6 ms·

This is so heart warming. Thanks to Debian and wow - Framasoft (who I'd never heard of) has a page that is so on point!! Amazing. Someone doing something to

This is so heart warming. Thanks to Debian and wow - Framasoft (who I'd never heard of) has a page that is so on point!! Amazing. Someone doing something to stop the book burning (comment deletion in the billions) and censorship at youtube. I wish there was more of this.

dewey 6y ago
> Someone doing something to stop the book burning (comment deletion in the billions) and censorship at youtube. What kind of content is getting "censored" on YouTube?
- feralimal 6y ago
  It is hard to get a handle on what disappears; at least I haven't seen a straightforward breakdown. Certainly things that talks about 911 not being an act of terrorism, Sandy Hook and other school shooting being a govt sponsored hoax, the Las Vegas shooting hoax, things relating to space being hoaxed, etc. I'm not going to provide an opinion on these things. Whatever your perspective, the thing I would argue, is that if you want to be informed you need access to all the information and evidence, not a subset selected for you by the governing class. It used to be a popular thing to say: "I hate what you're saying, but I'll fight for your right to say it". I agree with this. But we have been educated to think that so called 'hate speech' is a problem, whereas the real issue is the prolonged infantilisation of adults - in that we don't trust our own judgement, and would prefer an authority to do it for us.
  - dewey 6y ago
    Personally this sounds like exactly the type of content I want to have removed from platforms I frequent. Same as foreign election meddling ads on Facebook or Nazis and bots on Twitter that users urge the platforms to deal with in a better way. If I look at the front page of some peertube instances it consists of Liveleak-like content, conspiracy theories and ISIS recruitment videos and I can see how that is not very appealing to the average user.
    - feralimal 6y ago
      Well, you are saying it is a good thing that certain information is unavailable to you, and that you trust google, the government to do the job for you. I couldn't disagree more! My response would be, don't you think you can judge for yourself what is ok, and to not watch things that are nonsense? Also, aren't you concerned that you could be manipulated as you may be trusting authorities who - out of self-interest - could fail to disclose information to you; ie that you will be unable to reach an informed opinion as you will be in ignorance? Personally, I have zero trust in any other parties judging what is ok or not for me to know about. I am happy to judge for myself, without parental guidance.
      - dewey 6y ago
        > you are saying it is a good thing that certain information is unavailable to you, and that you trust google, the government to do the job for you. That's not what I'm saying. Removing the information from YouTube isn't removing the information from the internet. They are just making use of their right to decide what they give space to on their platform. I can still go to a specific conspiracy theory website and read about it there if I'm feeling like it. The "government" has nothing to do with that as we are talking about a company applying their own policies to their website not a government mandated take down of content.
        feralimal 6y ago
        But it does. Its public knowledge that google was partially funded by inqtel. The government subsidises corporations. I think you and I must have different ideas on what governance is. You probably think education, corporations, government and media are separate. I don't. I think they are part of the same governance apparatus. Hence you have a search company providing email, content, etc in google. And you have Bezos who supplies your online request and media. And Elon who supplies a car service (that he can shut down), space, and neural laces. Microsoft who provide the world's operating systems, family planning and viruses. Etc.
        zo1 6y ago
        > "Removing the information from YouTube isn't removing the information from the internet." What gets "flagged" or "removed" from Youtube, mostly also gets the same treatment at Facebook, Twitter, etc. Some extreme examples have seen people be deplatformed from a wide range of "internet" platforms, including their hosting. It's a sad road to go down, and each time we concede things such as removing content from Youtube because of "user safety" and "experience", we add legitimacy for the deplatforming, cancelling and exclusion of individuals with different or controversial opinions.
  - aesyondu 6y ago
    I love freedom and it is basically the first thing I think of when coming up with a list of "things I care about the most". With that said, I'm trying to think about what would reddit/youtube/<insert any public viewable platform> look like in my utopian world of free speech. Where would I draw the line for which can and can't be posted? Should media related to pornography, terrorism, or pedophilia be allowed or forbidden? How about gore, violence, or any other form of crime / morally wrong concept? I've personally seen (without intending to) the video of the New Zealand Christchurch shooting. On seeing that video I have never been more disgusted in my entire life. I felt like I wanted to puke, hell I want to puke as I type this. Should that be allowed or forbidden? In my view everything should be allowed, that is, there should be no form of censorship whatsoever. It is up to the individual, based on the value system that he/she has accumulated throughout his/her life, to decide whether what he/she is seeing/reading is acceptable or deplorable. But no one should be able to decide that for another individual.
- reportingsjr 6y ago
  It's not strict censorship per say, but more repression, but there are a lot of oddball youtube channels that are very popular that constantly get demonetized based on a somewhat arbitrary definitions of what is and isn't appropriate. This is important, because a lot of these people are trying to make their livings creating videos on youtube, and start trying to avoid otherwise interesting topics so they don't get demonitized. Some examples: StyroPyro (almost got banned for going replicating stuff from a turn of the century chemistry book), Cody's Lab, William Osman, the list goes on and on and on. https://twitter.com/crabsandscience/status/1042136447187279872?lang=en https://twitter.com/crabsandscience/status/10421364471872798... https://www.tubefilter.com/2017/11/06/codys-lab-content-strike/ https://www.tubefilter.com/2017/11/06/codys-lab-content-stri... https://www.patreon.com/posts/sad-day-for-my-15167435 https://www.patreon.com/posts/sad-day-for-my-15167435
  - spijdar 6y ago
    It seems the problem here isn't Youtube, though -- it's the ad networks. As great and beneficial as shifting to a p2p distribution model outside of Google is, I'm not sure how it defeats this "censorship", as you go from "Advertisers don't want to pay for ad placements on x/y/z controversial topic and Google won't promote me!" to simply having no revenue model and no promotion. You would need to start finding third party sponsors and ad networks, and some sort of promotion/content discovery platform, where I suspect you'd run into the same problems -- the people with the money (ad networks) aren't going to want to sponsor certain kinds of content. I suspect the best way "around" this is to find sponsors and leverage models like Patreon and paypal donations to finance "untouchable" content. I think it encourages better content than adsense financed videos on top of that.
    - boogies 6y ago
      > It seems the problem here isn't Youtube, though -- it's the ad networks. > As great and beneficial as shifting to a p2p distribution model outside of Google is, I'm not sure how it defeats this "censorship", as you go from "Advertisers don't want to pay for ad placements on x/y/z controversial topic and Google won't promote me!" to simply having no revenue model and no promotion. I don’t think the problem commented on above is just demonetization and shadowbanning, it’s completely removing comments and channels as well. But I agree re: sponsors and donations, Peertube already has a “Support” button right next to the like and dislike thumbs, that can be clicked to show donation links, including to Liberapay, and crypto addresses.
- fsflover 6y ago
  YouTube's ban on “hacking techniques” threatens to shut down infosec YouTube: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20350306 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20350306 Blender is testing PeerTube after YouTube blocks their videos worldwide: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17347560 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17347560 YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20346865 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20346865 and those are just the top results from HN.
- olau 6y ago
  Several years old example: a local forum for mothers were discussing an acute breast feeding problem one of them had (stuck milk), and one of them uploaded a video showing how to massage the milk out of a breast. That was quickly banned as inappropriate. Probably because you could see a nipple. I think she uploaded it to Vimeo instead when they found out. That example certainly taught me to think of Youtube more as a cache than as a storage, if that makes any sense. It also came across as oppressive. The fear of the nipple winning over basic human issues.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  "Inside LGBTQ Vloggers’ Class-Action ‘Censorship’ Suit Against YouTube"[1]: > YouTubers claim the internet platform is targeting videos not because of their content, but because of the sexual identity of their creators [1] https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/lgbtq-youtube-lawsuit-censorship-877919/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/lgbtq-...
- ficklepickle 6y ago
  I've noticed a lot of self-censorship in an effort to appease "the algorithm", or their perception thereof. Things like being afraid to say certain common phrases like "mental illness" because they believe it will lead to their video being demonetized. Then there are the comments. Try leaving a comment in Mandarin that I'm told means "communist bandits". It looks like the comment succeeds, but reloading reveals it has been censored. Silent censorship to appease the CCP.
- andrey_utkin 6y ago
  Not just content - the software ecosystem around YouTube is being censored. youtube-dl has been taken down from Github today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24872911 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24872911
  - dewey 6y ago
    That has nothing to do with YouTube though. It’s just a normal copy right complaint that happens to all kinds of torrent clients on GitHub all the time (Popcorntime etc)
    - andrey_utkin 6y ago
      It does have to do with Youtube, because the claim that a download client breaks copy protection of the Peertube service would be absurd, since (I presume) there's none.

dewey 6y ago

> Someone doing something to stop the book burning (comment deletion in the billions) and censorship at youtube. What kind of content is getting "censored" on YouTube?

feralimal 6y ago
It is hard to get a handle on what disappears; at least I haven't seen a straightforward breakdown. Certainly things that talks about 911 not being an act of terrorism, Sandy Hook and other school shooting being a govt sponsored hoax, the Las Vegas shooting hoax, things relating to space being hoaxed, etc. I'm not going to provide an opinion on these things. Whatever your perspective, the thing I would argue, is that if you want to be informed you need access to all the information and evidence, not a subset selected for you by the governing class. It used to be a popular thing to say: "I hate what you're saying, but I'll fight for your right to say it". I agree with this. But we have been educated to think that so called 'hate speech' is a problem, whereas the real issue is the prolonged infantilisation of adults - in that we don't trust our own judgement, and would prefer an authority to do it for us.
- dewey 6y ago
  Personally this sounds like exactly the type of content I want to have removed from platforms I frequent. Same as foreign election meddling ads on Facebook or Nazis and bots on Twitter that users urge the platforms to deal with in a better way. If I look at the front page of some peertube instances it consists of Liveleak-like content, conspiracy theories and ISIS recruitment videos and I can see how that is not very appealing to the average user.
  - feralimal 6y ago
    Well, you are saying it is a good thing that certain information is unavailable to you, and that you trust google, the government to do the job for you. I couldn't disagree more! My response would be, don't you think you can judge for yourself what is ok, and to not watch things that are nonsense? Also, aren't you concerned that you could be manipulated as you may be trusting authorities who - out of self-interest - could fail to disclose information to you; ie that you will be unable to reach an informed opinion as you will be in ignorance? Personally, I have zero trust in any other parties judging what is ok or not for me to know about. I am happy to judge for myself, without parental guidance.
    - dewey 6y ago
      > you are saying it is a good thing that certain information is unavailable to you, and that you trust google, the government to do the job for you. That's not what I'm saying. Removing the information from YouTube isn't removing the information from the internet. They are just making use of their right to decide what they give space to on their platform. I can still go to a specific conspiracy theory website and read about it there if I'm feeling like it. The "government" has nothing to do with that as we are talking about a company applying their own policies to their website not a government mandated take down of content.
      - feralimal 6y ago
        But it does. Its public knowledge that google was partially funded by inqtel. The government subsidises corporations. I think you and I must have different ideas on what governance is. You probably think education, corporations, government and media are separate. I don't. I think they are part of the same governance apparatus. Hence you have a search company providing email, content, etc in google. And you have Bezos who supplies your online request and media. And Elon who supplies a car service (that he can shut down), space, and neural laces. Microsoft who provide the world's operating systems, family planning and viruses. Etc.
      - zo1 6y ago
        > "Removing the information from YouTube isn't removing the information from the internet." What gets "flagged" or "removed" from Youtube, mostly also gets the same treatment at Facebook, Twitter, etc. Some extreme examples have seen people be deplatformed from a wide range of "internet" platforms, including their hosting. It's a sad road to go down, and each time we concede things such as removing content from Youtube because of "user safety" and "experience", we add legitimacy for the deplatforming, cancelling and exclusion of individuals with different or controversial opinions.
- aesyondu 6y ago
  I love freedom and it is basically the first thing I think of when coming up with a list of "things I care about the most". With that said, I'm trying to think about what would reddit/youtube/<insert any public viewable platform> look like in my utopian world of free speech. Where would I draw the line for which can and can't be posted? Should media related to pornography, terrorism, or pedophilia be allowed or forbidden? How about gore, violence, or any other form of crime / morally wrong concept? I've personally seen (without intending to) the video of the New Zealand Christchurch shooting. On seeing that video I have never been more disgusted in my entire life. I felt like I wanted to puke, hell I want to puke as I type this. Should that be allowed or forbidden? In my view everything should be allowed, that is, there should be no form of censorship whatsoever. It is up to the individual, based on the value system that he/she has accumulated throughout his/her life, to decide whether what he/she is seeing/reading is acceptable or deplorable. But no one should be able to decide that for another individual.
reportingsjr 6y ago
It's not strict censorship per say, but more repression, but there are a lot of oddball youtube channels that are very popular that constantly get demonetized based on a somewhat arbitrary definitions of what is and isn't appropriate. This is important, because a lot of these people are trying to make their livings creating videos on youtube, and start trying to avoid otherwise interesting topics so they don't get demonitized. Some examples: StyroPyro (almost got banned for going replicating stuff from a turn of the century chemistry book), Cody's Lab, William Osman, the list goes on and on and on. https://twitter.com/crabsandscience/status/1042136447187279872?lang=en https://twitter.com/crabsandscience/status/10421364471872798... https://www.tubefilter.com/2017/11/06/codys-lab-content-strike/ https://www.tubefilter.com/2017/11/06/codys-lab-content-stri... https://www.patreon.com/posts/sad-day-for-my-15167435 https://www.patreon.com/posts/sad-day-for-my-15167435
- spijdar 6y ago
  It seems the problem here isn't Youtube, though -- it's the ad networks. As great and beneficial as shifting to a p2p distribution model outside of Google is, I'm not sure how it defeats this "censorship", as you go from "Advertisers don't want to pay for ad placements on x/y/z controversial topic and Google won't promote me!" to simply having no revenue model and no promotion. You would need to start finding third party sponsors and ad networks, and some sort of promotion/content discovery platform, where I suspect you'd run into the same problems -- the people with the money (ad networks) aren't going to want to sponsor certain kinds of content. I suspect the best way "around" this is to find sponsors and leverage models like Patreon and paypal donations to finance "untouchable" content. I think it encourages better content than adsense financed videos on top of that.
  - boogies 6y ago
    > It seems the problem here isn't Youtube, though -- it's the ad networks. > As great and beneficial as shifting to a p2p distribution model outside of Google is, I'm not sure how it defeats this "censorship", as you go from "Advertisers don't want to pay for ad placements on x/y/z controversial topic and Google won't promote me!" to simply having no revenue model and no promotion. I don’t think the problem commented on above is just demonetization and shadowbanning, it’s completely removing comments and channels as well. But I agree re: sponsors and donations, Peertube already has a “Support” button right next to the like and dislike thumbs, that can be clicked to show donation links, including to Liberapay, and crypto addresses.
fsflover 6y ago
YouTube's ban on “hacking techniques” threatens to shut down infosec YouTube: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20350306 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20350306 Blender is testing PeerTube after YouTube blocks their videos worldwide: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17347560 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17347560 YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20346865 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20346865 and those are just the top results from HN.
olau 6y ago
Several years old example: a local forum for mothers were discussing an acute breast feeding problem one of them had (stuck milk), and one of them uploaded a video showing how to massage the milk out of a breast. That was quickly banned as inappropriate. Probably because you could see a nipple. I think she uploaded it to Vimeo instead when they found out. That example certainly taught me to think of Youtube more as a cache than as a storage, if that makes any sense. It also came across as oppressive. The fear of the nipple winning over basic human issues.
heavyset_go 6y ago
"Inside LGBTQ Vloggers’ Class-Action ‘Censorship’ Suit Against YouTube"[1]: > YouTubers claim the internet platform is targeting videos not because of their content, but because of the sexual identity of their creators [1] https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/lgbtq-youtube-lawsuit-censorship-877919/ https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/lgbtq-...
ficklepickle 6y ago
I've noticed a lot of self-censorship in an effort to appease "the algorithm", or their perception thereof. Things like being afraid to say certain common phrases like "mental illness" because they believe it will lead to their video being demonetized. Then there are the comments. Try leaving a comment in Mandarin that I'm told means "communist bandits". It looks like the comment succeeds, but reloading reveals it has been censored. Silent censorship to appease the CCP.
andrey_utkin 6y ago
Not just content - the software ecosystem around YouTube is being censored. youtube-dl has been taken down from Github today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24872911 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24872911
- dewey 6y ago
  That has nothing to do with YouTube though. It’s just a normal copy right complaint that happens to all kinds of torrent clients on GitHub all the time (Popcorntime etc)
  - andrey_utkin 6y ago
    It does have to do with Youtube, because the claim that a download client breaks copy protection of the Peertube service would be absurd, since (I presume) there's none.