14 ms·

Terminated

• majkinetor 4y ago
  • api 4y ago
    Or... hosting the videos at cornell.edu. I realize that's radical.
    • Joeboy 4y ago
      I'm a little unclear on how you're supposed to self-host video these days. From what I understand the "obvious" way to do it (uploading a video file and embedding it on a page) doesn't result in a good user experience.
      • trasz 4y ago
        PeerTube perhaps? Also, let's face it, YouTube's user experience isn't great either; people only use it because it's popular and free (as in beer).
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      • rtsil 4y ago
        You can use Vimeo or Wistia. Of course, they aren't free.
      • eropple 4y ago
        So it's not that hard to do a good job of it, but it is work, and it's work with diminishing returns if you're not comfortable managing the lift. And once you get it working, it might require some experimentation here and there to get exactly what you want out of it. The HLS spec is readily available and ffmpeg can, given a video input, emit an HLS manifest with a set of renditions. (For research purposes, the magic words are probably "ffmpeg hls adaptive streaming". Also, tweaking those renditions is a rabbit hole. Bring lunch.) At that point you've just got video files and text-based manifests that can be uploaded somewhere, and you point a sufficiently smart video player at them. For context, I work at Mux [ https://mux.com https://mux.com ] where SaaS video streaming is our bag; having previously built DIY solutions as mentioned above I think that Mux is probably the right choice for most folks who just want to ship a VOD or a live stream in a usable format--and you pay for it, you're the customer--but the tools are there if you want to take a swing at it.
        • jeroenhd 4y ago
          When it comes to recorded lectures, even just HLS is probably overkill in my opinion. All modern browsers support video playback of simple H.264/VP9 files natively anyway. Stuff like HLS only tends to break the browser's native download button.
          • eropple 4y ago
            As with anything, it depends, right? Like, native video does have strong arguments for simplicity. It doesn't have strong arguments for usability. Do you want to seek? Do you want it to continue to work if a user's phone hits a rough patch of the internet? Nothing stops you from letting somebody download a static rendition too, though. (Not trying to shill too hard for Mux, but that comes out of the box.)
      • jonathanstrange 4y ago
        Out of curiosity, what is the problem with the user experience? I genuinely want to know, since I haven't tested embedding videos for a long time. Is a CDN absolutely needed for streaming content?
        • eropple 4y ago
          Seeking into a large video file is awful and having to buffer the entire thing is a bad user experience unless you're starting at the very beginning. In addition to that, there's a quality-vs.-download-time tradeoff and the right answer to that can vary depending on circumstances. Modern systems use HLS or DASH to enable adaptive streaming. Adaptive streaming chunks up your video into segments of 2-10 seconds and renders it out at different quality levels; a sufficiently smart player can then switch between different renditions on the fly based on system and network performance.
          • teddyh 4y ago
            > Seeking into a large video file is awful and having to buffer the entire thing is a bad user experience It would be, if not for HTTP having "Range" support since HTTP 1.1 in 1999.
            • eropple 4y ago
              Have you ever tried to range into a file with variable-length encoding? It doesn't go so well. This is one of the reasons (a little stale IMO, but historically reasonable) that the received wisdom for podcast formats is to use CBR audio, so as to make the naive seek algorithms used when streaming more reliable. Video's bigger and the human tolerances are smaller. There are very, very smart people working on making video readily consumable over the internet. If "just use HTTP range requests" was a viable answer, I tend to think they'd have done it.
              • teddyh 4y ago
                Then, clearly, what we need is a seek-friendly video encoder.
      • throwaway09223 4y ago
        I'm pretty sure the user experience of what you've described is drastically better than what we have with youtube. What on earth would be the problem?
      • treis 4y ago
        Vimeo is the SAAS solution. AWS has primitives that you can cobble together into a solution. Assume Azure, Gcloud and probably others have something similar.
      • the_third_wave 4y ago
        Use something like Peertube [1] to host the video and serve that content in a frame seems to be a feasible alternative. I've hosted a few instances for about 3 years without a hiccup, it mostly 'just works'. [1] https://joinpeertube.org/ https://joinpeertube.org/
      • jeroenhd 4y ago
        I don't get it. What's wrong with a <video> tag and a few <source> tags to aid browsers that don't support the necessary codecs? My experience with the browser native video player blows most alternative players out of the water in terms of convenience and reliability. If you're okay with the privacy implications, you can always set up a Peertube instance to host the content more affordably. Such a system makes it more difficult than necessary to download the video, though.
      • Taywee 4y ago
        I find a simple <video> embed to be a fantastic user experience, even compared to YouTube.
      • api 4y ago
        There are numerous open source YouTube-like viewer scripts. If bandwidth is an issue put the files on S3 or something and link to them there, but that's probably not an issue for a university. Here's one: https://videojs.com https://videojs.com -- there are lots more. People seem to think these things are hard.
        • deleted 4y ago
          [deleted]
  • abakker 4y ago
    Deserved? I think that is a bit strong. Yes, they should have anticipated the possibility, and, maybe they have! Who knows? Saying that individuals deserve the bad actions of platforms is ridiculous. If Microsoft decided to delete files in your home directory, did you deserve it because you weren't using your own version of linux that you compiled from the ground up? No. And I don't think you are really advocating for that. The reality is that we need a better set of laws to hold platforms accountable to their users. and we need to advocate that our government create one. edit: word substitution for clarity.
    • vanderZwan 4y ago
      Not to mention the part where it's kind of ridiculous to suggest that a library would not maintain proper archives. There isn't a single paragraph in the text suggesting that "their only copy was on a proprietary video platform", to quote GP. Just that YT terminated their account.
    • majkinetor 4y ago
      Yes. I deserve that if Microsoft decides to do so. One should take care of its data and not trust anyone.
      • abakker 4y ago
        I think you might misunderstand what "deserve" means. You do not deserve to go bankrupt if you don't have health insurance. you do not deserve to lose your life savings if someone robs your bank. Yes, people have a responsibility to manage their money, their health, and their data loss risk. Failing in that responsibility does not mean that those consequences are somehow moral imperatives.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• mistrial9 4y ago
• mysterydip 4y ago
  > The point is, and this is crucial: If a writer/journalist charges a fee— even so much as a dime— trolls can’t be bothered to complain and harass. They’re such cheapskates. Really interesting point, and I hope it works for them.
  • altairprime 4y ago
    It’s also possible to use this as an effective defense against being indexed by Google, which is a great way to cut abuse as well.
• zozbot234 4y ago
  https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
  • Joeboy 4y ago
    It's hard to tell if you're agreeing with the sentiment in the comic or using this event to illustrate its limits? I think probably the latter but...
  • MrDresden 4y ago
    I agree with the sentiment in the comic, but am honestly asking here: was the content of asshole quality? Did it deserved to get the whole channel pulled down?
    • Joeboy 4y ago
      It sounds like you don't really agree with the sentiment in the comic, if you're asking that question?
      • MrDresden 4y ago
        It sounds like you think there are only black and white consequences in the world. Criticism and differences in opinion can, and should, occur before complete de-platforming if the level of disagreement is not too high (hence my question on the level of disagreement for the content). That being said, there exists no innate right for content to be hosted on Youtube (or anywhere else for that matter).
        • Joeboy 4y ago
          I don't at all think there are only black and white consequences, what I think is that the comic's "it's just that people think [Cornell University is] an asshole and are showing it the door" is a rather black and white statement. I think the question you asked was a perfectly reasonable one, I'm also interested to know the answer. I just don't think it matches the sentiment of the comic.
• cecilpl2 4y ago
  > You may have heard, last week, YouTube terminated the entire Cornell University Library account on their site. They did? Seems to still be available for me: https://www.youtube.com/c/cornelllibrary https://www.youtube.com/c/cornelllibrary I couldn't find any news about this "termination" with a cursory google search either. I even still see the lecture mentioned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM0RL8ppDmE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM0RL8ppDmE Presumably it was some kind of automated response which was quickly overturned by a human?
  • obituary_latte 4y ago
    I see it as well. I even see the "subject" of the ban at the top of the page. I agree it's probably something automated that was overturned (although I feel that these AI's are being too heavy-handed, there should have definitely been some human review before taking offline the entirety of the Cornell YT library).
    • p_l 4y ago
      The big issue is that if it wasn't Cornell Library, which can wield considerable weight into requesting a manual review, the reinstatement would have low chance of happening - even if you did hit a human being with your request, they would be overworked and spend barely few seconds before selecting automated negative response, and that's assuming they wouldn't deliberately decide that by whatever personal or cultural mores the content is obscene and warrants destruction.
      • vanderZwan 4y ago
        She even makes an indirect point about this when mentioning her earlier experiences: > As one Google rep emailed me in the 1990s, “If you were a 10-figure net worth institution, we woudn’t bother. But you aren’t.”
    • AzzieElbab 4y ago
      there is no way anything "automated" would not ban gayle rubin
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• fredgrott 4y ago
  It highlights another point, what do Bitcoin, web3, and social media have in common? give up? We have not found a way to duplicate the human required to build, sustain, and maintain a community of humans in our digital spaces.
  • po1nt 4y ago
    Censorship is the side effect of moderation.
    • mr_toad 4y ago
      Censorship is a tool of moderation. It doesn’t have to be the only one.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• shadowgovt 4y ago
  > The First Amendment, or anything close to it, is MIA on the Web. ... she declared, uncensored, from her self-hosted journal. A multinational Fortune-500 megacorp declined to host Cornell's content for free because they have standards the content violates. Cornell has more than enough cash in the ol' war chest to spin up their own video hosting. This is almost a non-story because it's either telling us something we already know about how corporations treat potentially-embarrassing-to-them content or how society treats the content Susie Bright creates. ETA: In addition, YouTube does not appear to have decided not to host the content after all (it was likely found initially objectionable because they can code a recognizer for "objectionable" more accurately than a recognizer for "educational value"). This doesn't change the fact that YouTube is within their rights to choose not to associate with Cornell as a business arrangement, but it perhaps matters that here, they didn't even make that choice.
  • krzyk 4y ago
    When you create a monopoly, you have to deal with more restrictions - you should at least, but Google looks like US government favorite toy and they don't get any pushback.
  • gertrunde 4y ago
    Regarding: "standards the content violates", I suspect it is a significantly simpler, and revenue-driven, rationale. Removing the content costs less than responding to the complaints, unless those associated with the affected content have sufficient clout to swing the cost equation the other way.
  • josephg 4y ago
    Sometimes I think of the internet like a new country we've discovered. When we landed there, there was no infrastructure - no roads or telephone networks. How do we govern the internet? For all our bluster about loving democracy, the internet is essentially a feudal system. A few large entities have stepped up to build needed infrastructure. In exchange, they own everything. You don't rent your facebook page, your gmail address or your iCloud account. Renters have rights. If AI enforcers run by the the big tech companies don't like you, they'll just banish you from their land forever. (And delete all your stuff in the process). You have no rights and no representation. Just like in medieval times, this is seen as totally normal. Facebook and Google pay for all of this by tracking us everywhere we go and selling our data to advertisers. Its like if every road outside your house was owned by a company, and when you walk out the front door cameras track your every move so they can show you personalized ads. Apple pays for it all by massively taxing every transaction in their store, banning competition and making it so everything you buy inside their ecosystem won't work anywhere else. I never know quite what to say when people defend the right of companies to shamelessly claim sovereignty over their billions of users. I mean, its not exactly the same as totalitarianism because you can move to a different tech platform if you want. Well sort of - have to leave your data, communities, apps and devices behind when you leave. And anyway, benevolent dictators work great in small companies and communities. My problem with Facebook is that it has nearly 3 billion monthly active users. Thats not a team. Thats bigger than any country. Its an empire. It even has a king! If I don't like how my city is run, I can vote in my local elections. Where is the ballet box for our tech platforms? It took humanity thousands of years to figure out that democratic systems work better than feudal systems. I really hope we can make that leap faster this time. Our civilization might depend on it.
• lkrubner 4y ago
  This might be the most interesting and important point: "The thing is, this banning/terminating/deleting troll crap has been going on since I first got my modem in 1986. I’ve been on every popular web platform, every one — and I’ve been “un-platformed” each time, because of specious complaints. The emerging media companies court early adopters, and then they can’t get rid of us fast enough." She participated in the famous WELL, back in the 1980s. It is interesting how long this particular struggle, over moderation policies, has been going on. She makes a good point that each of these companies has followed a similar pattern of first courting the kinds of radical experimenters who blaze new trails, and then later kicking them off platforms because they are not respectable: "This has been going on for decades now. It isn’t just Google, it’s all the majors: Apple, Amazon, FB, Twitter, Microsoft, AOL, on and on. I could name a dozen others who’ve disappeared in the social media mist. It’s cruel that each of them censor the very people who created their original incubators. Did you know that On Our Backs was the first magazine, of any kind, to publish with an early Apple computer and Adobe Pagemaker 1.0? Yes, we were. I was on The WELL in the 80s. Our idealism and commitment was ferocious!"
  • VonGuard 4y ago
    Yep, this has been going on forever. That's why the Spritely Foundation and Project were created to put all the knowledge on this subject to use in a standards effort. https://spritelyproject.org/ https://spritelyproject.org/
  • brk 4y ago
    >She makes a good point that each of these companies has followed a similar >pattern of first courting the kinds of radical experimenters who blaze new >trails, and then later kicking them off platforms because they are not >respectable IMO/IME this is not exactly how it happens. What really happens is that as these platforms grow, they attract the attention of religious zealot groups who conduct absolutely massive campaigns to take down any content that they personally see as inappropriate. They have their own private blogs and mailing lists, with people given names/emails to contact to lodge complaints about "highly offensive" content that they have never even viewed, they were just instructed to file complaints against it. A big part of the issue is that much of this content really only appeals to a small group of people, and many times those people do not even realize these attacks are happening in the background. The content platforms then decide it is easier to just ban this content so that they do not get overwhelmed with the religious zealot protests. I wish we could charge those kinds of groups with the impediment of free speech (at least in the US) and fine them out of existence.
• rtsil 4y ago
  Never, ever depend on Google for anything that you can't afford to lose and/or can't replicate in a short time. And yes, that applies to GCP.
  • cratermoon 4y ago
    > Google Or Facebook/Instagram/Meta, or Twitter, or Dropbox, or ... Not even Iron Mountain is immune from malicious or negligent handling of critical records.
  • TameAntelope 4y ago
    Never depend on anything you haven't signed a contract for that explicitly outlines the consequences of the thing failing to deliver, and you are satisfied with those consequences. Also never depend on any one thing; GCP, AWS, Azure, Rackspace, etc.
• mistrial9 4y ago
  • andybak 4y ago
    In that case are downvotes censorship too?
    • mistrial9 4y ago
      easy answer - not at all. The difference there is, flagged results in 'no one can read this' which is an act of censorship, while a downvote is part of an ongoing engagement process.
      • dang 4y ago
        Anyone can read [dead] comments on HN if they turn 'showdead' on in their profile. We never delete posts outright unless the author asks us to. Users flagged your comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31810870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31810870. We can only guess why users flag things, but it's not hard to point to site guidelines which your comment broke - such as the ones that asks people not to fulminate, post flamebait, or use the site for ideological battle. You can call that 'censorship' if you like - people use the word to refer to any moderation they don't like - but (regardless of what's going on in users' heads when they flag) moderators don't think of this process in terms of banning specific views. That is, we don't much care what your views are. We care about threads not degenerating into flamewar dreck.
        • mistrial9 4y ago
          thank you for the clarification dang -- as usual your calls to order and insight here make sense. I will keep striving on that
  • davidro80 4y ago
• zkirill 4y ago
  Is NGINX-RTMP [1] the easiest to setup alternative to YouTube? Does anyone have any experience with it? I'm not sure if you need the paid NGINX Plus [2] to deliver a decent user experience on all devices. [1] https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-set-up-a-video-streaming-server-using-nginx-rtmp-on-ubuntu-20-04 https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-set-... [2] https://www.nginx.com/products/nginx/streaming-media/ https://www.nginx.com/products/nginx/streaming-media/
  • raybb 4y ago
    Or maybe peertube? https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube/blob/develop/support/doc/production.md https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube/blob/develop/support/...
  • ucm_edge 4y ago
    The is the Avalon Media Project run by Indiana University as well. All open source and intended for this very reason since IU’s Kinsey Institute places them at risk of a deplatform.
• endisneigh 4y ago
  Why is this so highly upvoted? > Google’s little company deleted all the files, after they saw the April university lectures by myself, Gayle Rubin, and other On Our Backs artists. We don’t know if there was a complaint, or it was just their usual harrow of ever-changing terms and conditions. It's literally wrong, lol. You can go on YouTube and find these lectures yourself. If people on here are susceptible to such blatant misinformation then maybe there's no hope. YouTube can and does actually delete videos - if this is what happened they'd be gone (even if the account were restored). The fact you can see the videos in question means the author is wrong. Furthermore, where's the proof that it was ever taken down to begin with? Archive.org is a thing. People just believe anything they're told huh.
  • sascha_sl 4y ago
    I see absolutely no reason anyone with a reputation should lie about this. It is not an uncommon occurance in platform capitalism to have automated moderation misfire either.
    • endisneigh 4y ago
      It’s not about lying. People can just be mistaken
• dna_polymerase 4y ago
  So this person has been banned in every single platform. Maybe instead of arrogantly wearing this statement as some sort of medal think about how the community guidelines reflect some sort of shared values and being ousted again again might be a sign of you being an asshole above anything else.
• jeroenhd 4y ago
  Looks like the account got restored. Seemingly, nothing got erased, the account was just temporarily unavailable. > Needless to say, the OOB lecturers were fully clothed and rather obsessed with our historical narrative. Anyone not interested in feminist politics would have probably fallen asleep. The lecturers perhaps, but the streamed lecture contains full-screen examples from pornographic magazines that obviously should be flagged for verification by any porn detecting algorithm. Youtube does state that explicit materials are allowed for educational content, but if their copyright machines can't even distinguish white noise from copyrighted music then I have very little hope that context like "educational discussion" will ever be recognised automatically. As a society, we may need a platform where educational/government institutions can upload content (with content warnings, if necessary) because Youtube is a terrible fit for content like this. Youtube's scope is too large to be managed by humans who can understand context and their advertiser seeking behaviour provides an incentive to "punish" videos containing even allowed nudity in their self-learning algorithms. Requiring every institution to set up their own video hosting infrastructure is unnecessary and even wasteful of public funds.
  • tedivm 4y ago
    They could just flag the accounts of educational institutions as educational. I sincerely doubt the Cornell University Library is going to pivot to pornography.
    • puffoflogic 4y ago
      On the other hand, wrongthink is quite likely to come out of such an institution (historically speaking, maybe not so much in the current place and time). So it would be a bad idea from the censors' point of view to allowlist the account.
      • robertlagrant 4y ago
        Are you using "wrongthink" to ironically mean a wrong thought?
      • sophacles 4y ago
• fuoqi 4y ago
  I think a much better example of YouTube degradation is the Act Man debacle: https://twitter.com/TheActMan_YT/status/1534648758780035072 https://twitter.com/TheActMan_YT/status/1534648758780035072 Unfortunately, YouTube is a de facto monopoly in its space which is backed by its daddy's search monopoly, so it will be very hard for alternatives (be it competing services or p2p solutions) to become viable even if the degradation will become obvious to everyone. The most realistic hope regarding YouTube which I have is that combination of factors will allow/force the US establishment to force split of tech giants similarly to how it was done to AT&T. Without it YouTube will continue to enjoy its dominant position with minimal oversight and accelerating abuse of its power on information consumed by populace.
  • AlexandrB 4y ago
    Yeah, this decision by YouTube is extremely puzzling. The background[1] on this dispute is extensive, but the most egregious event was probably Quantum calling ActMan's mom on the phone and making some veiled threats[2]. [1] https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/act-man-quantum-tv-drama-explained/ https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/act-man-quantum-tv-drama-ex... [2] https://twitter.com/TheActMan_YT/status/1518660188617641984 https://twitter.com/TheActMan_YT/status/1518660188617641984
    • shadowgovt 4y ago
      YouTube seems to have been unusually clear in their reasoning on this one, as per the DailyDot story: ActMan threatened YouTube employee families and content creators. If anything, YouTube's response to that threat is positively reserved; they've taken nearly none of ActMan's content down.
      • AlexandrB 4y ago
        I think reading ActMan's tweets as a threat requires intentional obtuseness on their part. He's clearly satirizing what Quantum is openly doing on YouTube itself. Have we entered an era where satire is dead? No one wants to spend time actually gauging intent so everything is read as literally as possible.
• cratermoon 4y ago
  I remember discovering, and reading, issues of OOB in my college library in the 80s. I wonder if they are archived online now.
• paxcoder 4y ago
• eterevsky 4y ago
  Just nitpicking, but... > As one Google rep emailed me in the 1990s In the 90s Google was a small and unknown startup that wasn't in the business of censoring anything. I doubt author would have any reason to exchange emails with them.
  • detritus 4y ago
    That caught my eye too and made me wonder just how much larger the fish in their tale had gotten over the years.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • collegeburner 4y ago
    I noticed this as well and am wondering if maybe the author meant AOL or something?
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• rglover 4y ago
  Though it no longer seems offline, this is why you should pick up an extra hard drive or two and use Downie to back up channels/videos you enjoy.
• AlexandrB 4y ago
  A consequence of the major tech companies being based out of the US and serving the US as their primary market is they've all adopted US-style prudishness. In many US jurisdictions, public toplessness is perfectly legal. But on the internet it will generally get your account flagged/banned/deleted. Instead of the internet providing a free medium for the exchange of ideas it has exported the US obsession with censoring nudity to other parts of the world.
• jsnell 4y ago
  > As one Google rep emailed me in the 1990s, “If you were a 10-figure net worth institution, we woudn’t bother. But you aren’t.” Uh-huh. In 1999, Google was a pre-revenue startup with probably 50 employees and a tiny number of early users. In the unlikely case that they'd somehow specifically targeted the author for "un-platforming", how likely is it that the author would have even noticed, let alone gotten a reply talking about requiring a "10-figure net worth" to be listened to from a company that itself had only raised low 8-figures of VC.
  • krolden 4y ago
    Yeah that line really threw me off. My earliest memories of google were ~1999 and it was JUST a search engine. At the time altavista was still superior anyway. Dont know what the hell the author is talking about there.
    • bequanna 4y ago
      Imagined/fabricated grievances to underscore whatever point she is trying to make. It is unacceptable that accounts are locked or deleted by huge tech cos with no recourse. Sometimes there actually is a political agenda, more often it is just some random, unfortunate AI screw up. This example sounds a lot more like the latter but the author (a professional victim) is trying very hard to convince us it is the former.
      • jeffbee 4y ago
        It isn't an "AI screw-up". They posted a 90-minute video containing explicit photographic depictions of sex acts, without noting that the content was possibly inappropriate for some ages. Some system correctly took down. Now it's back up, with the correct age notification in place. The lesson here is not about AI, it's about how correctly managing your videos is a lot easier than whining on substack about how oppressed you are.
  • jeffbee 4y ago
    That detail and every other relevant factual aspect of the article is fabricated. That this is the top item on HN shows how widespread and automatic the "canceled by google" meme has become, even when the complainant is clearly just making it up. It's hard to imagine that this person even got twenty emails from bewildered colleagues, when the view stats on Youtube indicate that this channel gets about 5 views per day.
• holografix 4y ago
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• karaterobot 4y ago
  Does Youtube automatically delete videos? Does it automatically delete whole channels? At one point, about 4 years ago, they said their algorithm only flagged potentially violative content so that human reviewers could make a decision about it[1]. If that is still the case (and they may well have changed their policies, or been lying the whole time), it seems like all of the responsibility in the case of false positives like this rests on the human reviewers, not on the algorithms. [1] https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/internet-privacy/why-youtube-shouldnt-over-rely-artificial-intelligence https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/internet-privac...
• jedberg 4y ago
  I think this entire post may be an experiment in misinformation? Nothing in here really adds up. For one, Google didn't own YouTube in the 90s. In fact, YouTube didn't exist. So that reference to a "Google rep in the 90s" is clearly wrong. But let's assume they meant "the 2010s", which would be the most reasonable time for such an interaction. Beyond that there doesn't seem to be much evidence that the Cornell account was de-platformed, or if it was, it was not for very long and clearly a quickly rectified error. The author has some legitimate complaints, but they seem to be surrounded by exaggerations or just lies.
• mcdermott 4y ago
  Try Rumble. No censorship, it's the whole reason it exists.
• ineptech 4y ago
  Relying on advertising companies to host stuff because server software is hard to self-administer was a good way to bootstrap things, but the shine is wearing off.
• damowangcy 4y ago
  Why is a presitge University hosting their material on YouTube anyways? Oh, because it's free and cool, comes with free distribution too. Google didn't just target her or the university, like she said the AIs are amoral and the company doesn't really care because they only care about profit (or maybe they couldn't care less because of the yottabyte of content published everyday?) Just being too dramatic while she could actually learn the rules and use YouTube as a platform to promote her content, i.e.cutting down full length lectures into smaller bitsize fun info video and direct viewers to their own hosting platform, etc. And ironically, she's directing people to her paid subscription. We all need a sustainable way to create content and host it. She deserves to be paid for her content but don't play the victim card. And Google and other platform is not all innocent, they need to be transparent about content moderation, like if you remove someone's content, please let everyone know why (on the page instead of just channel not found) and how the decision was made (bot or manual reviewed).
  • wlonkly 4y ago
    Because the point of publishing videos like this is for people to see them, and Youtube is where the audience is. Universities and academics have to compete for mindshare and reputation just like anyone else does. The outcome they are after is not video hosting, it's people watching and sharing their videos.