Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

mintpressnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 103 posts

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#81

Post by joshuamorton »

Yoric wrote: post #80
CydeWeys wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then consider yourself surprised. Deleted data is actually deleted. Keeping it around is a huge liability.

I don't know how things work these days, but a few years ago, Google's GFS didn't support deletion. The "delete" flag only meant "don't replicate this data" and it was just simpler for them to keep it around until the disk died. Source: This was published by Google in their research papers on GFS. Sorry, can't remember which paper.

Without reading the paper, I'm about 99% positive it also would mark the data as unused, which would allow the disk space to be reclaimed and overridden. Disks aren't write once.

It also likely would reindex it, meaning that you can't find it if you go looking for it unless you happen to know which disk it's in already and it hasn't been overwritten yet.

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#82

Post by Thorrez »

Triv888 wrote: post #70
motbob wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fwiw, there have been instances of Google straight up not being able to restore deleted content. When you go to delete videos, you do get warnings that deletion cannot be undone. I wouldn't be surprised if Google didn't have great records of deleted content. Maybe Google deleted this tiny channel, or maybe it was user error by Project Censored (the apparent organizers of the conference), or maybe it was a publicity s…

> I wouldn't be surprised if Google didn't have great records of deleted content. It would surprise me if Google didn't keep everything. Harvesting data is part of their business model.

>Soft deletion implies that once data is marked as such, it is destroyed after a reasonable delay. The length of the delay depends upon an organization’s policies and applicable laws, available storage resources and cost, and product pricing and market positioning, especially in cases involving much short-lived data. Common choices of soft deletion delays are 15, 30, 45, or 60 days.

https://sre.google/sre-book/data-integrity/#first-layer-soft...

I work at Google, not on anything related to this though.

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#83

Post by Thorrez »

Jabbles wrote: post #2

Google is claiming these videos were never on YouTube? That seems... odd? And surely easy to refute, if they were public? Internet Archive would at least have scraped the channel's page. TFA links to https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGPZJTVIpNe-hroLo-CQ9wQ/vid... which currently 404s... But which indeed did contain many videos... https://web.archive.org/web/20201101020416if_/https://www.yo...

>TFA links to https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGPZJTVIpNe-hroLo-CQ9wQ/vid... which currently 404s...

Where is that link in the article? I just see a link to this channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWo6nbsYT3a5jfHIRF3WmtQ

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#84

Post by sofixa »

azangru wrote: post #41
ladyanita22 wrote: post #3

Many will disagree, but this is the result of holding the plataforms accountable for what the users upload. The traffic is so inmense that they have to resort to shitty algorithms. Because given Google's (any big tech company really) lack of morals, I don't believe they'd care to censor anything at all.

> Because given Google's (any big tech company really) lack of morals, I don't believe they'd care to censor anything at all. Oh, come on now! A big company may lack morals, true, but in order to appease the most vocal, acutely political and obsessively moral part of the general public, including its own employees, it needs to conform to the societal demands on it. How else would you explain the appearance of banners…

> They are firmly placing themselves on specific sides of political, cultural, or ethical divides

Since when is public health a political, cultural or ethical issue ?

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#85

Post by krapp »

sofixa wrote: post #84
azangru wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because given Google's (any big tech company really) lack of morals, I don't believe they'd care to censor anything at all. Oh, come on now! A big company may lack morals, true, but in order to appease the most vocal, acutely political and obsessively moral part of the general public, including its own employees, it needs to conform to the societal demands on it. How else would you explain the appearance of banners…

> They are firmly placing themselves on specific sides of political, cultural, or ethical divides Since when is public health a political, cultural or ethical issue ?

>Since when is public health a political, cultural or ethical issue ?

You're either not American or you've been living under a rock for the past year. Public health has been a political issue for decades, and culture and ethics are inseparable from politcs. And then COVID happened and now everything down to believing the virus exists and choosing to take precautions has political ramifications.

It shouldn't be that way but it is.

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#86

Post by catmanjan »

joshuamorton wrote: post #81
Yoric wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how things work these days, but a few years ago, Google's GFS didn't support deletion. The "delete" flag only meant "don't replicate this data" and it was just simpler for them to keep it around until the disk died. Source: This was published by Google in their research papers on GFS. Sorry, can't remember which paper.

Without reading the paper, I'm about 99% positive it also would mark the data as unused, which would allow the disk space to be reclaimed and overridden. Disks aren't write once. It also likely would reindex it, meaning that you can't find it if you go looking for it unless you happen to know which disk it's in already and it hasn't been overwritten yet.

So basically recycle bin rather than shredder

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#87

Post by jariel »

ladyanita22 wrote: post #3

Many will disagree, but this is the result of holding the plataforms accountable for what the users upload. The traffic is so inmense that they have to resort to shitty algorithms. Because given Google's (any big tech company really) lack of morals, I don't believe they'd care to censor anything at all.

They care a lot about advertisers and lawsuits at very minimum.

Nobody wants their video ad up against 'controversial' material.

That said, there has to be a way to redress these grievances.

Of the many things we could start to regulated it's that:

1) If there is a take-down, they have to tell you why and give you a few days to dispute or to open a grievance.

2) Grievances have to be addressed.

I don't mind even if there is a fee - it's reasonable for Google to require $100 to address a grievance, after all, they are hosting for free.

Alternatively, they could be required to have a 'paid version' without ads in which the bar for issues was considerably higher.

That's just off the of my head, so not exactly well thought out.

The point is, however, they're reaching a scale whereby some of these platforms are equivalent to a public good. It's like they are becoming broadcast or telecoms, which were always subject to regulation.

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#88

Post by Kbelicius »

meibo wrote: post #6
ladyanita22 wrote: post #3

Many will disagree, but this is the result of holding the plataforms accountable for what the users upload. The traffic is so inmense that they have to resort to shitty algorithms. Because given Google's (any big tech company really) lack of morals, I don't believe they'd care to censor anything at all.

This is very true and the main point people brought against the EU's article 17(the "upload filter") mandating a scan of all user-generated content for copyrighted material that was put in place by oh so many very well paid(and not just by the EU), conservative MEPs that have no clue about technology. Countries are struggling hard to put this into local law right now since it has to be by July this year - and as it t…

> This is very true and the main point people brought against the EU's article 17(the "upload filter") mandating a scan of all user-generated content for copyrighted material

How can that be your interpretation of article 17 when it literally says : "The application of this Article shall not lead to any general monitoring obligation." in it.

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#89

Post by Kbelicius »

laurent92 wrote: post #27
meibo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very true and the main point people brought against the EU's article 17(the "upload filter") mandating a scan of all user-generated content for copyrighted material that was put in place by oh so many very well paid(and not just by the EU), conservative MEPs that have no clue about technology. Countries are struggling hard to put this into local law right now since it has to be by July this year - and as it t…

For those who want to keep tabs on the topic: Julia Reda, German EU MEP, is quite a critic reference on this topic – a good blog to follow. https://juliareda.eu/eu-copyright-reform/censorship-machines...

This is outdated. That is for article 13 which became article 17 in the text that was voted on. Article 17 contains this paragraph: "The application of this Article shall not lead to any general monitoring obligation.".

That line, as I interpret it, makes the whole blog post that you linked invalid.

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#90

Post by Kbelicius »

swiley wrote: post #32
meibo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very true and the main point people brought against the EU's article 17(the "upload filter") mandating a scan of all user-generated content for copyrighted material that was put in place by oh so many very well paid(and not just by the EU), conservative MEPs that have no clue about technology. Countries are struggling hard to put this into local law right now since it has to be by July this year - and as it t…

The past few EU laws had some modicum of reason and I thought people blocking the EU were stupid. But for this one, if I were running a Peertube instance I would block EU IPs and tell people to use TOR or at least ssh to a lineode if they wanted to see things.

Why would you block EU? Article 17 explicitly states that its application shall not lead to any general monitoring obligation?.
Post reply on HN