5 ms·

> That said, if anyone can think of something that I can do to help, I'm all ears. You already live in this world. Who cares if Goolge won't host these videos

> That said, if anyone can think of something that I can do to help, I'm all ears. You already live in this world. Who cares if Goolge won't host these videos on youtube? I don't understand why this matters. There are millions of other video upload sites, all of which are extremely easy to find and use. There are literally too many open source options for sharing files to count, and many of them are even usable by non-technical folk. Millions of people shared videos online for at least a good decade before youtube became popular. Maintain a local copy of everything you put on the cloud.

kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
You seriously see no material difference in having your video on the YouTube vs on randomvideowebsite.com? It's not merely a question of finding a host to upload your file.
- KGIII 9y ago
  Not to mention the trouble when nobody will allow you to host your legal content because they disagree with the message. Hell, even registrars are refusing to point to an IP address. I know... We all hate Nazis. I get it. I don't like them and, being not white, they definitely don't like me. But, they are the current good example of what happens when the controllers decide you can no longer share your legal content. I don't know what the solution is, but I want a world where even the deplorable are able to express their thoughts and feelings. I want a world where we aren't cowards and trying to force conformity. I want a world where even the worst of us can express themselves, using the same tools as others, so long as it is legal content. Yes, speech must have restrictions. However, we already know what those restrictions are. I guess I'm just a hopeless idealist.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    It wasn't too long ago that we had the McCarthy era, where speech professing communism was effectively targeted by what were basically thought police. Just as then you don't have to advocate free speech because you are a communist, now you don't have to advocate it because you are a Nazi. You advocate it to protect against authoritarianism.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      That's why I do it. I hold what is now considered an extreme view on free speech. I don't even have anything politically incorrect to say, really. I just strongly believe in the freedom to express ideas. A survey of young people really disturbs me. Some 40% don't believe we should have the right to free speech. I'll be damned if I know how to fix this. I see the same sentiments expressed by some people here. Credible threats, slander, and libel are already illegal - as are a few others, such as divulging classified information. Speech needs all the protection it can get and, unfortunately, that means defending speech I don't particularly care for and people who would legitimately harm me if given the chance. Speech we agree with doesn't need protection, nobody wants to silence it. However, that's subject to change based on the whims of society and the government. I guess I've become an extremist, even though I'm pretty sure I haven't changed. I just love free speech.
      - wallace_f 9y ago
        Yep, younger generations are being brain washed, unfortunately, to believe in an un-American authoritarian view on speech. I agree with you. If you dont believe in free speech for those you disagree with, then you don't believe in free speech at all.
        KGIII 9y ago
        I literally defend literal Nazis. The Nazis hate me but they actually seem slightly less hyperbolic than those who dislike that I defend their basic human rights. The White Nationalists tell me they'd kick me out of the country, which is funny because I'm mostly Native American. The others (I don't have a name for them) tell me that I don't even have a right to support their right to free expression. I'd rather be told that I'm hated then be told I have no right to speak. Really, I think we can pretty much all agree that the Internet is largely a basic human right. With that, so shouldn't other protections apply. I think it's probably going to take regulation to get beyond this. I'm kind of hoping it's sensible regulation but it seems destined to happen eventually.
        9y ago
  - davidcbc 9y ago
    > I want a world where even the deplorable are able to express their thoughts and feelings. Yes, but we (speaking as a person, not a representative of any company) don't have to supply them with a platform to spread their hate and we don't have to sit idly by while they do it. > Yes, speech must have restrictions. However, we already know what those restrictions are Do we? What are they?
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    You and parent seem to have missed my point. I'm not defending google. I'm pointing out that using google is a choice, a choice with lots of alternatives. Google's choice not to host certain things is itself a speech act. Don't try to police Google's speech. Instead, make sure there are plenty of alternatives to Google for the people who Google doesn't want to host. If there's no alternative to google, then google's policing becomes a problem. THAT is why it's important that governments not censor speech -- you don't have alternative choices for government. And THAT is why privately owned censor-happy monopolies of the press are just as huge a threat to free speech as governments. But -- and this is my point -- there are a near infinite number of alternatives to google. Google does not have a monopoly of the press. If someone believes they can't speak freely because youtube won't host your videos, then that incorrect belief is a huge problem. A much larger problem than youtube choosing not to host their videos.
- tanilama 9y ago
  If people dislike Google that much, they should set their own websites, there are plenty of video hosting service out there that doesn't have as tight a control as Youtube has. The only reason that you want to post on Youtube, other than any other sites is that you want to make make money out of it.
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  1. No, I don't see that huge of a difference. I really don't think that youtube has nearly as much influence over what the vast majority of people see as you seem to think it does. 2. Regardless, the solution is to become less dependent on corporate-owned ad-distribution networks for finding information. And help others do the same. Modifying corporate behavior to match your preferences will never be a sufficient replacement for an informed, inquisitive, and self-sufficient populace. So focus on solving the latter problem instead of complaining about the first. I think some people are reading my comments as a defense of Google. But I'm not defending google. I'm pointing out that the tools you need to get out from under Google already exist and are available today, as long as you want to speak (as opposed to e.g. make money from advertising). If you use google services, you're making a choice. A choice with lots of alternatives. Telling people otherwise does google a huge favor.
megous 9y ago
Wait until you lose your gmail that you've used for everything for the last 10 years as a collateral damage. You can't really maintain a local copy of a "control of @gmail.com" domain to be able for people to continue sending you messages.
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  You should be hosting your own if you're serious about email.
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    Agreed, I suppose, but there are two further problems. First, gmail then tends to screw you on deliverability for using an unknown source - and since everyone else uses gmail, you're still at Google's mercy when trying to communicate. And second... that's our solution? Anyone who isn't capable of hosting their own email doesn't get to trust their access to their records? At a certain point we need to acknowledge that the company-centric structure is going to define tech for 98% of people, and that this will affect even the 2% who can step outside those bounds.
    - Natanael_L 9y ago
      What else, government provided email hosting?
      - Bartweiss 9y ago
        Nah, if I'm skeptical of Google's ethics I'm vastly more skeptical of that. Easy decentralization or quality data guarantees, preferably. I'd feel better about Google if they offered a hard guarantee that any takedown would be done with notice to allow file recovery, and offered an easy, useful "export all my crap" feature for all users, takedown or not. (I'm aware that the recovery window is probably illegal at the moment.) I'd also like things better if they shelled out on some actual human reviewers and offered real support when they screw up. What I actually want in the long run is for someone to offer decentralized, private hosting, or else build a tool to make self-hosting comparably easy to getting other email. As a stopgap, encrypted hosting would stop this sort of intrusion, but again hits legal takedown issues. "Click some buttons, pay $30, get privately-hosted email with no overseer" is my ideal endgame here.

kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago

You seriously see no material difference in having your video on the YouTube vs on randomvideowebsite.com? It's not merely a question of finding a host to upload your file.

KGIII 9y ago
Not to mention the trouble when nobody will allow you to host your legal content because they disagree with the message. Hell, even registrars are refusing to point to an IP address. I know... We all hate Nazis. I get it. I don't like them and, being not white, they definitely don't like me. But, they are the current good example of what happens when the controllers decide you can no longer share your legal content. I don't know what the solution is, but I want a world where even the deplorable are able to express their thoughts and feelings. I want a world where we aren't cowards and trying to force conformity. I want a world where even the worst of us can express themselves, using the same tools as others, so long as it is legal content. Yes, speech must have restrictions. However, we already know what those restrictions are. I guess I'm just a hopeless idealist.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  It wasn't too long ago that we had the McCarthy era, where speech professing communism was effectively targeted by what were basically thought police. Just as then you don't have to advocate free speech because you are a communist, now you don't have to advocate it because you are a Nazi. You advocate it to protect against authoritarianism.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    That's why I do it. I hold what is now considered an extreme view on free speech. I don't even have anything politically incorrect to say, really. I just strongly believe in the freedom to express ideas. A survey of young people really disturbs me. Some 40% don't believe we should have the right to free speech. I'll be damned if I know how to fix this. I see the same sentiments expressed by some people here. Credible threats, slander, and libel are already illegal - as are a few others, such as divulging classified information. Speech needs all the protection it can get and, unfortunately, that means defending speech I don't particularly care for and people who would legitimately harm me if given the chance. Speech we agree with doesn't need protection, nobody wants to silence it. However, that's subject to change based on the whims of society and the government. I guess I've become an extremist, even though I'm pretty sure I haven't changed. I just love free speech.
    - wallace_f 9y ago
      Yep, younger generations are being brain washed, unfortunately, to believe in an un-American authoritarian view on speech. I agree with you. If you dont believe in free speech for those you disagree with, then you don't believe in free speech at all.
      - KGIII 9y ago
        I literally defend literal Nazis. The Nazis hate me but they actually seem slightly less hyperbolic than those who dislike that I defend their basic human rights. The White Nationalists tell me they'd kick me out of the country, which is funny because I'm mostly Native American. The others (I don't have a name for them) tell me that I don't even have a right to support their right to free expression. I'd rather be told that I'm hated then be told I have no right to speak. Really, I think we can pretty much all agree that the Internet is largely a basic human right. With that, so shouldn't other protections apply. I think it's probably going to take regulation to get beyond this. I'm kind of hoping it's sensible regulation but it seems destined to happen eventually.
        9y ago
- davidcbc 9y ago
  > I want a world where even the deplorable are able to express their thoughts and feelings. Yes, but we (speaking as a person, not a representative of any company) don't have to supply them with a platform to spread their hate and we don't have to sit idly by while they do it. > Yes, speech must have restrictions. However, we already know what those restrictions are Do we? What are they?
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  You and parent seem to have missed my point. I'm not defending google. I'm pointing out that using google is a choice, a choice with lots of alternatives. Google's choice not to host certain things is itself a speech act. Don't try to police Google's speech. Instead, make sure there are plenty of alternatives to Google for the people who Google doesn't want to host. If there's no alternative to google, then google's policing becomes a problem. THAT is why it's important that governments not censor speech -- you don't have alternative choices for government. And THAT is why privately owned censor-happy monopolies of the press are just as huge a threat to free speech as governments. But -- and this is my point -- there are a near infinite number of alternatives to google. Google does not have a monopoly of the press. If someone believes they can't speak freely because youtube won't host your videos, then that incorrect belief is a huge problem. A much larger problem than youtube choosing not to host their videos.
tanilama 9y ago
If people dislike Google that much, they should set their own websites, there are plenty of video hosting service out there that doesn't have as tight a control as Youtube has. The only reason that you want to post on Youtube, other than any other sites is that you want to make make money out of it.
throwawayjava 9y ago
1. No, I don't see that huge of a difference. I really don't think that youtube has nearly as much influence over what the vast majority of people see as you seem to think it does. 2. Regardless, the solution is to become less dependent on corporate-owned ad-distribution networks for finding information. And help others do the same. Modifying corporate behavior to match your preferences will never be a sufficient replacement for an informed, inquisitive, and self-sufficient populace. So focus on solving the latter problem instead of complaining about the first. I think some people are reading my comments as a defense of Google. But I'm not defending google. I'm pointing out that the tools you need to get out from under Google already exist and are available today, as long as you want to speak (as opposed to e.g. make money from advertising). If you use google services, you're making a choice. A choice with lots of alternatives. Telling people otherwise does google a huge favor.

megous 9y ago

Wait until you lose your gmail that you've used for everything for the last 10 years as a collateral damage. You can't really maintain a local copy of a "control of @gmail.com" domain to be able for people to continue sending you messages.

dingo_bat 9y ago
You should be hosting your own if you're serious about email.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  Agreed, I suppose, but there are two further problems. First, gmail then tends to screw you on deliverability for using an unknown source - and since everyone else uses gmail, you're still at Google's mercy when trying to communicate. And second... that's our solution? Anyone who isn't capable of hosting their own email doesn't get to trust their access to their records? At a certain point we need to acknowledge that the company-centric structure is going to define tech for 98% of people, and that this will affect even the 2% who can step outside those bounds.
  - Natanael_L 9y ago
    What else, government provided email hosting?
    - Bartweiss 9y ago
      Nah, if I'm skeptical of Google's ethics I'm vastly more skeptical of that. Easy decentralization or quality data guarantees, preferably. I'd feel better about Google if they offered a hard guarantee that any takedown would be done with notice to allow file recovery, and offered an easy, useful "export all my crap" feature for all users, takedown or not. (I'm aware that the recovery window is probably illegal at the moment.) I'd also like things better if they shelled out on some actual human reviewers and offered real support when they screw up. What I actually want in the long run is for someone to offer decentralized, private hosting, or else build a tool to make self-hosting comparably easy to getting other email. As a stopgap, encrypted hosting would stop this sort of intrusion, but again hits legal takedown issues. "Click some buttons, pay $30, get privately-hosted email with no overseer" is my ideal endgame here.