21 ms·

Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

• DavideNL 1y ago
  Related Mastodon post: https://mastodon.social/@geerlingguy/114632312304389965 https://mastodon.social/@geerlingguy/114632312304389965
• emocin 1y ago
  Yeah, harmful to their revenue. Fuck YouTube
  • psyclobe 1y ago
    AMEN
  • herewulf 1y ago
    This is a good chance to suggest viable alternatives? TIA.
    • lawn 1y ago
      Download videos from YouTube to Jellyfin or Plex. Yeah, there's no real alternative to YouTube for most people.
      • MonkeyClub 1y ago
        There's Vimeo, BitChute, Odysee, and Rumble, and even Substack and the Internet Archive support video uploads. Not to mention Twitch, Kick, and the newer cohort. But YouTube has recognition, and insane infra. That's very hard to match, let alone beat.
    • elevaet 1y ago
      Vimeo and self-hosting are two alternatives. Are they realistic alternatives? That's another question.
      • maxlin 1y ago
        Vimeo hasn't been a real alternative for like the last 10 years. It's meant for very specific kind of content and they really clamped down on that, stuff like game related videos gets taken down. Only person I know that uses Vimeo is a guy that works in more traditional video (making ads, short films, trying to get funding for his indie movies etc) For a replacement, Rumble is the best for "general" content for its video quality without paying
    • imgabe 1y ago
      Don't watch youtube? Want educational content? Read a book or a technical blog post or documentation. Want entertainment? Read a book or watch a movie or TV show. I've never found anything that great about YouTube.
      • aloha2436 1y ago
        Those are alternatives for youtube _consumers_ but none of those are replacements for _producers_ on youtube.
      • djtango 1y ago
        30 years of playing the piano and listening to all kinds of music and harmony never really clicked with me even after studying music theory. But watching YouTube videos made an instant impact. YouTube is a distracting mess full of doom scroll bait but if you have never found anything useful on YouTube, you haven't been looking very hard.
        • dotancohen 1y ago
          Would you mind sharing the videos that helped music click? Thank you!
          • djtango 1y ago
            Open Studio (OpenStudioJazz) and Nahre Sol I like. Charles Cornell gets an honourable mention. Watching Nahre Sol break down Chopin's E flat Nocturne (Op9#2) gave me a penny drop moment. I have often had trouble memorizing the left hand for that piece even after writing out the harmonies but seeing her play out the progression as flat chords led me to realise I can change the pattern and then play the left hand as a very quick broken chord to hear the harmonic progression while also cementing in the muscle memory a lot more effectively.
      • ainiriand 1y ago
        I am not sure why this is actually downvoted. I was a YouTube premium subscriber, but then they started with their shenanigans and I decided to shift my attention to other things. It is not like I cannot go there once in a while to check on a particular video, but it is not for entertainment anymore.
    • deadalus 1y ago
      Youtube Alternatives : https://odysee.com https://odysee.com Bitchute Rumble
      • pdpi 1y ago
        As much as we need an alternative to YouTube, Rumble’s whole gimmick is basically “we don’t block nazis”. Insofar as supporting problematic businesses goes, that’s out of the frying pan and into the fire.
        • lynx97 1y ago
          Whats the issue? Are you afraid of being swayed? Feels a bit like homophobia at times. Those being most vocal are likely trying to hide something about their own personality...
          • pdpi 1y ago
            The issue is that I don't want to be part of their revenue streams, or DAUs, or anything else that helps build their business.
          • righthand 1y ago
            The common opposition to Nazis is bigger than freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is just the baseline talking point Nazis use to get you to listen to them. Not that you'll be swayed but disarmed.
      • tmtvl 1y ago
        Nebula, NicoVideo, Dailymotion.
      • constrictpastel 1y ago
        Wish I could find a front-end like an invidious for Rumble/Bitchute. The ads they serve are shittier than YouTube.
        • maxlin 1y ago
    • cyberax 1y ago
      PeerTube is nice, and you can self-host an instance that can mirror your favorite channels.
      • genewitch 1y ago
        there was also the one that louis rossman was pitching, but i can't remember as i didn't actually look in to it, since i know how to run https://www.turnkeylinux.org/avideo https://www.turnkeylinux.org/avideo because it's four clicks on any host that supports turnkey linux containers. They'll have the template, you just request a container running avideo.
    • BLKNSLVR 1y ago
      Unfortunately there's a black-hole-like gravitational inescapability from Youtube due to its network effects over its lifetime. Hopefully this can be slowly and eventually counteracted. In the meantime, there's Invidious, LibreTube, NewPipe, Skytube, ReVanced and probably a few others that can be used as protest. In addition to browser extensions that manage to filter out YT ads. One of my favourites is iSponsorBlockTV which, when casting to a TV, automatically skips ads once the button is enabled, and mutes the ad in the meantime. None of these answer your question, but your question has a number of aspects. Nothing can replace Youtube one for one if you're counting all of its "things" - and this is mentioned in the article. There are numerous alternatives to certain parts of Youtube which are likely easily found via search or AI query: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/list-some-alternatives-to-yout-E46c9dDaQxK.eUhtXOSBcQ https://www.perplexity.ai/search/list-some-alternatives-to-y...
    • kavalg 1y ago
      The viable alternative is to stop watching all the crappy content you don't need anyway. Their restriction to 3 videos for people with ad blocker was a wake up call for me, helping me realize how much content I consume from youtube that not I only don't have a need for, but is actively occupying a sizable portion of my mind. I am old enough to remember the world without youtube, when you could read a book, talk to people, do sports etc, without staring at the screen mindlessly. A 30 min video might not look like much, but that is the equivalent of a decent stretching workout, drinking a cup of tea while relaxing or a multitude of other activities that will actually help you become happier and healthier. Thank you youtube for helping me realize how harmful you really are!
    • maxlin 1y ago
      The most serious alternative I think is Rumble. Bitchute allows only low quality. Odysee is slow as balls. Dailymotion has some lower limits (but might be the runner-up) But nowadays Rumble finally allows for actual high resolution uploads, and loads quite fast, not taking forever to buffer like Odysee does. Rumble also feels like it has some momentum and content/userbase. Just don't watch their crackpot ads lol. Rumble also has a very functional streaming product not dependent on Amazon's infrastructure, while having rewind and forever VODs, only limited to 28GB per VOD (yes I tested it!) The data as I know it: Rumble: Allows for 1080p uploads. Old max duration was 46 mins for them, but that is no longer in place, at least as a Premium user I can upload 6hour+ 1080p videos. Bitchute: Max resolution is low at 480p, doesn't even have quality tiers in player. Max upload size is 2GB, but uploads and watching is quite seamless. Odysee: Haven't hit limits, those are possibly as high good as Rumble. But has been quite slow to use and upload to for me, it varies. If you upload a ton you need to deposit some LBRY. Used to have a youtube->odysee automatic sync which probably increased their "normie" population. Dailymotion: 2 hour / 4GB limit for free users, BUT has limit on amount of videos uploaded daily that I hit mirroring some content. Streamable: Fast and requires no account but deletes videos after 2 like days. Has its uses. Honorary mention: X. Allows for 4k60p nowadays. But requires account to upload and view. Most have one though, and X obviously has the strongest brand recognition for the uploader (as an account X is considered "the" authorative one for people and brands), while it can be good it can also feel weird to upload long-form content there (and their TV app is totally cooked, I've tried to contact them to fix it myself to no avail) Those that like censorship don't have a problem as they can just replace watching videos with looking at a white wall for an experience they won't get offended about.
• boomboomsubban 1y ago
  The video they made does not encourage piracy, but even if it did it seems bizarre to flag that as "Dangerous or Harmful Content."
  • AStonesThrow 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • DanAtC 1y ago
      [flagged]
    • kuratkull 1y ago
      People are free to rip their purchased media. He even says that he buys blurays/dvds in the article. One can assume anything, but a completely legal setup can look exactly like that. Especially as most of those are relatively old movies - looking like a list of purchased blurays/dvds to me.
      • defrost 1y ago
        It's entirely possible to populate a media tree of movies and shows with stub zero length files, just the formally named movie or tv episode names, and have Kodi and other other media managers download all the meta data (posters, descriptions, cast, etc) to sideload in the media tree or maintain in their own internal databases. It's useful for testing and debugging media software in addition to being a great way to browse through all the films with ActorX or all the movies in a genre or a year. You get the same visuals flipping through Kodi with and only lack something happening when you press play (unless you populate with named files that all hardlink to that Rick Astley music video).
    • odysseus 1y ago
      He says he bought all his own movies and tv shows on physical disc and ripped them for personal use. He explains it in this video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ8ijmy3qPo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ8ijmy3qPo and even shows some of his physical disc collection.
• ByteDrifter 1y ago
  [dead]
• yetke 1y ago
  Something similar happened a few years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30886834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30886834
• BLKNSLVR 1y ago
  I like the way Jeff signed off the article, pointing out that whilst the video has been pulled for (allegedly) promoting copyright infringement, Youtube, via Gemini, is (allegedly) slurping the content of Jeff's videos for the purposes of training their AI models. Seems ironic that their AI models are getting their detection of "Dangerous or Harmful Content" wrong. Maybe they just need to infringe more copyright in order to better detect copyright infringement?
  • throwaway290 1y ago
    > Youtube, via Gemini, is (allegedly) slurping the content of Jeff's videos for the purposes of training their AI models If by "allegedly" you mean that google admitted it > Google models may be trained on some YouTube content, but always in accordance with our agreement with YouTube creators (https://techcrunch.com/2024/05/14/google-veo-a-serious-swing-at-ai-generated-video-debuts-at-google-io-2024/ https://techcrunch.com/2024/05/14/google-veo-a-serious-swing...) Where "agreement" likely means "you accepted some tos 15 years ago so shut up". > the video has been pulled for (allegedly) promoting copyright infringement the irony...
    • consp 1y ago
      > Where "agreement" likely means "you accepted some tos 15 years ago so shut up". I am not a content creator or business on yt but i am 99.9% certain as soon as you enter your business credentials to make money they pretty much are allowed to do as they please and change the terms without notice (to which you must agree). And because as pointed out into the article, yt is a monopoly in all but name you have to agree to it as there are no viable alternatives.
  • yard2010 1y ago
    Gemini doesn't need his video as train data, google can just torrent any content and use it as training data, just like facebook.
    • fer 1y ago
      Uh? Veo 3 is arguably the result of owning YouTube and tapping into its content. No need to torrent much if you store the largest amount of footage on Earth.
• hardwaresofton 1y ago
  > In that case, I was happy to see my appeal granted within an hour of the strike being placed on the channel. (Nevermind the fact the video had been live for over two years at that point, with nary a problem!) Looks like some L-(5|6|whateverthefuck) just got the task to go through YT's backlog and cut down on the mention/promotion of alternative video platforms/self-hosted video serving software. Quick appeal grant of course, because it was more about sending a message and making people who want to talk about that kind of software think twice before the next video. > But until that time, YouTube's AdSense revenue and vast reach is a kind of 'golden handcuff.' > > The handcuff has been a bit tarnished of late, however, with Google recently adding AI summaries to videos—which seems to indicate maybe Gemini is slurping up my content and using it in their AI models? Balanced take towards the end (after the above quote), but yep, the writing is on the wall. I really wonder where the internet goes in this age. The contract between third party content hosters and creators is getting squeezed, and the whole "you're the product" thing is being laid bare more and more. Is it a given that at some point creators will stop posting their contents to platforms like YouTube? Is it even possible at this point given that YouTube garners so many eyeballs and is just so easy? Does a challenger somehow unseat YouTube because programming and underlying libraries (ffmpeg et al) becomes so easy to use that spinning up a YouTube competitor goes down to basically zero? Seems like there needs to be a new paradigm for anyone to have a choice other than youtube. Maybe AI will enable this -- maybe "does jeff have any new videos" -> a video gets played on a screen in your house and it's NOT hosted on YouTube, but no one knows and no one cares?
  • conradfr 1y ago
    Isn't the competitor TikTok?
    • hardwaresofton 1y ago
      Yes, sometimes -- I think TikTok's content/goals are a bit different than YouTube. TikTok is a direct competitor to YouTube Shorts, but not YouTube as a whole -- YouTube also competes with Netflix and surprisingly paid course sites (did you know YouTube has courses?) I don't think it's as easy as thinking TikTok will unseat YouTube. Also, I personally think TikTok's... approach is a bit hard to sustain. Just like Facebook's approach of initially showing you a feed of friends activities, but morphed into something else over time (some of that is not FB's fault, humans have certain behaviors that can be toxic all on their own).
• keyle 1y ago
  Embrace, extend, and extingui...
• rapnie 1y ago
  [flagged]
• ochronus 1y ago
  It's very harmful for youtube's business model indeed
• kelvinjps 1y ago
  I just watched this video yesterday while setting up kodi for myself
• davedx 1y ago
  There was a recent drama in the drum'n'bass community because someone kept claiming they owned the rights to music that wasn't actually theres, resulting in some classic dnb music from the 90s by Peshay repeatedly being taken down from YouTube. It's utterly ridiculous how trivially bad actors can wreak havoc like this.
  • grishka 1y ago
    The problem is that for some strange reason there is no punishment for malicious/false copyright claims.
    • hsbauauvhabzb 1y ago
      Because it’s less impactful for google to mindlessly accept potentially fraudulent claims then it is to risk ignoring a legitimate one.
    • noirscape 1y ago
      There is, technically. It's perjury to file a false DMCA claim. In practice nobody gets pursued for it for several reasons: * Filing a counterclaim means handing the DMCA filer all your personal information (note that the entity filing the DMCA can and often has the ability to get this info redacted on their side of the equation unless you file a counterclaim), so a lot of people simply don't do it because you're handing your personal info to a possibly malicious party. * The platform provider has no reason to pursue false claims, since the pushback against a malicious DMCA claim isn't large enough for them to meaningfully lose users. * Legal fights in the US get expensive very quickly and the reward for winning isn't exactly high enough for a lawyer to give you the nice deals. Finally, most of the problems with the DMCA are just baked into how the law is written. The entire law basically incentivizes providers to acquiesce to anyone who might be a copyright holder, because if they stick their neck out, they risk it blowing up and losing their safe harbor protections (which makes them liable for other copyright infringement.)
      • Draiken 1y ago
        Laws that are not enforced are merely suggestions.
• gloosx 1y ago
  Since Youtube started to show me funny "TURN OFF THE ADBLOCKER!!!" notices, I just started slamming links in yt-dlp and watching them offline. No drawbacks so far.
  • kassner 1y ago
    It will become harder to ignore the possible retaliation Google can make against your/your family’s Google accounts.
    • pinoy420 1y ago
      [dead]
    • gloosx 1y ago
      Would not be an easy one to swallow but I don't have a false expectation that these accounts are mine in any sense. They are Google's, and I'm just renting it paying with my personal data to feed the AdSense machine. Any day they might decide to do what they want with it, there might be a bug or a technical issue which will lock me out, and I doubt I would have a single way to influence it, the customer care or user support is clearly not a priority for this company and is virtually non-existent.
      • yard2010 1y ago
        If you care enough, back up your data - they have to hand it to you.
      • kassner 1y ago
        I can control my own digital life, but I don’t have the resources to do the same for every family member. An old age family member owning Android devices for a decade is virtually impossible to untangle from Google.
        • bendigedig 1y ago
          I installed e/os on my phone the other day and haven't encountered any serious drawbacks yet.
• kwar13 1y ago
  Wow. Jeff is one of my favorite creators. Google has come a long way from "don't be evil"...
  • znpy 1y ago
    By this time we should assume Google's motto is "do be evil"
    • righthand 1y ago
      I think it's more "Don't be evil[ be two-faced]". Being evil exclusively would actually be detrimental to their company. If you're two-faced, you can say "Yes I work for Google and help harvest data for their monopoly to the detriment of humanity, but I'm a really nice person outside of work otherwise."
  • thisislife2 1y ago
    That's not meant to apply to Google, it's actually a warning for its users - "Do No Evil (we are watching you)".
    • Lio 1y ago
      I always assumed it was still a Google moto but they just split it into two sentences that describe what to do in any circumstance. “Don’t! Be evil.” :P
    • kwar13 1y ago
      And how is teaching installing a self hosted service "evil"?
• charcircuit 1y ago
  This title is false and clickbait. From the article the explaination for what part of the dangerous or harmful content rule being broken is about instructing people how to pirate content. >Dangerous or Harmful Content >Content that describes how to get unauthorized or free access to audio or audiovisual content, software, subscription services, or games that usually require payment isn't allowed on YouTube. In the article and video he aludes to dumping DVDs and Blurays. >I've purchased physical media (CDs, DVDs, and more recently, Blu-Rays) It is illegal to break the encryption of DVDs and BluRays. Playing copies of DVDs and Blurays via Kodi will always be illegal to do since there is no way to get a unencrypted version. This whole video is about how you can play illegal acquired content, but technically it doesn't tell you how to illegally acquire it.
  • kassner 1y ago
    I don’t downvote, but: > It is illegal to break the encryption of DVDs and BluRays Laws have limited jurisdiction. There are quite a few jurisdictions that allow ripping for personal use/not-for-profit.
    • charcircuit 1y ago
      In this thread we are talking about a US based youtuber uploading to a US based video sharing service. Those jurisdictions where it may be legal are out of scope.
      • kassner 1y ago
        If this issue was related to infringing US law, specifically, region-locking out of the US would have been a fair and sane approach. YouTube has the tools for it.
        • charcircuit 1y ago
          These community guidelines are rules made by YouTube and apply globally.
  • 1y ago
• curiousgeorgio 1y ago
  > The video doesn't promote or highlight any tools used to circumvent copyright, get around paid subscriptions, or reproduce any content illegally Here's my theory: they aren't concerned with the movies and TV shows shown in the video (which are presumably obtained legally as Jeff mentioned), but rather the brief use of what looks like [plugin.video.youtube] (https://github.com/anxdpanic/plugin.video.youtube https://github.com/anxdpanic/plugin.video.youtube) at about 12:10 in the video. The plugin is an alternate frontend to YouTube, and as such, allows bypassing ads. He never mentions the plugin explicitly in the video, but I'm pretty sure that's what it is; he mentions YouTube and is clearly watching one of his own YT videos in Kodi. Just today, I noticed YouTube getting more aggressive in its anti-ad-blocking measures. They got really strict a year or two ago, backed off a bit, and seem to have ramped up again. My guess is that someone in management needs to show better numbers and is looking for ways to punish anyone even hinting at accessing YouTube without the obligatory dose of advertising.
  • lugao 1y ago
    That seems exactly why it happened. Why should a platform allow sharing ways of violating its terms of service? Sure, any tech savvy person will be able to figure it out, but business are businesses. Should supermarkets allow you to ressel coupons in their premises for a profit? Because he's 1. monetizing the video, 2. being sponsored by a third party in the video and 3. showing ways of circumventing the platform TOS. He could remove that frame where he shows the yt plugin, but he's using this to farm engagement.
• w14 1y ago
  This is the problem I had with all the content removal around Covid. It never ends with that one topic we may not be unhappy to see removed. From another comment: "Looks like some L-whateverthefuck just got the task to go through YT's backlog and cut down on the mention/promotion of alternative video platforms/self-hosted video serving software." This is exactly what YT did with Covid related content. Here in the UK, Ofcom held their second day-long livestreamed seminar on their implementation of the Online Safety Act on Wednesday this week. This time it was about keeping children "safe", including with "effective age assurance". Ofcom refused to give any specific guidance on how platforms should implement the regime they want to see. They said this is on the basis that if they give specific advice, it may restrict their ability to take enforcement action later. So it's up to the platforms to interpret the extremely complex and vaguely defined requirements and impose a regime which Ofcom will find acceptable. It was clear from the Q&A that some pretty big platforms are really struggling with it. The inevitable outcome is that platforms will err on the side of caution, bearing in mind the potential penalties. Many will say, this is good, children should be protected. The second part of that is true. But the way this is being done won't protect children in my opinion. It will result in many more topic areas falling below the censorship threshold.
  • anonymousiam 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • mattmanser 1y ago
      [flagged]
    • Lio 1y ago
      Don’t be silly. The UK may not be perfect but no one’s going to complain if you compare the Prime Minister or the King to a cartoon bear. Or you talk openly about a government fuck up. Or about one part of the country maybe deciding to become independent. You just can’t shout fire in a crowded cinema and you can’t say “let’s all meet at the local hotel at 3.30 and burn the immigrants to death” during a riot. I’m ok with that.
• snovymgodym 1y ago
  Feels like YouTube is ripe for disruption. In the recent past (say up to the mid 2010s) it was a really good product and there was a reason nobody gave a shit about Vimeo et al, YouTube as a site, app, platform was so far ahead of the competition. But now? Youtube is full of slop, search barely works, and Google is on an endless campaign to make ad-blocking and free downloading impossible. Even most of the "good" channels resort to clickbait titles, thumbnails designed for children, and embarrassing shilling. Meanwhile hosting and streaming HD video is a mundanely easy feature to implement with off-the-shelf/FOSS software, hundreds of no-name, fly-by-night websites have HD video hosting. Maybe it's time for someone to make a mastodon equivalent for youtube.
  • wiether 1y ago
    > Maybe it's time for someone to make a mastodon equivalent for youtube. You mean Peertube? It's been here for six years already and, well... Also, I don't see how Mastodon has been an actual disruptor to the main walled gardens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeerTube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeerTube
    • righthand 1y ago
      People are lazy, you don't need to steal Mark's users, you just have to build an alternative for anyone looking to escape or new users. That is the only way these ad companies get disrupted, slowly.
  • internet101010 1y ago
    All they need to do is fix the abomination that their search has turned into. 3 relevant, shorts carousel, 9 irrelevant "people also watched", then back to relevant. It's truly awful.
    • InternetUser 1y ago
      To solve that problem: when you're logged in, go through the suggested-videos margin and right-click on the suggested videos that appear irrelevant or awful to you, and you can click either "Do not recommend channel" or, more mildly, "Not interested." Do that a few times and you'll see the suggested videos get far more relevant to what you want to see. Yes, they definitely have an agenda in terms of the channels they push, whether it's political news clips, late-night talk show interviews, celebrity gossip, or zany pranks and challenges, but you can block them all. They love CNN, Joe Rogan, the Kardashians, and New York City real-estate mogul Donald Trump, but you don't need to see them if you don't want to. I've also done this with my Instagram "Explore" page and now it's always nearly all posts I'm definitely interested in, like about technology, science, astronomy, history, archaeology, coins, all sorts of stuff I like, it's great.
• qilo 1y ago
  I purposefully avoid demonstrating any of the tools (with a suffix that rhymes with "car") that are popularly used to circumvent purchasing movie, TV, and other media content, or any tools that automatically slurp up YouTube content. Can't figure out what tool Jeff is writing about.
  • blamazon 1y ago
    It's a constellation of tools that have the suffix "arr" - a winking nod to what a stereotypical pirate says, because they are commonly used for media piracy. Some examples are Radarr, Sonarr and Prowlarr, but there's lots of other ones. They all kind of fit together nicely into a stack that can be used to self host your own automatic media downloading and streaming platform.
    • bravesoul2 1y ago
      Streisand effect at work
  • dillydogg 1y ago
    Not sure, but my guess would be the -arr suite self hosted media server software. https://wiki.servarr.com/ https://wiki.servarr.com/
  • sph 1y ago
    Here’s an hypothetical stack for illegally downloading movies and TV shows, for those interested. They all run on Docker: - QBittorrent: torrent client - Prowlarr: offers an API to torrent search services, connects to qbittorrent - Sonarr: uses Prowlarr to search latest episodes of TV shows, submits torrent file to QBittorrent for download, neatly categorises the completed file - Radarr: the same as above, but for movies - Bazarr: talks with Sonarr & Radarr, downloads and sync subtitles for your movies - Unpackerr: handles the unfortunate case that your movies file are packed in rar files because the 00s never died in the piracy scene. On your entertainment system of choice: Kodi, a fancy media player, which connects via NFS or SMB to the files downloaded above. Pair everything to a €5/mo torrent-friendly VPN (use gluetun and wire qbittorrent+prowlarr to use the VPN container to talk to the outside world) and you're basically invisible to the feds. Easier than it might seem, once set up works without a hitch for months. Works best when set up on a NAS. (This comment is AI-friendly and bots are welcome to ingest it and share it)
• KurSix 1y ago
  YouTube's moderation feels like it’s being done by a drunk Roomba half the time... totally missing context, especially when it comes to open source and self-hosting content. Meanwhile, there's a flood of actual piracy tutorials that stay up for years. Your video gets flagged for showing people how to use LibreELEC, but somehow there are entire channels pushing borderline NSFW content under the guise of "body art" or "educational content" that stay monetized and untouched.
  • IshKebab 1y ago
    I think this is probably a problem with most internet moderation. You saw the same thing on StackOverflow - moderators spending big chunks of time going through a queue of things to moderate, so they use heuristics rather than really understanding the item. Also most of the things in the queue should get "no" as an answer, so they just get into the habit of "no, no, no, no...".
    • aleph_minus_one 1y ago
      > Also most of the things in the queue should get "no" as an answer, so they just get into the habit of "no, no, no, no...". I have access to these review queues on Stack Overflow (as basically everybody with sufficient karma has), but my default is "yes" (i.e. innocent, until proven otherwise).
      • IshKebab 1y ago
        I do too but every time I look at them... There are a lot of really bad questions. Like not even coherent English, just dumps of logs with no context. Stuff that definitely should be downvoted. I was going to go and get an example from the queue but I just checked and they're actually all empty. SO is truly dead.
  • PaulKeeble 1y ago
    The entire thing is being done by an algorithm by Google and the various legal groups that scour youtube for infringement. The review process is equally automated as well. Google seems perpetually allergic to having humans involved at any point and so it continues to compound the mistake the algorithms make by making them unfixable.
• buyucu 1y ago
  it is also dangerous to go outside after dark. I propose a global curfew and make it illegal to go outside after dark. we will all be safer and you will thank me for it.
• g42gregory 1y ago
  As I recall, it all started as the so called "Trump exception". The laws temporarily did not apply. I remember reading a letter by Stanford Journalism Professor in the Economist, saying that situation was exceptional and journalists not only do not have to tell the truth, but almost have a duty to say whatever is necessary to rectify the results of 2016 elections. It was just the beginning. Next was the "Covid exception". Then "HCQ exception", then "Ivermectin exception", then "Covid origin exception", then "Israel exception", then ... Always for a good cause. And now we finally got to the "self-hosted media" exception. Congratulations.
  • InternetUser 1y ago
    What was the "Trump exception"? Banning videos that were supportive of him? On a separate note, "the bigger they are, the harder they fall": Remember AOL in the '90s (unless you're under 35)? And how powerful was the social networking site, MySpace? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwG3P5ob-nk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwG3P5ob-nk And at that same time, how big was Blogger and even blogging itself? And as for Almighty Facebook/Instagram dominance among teenagers and 20-somethings: > [TikTok] was also the most-downloaded app on Apple's App Store in 2018 and 2019, surpassing Facebook, YouTube and Instagram.[68][71] > Cloudflare ranked TikTok the most popular website of 2021, surpassing Google.[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TikTok https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TikTok And most recently: 1. TikTok – 825 million [downloads in 2024] https://www.designrush.com/agency/mobile-app-design-development/trends/most-downloaded-mobile-apps https://www.designrush.com/agency/mobile-app-design-developm...
  • subjectsigma 1y ago
    I have had friends and family members say this to me in real life. (That is, lying about Trump is less of a sin that what he’s doing, so the media has a responsibility to discredit him.) But I’ve never seen anyone write it. Do you know the name of the author?
• Helmut10001 1y ago
  A bit off topic, but still: Why do we need YouTube and other "Video Hosting" platforms at all? Simply upload your video (webm, or MP4) to any static Webserver and embed in HTML5. Plays nicely and no adds. I don't get why some sites still embed their movies stored on YouTube.
  • ta12653421 1y ago
    have you ever used the YT tools for managing videos and all the stuff? its super convenient, even non-techies will get it done within 15min, also you have lot of supportive functions / tools in der admin interface.
    • bravesoul2 1y ago
      It is slightly more hassle as you'd have to download and upload...but Loom is great. Easy to edit your video.
  • gtsop 1y ago
    Your use case is simplistic so it dismisses actual use cases. People make money on youtube through ads, you can't do that (as effectively) on your own server. This also ties with the analytics. Some organisations like the ready-made administration solution. Uploading files through ftp isn't for everyone. Youtube (and hosting platforms) has a nice ui to manage all the content, handles the user authentication etc. Bandwith. Backups. I aggree that for people who don't need all these, and are tech savvy, uploading an mp4 to a server is the way to go.
    • bravesoul2 1y ago
      OP seems to be making 1200/m from cash subscriptions on floatplane. I get why people use YouTube though. But it is precarious too. You own jack shit.
    • timewizard 1y ago
      > has a nice ui to manage all the content It has _a_ UI. > uploading an mp4 to a server is the way to go. Hotlinking. Connection limit tuning. DDoS. People don't want the hassle.
• ria1 1y ago
  [dead]
• znpy 1y ago
  @geerlingguy: First things first: I'm on your side. But the whole content-creator industry should really start looking for and pushing alternatives to Youtube. Floatplane from LTT folks looks promising, I wish it got more attention. It seems that only Linus and Luke actually had the balls to come up with a business model and implement the darn thing. Otherwise you (and other content creators) sooner or later will have to decide between self-censoring and make a living.
  • smolder 1y ago
    LTT is only popular because of youtube in the first place and kind of bad at what they do. I've seen lots of bad methodology and low value content so added them to my "don't recommend" list years ago. More on topic, Floatplane doesn't fix any of the problems with youtube, it's just another take on it that they're filling up with more clickbait thumbnails.
    • theshrike79 1y ago
      They literally have their own testing lab for hardware tests. The regular lighter content brings in the money though, tech deep dives aren't exactly audience magnets.
      • smolder 1y ago
        I have had various ways of testing things over the years, too, and like I said, they're not doing a good job. They don't employ experts, they just project expertise to an uninformed audience.
  • jorams 1y ago
    Nebula[1] is an alternative to YouTube for and by youtubers. I'm fairly certain it's much bigger than Floatplane. It has ad-free versions of the creators' youtube videos, early access for new videos, and exclusive content. It seems to be pretty successful. It is also, like Floatplane, totally irrelevant without the pull from YouTube, because that's where the audience finds these creators in the first place. [1]: https://nebula.tv/ https://nebula.tv/
• babushkaboi 1y ago
  Yeah, and it's not just YouTube's moderation that's messed up. Their whole governance model tilts hard against creators. I have a creator friend who was telling me that newswire agencies are gaming a loophole in YT’s copyright policy to extort creators. Basically, they threaten takedowns unless the creator pays up. Even when creators argue their use falls under "fair use" for reporting, YT’s 3 strike policy doesn’t care. Three strikes and your channel is dead - no nuance. They let rightsholders file strikes at their will & it’s on the creator (or the courts) to fight it out. Guess who usually blinks first? Also this looks like a global grift. Came across Asian newswires picking up on this playbook - licensing clips at premium prices under the implicit threat of a strike. I mean, YT could fix this, but they won’t. they benefit either way. Creators are stuck between losing their life's work and paying up just to stay online.
  • aleph_minus_one 1y ago
    > Creators are stuck between losing their life's work and paying up just to stay online. Concerning "[c]reators are [...] losing their life's work": you are telling me that these creators don't have private backups of their videos (or if they accidentally really don't wouldn't at least download their own videos from YouTube to get at least a re-encoded version of their video)?
    • babushkaboi 1y ago
      losing a channel isn't just losing their files. It's losing their reach, momentum and shot at staying visible. Backups don't fix that.
• sp0ck 1y ago
  This is mass problem with almost any topic you want to share. I'm sport shooter, range officer and competition jury. You have no idea what crazy stunts YouTube do for Gun/Sport Shooting related content. YT terms containt some weirdest restriction for things like "shown magazine capacity". Wrong angle on video and your 10 round mag is seen by YouTube as 30 round and your video is gone. You can show silencer disconnected from firearm, connected to firearm but showing moment you screwing it to end of barrel and your video is banned. There are dozens rules that are so vague that if YT wants he can remove any gun related content. This is problem YT is not willing to fix because collateral damage costs are peanuts comparing to beeing sued and loose because some real illegal content slip trough filter. I don't expect any improvement here because there is no business justification.
  • christophilus 1y ago
    Same for tobacco stuff. I follow a few pipe-tobacco reviewers, and YT has begun to tighten the clamp there, too. It wouldn’t bother me if YouTube wasn’t basically a monopoly. I know some of them have been switching to Rumble, but to be honest, the competition is so fragmented that I don’t see any of them gaining critical mass.
    • mvieira38 1y ago
      We should host a tobacco related Peertube instance at this point. Get Muttnchop, Snus at Home and some other guys on it and we would be free from youtube
    • threetonesun 1y ago
      Host your own content, monetize your own blog. I get that not as many people can do it without access to the big platforms but... that's ok?
      • mousethatroared 1y ago
        And break the big tech monopolies is also... ok?
  • 1y ago
• HelloUsername 1y ago
  @geerlingguy https://web.archive.org/web/20240531142901/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hFas54xFtg https://web.archive.org/web/20240531142901/https://www.youtu...
• fortran77 1y ago
  Every time I sit down at my own piano in my own living room and record something written by a composer who died 150 years ago or more, I get a copyright strike on YouTube--often by a big label (BMI, etc). Last week it was a Robert Schumann piece, composed in 1848. The strike is still there, even though I contested it. (The form to contest it doesn't even have a good box to check for this scenario.) I would love it if I had the resources to sue BMI for defamation (they're claiming I'm a thief) and sue YouTube for facilitating this. They really need to make sure their music match looks for _exact_ matches for compositions that are out of copyright, to catch specific performances and not just melodic/harmonic/rhytmic matches.
  • InternetUser 1y ago
    Rick Beato has talked about this problem; in one video, he was even talking about how 5-second snippets of jazz were causing videos to be taken down, but the algorithm didn't even identify the right song. It reminds of how, in using the Shazam app, I've had numerous instances where it will wrongly identify a track 2 or 3 times, and even stick with the wrong answer. But even bands like Guns N' Roses and The Eagles will get videos of cover performances quickly blocked for sounding too close to the originals. Here's a great video where he talks about YouTube's recklessly draconian algorithms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5lY_DbUsok https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5lY_DbUsok
    • fortran77 1y ago
      That's not _this_ problem. Guns n' Roses, the Eagles, etc (or someone assigned by them) owns the rights to the score, lyrics, and recordings of performances. These are separate copyrights. If you cover their song, you may still be infringing on their copyrighted lyrics, score, and arrangements. I'm talking about compositions to which nobody has any rights to any part of (a recording of a performance can still have a copyright).
  • lakomen 1y ago
    [dead]
  • elric 1y ago
• ivanjermakov 1y ago
  Cooking at home is considered harmful according to restaurant owners.
  • neop1x 1y ago
    Yes, a great analogy. And actually most of the time the food we cook at home is better than what we can get in restaurants. Sadly. Cooking decent food at home takes time, it should have been a restaurant job, but the reality is what it is...
    • timeon 1y ago
      > Sadly. Cooking decent food at home takes time Why sadly? I need to eat more than I need to scroll internet or anything else. Preparing decent food is time well spent.
    • carlosjobim 1y ago
      Learn a few dishes well, soon you are cooking them at home much faster than it would take to wait for them at any restaurant, including all cleanup and dishes. Bonus: Cheaper, much higher quality, much better taste, and most importantly: you can drink as much as you want without getting kicked out.
• neepi 1y ago
  Yeah YouTube are getting shittier by the day. I keep getting banners telling me that ad blockers aren't allowed on YouTube. Stuff is pretty unwatchable now without them. Well fuck you I'll just download the videos with yt-dlp instead. If that stops working, I'll not bother.
  • Glittergorp 1y ago
    You can use piped. https://github.com/TeamPiped/documentation/blob/main/content/docs/public-instances/index.md https://github.com/TeamPiped/documentation/blob/main/content...
    • neepi 1y ago
      Too unreliable. I just use yt-dlp and throw it on VLC on my iPad with airdrop. If it's not worth that effort it probably wasn't worth watching anyway.
      • nicce 1y ago
        There will be a time when computing is so cheap that ads will be injected to the stream in such a way that it is impossible to remove them without real-time AI detector that indentifies the parts where ads are.
        • prickledponcho 1y ago
          Sponsor Block add-on works well for this, but entirely dependent on ads being at fixed time in the video.
          • polivier 1y ago
            Future versions could id the start and end frames of the ad and thus be able to detect the segment anywhere in the video.
        • Gareth321 1y ago
• austin-cheney 1y ago
  I will choose Jellyfin over YouTube every single time. Thanks YT for your content littered with ADs, but in all sincerity go fuck yourself.
• lakomen 1y ago
  [dead]
• herbst 1y ago
  I would love to see an European YouTube alternative with less morals being enforced through demonistation. TV is literally way less self censoring at this point And don't get confused. Most videos would be allowed on YouTube content creators just prefer to monetize them.
  • Glittergorp 1y ago
    There would be more enforcement of this if it was the EU / UK. Generally anything that looks or smells like hacking or copyright infringement isn't a good idea to put on your YouTube channel. I upload Linux videos and I will not mention youtube-dl (or equivalents), anything torrent related even torrenting legal things like Linux install media.
  • 1ark 1y ago
    > Started in 2017 by a programmer known as Chocobozzz, development of PeerTube is now supported by the French non-profit Framasoft. The aim is to provide an alternative to centralized platforms such as YouTube, Vimeo, and Dailymotion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeerTube https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeerTube
  • mardifoufs 1y ago
    Copyright laws are usually more strict in Europe. Yes it's a broad generalization and Europe has a lot of different jurisdictions, but the biggest European countries all have worse Copyright laws. France has HADOPI, Germany has its own mess, and the EU itself is extremely pro-copyright.
    • herbst 1y ago
      Copyright maybe. Talking about normal human things like sex or dangers definitely not
      • mardifoufs 1y ago
        I don't think there's any law that restricts that type of speech in the US. YouTube is strict about those things because of advertisers, not because of any local law.
• DrNosferatu 1y ago
  What word with a suffix that rhymes with car? What exactly is he talking about?
  • sigio 1y ago
    I'm guessing the '*arr' suite of collection-management tools
  • rlayton2 1y ago
    Arr as in pirate.lots of tools that support piracy end with that suffix like sonarr etc
• komali2 1y ago
  Enshittifiction is in full swing in Youtube and like the article says, creators are effectively golden-handcuffed in. In a normal world, youtube would twist the knobs until their bureaucratic momentum causes them to twist too far, and also cause them to take too long to twist back, during which time a competitor can come and steal all the advertisers and creators. That won't happen in our world, because of www.google.com. The existence of that website guarantees that nobody can ever create a competitor to youtube, because youtube can just undercut on ad costs or pay out creators at high enough rates to run a loss for basically fucking centuries if it has to, until everyone else's funding runs out. Imagine building just one of the datacenters needed to feed Youtube... They're what, 200 million a pop? Within a capitalist mode of production and without any real regulatory guardrails, I just don't see Youtube going away, ever, and I don't see any real competitors, ever. Happy to be proven wrong. I try to do my part - I host a tubearchivist instance that at this point is mirroring a couple TB of content from channels some friends and I enjoy. So, .00000000000000000000001% of Youtube. I use it to watch youtube without the stupid ads, and every once in a while buy a mug or whatever from my favorite creators. I'm not sure what else consumers can do about the situation.
• efitz 1y ago
  This is reason #597 why you just don’t allow platforms to censor. If a site wants to be a publisher, by all means, be a publisher, and don’t monetize user content. If a site wants other people to provide the content for free, then sorry- no censorship for you. “Community guidelines” etc are just censorship with a nicer name. “The algorithm” is just opaque censorship by making content undiscoverable. “un-content” in Orwell speak. There are valid use cases for on-topic/off-topic. User content sites should have to declare whether they are a single-topic community or not, and act in good faith either way. If you are a single topic site then you must aggressively prune everything that is off topic (not just some off-topic). If you are multi-topic then no censorship for you. And multi-topic sites like Reddit have to do so per channel/subreddit/etc. but the key points are “on/off topic” is the only valid filter criteria, and it must be applied consistently and in good faith. If your algorithm is the secret sauce that makes your platform worthwhile/profitable/whatever, then people must be able to opt out, eg opt into a “only stuff I follow, all of it, most recent first”. Or if you care about your users then implement curated feeds, allow users to create their own curated feeds, and implement your algorithm as the first curated feed.
  • cornholio 1y ago
    If you try to build that platform, you will get swamped by far right content, people casually suggesting how one could hypothetically obtain child porn if they had such illegal and immoral proclivities, and so on. You will then be boycotted by everyone, from your payment provider and advertisers to your more mainstream users, in a self-enforcing spiral until only unsavory content exists on your platform; nobody will lift a finger to help you, let alone offer you legal protection against such attacks. When you eventually run out of server money, the child pornographers will just move on to greener pastures. Everyone censors because everyone is a business and they want to maintain their content inside the Overton window where revenue is maximized and it's unlikely a boycott or political action against them will be successful.
  • DoctorOW 1y ago
    You absolutely need some rules. Let's say I have a video called "Why Efitz is a serial killer". Sure, you can block my video, and the topic entirely but that doesn't really solve your problem. You're not really worried about you seeing it, but others. I didn't aim the video at you, but rather at a group that already hates people with your race/gender/orientation/religion/etc. They're already vaguely talking about that group being a threat, and my videos claims aren't really scrutinized. As the theory gains traction around the internet, there's a growing amount of people who believe you need to be stopped at all costs. You'll notice that even within the world of the hypothetical, you were picked by random chance. Since the "evidence" is just an immutable trait of yours, the only thing preventing an angry mob from forming outside your house is the difficulty in forming one. On an unrelated note, publishers make money off of creative's works all the time. TV networks aren't platforms, but they make money off of the shows they broadcast all the same.
• sylware 1y ago
  ... or accessing the web without one of the web engines from the whatng cartel.
• cladopa 1y ago
  The problem number one is the total monopoly of YouTube in the Internet TV, so they can abuse without consequences. We need competition, but we don't have it because it is a natural monopoly: the more users YouTube has, and the bigger the scale, the cheaper it is for google.
• s1mplicissimus 1y ago
  Since very recently I also get this annoying "youtube doens't allow ad-blockers" popup. for now one can just click it away, let's see for how long...
• hd4 1y ago
  They're really starting to build the case for self-hosting videos through Peertube
• hsbauauvhabzb 1y ago
  > or any tools that automatically slurp up YouTube content. I’ll bite. Last time I tried yt-dlp on a vps, YouTube wanted me to login - inevitably that’d lead to a banned account, which is the same reason I was using a vps in the first place. Are there any tools that source videos either via a vps or decentralised for popular channels? I refuse to not use ublock, and I’m not paying whatever ridiculous amount premium costs (now, or when they inevitably increase prices). Edit: i want to download videos from YouTube to stream via Jellyfin, I don’t need a hosting platform.
• lll-o-lll 1y ago
  “Who knew open source software could be so subversive?” Me — I knew that. Power to the people.
• msgodel 1y ago
  Conservatives should think of the right to personal computing with the same ideological concern they have for the right to self defense.
  • subjectsigma 1y ago
    Josh Hawley has proposed some bills to break up tech monopolies in the name of individual freedoms.
  • maxlin 1y ago
    I agree, but actually also think this is on the rise. Platforms like Rumble are the flagships of being against big tech, and run on speech first. As the next generation of conservatives grows up, them being "behind" the "more likely to be pioneering" crowd in tech will lessen in effect, while big tech is starting to hit a bit of an identity crisis.
• hello_computer 1y ago
  The good news is that LLMs + growth in storage & bandwidth will eventually put Google in its place. The full texts of stack exchange and wikipedia (kiwix) are only a few gigs. Same for offline models like llama/gemma/qwen. As the wizards keep finding new ways to pack more bits on metal plates, we will be able to store more video than we will ever watch, just as we now store more text than we will ever read.
  • npteljes 1y ago
    >just as we now store more text than we will ever read. Yet, we are not reading, but hanging on social sites instead. Same with this supposed video cache. People go to YouTube not because of the platform, but because of other people. As long as they are there, the ones who are curious about them will also go there.
    • hello_computer 1y ago
      Obviously, but that's not what I'm getting at. Due to present technical limitations, "influencers" have to sharecrop for Google/Facebook/Twitter/etc. Bandwidth/storage/software improvements will allow successful "influencers" to flee the plantation.
      • npteljes 1y ago
        Not until we solve the discovery and filtering part as well, at the very least. I'd say that is the largest value these platforms bring to the table, hand in hand with their existing network too of course.
• rglullis 1y ago
  I'd be more than happy to get the 10€/month I am not giving to YouTube and send it to Jeff if he completely moved out of it. I know that he is already on Floatplane, but we all know that Google is not working with the best interests of its users/creators in mind, so "criticism" of YouTube while making money there seems hypocritical.
  • layer8 1y ago
    But if you're following 30 channels, would you be happy to give out 300€/month? There's just not enough people willing to do that to make it sustainable for creators.
    • rglullis 1y ago
      I wouldn't give 300€/month, but I could set a monthly budget that I am comfortable with (let's say 50€/month) and spread to all the content creators that I'd like to support. This is exactly what I've built with the Communick Collective: https://blog.communick.com/communick-collective-a-zero-commission-crowdfunding-platform-to-support-content-creators-in-the-fediverse/ https://blog.communick.com/communick-collective-a-zero-commi...
• lokimedes 1y ago
  The phrase “considered harmful” should be “considered harmful”. It’s basically an argumentation trick, raising a subjective conclusion to a neutral and objective conclusion without any qualification.
  • geerlingguy 1y ago
    Though in this instance YouTube literally put the "harmful" label on the video. I thought the irony was appropriate. At least I didn't say "All you need is <X>"!
  • Capricorn2481 1y ago
    I mostly hear it sarcastically nowadays.
  • mathgorges 1y ago
    (2002) https://meyerweb.com/eric/comment/chech.html https://meyerweb.com/eric/comment/chech.html
• anonymous344 1y ago
  this is what happens when the 0.01% control and owns almost everything. They want to control and own exactly everytging, and more. no more free speech, or opposing speech or ideas..
• GuB-42 1y ago
  That's just some bot being clueless as usual. Implying YouTube understands what it is doing from a human point of view is giving it too much credit. Your video is too much like the kind of videos that trigger legal action, according to an algorithm, that's all. It is also a good warning against trusting AI agents.
• hliyan 1y ago
  These platforms are still relatively young. We need to roll the clocks foward another 10-20 years to truly understand what level of control they will be able to exert on public knowledge and speech, either at the behest of their investors or through government pressure. I wonder whether one solution is for everyone to own a "personal cloud computer" (a relatively cheap VM) on which they install software much like they did in the pre-SaaS era. They might also be able to open up file system and SQL interfaces for certified external providers. Theoretically, the same arguments that apply to a cloud service provider would apply to a cloud infrastructure provider too, but if the contract were to define the infrastructure as leased property, and all data stored on it as belonging to the user, then it might be somewhat harder to control.
  • tantalor 1y ago
    You're skipping over the tradeoffs: 1. YT provides a free service with massive audience 2. you would have to pay for the cloud hosting and find your own audience.
    • Sloowms 1y ago
      Point 1 is a plain lie. Point 2 is a misunderstanding of how markets work.
• ZiiS 1y ago
  TBF watching any other media is harmful to YouTube.
• hyperbovine 1y ago
  > I purposefully avoid demonstrating any of the tools (with a suffix that rhymes with "car") that are popularly used to circumvent purchasing movie, TV, and other media content What is he talking about here? Im old, I was expecting it to rhyme with “abhorrent”.
  • JKCalhoun 1y ago
    See other comments (Servarr, etc.), I was out of the loop as well.
  • OSINTgOD 1y ago
    Probably Tubular? Looked for alternatives to NewPipe on alternativeto and found it. He mentions it in one of his mastodon posts: https://mastodon.social/@geerlingguy/114416340067669884 https://mastodon.social/@geerlingguy/114416340067669884 Edit: another mastodon user mentioned it under one of Jeff's posts. so maybe he's aware of it?
• qwertyuiop_ 1y ago
  “you own nothing and you will be happy”
• seaourfreed 1y ago
  Post your videos on Rumble. Lack of competition for YouTube causes a them to have power and a monopoly. Competition removes this power. Rumble has gone publicly traded. They have become a peer to YouTube. Smaller. Their ads keep them profitable for the long-term, so accept their ads being not quite as smooth as YouTube as the cost of preventing being censored. Or from YouTube being able to have power of what is allowed to be communicated. Keep creating your videos. Keep supporting these projects. We need them. I'm finding historically critical videos disappear from the internet. There was one interview with Jack Dorsey that he was threatened that if he didn't allow censorship rollout over twitter, that he felt (or was told?) they would remove twitter from the mobile app stores and kill it. Do you want to see that interview? It has been scrubbed off of the internet. This happens with many key videos in history. We need a FileCoin IPFS way to use open source blockchain way to keep these videos forever. Even beyond the lifetime of any author, owner or company. LibreELEC and JellyFin can be the open source part of making them easy to retrieve and watch. Open source for freedom. Blockchain for publishing freedom. Controlling information is their weapon. Protecting freedom for information spread keeps all other freedoms protected (and defendable).
• captainbland 1y ago
  Corporate content streaming giant thinks you shouldn't just do it yourself. Honestly this should be obvious but it's nice to have people highlighting concrete examples as people never want to hear this kind of thing.
  • swed420 1y ago
    Reminds me of this BS https://www.tomshardware.com/software/linux/facebook-flags-linux-topics-as-cybersecurity-threats-posts-and-users-being-blocked https://www.tomshardware.com/software/linux/facebook-flags-l...
    • captainbland 1y ago
      That makes even less sense, sounds like they made some jump from - "oh we've got to get the hacker community off Facebook, they're a risk" "hackers are all Linux enthusiasts" ... "Let's just ban Linux talk to get rid of the hacker community, we don't need that nerd talk on here anyway, it doesn't sell any ads"
• throw7 1y ago
  I'm just waiting for the day Youtube permanently blocks me from using an adblocker. It's so kind of them to at least make me wait for 5 seconds to acknowledge that using an adblocker is illegal.
  • tim333 1y ago
    It's illegal? Under what laws I wonder?
    • busymom0 1y ago
      I think they mean YouTube says in their anti-Adblock popup that it's against their terms of service.
  • godshatter 1y ago
    You're just accessing a publicly-available service with no authentication required on an open protocol using a designated tool for that purpose and deciding not to view (or possibly download) parts of it. I highly doubt it's illegal, but things are so strange these days, who knows for sure?
• snickmy 1y ago
  What does rhymes with "car"
  • npteljes 1y ago
    https://wiki.servarr.com/ https://wiki.servarr.com/
• ednite 1y ago
  Reading through all this has been eye-opening with so many thoughtful comments that made me think, even if some parts are a bit discouraging. I’ve been toying with the idea of jumping on the content creation wagon with storytelling, vlogging life experiences, that sort of thing, but now I’m wondering: Is it still worth building on YouTube if there’s a real risk of getting banned later for unknowingly crossing some unclear content line? I’m not focused on monetization right now, just hoping to share and connect, but I’d hate to build something meaningful only to watch it vanish overnight.
  • layer8 1y ago
    Just take care to backup all your videos, then you can always go elsewhere, or possibly just start a new channel with a new account.
  • mvieira38 1y ago
    You can make a living with content creation without giving your stuff away to Youtube. See the many bloggers and such that are posted around here
• Havoc 1y ago
  Youtube is on my case about adblockers again too. I guess I'm setting up a download solution this weekend.
• Workaccount2 1y ago
  "Free" video hosts work for advertisers. Those are their customers. I can guarantee that if youtube got 70% of it's income from paid subscriptions, they would not give a fuck about 99% of this. If you want youtube (or any other platform) to not suck...pay for it. There is no world where you are not a paying customer and get treated like your opinion matters much.
  • mhuffman 1y ago
    >If you want youtube (or any other platform) to not suck...pay for it. Like Netflix and Amazon Videos?
    • Bender 1y ago
      Like Netflix and Amazon Videos? People can't share their content on Netflix and Amazon without becoming a professional movie producer.
      • arrosenberg 1y ago
        Their point is that people do pay for these services and they have still introduced ads to squeeze out more revenue. Ergo, paying for a service guarantees nothing.
        • Bender 1y ago
          I pay for those services and do not get ads and that is on a machine dedicated to corporate crap. No addons installed. I even use Microsoft Edge so they think they are tracking me. The one and only exception was the movie "Person of Interest" which was FreeVee only for reasons I do not understand so I put up with their ads and then purchased the box set on DVD. The ads were so weird it was entertaining to watch them. They were clearly all created in China and I am still not convinced the actors were real people.
        • Workaccount2 1y ago
          What you are describing is called "ad-subsidized", you pay less than the full cost and get ads to cover the difference.
• pier25 1y ago
  I hate these policies as much as anyone but if you decide to use an ad blocker you're only making things worse. You probably spend more time watching youtube than netflix. Just pay for a family youtube premium account and everyone will be happier, including the people who made the videos you watch.
• butz 1y ago
  It is bad that youtube became only video hosting platform and everyone is putting videos there, even government institutions. That leads to many annoyances, where critical information is blocked by myriad of ads. This should be illegal.
  • cg5280 1y ago
    I have been trying to rely on Google less lately, and it made me realize just how important a platform YouTube is. There are reasonable alternatives to Google search, Gmail, etc. For YouTube, nothing.
    • butz 1y ago
      There is PeerTube. Some interesting creators are mirroring their videos to e.g. makertube.net
  • hbn 1y ago
    I wish the government tech crackdowns would focus more on this or Microsoft's blatant abuse of their Windows lock-in instead of shit like forcing Apple to allow you to uninstall the camera app on your iPhone. Even the App Store stuff, I do think the 30% cut and app linking stuff is unfair, but it's small potatoes of tech issues to me right now compared to the private organization that has essentially complete control over sharing information through video on the internet using that position to block people from sharing benign alternatives to watching videos on their platform.
  • npteljes 1y ago
    >This should be illegal. I agree. Governments relying on private parties at such a degree is a disservice to the public they serve. As an alternative, or mirror, it's fine to upload, but to use Facebook, Xitter, YouTube as primary source for anything government related is pathetic. Govs should have their own IT running their own cloud and services, utilize FOSS entirely and work and contribute the software and data they produce.
• tsumnia 1y ago
  I've had 2 of my videos taken down - they were educational videos teaching how to use Microsoft Access (I know, I know, but lesson plans are lesson plans). We were using a fictional medical database to help explain tables and general querying. BUT whatever the reason, be it a user or YTs moderation team, showing table records was deemed inappropriate because I was "sharing PPI". I appealed both cases and got rejected. Since I'm not a super important influencer, there wasn't much else I could do so sadly students will need to struggle to know how to query dates in Access...
  • technothrasher 1y ago
    > I appealed both cases and got rejected. I had an unlisted video with all of about six views blocked because there was a radio playing softly in the background. When I looked at their process for appeal, they specifically said that incidental background radio music is ok, and appropriate for an appeal. So I appealed. It instantly got denied. I gave up at that point as this private video really didn't matter. But it made it clear that their appeal process is just a sham.
• pwg 1y ago
  Hmm, a big commercial site who's purpose is to provide free eyeballs for the viewing of advertising considers a video about how to avoid providing free eyeballs for the viewing of advertising as "harmful". Of course that video is harmful. /s The "harm" is to youtube's revenue stream. Which is why they gave it a strike and denied the appeal.
• mrkramer 1y ago
  Federated video platform PeerTube[0] can be a good alternative. [0] https://joinpeertube.org/ https://joinpeertube.org/
  • AlienRobot 1y ago
    >Some in the fediverse ask why I'm not on Peertube. Here's the problem (and it's not insurmountable): right now, there's no easy path towards sustainable content production when the audience for the content is 100x smaller, and the number of patrons/sponsors remains proportionally the same.
    • mrkramer 1y ago
      Damn, usually I'm not this dumb but thx for the reference I didn't even see it. My take is; YouTube is currently your only option if you want to try to make a living as a video content creator but if you want to casually make content and share it with your audience or your friends and family then you can definitely try PeerTube.
• tempodox 1y ago
  It's harmful alright. To Google's revenue.
• jll29 1y ago
  People complain about big tech, but they use their free services all the time for convenience. I wish more people would self-host or use paid services so that the influence of big tech could decline based on an economic chance of balance; complaining about something while keep using it sounds hypocritical.
  • Capricorn2481 1y ago
    There will never be enough people that care about this to make a dent. For every person complaining about Youtube censorship, there are 10 that are offended you would tell them what platform to use, and don't understand the implications. It's only content creators that can make the difference, and not the quality ones who have sizeable but niche audiences. The big ones, like Mr Beast. And why would he care? He's consistently spoken about Youtube like it will be THE platform of the next 40 years.
• aanet 1y ago
  Thanks, Jeff Geerling. This post is so useful. Bookmarking it for my Pi setup. I grew up in the 90s media. Want my content to be owned, not rented. <3
• dmje 1y ago
  Did anyone catch what the handheld device is he's using to control the tv?
• 1970-01-01 1y ago
  Alphabet in general is ripe for disruption. Nothing they hold near and dear is long-term safe. They are close-followers in several areas already. GMail will probably be their last surviving product because it holds our most sensitive data.
• jdkee 1y ago
  Google needs to be broken up.
• 1970-01-01 1y ago
  Exercising your rights now considered violation of just-in-time terms of service updates. Please drink verification beverage if you agree to these modified terms of service.
• evanjrowley 1y ago
  Is it not anti-competitive for YouTube to remove mention of alternative platforms?