Live data from Hacker News

Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

jeffgeerling.com

81–90 of 803 posts

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

#81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

People are free to rip their purchased media. He even says that he buys blurays/dvds in the article. One can assume anything, but a completely legal setup can look exactly like that. Especially as most of those are relatively old movies - looking like a list of purchased blurays/dvds to me.

It's entirely possible to populate a media tree of movies and shows with stub zero length files, just the formally named movie or tv episode names, and have Kodi and other other media managers download all the meta data (posters, descriptions, cast, etc) to sideload in the media tree or maintain in their own internal databases.

It's useful for testing and debugging media software in addition to being a great way to browse through all the films with ActorX or all the movies in a genre or a year.

You get the same visuals flipping through Kodi with and only lack something happening when you press play (unless you populate with named files that all hardlink to that Rick Astley music video).

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

#82

Feels like YouTube is ripe for disruption. In the recent past (say up to the mid 2010s) it was a really good product and there was a reason nobody gave a shit about Vimeo et al, YouTube as a site, app, platform was so far ahead of the competition. But now? Youtube is full of slop, search barely works, and Google is on an endless campaign to make ad-blocking and free downloading impossible. Even most of the "good" cha…

It used to be this magical place where you could find anything, and now it's an algorithmic swamp of recycled trends

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

#83
post #12
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good chance to suggest viable alternatives? TIA.

Don't watch youtube? Want educational content? Read a book or a technical blog post or documentation. Want entertainment? Read a book or watch a movie or TV show. I've never found anything that great about YouTube.

> a movie or TV show

Any movie or TV show recommendations from the past 10 years that is actually enjoyable?

I am pretty much done with movies. I don't even remember the last one I really enjoyed. Sunshine, Interstellar, Hateful Eight, Once Upon a time in Hollywood... Nothing notable in the past 5 years though.

TV shows? Most require a subscription, which I am not willing to do for just a show or two.

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

#84
As I recall, it all started as the so called "Trump exception". The laws temporarily did not apply. I remember reading a letter by Stanford Journalism Professor in the Economist, saying that situation was exceptional and journalists not only do not have to tell the truth, but almost have a duty to say whatever is necessary to rectify the results of 2016 elections.

It was just the beginning. Next was the "Covid exception". Then "HCQ exception", then "Ivermectin exception", then "Covid origin exception", then "Israel exception", then ... Always for a good cause.

And now we finally got to the "self-hosted media" exception. Congratulations.

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

#85
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,…

[dead]

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

#86
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube Alternatives : https://odysee.com Bitchute Rumble

As much as we need an alternative to YouTube, Rumble’s whole gimmick is basically “we don’t block nazis”. Insofar as supporting problematic businesses goes, that’s out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Whats the issue? Are you afraid of being swayed? Feels a bit like homophobia at times. Those being most vocal are likely trying to hide something about their own personality...

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

#87
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,…

[flagged]

[flagged]

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

#88
post #62
post #49

Since Youtube started to show me funny "TURN OFF THE ADBLOCKER!!!" notices, I just started slamming links in yt-dlp and watching them offline. No drawbacks so far.

It will become harder to ignore the possible retaliation Google can make against your/your family’s Google accounts.

[dead]

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

#89
A bit off topic, but still: Why do we need YouTube and other "Video Hosting" platforms at all? Simply upload your video (webm, or MP4) to any static Webserver and embed in HTML5. Plays nicely and no adds. I don't get why some sites still embed their movies stored on YouTube.

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

#90
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,…

The debate shouldn't be "to remove or not". The debate should be "who should decide what to remove".

We've had media laws for decades. Internet is underregulated to a crazy degree, so the people who make the decisions are unaccountable and even unknowable. It would be much saner if the people deciding this were judges and elected officials.

The way we allow a few oligarchs to decide what information 99% of the world consume for hours every day, and just let them do whatever they want, and don't even tax them in practice - it's just absurd.

Free speech is for people not for corporations. And it's certainly not for corporations to enforce.

People defending hacker ethos and free internet pretend internet is still like in 90s. If you do have your own self-hosted blog - sure - be a free hacker.

But if you have million customers - you're not a free-spirited hacker. You're a media mogul abusing unregulated loophole. States should act accordingly.

Post reply on HN