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

YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

hollywoodreporter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 237 posts

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#91

Post by ryandrake »

cft wrote: post #76
pstuart wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need a politically uncensored version (within the law) of YouTube What does that mean "politically uncensored within the law"?

Means for example, that this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnR4Xw74_is had only 70% of the algorithmic views (YouTube "suggestions" or "related content"). They did not ban it outright, so you cannot complain or rigorously prove their bias, but they algorithmically suppress dissenting content.

I don't know how you can draw any statistical conclusions from a very small channel with 76 subscribers and videos that all have very low view counts.

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#92

Post by ssl-3 »

ryandrake wrote: post #82
ssl-3 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why so much? Plex is a pretty light-weight system as long as transcoding is avoided or it has hardware transcoding available to use. And wrangling Usenet is a fairly simple affair on vaguely modern PC hardware, too. So all of that stuff runs in the background on the same desktop Linux box that I also use for everything else. Am I doing it wrong?

As "lightweight" as it is, you don't even need Plex or a "media server" software. My "media server" has been "files on an NFS share" which has worked for me for the last 15-20 years.

Oh, I also use SMB for that. A local file share is more than enough for anyone who lives alone, in a cave, and who never has never physically interacted with another person -- and who never wants to.

Plex, meanwhile? It is much more approachable by the lays.

My elderly mother can watch my media with a cheap little Roku box while she sits on the sofa at her house many miles away with a remote control in her hand, using Plex.

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#93

Post by cft »

crtasm wrote: post #89
cft wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Means for example, that this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnR4Xw74_is had only 70% of the algorithmic views (YouTube "suggestions" or "related content"). They did not ban it outright, so you cannot complain or rigorously prove their bias, but they algorithmically suppress dissenting content.

Even if that's true it's not censorship, stop misusing the word.

"to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#94

Post by ssl-3 »

CaptainOfCoit wrote: post #84
ssl-3 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why so much? Plex is a pretty light-weight system as long as transcoding is avoided or it has hardware transcoding available to use. And wrangling Usenet is a fairly simple affair on vaguely modern PC hardware, too. So all of that stuff runs in the background on the same desktop Linux box that I also use for everything else. Am I doing it wrong?

People use separate computers for wide range of reasons. My desktop isn't always running Linux for example, or even from the same partition always, and to run something 24/7 I need to host it not on my for-work desktop. I also run some less trusted software on separate server and network than say Home Assistant and Frigate.

Sure, I suppose. And I do have a separate computer for HA, because I consider it part of the house.in a way that is simply deserving of (cheap!) dedicated hardware.

But most of my multi-os stuff happens with VMs these days.

After I spent a few years successfully running Windows as my primary desktop OS, as a virtual machine (with its own dedicated CPU cores and accessories like GPU), the lines between separate computers and different operating systems permanently became very blurry to me.

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#95

Post by crtasm »

cft wrote: post #93
crtasm wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if that's true it's not censorship, stop misusing the word.

"to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring

Yet you can link to it from anywhere else on the internet, including from other pages on youtube, and anyone with access to youtube can watch it. A lack of free promotion is not censorship.

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#96

Post by pstuart »

cft wrote: post #76
pstuart wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need a politically uncensored version (within the law) of YouTube What does that mean "politically uncensored within the law"?

Means for example, that this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnR4Xw74_is had only 70% of the algorithmic views (YouTube "suggestions" or "related content"). They did not ban it outright, so you cannot complain or rigorously prove their bias, but they algorithmically suppress dissenting content.

FFS, algo tweaking is not censorship. Censorship would be prohibiting the speech at all.

And what is the political part of this? That "illegal immigrants" are coming in to your country? To amp up anger and fear over that?

This is what I detest about "politics" -- when it is just emotional manipulation via hate and fear to cow people into voting for whoever claims title to that hate and fear.

Immigration has challenges but humanity is defined by immigration -- we're all immigrants either directly or indirectly. We have arrived at what could be a post-scarcity world and need to start acting like it.

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#97

Post by cft »

crtasm wrote: post #95
cft wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring

Yet you can link to it from anywhere else on the internet, including from other pages on youtube, and anyone with access to youtube can watch it. A lack of free promotion is not censorship.

Ad absurdum, if the video was banned outright upon upload, it wouldn't be considered censorship under your definition, since upload and storage are also "free."

However, the contrast between a 70% average recommendation rate and a 0.1% recommendation rate for this video shows the algorithm's bias, fitting the definition of suppression of dissemination. According to Merriam-Webster, censorship includes "suppressing" content by restraining its usual course or inhibiting its reach.

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#98

Post by y-c-o-m-b »

jeffbee wrote: post #59
mouse_ wrote: post #10

I swear to God, I can't go three clicks on YouTube without seeing a recommended video like "BASED Trump OWNS woke moralist!" Every time I see anything like that, I'm always clicking not interested, don't recommend channel, etc. But it doesn't help. I would think it's something to do with my searches, or someone in my household watching this sort of content behind my back, but if you look at the front page of YouTube…

I have to say this tells us more about you than it says about Google. I never see such recommendations. The theories that I would look into if this were happening to me, which I reiterate it certainly is not, would be in the following order: perhaps you've installed an extension that is inserting content into your life; you are using anonymization techniques that mix your identity with that of other people who are in…

This is victim-blaming mentality to a T.

I don't understand the goal of your post. What is the solution you're proposing for those things? That they don't use anonymization techniques? They kick out the other people from their home?

The OP is saying they don't watch that kind of content and they mark the videos as "not interested" and Youtube is still pushing the content. The onus is on Youtube to stop. Presumably OP is logged in, or if they're not, then Youtube still uses browser fingerprinting techniques. It seems simple on Youtube's side to fix the problem. Blaming the OP here doesn't make sense.

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#99

Post by Tadpole9181 »

benbristow wrote: post #18
INTPenis wrote: post #7

In my circle, piracy is making a comeback. We're tired of having to hunt down streaming services, and be extorted for hundreds of euro a month, just to see ads for their own programs. Streaming was fun for a while, but as always these greedy execs are ruining it.

Too many services nowadays. Was fine when it was just Netflix, had mostly everything, no ads, full quality. Nowadays Netflix price has gone up, additional plans for 4K/no-ads, anti-account sharing and less content as content now has gone to Amazon/Disney+/Hulu/Discovery+/Paramount+/Peacock/HBO etc. etc. Even if you subscribed to them all you'd still not have everything. Sailing the seas, you get everything for free o…

> Even if you subscribed to them all you'd still not have everything.

Do you actually need everything, everywhere, all at once?

Do one at a time and then switch after you run out of shows or if another service has a "must-watch".

Re: YouTube Just Ate TV. It's Only Getting Started

#100

Post by benbristow »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #99
benbristow wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too many services nowadays. Was fine when it was just Netflix, had mostly everything, no ads, full quality. Nowadays Netflix price has gone up, additional plans for 4K/no-ads, anti-account sharing and less content as content now has gone to Amazon/Disney+/Hulu/Discovery+/Paramount+/Peacock/HBO etc. etc. Even if you subscribed to them all you'd still not have everything. Sailing the seas, you get everything for free o…

> Even if you subscribed to them all you'd still not have everything. Do you actually need everything, everywhere, all at once? Do one at a time and then switch after you run out of shows or if another service has a "must-watch".

Why are you simping for the shareholders? I should have the choice of anything I want to watch. The unethical option provides all and is cheaper than a subscription for a single one of those services.

Besides, those services often make it difficult to unsubscribe with dark patterns.

Post reply on HN