian or fascist government? The one with among the greatest freedoms on the entire planet?

Good discussion.

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

#794

Post by raxxorraxor »

hshdhdhj4444 wrote: post #371
w14 wrote: post #59

This is the problem I had with all the content removal around Covid. It never ends with that one topic we may not be unhappy to see removed. From another comment: "Looks like some L-whateverthefuck just got the task to go through YT's backlog and cut down on the mention/promotion of alternative video platforms/self-hosted video serving software." This is exactly what YT did with Covid related content. Here in the UK,…

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 dislike people promoting extensions to the formerly liberal moderation and content controls on the net because the current status quo was entirely predictable.

And your statement is wrong. There was a culture that such content wasn't removed and if it was done, there was a backlash. Even on platforms like Facebook and there certainly was a time where such removals generated feedback.

But activists demanded censorship and everything degenerated into some stupid partisan shit about bullshit topics that do not matter.

It doesn't take too much to comprehend that the demands for censorhip normalized it in the end.

And open solutions like ActivityPub also had to suffer the insufferable and made the openness a moot point.

Govt funding would make everything even worse because people would demand even more content controls and there are numerous leverages where public officials could be pressured to enact more content controls.

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

#795

Post by Draiken »

Mindwipe wrote: post #469
Draiken wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laws that are not enforced are merely suggestions.

There are literally dozens of successful legal actions against people illicitly making copyright claims on YouTube.

Dozens out of the thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands?).

Even then, people successfully litigating - therefore putting their own money at risk - to get a few wins proves my point: the law is not being enforced.

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

#796

Post by Slava_Propanei »

hshdhdhj4444 wrote: post #371
w14 wrote: post #59

This is the problem I had with all the content removal around Covid. It never ends with that one topic we may not be unhappy to see removed. From another comment: "Looks like some L-whateverthefuck just got the task to go through YT's backlog and cut down on the mention/promotion of alternative video platforms/self-hosted video serving software." This is exactly what YT did with Covid related content. Here in the UK,…

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…

[dead]

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

#797

Post by Slava_Propanei »

gspencley wrote: post #432
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being able to pick what content they host is fundamental to freedom of speech for private entities Interesting position - when somebody posts illegal content on YouTube, they are not liable, it’s not their speech. But when I want to post something they don’t like, suddenly it’s their freedom of speech to remove it. A lot of breakdown in society lately is clearly coming from the fact that some people/companies have…

> Interesting position - when somebody posts illegal content on YouTube, they are not liable, it’s not their speech. > But when I want to post something they don’t like, suddenly it’s their freedom of speech to remove it. There is no contradiction there. Imagine a forum about knitting. Someone, who has it in for the owners of this knitting forum (or perhaps even just a SPAM bot) starts posting illegal, or even just n…

[dead]

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

#798

Post by BlueTemplar »

Bender wrote: post #507
BlueTemplar wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have videos stop playing after exactly 1 minute ?

I had that for a while but it turned out to be due to having both uBlock and NoScript on that machine. Now it's good for me.

For me it was uMatrix, which seems to be, sadly, abandoned these days...

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

#799

Post by strangattractor »

brigandish wrote: post #785
strangattractor wrote: post #777

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you remember him suggesting to drink bleach or exposing yourself to UV? [0] Let's say for example the President keeps his yap shut about hydroxychloroquine or drinking bleach [0] etc and 10 people listening to Alex Jones die taking it because they are frightened. Now lets say POTUS goes on televised News and suggest doing dangerous things to 100 times the size of Alex Jones's audience and we end up with 1000 needl…

I watched that press conference[1] at the time. He didn't suggest it to the audience, as you can see in the short clip too, and even though that short clip is not only clipped in time but in the viewport so you can't see that he's speaking to a doctor, Deborah Birx[2], and asking her about these things, because they'd been discussed with him previously, off camera. I have no idea why people keep saying that he sugges…

The couple from Arizona would likely disagree if both were still alive - they heard what he said and acted in accordance with their interpretation.

Looking at Birx face while he is making those comments indicates - to me at least - a person very uncomfortable with what is being said. If they were discussed with him before (your source of info unknown) then he clearly did not understand what was being said to him. Yes UV kills all viruses on surfaces as does bleach - it is not useful for someone already infected with COVID and neither is Hydroxychloroquine (taken internally or otherwise).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d57zJr82dhQ

Whether it is redrawing NOAA Hurricane projection maps, claiming COVID will all go away in a couple of months or cabinet members claiming vaccines have not been tested while simultaneously giving indication that taking untested remedies is ok - make it a little unclear who is MIS and DIS informing the public.

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

#800

Post by OSINTgOD »

hyperbovine wrote: post #391

> I purposefully avoid demonstrating any of the tools (with a suffix that rhymes with "car") that are popularly used to circumvent purchasing movie, TV, and other media content What is he talking about here? Im old, I was expecting it to rhyme with “abhorrent”.

Probably Tubular? Looked for alternatives to NewPipe on alternativeto and found it. He mentions it in one of his mastodon posts:

https://mastodon.social/@geerlingguy/114416340067669884

Edit: another mastodon user mentioned it under one of Jeff's posts. so maybe he's aware of it?

Post reply on HN