10 ms·

YouTube deletes LTT video for teaching people how to live without Google

76 points by bitcharmer 2y ago

zooq_ai 2y ago
[flagged]
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  That kind of aggression towards criticism is a common tactic employed by abusers.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- MentatOnMelange 2y ago
  It’s not ironic.. The target audience is people who use google services, so putting it on YouTube is a no-brainer.
- squigz 2y ago
  > I"m against Google blocking any legal/free-speech content, but this is a fair game. Except clearly you're okay with them blocking content that they simply don't like. Legality doesn't seem to play a part in that for you.
  - zooq_ai 2y ago
    It's not content it doesn't like. They can literally make it is a Marketing / Strategic point. If I were Google, I'd specifically turn this around in a marketing way.
    - squigz 2y ago
      And yet, that has nothing to do with legality/free speech, does it?
- tomohawk 2y ago
  It's not ironic when you consider that youtube is a monopoly. At least according to US law, a 70% or market share is "on the face of it" proof of monopoly, and monopolists are treated differently than other companies. They have many more restrictions on them for good reason.
  - zooq_ai 2y ago
    Netflix, TikTok, Reels DAU/Marketshare says otherwise
    - EnergyAmy 2y ago
      Those aren't the same thing. You might as well throw in Blockbuster or Best Buy
- tmtvl 2y ago
  I mean, you're right in that LTT could upload the video to Vimeo, DailyMotion, Odysee, PeerTube, NicoVideo, and so on... but it's still got some antitrust feels.
- doublepg23 2y ago
  LTT has made an alternative to YouTube https://www.floatplane.com/discover https://www.floatplane.com/discover
criley2 2y ago
"Youtube deletes LTT video that explicitly teaches users how to block ads on Youtube" might be a more honest title, but less clickbait. I mean, that's their business model. Watch ads or pay for premium. Do you really expect them to host videos on how to cheat their business model? If I went on LTT forums and wrote about how to steal floatplane (LTT's subscription service) content, would they leave my post up?
- hobs 2y ago
  Yep, I would expect a platform to let someone to post on how to do basic ad hygiene, it's weird that you would think that's not ok. There's literally thousands and thousands of videos on how to do this on youtube that have no such reaction.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- vorpalhex 2y ago
  It's not theft for a user agent to represent the interests of the user. Youtube is free to paywall content if ads are not sufficient.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y ago
  I watched the video, but youtube wasn't covered, nor SponsorBlock, so this is not really true. Sure, Brave does block youtube stuff but they did not advertise Brave for that purpose, but just as an alternative to Chrome
  - criley2 2y ago
    In Linus's follow up video, he admits it is true and even agrees with Youtube's takedown. He states flat out that he knows other youtubers have been banned for teaching folks how to get around youtube's business model and it was a risk that wasn't worth taking for his company. Just like how I made the analogy with floatplane, he made a very similar connection. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apdZ7xmytiQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apdZ7xmytiQ
ramon156 2y ago
First thing I thought of was how long it was gonna stay up.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Tryk 2y ago
Another instance of the issues with monopolization of the commons. Clearly, videos have become an integral part of cultural expression and should belong to everyone (respecting the copyright of the creator). I find it strange how people on average tend to have such negative views of other gatekeepers of culture such as Meta/Facebook, Amazon/AWS, Microsoft but when it comes to google they fly under the radar. Perhaps they're too entrenched for people to realize how much they suck.
juujian 2y ago
Comments here about "criticism of Google on a Google platform" miss the mark. YouTube is in a monopoly position. The EU courts will take notes of this. Maybe even the DoJ since they seem to be more active recently.
- ffsm8 2y ago
  The video was telling users to break YouTubes ToS at the last adblocking segment. I highly doubt the EU courts would have an issue with this particular case.
Ringz 2y ago
Had exactly this video on my playlist. Now, of course, I'm even more curious about the video. Is there a way to see the video somewhere else to stay true to the Streisand effect?
- nomilk 2y ago
  Streisand Effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Links to reuploads and torrents of the original video: https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/1f8be8l/comment/lljzywv/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/1f8be8l/comm...
  - Ringz 2y ago
    Thanx!
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
aestetix 2y ago
I hope that we will soon see limits to "they are a private company, they can do what they want."
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y ago
Why is it flagged? And this is really, really bad. I hope Google gets hit so hard by this. Isn't there a law where they are limited in the content moderation they have to do, because they act as dumb pipe? Won't they have violated this?
- bitcharmer 2y ago
  > Why is it flagged? Coordinated flagging is the new norm on HN. YC don't seem to care though.
- chomp 2y ago
  Honest answer, probably because it’s a YouTube video, convention in the past used to be to tag it as a video in the title, but people don’t seem to do that anymore.
- caeril 2y ago
  There are thousands of HackerNewsers whose entire livelihoods are predicated on building the Google Panopticon Machine. The value of their RSUs is hopelessly dependent on things like this being swept under the rug. Same goes for Apple. It is what it is.
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y ago
    The problem is not on the big companies either, it's on the lawmakers not doing anything about it.
- angryasian 2y ago
  > the video has been taken down since it explicitly talks about circumventing youtube ads or alternative interfaces to access youtube (newpipe, invidious etc) - From someone in another comment
jackthetab 2y ago
If it's been deleted, how did I just watch it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnSv8ylLfPw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnSv8ylLfPw
- episteme 2y ago
  It's part 2 that's been deleted
- praisewhitey 2y ago
  This is the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsjHMzGl-VY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsjHMzGl-VY Right now it says "This video has been removed for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines"
rich_sasha 2y ago
I can't really understand the outrage. YouTube is a private company, not a guaranteed free speech institution. It's like trying to place an anti-Google ad and getting rejected. I'm not even sure if this is protected by anti-monopoly laws. Perhaps if you want to advertise your own product, then yes, but if someone, out of the kindness of their heart, wants to advertise a competitor's product, is that protected? I agree the status quo is not great where we rely heavily on platforms like YT, X without any guarantees of availability etc. and we should change that. But that's not at all news...
- EnergyAmy 2y ago
  Company towns are private property and yet people still have rights there. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  It is most definitely protected by antitrust and anti-monopoly laws. Whether those laws are enforced or not is a different story.
  - rich_sasha 2y ago
    Right, but do these laws say users' submissions are protected? IANAL but I never heard of that. Competition, sure, but random unfavourable posting?
    - OutOfHere 2y ago
      Afaik, every little such point contributes to a legal case by the government against the monopoly. It adds weight to the legal argument. One point by itself may not make a case, but in combination it could.
- praisewhitey 2y ago
  The actions of private companies are a fair target for criticism.
gopkarthik 2y ago
I'm not surprised that the video has been taken down since it explicitly talks about circumventing youtube ads or alternative interfaces to access youtube (newpipe, invidious etc) - https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1eT421r79x?t=1058.8 https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1eT421r79x?t=1058.8 One thing which is missing in conversations about circumventing ads on youtube, is that such users are also depriving content creators of their income. For those who don't want to watch ads, feel free to subscribe to youtube premium to support creators(or directly support them).
- gitaarik 2y ago
  Why not better support them via Patreon or something similar? Then you can support them without giving YouTube a cut.
  - antifarben 2y ago
    I don't think that YouTube has anything against creators not using YouTube that can be funded via Patreon. I'm pretty sure are just against it if people are using the platform and apps that they're are developing and maintaining without them having any possibility of getting any revenue in return. It's so popular that people are uploading 500 hours of video every minute, so I assume that this platform scaling doesn't come for free and people who're working for YouTube to make this possible wants some money too.
    - gitaarik 2y ago
      I think they have more than enough money ;-) And then you might say "fairly earned"? I don't think so. But yeah everybody has their views on things.

76 points by bitcharmer 2y ago

zooq_ai 2y ago

[flagged]

soulofmischief 2y ago
That kind of aggression towards criticism is a common tactic employed by abusers.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
MentatOnMelange 2y ago
It’s not ironic.. The target audience is people who use google services, so putting it on YouTube is a no-brainer.
squigz 2y ago
> I"m against Google blocking any legal/free-speech content, but this is a fair game. Except clearly you're okay with them blocking content that they simply don't like. Legality doesn't seem to play a part in that for you.
- zooq_ai 2y ago
  It's not content it doesn't like. They can literally make it is a Marketing / Strategic point. If I were Google, I'd specifically turn this around in a marketing way.
  - squigz 2y ago
    And yet, that has nothing to do with legality/free speech, does it?
tomohawk 2y ago
It's not ironic when you consider that youtube is a monopoly. At least according to US law, a 70% or market share is "on the face of it" proof of monopoly, and monopolists are treated differently than other companies. They have many more restrictions on them for good reason.
- zooq_ai 2y ago
  Netflix, TikTok, Reels DAU/Marketshare says otherwise
  - EnergyAmy 2y ago
    Those aren't the same thing. You might as well throw in Blockbuster or Best Buy
tmtvl 2y ago
I mean, you're right in that LTT could upload the video to Vimeo, DailyMotion, Odysee, PeerTube, NicoVideo, and so on... but it's still got some antitrust feels.
doublepg23 2y ago
LTT has made an alternative to YouTube https://www.floatplane.com/discover https://www.floatplane.com/discover

criley2 2y ago

"Youtube deletes LTT video that explicitly teaches users how to block ads on Youtube" might be a more honest title, but less clickbait. I mean, that's their business model. Watch ads or pay for premium. Do you really expect them to host videos on how to cheat their business model? If I went on LTT forums and wrote about how to steal floatplane (LTT's subscription service) content, would they leave my post up?

hobs 2y ago
Yep, I would expect a platform to let someone to post on how to do basic ad hygiene, it's weird that you would think that's not ok. There's literally thousands and thousands of videos on how to do this on youtube that have no such reaction.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
vorpalhex 2y ago
It's not theft for a user agent to represent the interests of the user. Youtube is free to paywall content if ads are not sufficient.
Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y ago
I watched the video, but youtube wasn't covered, nor SponsorBlock, so this is not really true. Sure, Brave does block youtube stuff but they did not advertise Brave for that purpose, but just as an alternative to Chrome
- criley2 2y ago
  In Linus's follow up video, he admits it is true and even agrees with Youtube's takedown. He states flat out that he knows other youtubers have been banned for teaching folks how to get around youtube's business model and it was a risk that wasn't worth taking for his company. Just like how I made the analogy with floatplane, he made a very similar connection. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apdZ7xmytiQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apdZ7xmytiQ

ramon156 2y ago

First thing I thought of was how long it was gonna stay up.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Tryk 2y ago

Another instance of the issues with monopolization of the commons. Clearly, videos have become an integral part of cultural expression and should belong to everyone (respecting the copyright of the creator). I find it strange how people on average tend to have such negative views of other gatekeepers of culture such as Meta/Facebook, Amazon/AWS, Microsoft but when it comes to google they fly under the radar. Perhaps they're too entrenched for people to realize how much they suck.

juujian 2y ago

Comments here about "criticism of Google on a Google platform" miss the mark. YouTube is in a monopoly position. The EU courts will take notes of this. Maybe even the DoJ since they seem to be more active recently.

ffsm8 2y ago
The video was telling users to break YouTubes ToS at the last adblocking segment. I highly doubt the EU courts would have an issue with this particular case.

Ringz 2y ago

Had exactly this video on my playlist. Now, of course, I'm even more curious about the video. Is there a way to see the video somewhere else to stay true to the Streisand effect?

nomilk 2y ago
Streisand Effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Links to reuploads and torrents of the original video: https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/1f8be8l/comment/lljzywv/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/1f8be8l/comm...
- Ringz 2y ago
  Thanx!
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

aestetix 2y ago

I hope that we will soon see limits to "they are a private company, they can do what they want."

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y ago

Why is it flagged? And this is really, really bad. I hope Google gets hit so hard by this. Isn't there a law where they are limited in the content moderation they have to do, because they act as dumb pipe? Won't they have violated this?

bitcharmer 2y ago
> Why is it flagged? Coordinated flagging is the new norm on HN. YC don't seem to care though.
chomp 2y ago
Honest answer, probably because it’s a YouTube video, convention in the past used to be to tag it as a video in the title, but people don’t seem to do that anymore.
caeril 2y ago
There are thousands of HackerNewsers whose entire livelihoods are predicated on building the Google Panopticon Machine. The value of their RSUs is hopelessly dependent on things like this being swept under the rug. Same goes for Apple. It is what it is.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y ago
  The problem is not on the big companies either, it's on the lawmakers not doing anything about it.
angryasian 2y ago
> the video has been taken down since it explicitly talks about circumventing youtube ads or alternative interfaces to access youtube (newpipe, invidious etc) - From someone in another comment

jackthetab 2y ago

If it's been deleted, how did I just watch it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnSv8ylLfPw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnSv8ylLfPw

episteme 2y ago
It's part 2 that's been deleted
praisewhitey 2y ago
This is the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsjHMzGl-VY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsjHMzGl-VY Right now it says "This video has been removed for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines"

rich_sasha 2y ago

I can't really understand the outrage. YouTube is a private company, not a guaranteed free speech institution. It's like trying to place an anti-Google ad and getting rejected. I'm not even sure if this is protected by anti-monopoly laws. Perhaps if you want to advertise your own product, then yes, but if someone, out of the kindness of their heart, wants to advertise a competitor's product, is that protected? I agree the status quo is not great where we rely heavily on platforms like YT, X without any guarantees of availability etc. and we should change that. But that's not at all news...

EnergyAmy 2y ago
Company towns are private property and yet people still have rights there. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
OutOfHere 2y ago
It is most definitely protected by antitrust and anti-monopoly laws. Whether those laws are enforced or not is a different story.
- rich_sasha 2y ago
  Right, but do these laws say users' submissions are protected? IANAL but I never heard of that. Competition, sure, but random unfavourable posting?
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    Afaik, every little such point contributes to a legal case by the government against the monopoly. It adds weight to the legal argument. One point by itself may not make a case, but in combination it could.
praisewhitey 2y ago
The actions of private companies are a fair target for criticism.

gopkarthik 2y ago

I'm not surprised that the video has been taken down since it explicitly talks about circumventing youtube ads or alternative interfaces to access youtube (newpipe, invidious etc) - https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1eT421r79x?t=1058.8 https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1eT421r79x?t=1058.8 One thing which is missing in conversations about circumventing ads on youtube, is that such users are also depriving content creators of their income. For those who don't want to watch ads, feel free to subscribe to youtube premium to support creators(or directly support them).

gitaarik 2y ago
Why not better support them via Patreon or something similar? Then you can support them without giving YouTube a cut.
- antifarben 2y ago
  I don't think that YouTube has anything against creators not using YouTube that can be funded via Patreon. I'm pretty sure are just against it if people are using the platform and apps that they're are developing and maintaining without them having any possibility of getting any revenue in return. It's so popular that people are uploading 500 hours of video every minute, so I assume that this platform scaling doesn't come for free and people who're working for YouTube to make this possible wants some money too.
  - gitaarik 2y ago
    I think they have more than enough money ;-) And then you might say "fairly earned"? I don't think so. But yeah everybody has their views on things.