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

91–100 of 103 posts

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#91

Post by doh »

pdkl95 wrote: post #56
doh wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hope it's alright to ask this Absolutely! We need to be held accountable. > It's nice that there's ways to make this friendlier for creators, but wouldn't most bigger services rather block and build a cheap system in-house than rely on a SaaS/b2b product, if you don't give it away for free or price very competitively? The biggest innovation of our company is not its technology but the business model. We in fact do…

> We also aligned our incentives with the success of everyone involved. Great! In the interest of preserving that alignment into the future, it might be helpful to lock in important aspects of the business model by limiting your future decisions with a Ulysses pact[1]. Cory Doctorow gave a tall[2] about using Ulysses pacts in the tech industry: >> It's not that you don't want to lose weight when you raid your Oreo st…

This is a great point.

It's why we made the business model is built into the core of the service and can't be easily changed. Obviously where there is a will there is a way, but it would have very significant consequences to the business to do so.

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#92

Post by ttt0 »

judge2020 wrote: post #79
ttt0 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just want to point out that the stories seem to be about predominantly left-wing causes. I don't expect anyone in the right-wing free-speech faction to even know about them, since 1. it was silenced, 2. it was probably talked about only in more obscure left-wing circles, that right-wingers are not a part of. It's unreasonable to assume that a right-winger would know about it, just like it is unreasonable to assume…

It's fairly unreasonable to assume everyone knows about all the issues on both sides. The current echo chambers make it hard to look at centralist/opposite-leaning news since it might ignite distaste for the reasoning that side uses (aka less dopamine gets fired when you read it compared to when reading from your favorite source), plus news sources that express completely opposite views aren't shared in your echo cha…

By saying that I didn't meant to attack them as such, but pretty much what you've said in the first paragraph.

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#93

Post by sterlind »

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.

Under GDPR I'm fairly certain that they've implemented actual deletion. GDPR even requires companies to go so far as to scan old tapes to delete user records on request by a 30-day deadline, iirc.

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#94

Post by CountDrewku »

krapp wrote: post #85
sofixa wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 w…

The political aspect is how to handle the virus. If you voice an opinion about lockdowns possibly being worse in the long run than the virus. Or.. you say something like "I think shutting down schools is a bad idea" you get labeled as a denier. I don't think that many people believe it doesn't exist at all but that's how the MSM portrays it. Taking precautions is fine but the extremes some of these cities have taken against actual scientific evidence has made the entire thing political. I can't really blame some people for getting fed up with all of it when the same people who are giving these orders are defying them like they themselves don't really believe them.

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#95

Post by heimatau »

pvg wrote: post #78
heimatau wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why did you delete it? I'll rephrase your question. What is the reason for the deletion of your comment? Simple. People were flaming. It was getting downvoted and flagged. If the community sends a clear statement (by acting in concert with one another), then I'd prefer not to get downvoted into oblivion. To me, it's not a hill I want to die on. And it was clear that others were misunderstanding. All I can do is com…

That's not what I asked, but maybe I can try to rephrase it. It seems odd to be going to such verbose lengths to defend something you wrote but apparently don't want other people to see.

> That's not what I asked, but maybe I can try to rephrase it. It seems odd to be going to such verbose lengths to defend something you wrote but apparently don't want other people to see.

I appreciate the attempt at clarity but I don't see a question here.

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#96

Post by pvg »

heimatau wrote: post #95
pvg wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what I asked, but maybe I can try to rephrase it. It seems odd to be going to such verbose lengths to defend something you wrote but apparently don't want other people to see.

> That's not what I asked, but maybe I can try to rephrase it. It seems odd to be going to such verbose lengths to defend something you wrote but apparently don't want other people to see. I appreciate the attempt at clarity but I don't see a question here.

I think by this point, with your help, I've arrived at the conclusion you were simply embarrassed by what you wrote, thanks.

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#97

Post by heimatau »

pvg wrote: post #96
heimatau wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not what I asked, but maybe I can try to rephrase it. It seems odd to be going to such verbose lengths to defend something you wrote but apparently don't want other people to see. I appreciate the attempt at clarity but I don't see a question here.

I think by this point, with your help, I've arrived at the conclusion you were simply embarrassed by what you wrote, thanks.

> I think by this point, with your help, I've arrived at the conclusion you were simply embarrassed by what you wrote, thanks.

How so? I wasn't embarrassed. I was shocked at the immature reactions.

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#98

Post by pvg »

heimatau wrote: post #97
pvg wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think by this point, with your help, I've arrived at the conclusion you were simply embarrassed by what you wrote, thanks.

> I think by this point, with your help, I've arrived at the conclusion you were simply embarrassed by what you wrote, thanks. How so? I wasn't embarrassed. I was shocked at the immature reactions.

Since you ask, but let's end here: To me, it's the simplest theory that explains the available facts.

First you wrote a short one-liner comment that said (roughly summarizing from memory) "google's motto used to be don't be evil, lol". Users flagkilled it almost instantly and you, embarrassed, deleted it. Then a moderator scolded you, which is even more unpleasant and embarrassing and you started writing lengthy defenses pretending the embarrassing thing you deleted was some Voltairean epigram, talking about how you 'stand by' a thing you yourself deleted. When this inconsistency was pointed out to you, you pretended not to understand the issue and went on to blame other users because, I assume, the whole thing becomes even more embarrassing if we recall that it's, in fact, about a comment that said (roughly summarizing from memory) "google's motto used to be don't be evil, lol".

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#99

Post by heimatau »

pvg wrote: post #98
heimatau wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think by this point, with your help, I've arrived at the conclusion you were simply embarrassed by what you wrote, thanks. How so? I wasn't embarrassed. I was shocked at the immature reactions.

Since you ask, but let's end here: To me, it's the simplest theory that explains the available facts. First you wrote a short one-liner comment that said (roughly summarizing from memory) "google's motto used to be don't be evil, lol". Users flagkilled it almost instantly and you, embarrassed, deleted it. Then a moderator scolded you, which is even more unpleasant and embarrassing and you started writing lengthy defe…

That wasn't my comment...Also, it's refreshing that you can project my emotion on me (did I say embarrassed? did I say it was unpleasant? did I say I felt it was a Voltairean epigram?). Even though I stated you were incorrect on my personal emotional reaction, you continue to not realize that you're incorrect about my perception on the matter. Let alone your question ('why...') was a hostile question instead of actually engaging someone. I offered an olive branch by trying to rephrase it. Then you take all pretenses away and judge me without merit or grounded in fact.

I asked you what your question was but instead of realizing that you asked me a judgemental question (which isn't really a fair question...you presume guilt), you continue with your judgement without the facade of asking. You told me what you thought. Now, this latest comment, you're expounding as if you're doing someone a favor but instead it's condensation and gaslighting my perspective.

As for these longer follow-up questions. Honestly, if they got downvoted, I'd just laugh because it would only confirm how immature the readers are (which does happen occasionally but is rare) but instead, I wouldn't edit them b/c objectively, I'm not in the wrong on these longer posts. And someone would be hard pressed to say anything to the contrary.

To be clear, I'm standing my ground on my right to do what I did, for my own reasons and it was pointless/meritless to throw me into the mix of someone trying to provoke a flamewar. Which is a presumption beyond any evidence (even the deleted evidence) can verify. But...maybe I'm 'guilty' because someone might have power over me and they projected their negative mental patterns onto my comments? Cool world. Seems like the irony of my original comment! But I hope that rationality comes.

Instead, it was an innocent comment and the reaction has been anything but mature or consistent. I've seen even more superficial, pointless, and antagonistic comments than mine daily on HN, yet it's rare to see them squashed. I've checked multiple times. It's hit/miss, since HN has scaled over the years.

Take a step back and chill out. /fin

Re: Academic media censorship conference censored by YouTube?

#100

Post by CydeWeys »

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.

GFS is ancient obsolete technology that is no longer used (the whitepaper was published almost two decades ago, and it described a system already built and in use!). Also, I don't think you're interpreting it correctly either.
Post reply on HN