7 ms·

The internet promised so much, but is being ruined by corporations and governments. I can't help but feel the ruining is accelerating. I hope the infosec comm

The internet promised so much, but is being ruined by corporations and governments. I can't help but feel the ruining is accelerating. I hope the infosec community can come up with some kind of decentralized way to actually share free speech. If anyone is capable, they are. The discovery problem is an illusion. If you build it, they will come.

scoutt 7y ago
Don't be so pessimistic. There are still plenty of resources and places to discuss whatever you want. Youtube is like that big commercial avenue in the city, where you can only see mainstream stuff. If you look for the bookstore that has hacking/engineering/pyscology books, you'll have to go elsewhere. But it has always been this way.
- beaconstudios 7y ago
  there's plenty of niche content that finds its home on YouTube. It's as if the commercial avenue was infinitely large and could contain every shop you could wish for.
  - mooselumps 7y ago
    You have to leave the avenue for porn. Pornhub has good enough porn, can find something for most any niche. Soon you’ll find though, if you’re really into this or that, individual studios that cater to your niche create videos with high production value that are all around better than what you dig up on pornhub. There are marketplaces for small studios like clips4sale.com (nsfw). Also aggregators for specific niches / topics, etc. Maybe anti-YouTube people can look to porn for the way out?
    - xfitm3 7y ago
      You have to know what you're looking for, which I think is traditionally the biggest hurtle.
- syshum 7y ago
  YouTube used to be that place.... I remember it, I want that YouTube Back... YouTube did not become popular with "mainstream stuff" if I wanted "mainstream stuff" I would still be a cable TV Subscriber YouTube promoting only "mainstream stuff" like CBS, and CNN will kill YouTube
  - gdulli 7y ago
    YouTube got popular with mainstream TV shows and movies. Then after it won all the market share with that content, Google bought it and turned it legit.
    - syshum 7y ago
      No that is not what made YouTube Popular at all I have never once watched a mainstream TV show or Movie on the platform.
    - poutrathor 7y ago
      Yeah that's utterly wrong, YouTube got popular because it was the best platform to upload any video and find and watch any video. Then music got big on youtube. Right now they are trying to go into movies, not sure how it will work out for them.
  - raarts 7y ago
    > CNN will kill youtube Given CNN'S dwindling ratings I sincerely doubt that. If anything youtube needs to rescue them.
    - syshum 7y ago
      No CNN should collapse
yusi-san 7y ago
>I hope the infosec community can come up with some kind of decentralized way to actually share free speech. If anyone is capable, they are. There are decentralized/open/ethic friendly services alternative to big corporations services. In the case of Youtube there's PeerTube[1] for exemple (even if in that case there's a IP leak due to the p2p protocol if I remember correctly). The sad thing here is that people decide to stay on the "big" services due to the network effect, and few people decide to boycott them just to follow principles. [1]https://joinpeertube.org/ https://joinpeertube.org/
- Asooka 7y ago
  This is why we need a solution that separates the social network from the storage platform. Maybe as a first step, have a system that combines your peertube, bitchute and youtube accounts together, like a semi-rss feed. Maybe you should be able to use your google account on the alternate platforms. Google won't like such adversarial compatibility, but if done client side there won't be much they can do.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  In some video sectors people issue "preview" videos on YouTube (for discovery, network effect) and have a full video elsewhere that doesn't have to comply with YouTube's terms. That would probably work here until YouTube move on to "can't signpost content that's not allowed here".
  - krilly 7y ago
    This approach implies that YouTube actually pays attention to the details of their terms, rather than just using wide sweeping keyword filters.
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      It seems to work in the sector I was thinking of (lewd ASMR). I guess if YouTube blocks content by keywords we'll need to get creative with the thesaurus or ROT13.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
> The internet promised so much, but is being ruined by corporations and governments. No, it is ruined by normal citizens who largely don't understand democracy and its value. As long as the dictator doesn't bear the label "dictator", people generally prefer dictators, and then at times they are surprised that dictators abuse their power.
lrem 7y ago
There is nothing to come up with. Serving video is a well understood process, both as a service and self-hosted. YouTube's popularity is based mostly on network effect and Google footing the bill for a top notch experience for your viewers. Few people will pay the Vimeo prices, or build something at multiple the cost, if they can get the whole package for free. Disclaimer: I'm a Googler, so can't help you with estimating the cost. But a few years back the research community had some reasonable-sounding models. Plug in current hardware and you can get an idea.
- iokanuon 7y ago
  What about PeerTube? Seems like a good fit for the infosec community.
  - lrem 7y ago
    That's entirely reasonable. My plan of record in for YouTube no longer footing the bill of disseminating videos of my children to extended family is similar (seeding them on bit torrent). Edit: note that peer to peer doesn't exactly solve the economies. Instead of advertisers, you're asking your viewers to provide the resources. Depending on the audience, this will or will not work.
cuillevel3 7y ago
Well, the internet is still there. It's just that the majority mistook private spaces for public ones. Well, it is convenient I guess. Your content is being found, the interface is great, someone else is paying for servers, storage and bandwidth. All of that for a little control and advertisements... And honestly, I want platforms to regulate content. They have millions of users, some of them are underage or even democratically unstable. It's okay to put a little effort into finding knowledge now and then.
- squarefoot 7y ago
  "Well, the internet is still there. It's just that the majority mistook private spaces for public ones." Exactly. Using Twitter or Facebook in place of Email/IRC/Usenet/WWW is wrong so many ways, but good luck telling that around without getting laughed at.
alltakendamned 7y ago
The internet will route around this block, just like it has always routed around other obstacles. Infosec people tend to be crafty (it's a job requirement imo) and quite a lot of the greybeards were part of building the infrastructure from the beginning, so no need to despair yet.
- wruza 7y ago
  But regular laymen never look beyond youtube (everything non-advertized and popular in general). There is no business model in being underground greybeard publisher.
  - VRay 7y ago
    Considering that you can pull in 100-300k as a security professional at a company, and a multiple of that as a consultant, I don't think that YouTube ad money is that big a deal
reeves23423 7y ago
> If anyone is capable, they are. True. Even the audience for this will be devs which is right fit to make a decentralized community.
ajsnigrutin 7y ago
Nah, all the old services are still out there and still work. You can still use irc, you can still set up your own mail and web server. There are even new alternatives, from tor to other hidden/dark/free...nets. But people are too lazy, and find the "just use the largest corporate platform" very convenient, especially if it's "free". edit: ...which is a problems, since also your viewers only use that "one big" platform, and don't check elsewhere.
faissaloo 7y ago
>The internet promised so much, but is being ruined by corporations and governments. The only way to fight it is to make sites like we used to, and make sure they have onions
dalbasal 7y ago
giveth and taketh. Google/YouTube/FB/etc made the web more accessible, fun and useful to normal people. The profit motive was great for cutting through the more idealistic 'open web's" occasionally stubborn^ roadblocks. YouTube, for example, got online video bigger/better/faster by doing centralisation, flash & such. After they win though, they effectively become squatters. YouTube or FB could go offline today and tomorrow we'd probably see new services, possibly free and decentralised, popping up to replace them. But, while they monopolize their areas... they probably create negative value.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  >The profit motive was great for cutting through the more idealistic 'open web's" occasionally stubborn^ roadblocks. Could you give some examples of this, please?
  - dalbasal 7y ago
    YouTube, for example, got online video bigger/better/faster by doing centralisation, flash & such. ..FB also, photos of their grand hildren was the reason a lot of people got online.
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      But YouTube having faster servers isn't an "open web" roadblock, Facebook's social graph isn't either -- neither of these shed any light on your previous comment for me.
      - dalbasal 7y ago
        What would?
        pbhjpbhj 7y ago
        In the original comment you mentioned the open web put roadblocks in the way of progress due to idealism. So, if you could say what those roadblocks were, and how the idealism supported them ... Presumably you're not accusing "open web" activists of having ideals that favour inhibiting bandwidth, or hosting content on slow servers, so noting that proprietary ["closed"] services had those facets is irrelevant to your original comment. If you felt that people wanting to use PNG, because GIF was closed and contrary to [the nebulous concept of] "open web ideals" has retarded progress on the web, then that might be an example? I'm struggling for an example, because I don't know of any examples, which is why I asked you because you spoke implying you know [many] examples!
ohithereyou 7y ago
Opening up the Internet to commerce was our Original Sin.
t34543 7y ago
Don’t forget that people are behind both corporations and governments. It’s being ruined by people.

scoutt 7y ago

Don't be so pessimistic. There are still plenty of resources and places to discuss whatever you want. Youtube is like that big commercial avenue in the city, where you can only see mainstream stuff. If you look for the bookstore that has hacking/engineering/pyscology books, you'll have to go elsewhere. But it has always been this way.

beaconstudios 7y ago
there's plenty of niche content that finds its home on YouTube. It's as if the commercial avenue was infinitely large and could contain every shop you could wish for.
- mooselumps 7y ago
  You have to leave the avenue for porn. Pornhub has good enough porn, can find something for most any niche. Soon you’ll find though, if you’re really into this or that, individual studios that cater to your niche create videos with high production value that are all around better than what you dig up on pornhub. There are marketplaces for small studios like clips4sale.com (nsfw). Also aggregators for specific niches / topics, etc. Maybe anti-YouTube people can look to porn for the way out?
  - xfitm3 7y ago
    You have to know what you're looking for, which I think is traditionally the biggest hurtle.
syshum 7y ago
YouTube used to be that place.... I remember it, I want that YouTube Back... YouTube did not become popular with "mainstream stuff" if I wanted "mainstream stuff" I would still be a cable TV Subscriber YouTube promoting only "mainstream stuff" like CBS, and CNN will kill YouTube
- gdulli 7y ago
  YouTube got popular with mainstream TV shows and movies. Then after it won all the market share with that content, Google bought it and turned it legit.
  - syshum 7y ago
    No that is not what made YouTube Popular at all I have never once watched a mainstream TV show or Movie on the platform.
  - poutrathor 7y ago
    Yeah that's utterly wrong, YouTube got popular because it was the best platform to upload any video and find and watch any video. Then music got big on youtube. Right now they are trying to go into movies, not sure how it will work out for them.
- raarts 7y ago
  > CNN will kill youtube Given CNN'S dwindling ratings I sincerely doubt that. If anything youtube needs to rescue them.
  - syshum 7y ago
    No CNN should collapse

yusi-san 7y ago

>I hope the infosec community can come up with some kind of decentralized way to actually share free speech. If anyone is capable, they are. There are decentralized/open/ethic friendly services alternative to big corporations services. In the case of Youtube there's PeerTube[1] for exemple (even if in that case there's a IP leak due to the p2p protocol if I remember correctly). The sad thing here is that people decide to stay on the "big" services due to the network effect, and few people decide to boycott them just to follow principles. [1]https://joinpeertube.org/ https://joinpeertube.org/

Asooka 7y ago
This is why we need a solution that separates the social network from the storage platform. Maybe as a first step, have a system that combines your peertube, bitchute and youtube accounts together, like a semi-rss feed. Maybe you should be able to use your google account on the alternate platforms. Google won't like such adversarial compatibility, but if done client side there won't be much they can do.
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
In some video sectors people issue "preview" videos on YouTube (for discovery, network effect) and have a full video elsewhere that doesn't have to comply with YouTube's terms. That would probably work here until YouTube move on to "can't signpost content that's not allowed here".
- krilly 7y ago
  This approach implies that YouTube actually pays attention to the details of their terms, rather than just using wide sweeping keyword filters.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    It seems to work in the sector I was thinking of (lewd ASMR). I guess if YouTube blocks content by keywords we'll need to get creative with the thesaurus or ROT13.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago

> The internet promised so much, but is being ruined by corporations and governments. No, it is ruined by normal citizens who largely don't understand democracy and its value. As long as the dictator doesn't bear the label "dictator", people generally prefer dictators, and then at times they are surprised that dictators abuse their power.

lrem 7y ago

There is nothing to come up with. Serving video is a well understood process, both as a service and self-hosted. YouTube's popularity is based mostly on network effect and Google footing the bill for a top notch experience for your viewers. Few people will pay the Vimeo prices, or build something at multiple the cost, if they can get the whole package for free. Disclaimer: I'm a Googler, so can't help you with estimating the cost. But a few years back the research community had some reasonable-sounding models. Plug in current hardware and you can get an idea.

iokanuon 7y ago
What about PeerTube? Seems like a good fit for the infosec community.
- lrem 7y ago
  That's entirely reasonable. My plan of record in for YouTube no longer footing the bill of disseminating videos of my children to extended family is similar (seeding them on bit torrent). Edit: note that peer to peer doesn't exactly solve the economies. Instead of advertisers, you're asking your viewers to provide the resources. Depending on the audience, this will or will not work.

cuillevel3 7y ago

Well, the internet is still there. It's just that the majority mistook private spaces for public ones. Well, it is convenient I guess. Your content is being found, the interface is great, someone else is paying for servers, storage and bandwidth. All of that for a little control and advertisements... And honestly, I want platforms to regulate content. They have millions of users, some of them are underage or even democratically unstable. It's okay to put a little effort into finding knowledge now and then.

squarefoot 7y ago
"Well, the internet is still there. It's just that the majority mistook private spaces for public ones." Exactly. Using Twitter or Facebook in place of Email/IRC/Usenet/WWW is wrong so many ways, but good luck telling that around without getting laughed at.

alltakendamned 7y ago

The internet will route around this block, just like it has always routed around other obstacles. Infosec people tend to be crafty (it's a job requirement imo) and quite a lot of the greybeards were part of building the infrastructure from the beginning, so no need to despair yet.

wruza 7y ago
But regular laymen never look beyond youtube (everything non-advertized and popular in general). There is no business model in being underground greybeard publisher.
- VRay 7y ago
  Considering that you can pull in 100-300k as a security professional at a company, and a multiple of that as a consultant, I don't think that YouTube ad money is that big a deal

reeves23423 7y ago

> If anyone is capable, they are. True. Even the audience for this will be devs which is right fit to make a decentralized community.

ajsnigrutin 7y ago

Nah, all the old services are still out there and still work. You can still use irc, you can still set up your own mail and web server. There are even new alternatives, from tor to other hidden/dark/free...nets. But people are too lazy, and find the "just use the largest corporate platform" very convenient, especially if it's "free". edit: ...which is a problems, since also your viewers only use that "one big" platform, and don't check elsewhere.

faissaloo 7y ago

>The internet promised so much, but is being ruined by corporations and governments. The only way to fight it is to make sites like we used to, and make sure they have onions

dalbasal 7y ago

giveth and taketh. Google/YouTube/FB/etc made the web more accessible, fun and useful to normal people. The profit motive was great for cutting through the more idealistic 'open web's" occasionally stubborn^ roadblocks. YouTube, for example, got online video bigger/better/faster by doing centralisation, flash & such. After they win though, they effectively become squatters. YouTube or FB could go offline today and tomorrow we'd probably see new services, possibly free and decentralised, popping up to replace them. But, while they monopolize their areas... they probably create negative value.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
>The profit motive was great for cutting through the more idealistic 'open web's" occasionally stubborn^ roadblocks. Could you give some examples of this, please?
- dalbasal 7y ago
  YouTube, for example, got online video bigger/better/faster by doing centralisation, flash & such. ..FB also, photos of their grand hildren was the reason a lot of people got online.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    But YouTube having faster servers isn't an "open web" roadblock, Facebook's social graph isn't either -- neither of these shed any light on your previous comment for me.
    - dalbasal 7y ago
      What would?
      - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
        In the original comment you mentioned the open web put roadblocks in the way of progress due to idealism. So, if you could say what those roadblocks were, and how the idealism supported them ... Presumably you're not accusing "open web" activists of having ideals that favour inhibiting bandwidth, or hosting content on slow servers, so noting that proprietary ["closed"] services had those facets is irrelevant to your original comment. If you felt that people wanting to use PNG, because GIF was closed and contrary to [the nebulous concept of] "open web ideals" has retarded progress on the web, then that might be an example? I'm struggling for an example, because I don't know of any examples, which is why I asked you because you spoke implying you know [many] examples!

ohithereyou 7y ago

Opening up the Internet to commerce was our Original Sin.

t34543 7y ago

Don’t forget that people are behind both corporations and governments. It’s being ruined by people.