
YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems” - avolcano
https://twitter.com/KodyKinzie/status/1146196570083192832
======
Liquix
Emperor G built a beautiful walled city, inviting everyone in, encouraging
them to paint their houses whatever color they like. A year later, Big G
banned blue houses. If you didn't like the rules, you were more than welcome
to build your house outside the city and paint it whatever color you like.

Only most people don't leave - blue is just one color and they weren't very
interested in it anyway. Besides, the city is so beautiful and provides for
their every need. In the coming years, people who want to paint their house
blue badly enough to leave paradise are heavily scrutinized and eventually
considered outcasts.

Over the years, more and more colors are slowly banned, one by one. People
start to notice and complain once their favorite color is outlawed. But
decades have passed since Emperor G's generous invitation. Entire generations
have lived, died, and raised children inside the city. No one knows how to
navigate the wilderness anymore. And even if they could, why would they want
to? Thorns and weeds have overgrown the wasteland; it's much safer to stay
inside the city walls. Besides, it's cozy and we have everything we need in
here.

 _In theory you are correct. In practice, if 97% of society exclusvely uses
said aggregator /community to find videos - 97% of your potential audience
will never know the video exists - is that not still censorship?_

~~~
edanm
> In theory you are correct. In practice, if 97% of society exclusvely uses
> said aggregator/community to find videos - 97% of your potential audience
> will never know the video exists - is that not still censorship?

I mean... no?

I think it's useful to have a separate concept for actual censorship
(government-mandated), and just "someone built a really great way to connect
to a bunch of users, that didn't exist 20 years ago, but now isn't letting you
use it". I'm not saying it's not problematic (or that it is), just that it's
_different in a meaningful way_ and therefore bad to conflate.

As for how much of a monopoly YouTube really is - it's clearly a huge
aggregator that's gotten almost all "user watching video" engagement. Except
other niches have been discussed here (e.g. porn), and they seem to be doing
fine. So I don't think it's inevitable that YouTube is the only service that
can exist.

~~~
ajsnigrutin
This works in a non monopolized system. If you live in a large city with many
different stores, and you get banned for one of them for wearing a blue shirt,
that doesn't matter too much.

If you live in a remote city with one wallmart and no other stores, and
wallmart bans you, that's a problem.

Yes, there are alternatives, but 97% of the market is definitely a monopoly.

~~~
edanm
The difference between your example and the YouTube case is in how accessible
are the alternatives. If the only store close to you bans you, then it can be
somewhere between a major inconvenience and practically impossible to go to an
alternative.

On the other hand, replacing YouTube as a hosting platform isn't too hard (I
think? I don't actually have much experience with this but there are
alternatives).

Of course the big issue isn't YouTube the host, it's YouTube the marketing
platform - but even here there are alternatives. Host on vimeo, but use other
social media more. More Facebook posts. Get an audience via podcasts. I'm not
saying it's easy, I'm saying that I'm not at all convinced that YouTube really
is a monopoly in the sense where we want to do something about it.

~~~
loup-vaillant
It's very easy to host a video elsewhere than YouTube.

It's very easy to view a video elsewhere than YouTube.

It's _difficult_ to convince other people to view a video elsewhere than
YouTube. You'd have to be on YouTube to begin with to reach them. Sure, there
are Facebook and Twitter. But if you want to get off those as well (and I do)…
good luck.

------
floatingatoll
One effective way to protest this would be to report videos by high-profile
companies such as Microsoft, Amazon, and Google itself.

Take a few minutes to look for a video about Azure or AWS or GCP, or a video
of a presentation at a conference around such things, and report it as
Inappropriate content citing the relevant terms of service.

Be very careful only to report content that conforms to the above description
— the point here is to show YouTube where they're wrong by forcing them into
direct confrontation with their own vested interests.

Bonus irony points will be conceded to correctly flagging a Google Project
Zero video, or a YouTube security team video, as in violation of the terms of
service as stated.

Again, please do not do this indiscriminately. Use your judgement on how to
create the maximum exposure of stupidity through honest and careful judgement
of what obviously should be permitted and yet does not comply with the rules
as stated today.

EDIT: Per commenters below — if you behave improperly and report a ton of
videos inappropriately, you very well could get your account banned. If you're
worried about this, report _one_ video only. Be selective, use your single
vote, and then move on.

~~~
gambiting
That's probably a great way to get your own Google account banned, and there
is no way in hell I'm risking that.

~~~
kartan
> and there is no way in hell I'm risking that.

Yes. You need to keep a good balance in your social credit.

~~~
emiliosic
Self-sensure. Works as designed

------
jlmorton
There's a lot of bad content on the Internet, and a lot of people wanted to
ban it. And the free speech absolutists said, that's a slippery slope. Once
you start restricting speech beyond whatever is illegal, there will be no end
to the demands to ban certain content.

And a lot of us said, slippery slopes are silly arguments. All we're asking is
to ban overt racism and calls to violence. We can evaluate these things
individually on their own terms.

It may turn out the absolutists had a point.

~~~
britch
I don't think this changes the idea that the slippery slope is a silly
argument.

Aren't we evaluating these things on their own terms now? It's definitely
possible to have a YouTube that is harsh on calls to violence but allows
cyber-security instructionals.

We're not sliding down the slope just yet. We took a step too low and need to
climb back up.

edit:

I should not have used "we" above, since only Alphabet controls the platform.

To clarify, I don't think this is the natural end of a "slippery slope" from
removing hateful/violent videos from YouTube.

This was not an inevitability of moderation. It is possible to have a
"YouTube" that takes down violent content and leaves educational material up.

If it makes them money and no one in power objects, it stays up (see
harassment of Carlos Maza). If it jeopardizes those in power or YouTube's
bottom line, it comes down.

Moderation is not to blame. Profit motive is.

~~~
013a
It is possible to have a Youtube like this. Its also possible to have a
Youtube that allows porn, or a Youtube that exclusively hosts videos from
large media companies because its too risky to allow random people to upload
any of these things.

All of these are possibilities. Some of them are more likely than others. But
you want to know the _least_ likely possibility? The one with chances so
unrealistically impossible that it practically will not happen? Its the
possibility that Moderation will land on the point in the Gray Area that you
believe is Fair.

Why is that? Its because everyone's point is different, and its insanely
difficult to even define that point during day-to-day enforcement. So,
Youtube, serving millions of users, having thousands of humans and millions of
lines of code running enforcement, will continually become more conservative.
Someone is outraged? Ban it. An advertiser is outraged? Oh damn, make a
policy. Making a policy is easy. Reverting is is very difficult. At its very
foundations this is why the world gets more and more conservative over time.

This is why freedom of speech is such an important thing. The first, best
option is to find a gray area that is perfect for everyone... which is
impossible. The second best option is to allow anything. Anything is better
than nothing, and its also probably better than the conservative, whitewashed
world that we're headed toward.

But, then again; they can run their platform however they want. And most
people think they should ban violence... and self-harm... and suicide... and
directions for making explosives... and hacking? Well, maybe there is
somewhere they should stop. No one ever said it was easy. Or that allowing
everything is the right move for them. But, the reality is, if they keep
changing the rules, then the rules will eventually slide toward gross
conservatism. That's the future of the platform. And next decade, a new
platform will replace them, and the same thing will happen to them. Freedom of
speech isn't necessary in private platforms like this; generally speaking,
given enough time, the markets will take care of it.

~~~
darkpuma
> _" given enough time, the markets will take care of it. "_

And death finds all murderers in the end, but why wait for that? I prefer we
actively hunt them down, to limit the damage they can do.

See also: _Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent._

------
gen3
Does this mean that all the reverse engineering videos, con talks, prof of
exploit demos, CTF walkthroughs', and fuzzing tutorials will be removed? What
about videos showing me how to use tools like Twistlock? Will they be exempt,
but videos about burp be banned? What constitutes a "secure" computer system?

Side note, I guess its time to fire up youtube-dl. Are there any channels that
need to be archived? I normally just watch what comes up in a search, not
anyone in particular.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Please use tubeup [1] to backup at risk videos to the Internet Archive. It
uses youtube-dl on the backend for retrieving content, subtitles, etc, and
will properly set metadata for the item in the archive. The content will be
darked if there’s an issue serving it, and the IA staff and storage system
will throttle you if necessary (which will bubble up as s3 timeouts).

DEFCON, CCC, and other infosec groups need to move to peertube ASAP.

[1] [https://github.com/bibanon/tubeup](https://github.com/bibanon/tubeup)

~~~
grafporno
CCC famously rolls their own streaming infrastructure during congress and all
of it is available at [https://media.ccc.de/](https://media.ccc.de/)

~~~
majewsky
Not just during congress. The C3VOC (CCC Video Operations Center) serves Chaos
events and tech conferences throughout the whole year.

Source: Volunteered for VOC duty a few times.

------
da_chicken
I've been trying to argue for awhile that if the major public venues become
privately moderated that it would have a chilling effect on free speech. I
continually get the rhetoric that free speech only applies to the government
(it doesn't; the First Amendment only applies to the government but the ideal
of free speech is a universal human right) and that censorship is something
only the government can do (also not true for the same reason).

This is not a new concept. In 1859, John Stuart Mill argued in On Liberty that
the tyranny of the majority and the de facto censorship that they can create
is just as if not far more dangerous to actual liberty than government
control.

If we have laws for common carriers, and laws like network neutrality, then
there must also be laws protecting the right of the people to participate in
public discourse _even when the venue is privately held_. It is vital to the
existence of a free state!

~~~
AnthonyMouse
What you say is true, but the better solution is for huge corporations not to
have a monopoly/oligopoly on channels for public discourse.

~~~
da_chicken
That's an extremely difficult problem given the speed at which social media
changes and the slowness of legal changes. Look at the explosion of Discord.
Also, social media isn't a commodity service. What happens if YouTube is
broken up? Facebook? Instagram? Twitter?

It seems safer to also require that any platform that offers free, open access
to social media style content not show any bias towards that content unless it
is otherwise illegal. If you want to pretend to be a public venue, you've got
to have the responsibility of keeping a public venue.

~~~
missingrib
I'm so torn on this issue. I dislike the idea of the government interfering
with private business very much, and I can see how easily it can get scary.

That said, it really is insane how influential and widely used a well made
application/website can get (youtube/discord/etc). I really cannot think of
something that YouTube could do that would make people leave the platform. The
amount of users and content on there just totally cements their position.

In this specific situation I think tech-savvy people can find where these
videos will be located. In other situations, it's pretty strange/scary. I wish
people were more open to alternative platforms. Sometimes I talk about
DuckDuckGo and get the weirdest stares

~~~
da_chicken
> I'm so torn on this issue. I dislike the idea of the government interfering
> with private business very much, and I can see how easily it can get scary.

When corporations were first created, they used to have to show how what they
were doing was for the benefit of the community. The protections against risk
afforded to companies was once granted only in exchange for the ability of a
company to add real value to the people and the state. This made sense because
very few people would primarily profit, so it made sense to get a guarantee or
promise that the company would invest into the community. Companies had a
responsibility to ensure that happened.

None of that is true anymore, but that's not because it's immoral to require
companies to invest in and have a responsibility for improving and supporting
the community. Those corporations only exist by the leave of the state, and in
a western republic, that means the leave of the people.

Food companies are responsible for producing healthy food. Automobile
companies are responsible for producing safe vehicles. Social media services
should be responsible for creating environments and discussions that benefit
the people.

~~~
gerikson
> Food companies are responsible for producing healthy food. Automobile
> companies are responsible for producing safe vehicles. Social media services
> should be responsible for creating environments and discussions that benefit
> the people.

Are you proposing regulation/legislation for social media services?

------
EnFinlay
There are thousands of hours of excellent cybersecurity content hosted on
YouTube. The possibility of losing this wealth of information and history is
shocking to me.

Time to start the archive effort. And to finally appreciate what so many other
communities have gone through when they've found themselves on the wrong side
of one of the internet behemoths. I feel naive.

~~~
gen3
Do you have any recommendations on channels to archive?

~~~
EnFinlay
\- Many convention talks are really good and are too many to list \- OWASP \-
zseano \- hackerone \- Bugcrowd (Jason Haddix's stuff is a pretty important
pillar) \- OWASP \- DarkOperator \- Absolute AppSec \- KacperSzureEN \-
PwnFunction \- LiveOverflow

There are a ton more, these are just ones I've been watching in the past 6
months or so.

~~~
pzmarzly
You missed a 'k' in 'KacperSzurekEN' \-
[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDbNNYUME_pgocqarSjfNGw](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDbNNYUME_pgocqarSjfNGw)

------
sequoia
The "solution" is choosing your priorities and being willing to make
sacrifices, which, in my experience, many people are not willing to do.

"I don't want to be on a censorious megacorporate platform." Great! You can do
this, you'll just have to be on the #2 platform rather than the #1 platform,
and there won't be as many "free" tools & services. "What?? How can you
suggest I abandon the #1 platform? I _need_ all those free tools and services
+ the exposure of the #1 platform!" :shrug: OK, in that case "free tools and
services" & "exposure" are _higher priorities_ to you than user respect,
privacy, free expression etc., and you're making the right choice to stay on
youtube.

It feels a lot like people want to have their cake and eat it too.

Our (as users) only negotiating leverage with a provider like google is
_willingness to leave their platforms_. If you're are not willing to do that,
all this hand-wringing and complaining is just wasted breath as google has ~0
incentive to take your complaints seriously.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
I think the truth here is that saying "Just use another platform" isn't taking
into account reality.

Let's say for a moment that Google isn't evil (hypothetical, I know) and that
you want a Facebook alternative. Google themselves tried to make one - and
failed spectacularly.

If Google can't make a Facebook alternative, what chance does anyone else
have? In what way does a #2 platform ever even approach Facebook while FB can
just purchase them or otherwise stop them before a critical mass of users
switch?

I'm very free market, but this is a clear monopoly and social media sites
seemingly requires new rules that didn't exist for telecoms.

------
sarcasmatwork
Youtube updating its policy to ban videos they have already monetized from,
while the creators get nothing. Youtube is a monopoly. Creators need to get
off YT, and onto something else if it exists.

~~~
lghh
> if it exists.

It doesn't.

~~~
skrebbel
Vimeo?

~~~
jasode
An example of Vimeo terminating an account of a guy reviewing rat traps after
he paid Vimeo's $240 fee:

deep link:
[https://youtu.be/GGMdrBEumLE?t=87](https://youtu.be/GGMdrBEumLE?t=87)

~~~
officeplant
Big fan of his channel. It's so fucking stupid how a simple educational
channel on mouse traps (and other types of pest traps) can run into a wall of
censorship and demonetization.

------
WalterBright
I bought a book on defeating burglar alarms because I wanted to install a
burglar alarm that wasn't easily defeated.

I read up on what causes cancer so I can avoid those things.

I read up on security breaches because I'm interested in designing the D
programming language so D programs are less susceptible to hacking attacks.

~~~
dboreham
I watched videos on how to open padlocks because I bought a house with a
padlocked gate to which the owner had lost the key.

~~~
cr0sh
Step 1: Obtain blue wrench.

Step 2: Turn on blue wrench.

Step 3: Apply blue wrench to padlock.

Step 4: Profit.

/can't be locked if it's a liquid...

------
junar
And here's the resolution:

> In a subsequent comment, a YouTube spokesperson confirmed to The Verge that
> Cyber Weapons Lab’s channel was flagged by mistake and the videos have since
> been reinstated. “With the massive volume of videos on our site, sometimes
> we make the wrong call,” the spokesperson said. “We have an appeals process
> in place for users, and when it’s brought to our attention that a video has
> been removed mistakenly, we act quickly to reinstate it.”

[https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/3/20681586/youtube-ban-
instr...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/3/20681586/youtube-ban-
instructional-hacking-phishing-videos-cyber-weapons-lab-strike)

------
mensetmanusman
This was a mistimed move by their leadership.

Most in silicon valley have no issue with Youtube banning political speech
they disagree with, but if immediately afterwards they start banning education
material dear to the hearts of most in the valley (who started as white/black
hat hackers in middle/high school), then you highlight the obvious slippery
slope.

Youtube is transitioning from a platform to a curator. That is a huge risk for
them if the govt. realizes this.

------
kelp
Lets keep in mind that YouTube has been around for 14 years... In societal
terms that's a relatively short amount of time to have a free platform where
anyone can post their ideas, no matter how crazy or toxic.

Before that, you could blog.

Before that, you could stand on a street corner and yell, or maybe use a
megaphone.

The platforms for broadcasting your message to a large audience were mostly
gated, often by large corporations. TV, Newspaper, Radio, etc.

It seems to me that what we are seeing is more like reversion to the mean.

It was great in the early days of the internet, because the communities were
small, and often self policing. But once they get large enough it's very easy
for the noise to overwhelm the signal. This idea of absolute free speech
didn't scale once the population got large enough.

I don't even use Facebook and Twitter anymore because of this. (I also
generally opt out of ad supported anything)

I'm really not convinced that providing a cheap / free platform for anyone to
amplify their message was actually a net good. Not anymore at least. Like I
said, it doesn't scale.

Before, the crazy and toxic could yell on the street corner. Now they have
Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to shout their conspiracy theories etc.

IMO, we're overdue for scaling some of that back.

There is the right to say and think whatever you want. That does not imply the
right to have your message amplified to millions.

~~~
davesmith1983
I suspect many people were saying the same about the printing press when that
was invented. "If anyone can print something quickly, how can will we stop the
peasants from printing their own books".

Many would could say same about open source software, people developing their
own technology. They are doing their own thing, there is a lot of rubbish code
(noise) to good open source code (signal). Maybe a large company like
Microsoft or IBM take control of it and be the guardians of the code.

Youtube has everything from make up tutorials, instructions on how to do fix
your laptop, cook a meal, there are people making their own reviews of retro
computer hardware. Other people are releasing their own music, tutorials on
how to code, teachers helping people with their maths homework. Almost all of
this would never see the light of day on regular television. Yet somehow you
have concentrated on the negative elements.

Claiming it doesn't scale because you don't like some of the content on there
is ridiculous and you are just projecting your personal politics on everyone
else. If you don't like the content you can just not watch it. I don't like
watching network television because it is awful, I like seeing people debate
and debunk things like conspiracy theories because it is fun.

I really wish people like yourself would just be honest and just come out to
say that you think that certain people shouldn't be allowed to speak because
you think you are better than them.

~~~
syn0byte
To piggyback your comment and the depth of the analogy: Mein Kampf is still in
publication today. Does any otherwise rational person want it stopped and all
copies removed from public libraries in the way they seem to expect from
Youtube/Facebook et al? Would they want Del Ray Books be held accountable for
the content of The Turner Diaries?

~~~
davesmith1983
I think generally they there seems to be a move to remove anything seen to be
outside of the Overton Window
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)).

However a lot of people seem to forget that the politics of today is only
within the Overton window because speech outside of the Overton window at the
time was protected and thus the Overton window can "shift".

------
aphextim
I can't wait for all the videos showing you how to repair your own stuff gets
outlawed.

Right now it's 'hacking' or possibly circumventing proprietary systems that
are trying to get you to purchase a new device or contact them directly rather
than fix it yourself if you have the technical know how.

Today it's Software/Hardware and computer systems.

How long until looking up a you-tube video on how to repair your John Deer
tractor or iOS device gets banned.

Take it further and how long until all repair/tear down/fix videos get banned
from their platform.

Everyone is yelling, just repeal their platform status like it is going to
change anything. They've used that status to grow to the size they are now and
even if they are forced to go publisher it wouldn't change anything other than
them being more brazen at the censorship in my opinion.

~~~
elliottcarlson
Considering John Deer does not want their users to perform self repairs, it
might be more realistic than you think.

[https://theamericangenius.com/business-news/farmers-cant-
leg...](https://theamericangenius.com/business-news/farmers-cant-legally-fix-
their-own-john-deere-tractors-due-to-copyright-laws/)

~~~
vxNsr
I guessing that is what OP was referencing.

------
root_axis
You want YouTube to be one way, but it's the other way.

Protest. Boycott. Build alternatives.

This is how you fight corrupt corporations. It makes no sense to force YouTube
to host all content for free. YouTube is a video entertainment business, it's
not insulin or a house. Again, it's a video entertainment site. It is wholly
unimportant in reality.

The only power YouTube has is the power society willingly gives it by visiting
the website. Society needs to take responsibility for its own browser history.

Upload your video somewhere else on the internet.

~~~
50656E6973
>it's not insulin or a house. Again, it's a video entertainment site. It is
wholly unimportant in reality.

It's the greatest library of educational content in human history.

~~~
root_axis
Why do you think that? YouTube has lots of content, some of it excellent, but
the vast majority of it is of dubious educational quality with tons of trash
and misinformation. Much of the educational content that is worthwhile is also
superficial compared to other sites on the internet that have quality and
accuracy standards for their content. Some examples include khan academy,
coursera, and udemy. I'd even include wikipedia before YouTube.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-
subscribed_YouTub...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-
subscribed_YouTube_channels)

YouTube is mostly about video entertainment.

~~~
MFLoon
I think you're both right. It's very dilute, but even so it's many orders of
magnitude bigger than the counter-examples you give, and even given the
dubious content you have to wade through, the absolute volume of high quality
info you can find there is unprecedented. Also it's much lower friction to
access (well Wikipedia is about the same, but all the others are gated to
varying degrees). So I would contend that YT is uniquely significant as a
repository of educational material.

That all being said, I agree with your original point - how they
moderate/censor that content is and always has been solely YT's prerogative.

------
britch
Remember this next time Alphabet execs claim YouTube is a neutral platform and
that they can't be held responsible for what's posted.

Radicalization and harassment is ok because it makes them money.

Cyber-security education is a threat to rich and powerful interests, so it is
taken down.

They've had their finger on the scale for a long time.

------
kohtatsu
Uh oh. You know it's bad when the conditions for a ban are an oxymoron.

------
jazzyjackson
This is as good a time as any to start archiving your favorite channels, you
can point youtube-dl at a video URL, a playlist, or a username.

    
    
      brew install youtube-dl
      youtube-dl https://www.youtube.com/user/DEFCONConference/
    

Showing 2460 videos, I'll have to grab a few harddrives.

~~~
gruez
but why? there's still [https://media.defcon.org/](https://media.defcon.org/)

~~~
jazzyjackson
Oof bad example, thanks

It's just a channel I'd like an offline backup of anyway.

Hoping people post other channels that are worth downloading.

------
ifoundthetao
[https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/c6fh4x/after_h...](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/c6fh4x/after_hoarding_over_50k_youtube_videos_here_is/)

------
dmitrygr
Many of Google's actions can be explained by internal disarray, the way
promotions are doled out, and lack of leadership. This cannot.

-No longer proud to have been a Googler

~~~
PavlovsCat
Be, if applicable, proud of the things you did and where your heart was at
when you did them. Nothing can take that away from you.

------
vxNsr
I've increasingly become of the opinion that we need actual regulation for any
SV app/co that calls itself a platform.

Nearly everyone acknowledges that a platform by definition needs to be either
the only co in its industry or part of a duopoly but generally with a 50%+
market share. The gov should acknowledge the benefits of having such platforms
but should also recognize the pitfalls and regulate akin to common carrier.

Google wants to be the only search engine, fine. everyone benefits when search
is consolidated, but it needs to be regulated like a monopoly even if there
are 1000 other smaller competitors because it still has a controlling share of
the market.

I hate regulation as I'm describing it here, but I cannot see another way
out.... if trump doesn't pass something like the S-ATA in the next 2 (- 6?)
years the next prez almost def will, we're really hitting that tipping point.

------
Nasrudith
I suspect the issue isn't YouTube per se but society. While they bear
responsibility for their decisions any big entity which becomes the
"mainstream" will receive the same pressure. With advertiser backing based on
what they /think/ is good for their image regardless of what people other than
the many noisy minorities (like every yellow journalist seeking a new moral
panic) of all sorts think.

And rather than anyone involved learning they will push hard to be "more like
TV" which we have been seeing for years on YouTube with every adpocalyose. If
we cannot fix the underlying problem we are doomed to reoccurrence.

------
idbehold
How can anyone violate this rule? Any _secure_ computer system cannot be
bypassed.

~~~
stebann
Haha! They don't even exist.

------
maerF0x0
Or thinkspot becomes the youtube killer and we all continue on

[https://www.ts.today/](https://www.ts.today/)

edit: I have no idea how thinkspot is going to play out. But if I know one
thing about the internet it's that it's really hard to stop people from using
it however they please. Attempts to squash mostly just result a shift of where
it occurs, not the fact that it occurs.

~~~
Zak
> _I have no idea how thinkspot is going to play out._

I do. The uncensored alternative to a popular platform consistently attracts
_all_ the toxic users, making it a place nobody else wants to go. Voat is a
relatively recent high-profile example.

~~~
OCASM
And who defines who's toxic and who's not? That's right: the censors.

~~~
Zak
Or in the censorship-free scenario, the other potential users who stay away
because most people find hate speech distasteful (for example) and don't want
to spend time somewhere they're exposed to it frequently.

~~~
OCASM
Another buzzword used and defined by censors: hate speech.

------
alexpotato
A good reminder that NYC decided that viewing adult content on computers at
city libraries was protected by freedom of speech and is therefore allowed:

[https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/04/25/watching-porn-at-
nyc...](https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/04/25/watching-porn-at-nyc-
libraries-is-ok-officials-say/)

~~~
MiddleEndian
This is definitely relevant for multiple reasons. Pornographic content is
legally protected free speech (except on broadcast TV for whishy washy
reasons). Yet YouTube does not host pornographic content and is not required
to do so. To my knowledge, no large groups of people have demanded that
YouTube host pornographic content in the decade or so of its existence under
free speech grounds. It's only when YouTube stops hosting stuff they like that
they suddenly consider it to be a free speech issue.

And on the other hand, PornHub has offered to host the channels of people who
were banned from YouTube. Few chose to move to PornHub because of the
implications of this association, even though it is a more free option.

To me it's all nonsense. If you want to host your own stuff unrestricted,
start your own site or something like peertube. The more decentralized things
are, the freer they are. Alex Jones can still post crazy shit about Sandy Hook
families on his own site and deal with his own legal consequences which I will
not comment on. But it's pretty obvious why YouTube doesn't want to deal with
him. And while it's a bummer for fans of these hacking shows that YouTube
won't be hosting their content, perhaps it's an opportunity to work towards
decentralization.

------
davb
My guess is that a tech player with a big ad spend is unhappy about YouTube
tutorials teaching users to de-DRM their content or jailbreak their consumer
devices.

------
AdeptusAquinas
This comment thread says a lot about hacker news.

a) the flagged videos have already been unbanned, with YT saying it was a
mistake and b) YT's policy exempts educational videos, which is why it was a
mistake, and why e.g LiveOverflow et al should be fine.

~~~
terminalhealth
What are concrete videos that they consider worth banning? Videos explaining
0-day exploits? Where do they draw the line?

~~~
AdeptusAquinas
Probably something like a how-to guide to hack into a specific site. An
analogy might be that a video on how to lockpick a door wouldn't be banned,
but a video on how to lockpick your neighbour's door (with his/her address)
probably would be.

The whole hullabaloo seems to be semantics about the meaning of educational vs
instructional.

------
Four8Five
Didn't they just host a CTF recently?

~~~
dsfyu404ed
BigCo has silos. Water is wet. More breaking news at 11.

Sarcasm aside, I'm betting there's an organizational unit responsible for
content policy and they have nearly zero contact with the organization unit
that put on the CTF.

------
oconnor663
Devil's advocate: There's a very thin line between e.g. the Lockpicking Lawyer
doing reviews of different padlock brands and e.g. an instructional video
about how to break into someone's house. YouTube knows that if someone posts
home invasion instructions, and then someone else watches those instructions
and commits a crime, the news media will absolutely 100% blame YouTube, and
politicians will jump on them to score points with the voters. Since it's
essentially impossible to define a simple, objective difference between the
Lockpicking Lawyer and instructional videos for actual crimes, YouTube needs
to write broad policies that potentially cover both, and then rely on their
discretion in individual cases.

Does this suck for everyone involved? Yes. Does YouTube have a choice about
this? No.

~~~
feanaro
Since when is censorship for the sake of preventing people from acquiring
knowledge that _may be_ used in a later crime even on the table? This is
insanity.

~~~
esmi
I think oconnor663 would agree that it is insane. I believe the argument is
that YouTube needs to protect itself because someone could insinuate that they
are complicit in a crime simply because someone was trained in the criminal
act via YouTube video.

I think the counter-argument is that no policy will protect YouTube from these
types of arguments. If some politician wants to demonize YouTube via
hyperbolic argument, then they will find a way. These types of disputes rarely
use facts.

YouTube should stick to Free Speech and accept that haters are going to hate.
To me this just demonstrates that the YouTube leadership has no backbone.

------
jquery
This is good news. Censorship should've been something with wide bipartisan
opposition, but due to the way Google and others cynically (or accidentally)
used partisan tricks to make half the populace clamor for their rights to be
violated, like they did with Alex Jones and others, they've gotten away with
their censorship to grand applause.

Moves like this are a great opportunity to finally develop bipartisan
opposition to these corporations. People who've been wearing tribalistic
blinders will say, "hey wait a minute, that's _my_ voice you're shutting down,
and _I 'm_ not a bad person." Even if they don't come to their senses from
first principles, at least more of the burden of defending common liberties
will now be shared on the shoulders of more people.

------
rdiddly
Here comes an argument familiar from other domains (drugs, guns, censorship in
general) but still valid:

This will serve to drive that content further out of sight and underground,
into the realm of people whose hats are statistically more likely to be of a
darker shade as it were.

------
yoodenvranx
They day Youtube decides to ban the LockpickingLawyer Channel for "showing
users how to bypass secure doors" will be the day I uninstall and block
Youtube on all my devices.

~~~
alanh
If computers were still ENIAC-sized, then… well, you see where I am going

------
bin0
Google is going to regret this in a few years, when it needs security experts
and they are in short supply (or rather shorter; they are already in short
supply). Maybe we should be commoditizing security knowledge, which is what a
platform such as you tube is capable of. Besides, there's a whole internet
full of resources, and this isn't going to stop the script kiddies. The real
issue is the nation state hackers from Iran, N. Korea, China, Russia. They are
the problem.

Companies I know of and that people I know work with have been the victim of
ransomware many times. It is almost always Iran or N. Korea, and companies I
know of have even been victimized twice (they took a look while inside and
found another vector; the second time, they knew they had insurance and would
pay again). Then there's the espionage - if you're bigger or have something
China or Russia wants, they'll go after you.

The FBI classifies this as terrorism, and yet does nothing. These are acts of
war, and we keep getting stepped on because our government does nothing. Most
of us know fully well that our three-letter agencies have exploits capable of
disabling just about any thing; it's time they start knocking Iranian, North
Korean, Chinese, and Russian infrastructure offline as a retaliatory measure.
Each time we trace another attack to one of them, a power plant goes down (or
something alike). This is the only solution I can see.

------
Zenst
The stigma IT gets from society with regards to security is abundant.

The term hacker for a geek is not the definition the media uses - I often
correct people and ask - should Burglars be called Locksmiths? Which is
absurd, but then the term hacker has been subverted to mean a computer thief,
vandal, burglar or any form of digital crime.

As for showing how to break into a compter - the legal and valid reasons
outway the criminal ones and yet this is a blanket ban mentality taking the
edge cases and projecting them.

Forget your password - well thanks youtube for banning all valid digital
locksmith usage.

So by doing this, it is akin to closing down a road because somebody got
caught speeding, or banning anybody learning to drive because somebody got
caught speeding. An extreme comparison, but is it?

Bigger issue is such digital rules are automated in action, so less due
process, more so with some companies whose support due process depends upon
you knowing somebody at the company to `actually` look into the automated
oversights.

So what next, p2p and the darkweb have already been demonised by the media. So
any attempt to offer an alternative will get negatively associated, and deemed
guilty of a crime they did not commit. Which is nice for the establishments in
our digital age, as it protects their effective monopoly.

------
1290cc
Youtube is making the case for IPFS. I didn't think it would happen so soon
but here we are.

This is great news for the project and should drive more work on the
convenience layers that need to be built above the IPFS layer.

------
jolmg
Saw this the other day:

Why Everyone's Leaving YouTube[1]

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQuE0wfjzf0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQuE0wfjzf0)

EDIT: I've submitted a separate post:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20347870](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20347870)

------
jupp0r
"showing how to bypass secure computer systems" reminds me of the DCMA debate,
where "circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to
a [copyrighted] work." is forbidden.

If it was a "secure" computer system, it shouldn't be breakable by anybody
after watching a how to youtube video.

------
Communitivity
I agree with others here, YT and it's like are de facto monopolies by their
size and market share.

PeerTube [1] is a Mastodon [2] offshoot project that might allow users to get
off YT, no idea where it's at though.

"One project, Peertube, does exactly this. A federated, decentralized video
sharing platform using the same back end as Mastodon, but around the sharing
of video clips."[3]

[1] [https://joinpeertube.org/](https://joinpeertube.org/) [2]
[https://joinmastodon.org/](https://joinmastodon.org/) [2]
[https://medium.com/tootsuite/replacing-the-pillars-of-the-
in...](https://medium.com/tootsuite/replacing-the-pillars-of-the-
internet-235836580a0e)

------
antpls
Meanwhile, YouTube is flooded with pseudo-humoristic content from "artists"
such as Paul Logan. Hopefully we will be able to transfer knowledge with short
Instagram stories and accelerated video posts. Until it get censored and a new
unregulated plateform appears

~~~
cr0sh
Surely someone by now has created a distributed video streaming system coupled
with search? Maybe based on bittorrent or something? It seems like an obvious
solution to this issue. It wouldn't be fast, and videos might not be as
"permanent" (depending on number of "seeders").

The problem seems to be centralization of content and distribution; this seems
to be the problem ultimately with many services and "platforms" on the
internet. Decentralize it all, make it so that your browser is also a "server"
or something of that nature, let the users become "peers".

Yes - I am aware of the various projects out there working on this, but all of
them seem to be doing their own thing, with no standards or interoperability -
maybe that's a good thing? It is fragmentary - but again, maybe that's better
for the ecosystem as a whole?

The only downside is ultimately the ISP level; they already have TOS terms
that they can arbitrarily enforce to prevent using "servers"; they currently
don't because of so many things out there that need to operate like this, but
they technically could, blocking all kinds of stuff, including a distributed
"web" (or whatever you want to call it).

So many of these problems can be traced back to when all you had was a form of
dialup modem system, and we were conditioned to think that we weren't "peers"
on the internet, because the speeds were so slow. We were conditioned to think
that our ISP was the endpoint, and we were just paying them to get some of
their stuff - and in turn, we turned them into the "gatekeepers". Today, we
have always-on connections that would rival or surpass what were actual
peerage speeds back then - yet we still have the same broken model that
(technically) prevents us from being free to set up our own servers and
anything else we want (unless we pay a lot more money for so-called "business
class" service - which some providers won't allow you to purchase if the end
point is at a "residential address").

This all needs to change - but we might be way, way too late.

------
irundebian
Offensive security Youtube videos doesn't help the world to make computer
systems more secure. The offensive security subculture deals more about fame,
fun and profit. Therefore I'm a little happy on the reaction of some
offensive/black hat security people, although I agree that the policy is to
ambiguous to be fair. The obvious intention of the policy is obviously the
removal script-kiddy like videos which are showing either "how to hack
Facebook" bullshit videos or videos which are concretely showing how to harm
one concrete business. The boundaries between immature script-kiddy videos and
offensive/blackhat security videos are not very clear.

------
sam0x17
Really hope they feel the heat for this -- upvote the OP. YouTube is now
tumbling down a slippery slope. Tell them you hate this.

------
slaymaker1907
Well, if some random dude is posting how to do it on YouTube, you can hardly
call it a _secure_ system.

------
mal10c
Just thinking out loud here: it seems like Youtube has been restricting or
pulling videos for a variety of reasons. Alternatives are great, but could
still succumb to the same outcome. Personal hosting is an option, but not a
solution for everyone. Maybe this could lead to a fun weekend project. Imagine
something like MediaGoblin paired with git-annex. I really haven't given it
any more thought than what I've just written, but could be a fun project!

------
wnevets
If true that sounds silly. If the videos aren't breaking the law or found
offensive by your advertisers, why would you (as a business) want to stop that
kind of content?

------
daeken
I'm super concerned about this. I head up hacker education at HackerOne and
the biggest part of that is Hacker101, which hosts all its videos on YouTube.
I have the master files and could host them elsewhere, of course, but there's
huge value in discoverability, which YouTube completely owns compared to any
other platform. Definitely something that I'm going to have to keep an eye on,
and be ready to adapt to if they end up enforcing this.

------
la_barba
Not entirely unexpected now that YouTube has grown up and can't be seen
hanging out with certain folks by the other grownups in the room. Another
example of this trend of getting popular on the backs of the same
nerd/geek/hacker/counter-culture/ people who are then deemed unfit to be part
of the community, one they become the minority (and hence wont affect your
bottom line).

------
mcgrath_sh
I am canceling YouTube red as soon as I get home. It probably won’t make much
of a difference, but tech learning is the primary reason I bought Red.

------
ben_jones
Ironically some of the people working at Youtube right now probably came up on
hacking/modding tutorials on Youtube that would now be banned.

------
smittywerben
I want to A) see the video and B) know why Google skipped age-restricting and
simply banned it. Censorship is worse than irresponsible disclosure.

------
r-s
I dont understand this, if it can be bypassed, by definition, it is not
secure?

~~~
umvi
As if there is any truly secure system on earth. Name a secure system.

~~~
strictnein
Sending messages using One-time Pads are perfectly secure when used properly,
which is pretty simple - don't reuse the keys and the message has to be
shorter than the key you are using.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-
time_pad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad)

~~~
umvi
And is there an app or service in existence currently using OTPs "properly",
as you say?

OTPs are extremely onerous, if not impossible to implement properly in real
life in a way that scales. Hence why nobody uses them (instead people use
RSA/ECC/AES/etc).

------
hereonbusiness
They should just ban all interesting content already so creators finally move
to better platforms some of which are probably yet to be created. Watching
YouTube these days without adblocker is just painful, not to mention the
broken copyright claim system which has to be the way it is partly because
YouTube is just too big.

------
toss1
Now, the editing has progressed from (legitimately) weeding out violent and
often clearly illegal material (e.g., child porn), to material that some
people find objectionable, in this case corporate sponsors.

They are now unquestionably editing the content on their site. Soon (as
mentioned by others), it is likely to be 'how to repair' videos and the like
that end up on the proverbial cutting room floor.

It is far past the time for YouTube, FaceBook, etc. to be stripped of their
now demonstrably farcical "platform" status and recognized as publishers of
content, and reqauired to operate with that set of rights & responsibilities.

It won't solve all problems, partly because this has gone on for far too long,
but at least they'll need to take on some responsibility for their decisions.
It is obvious why they've worked so mightily for so long to avoid exactly this
responsibility.

------
xwvvvvwx
These kind of core communication platforms are way too important to leave in
the hands of a single private company :(

------
CalRobert
I guess we'll have to go back to BBS' and reading 2600 again.

Really though, this is ridiculously bad. A video on how to install Lineageos?
Ubuntu on a Chromebook? DD-WRT? All Ostensibly banned. Hell, is showing how to
use a VPN to get around geographic restrictions banned now too? Using TOR to
escape the great firewall?

------
NKCSS
Oh wow, that is so lame... I wonder how this will affect LiveOverflow (
[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClcE-
kVhqyiHCcjYwcpfj9w](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClcE-kVhqyiHCcjYwcpfj9w)
) and all the DefCon video's, etc.

------
jrockway
Below the original comment in a reply is YouTube's full list. One of the items
bans videos about "hard drugs" which it defines as any drug that causes a
physical addiction. Is there an incoming wave of coffee- and tea-related
takedowns? Because I'm pretty sure that headache you get when you don't drink
caffeine for a day is not your brain longing for the rich aroma of freshly-
ground beans. It's a physical addiction to ... a drug!

They should just make the rules say "We don't know what our standards are. If
someone flags your video and whoever happens to be reviewing things doesn't
like you, you're gone. Buh bye." At least people couldn't complain, as every
takedown would comply with their written policy.

~~~
knd775
What about the premium series they produced, Mindfield? A good number of the
episodes are about Michael Stevens (Vsauce) taking hallucinogens and
describing the experience.

On second thought, I guess most of those aren't addictive. It still seems like
a really odd line to draw.

~~~
bitL
I guess it depends on what Sergey or Susan are smoking these days... Odd
throwing parties at 'plex when Prop 64 was approved, posing with joints, then
banning drug videos...

------
dRaBoQ
huh ?

What will happen to the Defcon and Blackhat talks ?

------
visualphoenix
From the wayback machine... looks like it changed sometime between Feb 3rd and
April 5th...

It wasn't there on the Feb 3rd crawl...
[https://web.archive.org/web/20190203030524/https://support.g...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190203030524/https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964?hl=en)

Pops up on the April 5th crawl.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20190405094852/https://support.g...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190405094852/https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964?hl=en)

------
wortelefant
Some Hacker communities already have their own video platforms - I only know
of CCC so far but I bet there are others:
[https://media.ccc.de/](https://media.ccc.de/)

This knowledge will become even more isolated and harder to find for
beginners.

But these communities have so much content already, together with banned
'security bypass'-videos it could be combined (or cross-referenced somehow) to
an impressive collection.

Aggregators and links to similar platforms play an important role whith
'illicit' content. Porn is not allowed on YouTube as well, it is hosted on
different platforms and yet people still manage to find it somehow.

------
quotemstr
Once you buy into the premise that mere words cause "harm", there's no limit
to what you'll censor. It's important to take a hard line against speech
restrictions in general: once you start, you can't stop.

------
0xDEFC0DE
I didn't catch the video: was it for a specific system they didn't own/have
permission for, or was it their own device that launched fireworks?

I hope IppSec doesn't lose his uploads. And all of the computer security
conference videos.

------
jandrese
So only for computer systems? LockPickingLawyer is still safe for now?

That said, are they just going to push these people out to less annoying
formats like a blog or a wiki instead of overly long video presentations?

~~~
gen3
The policy also says "Instructional theft: Showing users how to steal money or
tangible goods." [0] I could see LockPickingLawyer falling under this
category.

[0]
[https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964?hl=en](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964?hl=en)

------
josteink
So more random bullshit YouTube censorship, but what are people going to do?

Hosting videos in 2019 is easy. Getting your content discovered is the hard
bit.

We need a decentralised and/or federated alternative for video-content
publishing. The sooner, the better.

YouTube has been taken over by big business and lawyers, and it seems they are
gradually trying to “dumb” it down and take away any risky (read:
useful/interesting) content to the point it might as well be cable tv.

We could use a viable, alternate and free platform this very instant.

~~~
manjana
Visit: [https://d.tube/](https://d.tube/) and spread the word please, it's
current content is crap. It even awards crypto to uploaders.

~~~
swiley
Does anyone know what the ligality of uploading MIT's OCW lecture videos here
would be? Personally that's what got me into watching youtube in the first
place.

Also: does that really need javascript? (I'm guessing you're doing something
with IPFS?) is there any way to brows it with some command line tool if it
does?

~~~
manjana
I'm only partially familiar with the platform and have no aurhorship so I
don't know unfortunately.

------
salmonlogs
Google's own bug bounty program (Vulnerability Reward Program) allows you to
submit YouTube videos and even has a tutorial on how best to make one:

[https://sites.google.com/site/bughunteruniversity/improve/ho...](https://sites.google.com/site/bughunteruniversity/improve/how-
to-record-an-effective-proof-of-concept-video)

------
lucb1e
A lot of people (especially here) would like to see more competition from non-
Google platforms like Vimeo or others (currently they're so obscure, I can't
even name any others), so not making too big a fuss about this and not getting
it reverted might be a good thing because it forces people to go somewhere
else with kids or IT security videos.

------
aiyodev
A government is an organization that governs. Any organization that polices
it's customers/users beyond what the law requires them to is acting as a
government. YouTube crossed that line a long time ago. Like home owners
associations, YouTube is a government and should be forced by courts to
recognize constitutional protections of civil liberties.

------
19870213
So apparently the video was about how to light fireworks using WiFi, could it
then be the case that it might fall under a 'dangerous handling of explosives'
guideline instead of the 'showing users how to bypass secure computer
systems'. The Google support pages says there are other guidelines not listed
there.

------
dyukqu
"Don't trust the cloud. Don't trust YouTube. Download. Download. Download.
UbuWeb is the backup for the internet." [0]

[0]
[https://mobile.twitter.com/ubuweb/status/1020549542503231488](https://mobile.twitter.com/ubuweb/status/1020549542503231488)

------
brandonmenc
Of course they are. It's not "brand safe" content. Few things are, really, as
we'll soon find out.

------
abstractbarista
Ultimately the solution is to remove the allure and income YouTube presides
over.

Imagine if the top 5% of YT channels deleted all their videos, leaving only
one describing why.

Nothing short of this will actually stop them from forever widening the scope
of what is disallowed.

If the channel owner doesn't get income, then YT doesn't deserve it either.

------
castis
Should probably change the name to UsTube.

------
emehrkay
My absolute favorite youtube genre is children showing me how to pirate
software, I'm not joking

------
nudpiedo
Not anymore a conspiracy theory. This is the actual big brother modeling our
futures, a group of people powerful enough, with their own interests and their
own agenda with access to most peoples minds/lives, and who already publicly
explained how they plan to influence on global geopolitics and society
building.

I find it disturbing this level of censorship. At first, it was pedophiles,
murders and violent criminal acts, then terrorism and copyright... even
without the need of a lawsuit or proper request from a court it is hard to
argue against this sort of censorship. But now they started banning and
censoring everything they find immoral and the definition of morals is
subjective and not even philosophers could argue that there is any common
moral, not even among the most uniform society. Good luck to everyone, sooner
than later they will change their definition of morality and we all gonna pay
with our freedom. I think it is a better win for everyone to defend individual
rights over the supposed benefit of collectives as history proved because no
one is authorized or qualified enough to decide our collective destiny. But
many are the ones who feel entitled to do it.

~~~
rubicon33
I could definitely get behind your point if the subject were the government.
It's not, though I understand the sentiment is the same.

At the end of the day YouTube is a private company. Yea, a very big one with
huge reach, but private nonetheless. Taking a subjective moral position is
something companies have been doing for a long time. If you disagree with
them, don't give them your $ (don't use youtube).

~~~
insickness
Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the United States
Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be
used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk,
even though the sidewalk was part of a privately owned company town. The Court
based its ruling on the provisions of the First Amendment and Fourteenth
Amendment.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama)

> "Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for
> his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the
> more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional
> rights of those who use it."

~~~
intopieces
The correlation between the digital town square and the physical one is often
cited but tenuous at best.

Other video streaming sites exist. Moving to them is a click away - no need to
pack up your family and put a deposit down.

~~~
homonculus1
The digital town square is where the people are at. Moving to other streaming
sites is more like having your expression relegated to some dusty back road.

If YouTube wants to be editor over the content they host, then they ought to
be subject to the same liabilities as a publisher. If they want to be
considered a platform then should be forced to remain neutral. The conflation
of these mutually exclusive roles serves money at the expense of everyone
else.

~~~
Faark
I agree, I feel like they should host pretty much anything. But they are
absolutely responsible for what they promote, since their algorithms select
what to recommend. This makes it impossible to remain "neutral". And they are
also responsible for effects their algorithms have on society. At the very
least will less people want to work for a company who caused the next civil
war by spreading divisive content.

------
malka
Just deleted my youtube account.

Google, and all its employees, can go fuck themselves with a pointy stick.

------
gregmac
Rhetorical question: If a YouTube video can show how to bypass it, does it
really count as a "secure" system?

~~~
philipov
Rhetorical answer: If you can secure a system through legislation, it is no
longer necessary to secure it through engineering.

~~~
JoshTriplett
That's certainly the (false) belief under which many legislative and
governmental bodies operate.

~~~
diminoten
Isn't that how most home door locks work, though?

Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water here, it's pretty helpful to
have legal deterrents to amoral actions...

~~~
JoshTriplett
> Isn't that how most home door locks work, though?

Not at all. Short of building a fortress, you won't stop someone determined to
get inside, but you _can_ make it sufficiently difficult that they're more
likely to be noticed, or more likely to seek out an easier alternative.

> it's pretty helpful to have legal deterrents to amoral actions...

Nobody is suggesting otherwise; rather, the issue is that legislating against
something doesn't stop it from happening, and therefore you _do_ still need to
secure against it as part of your threat model.

Furthermore, laws tend to paint with a very broad brush; changing a number in
a URL isn't "hacking", for instance. Laws should work _with_ technical
measures. Climbing a fence makes it much more obvious that you're trespassing.

~~~
diminoten
Wait, "Not at all"? Yes, it very much is, what you just said is literally the
explanation I would give if someone asked me to explain why a front door lock
is a legislative protection, not an actual security feature...

Legislation meaning you don't need to defend against it is actually _quite_
real in meat space (and quite effective), so pretending like it's universally
a bad idea is incongruous with your own facts.

------
bredren
I wonder why YouTube has to be the go-to source for useful video in the first
place. Seems steps like this drive important content to other, hopefully more
privacy-conscious platforms.

This is a bigger loss for YouTube than the security community.

~~~
ThrowawayR2
> _I wonder why YouTube has to be the go-to source for useful video in the
> first place_

For the same reason Google became #1 in search: it's easier to look for
something in one place than half a dozen miscellaneous places.

~~~
dredmorbius
Video metasearch (as with DDG) is one way to obviate this.

------
OBLIQUE_PILLAR
I hope they leave my favorite YouTube channel alone

The Lockpicking Lawyer

[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm9K6rby98W8JigLoZOh6FQ](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm9K6rby98W8JigLoZOh6FQ)

------
baal80spam
Nothing to see here, cat videos are safe. /s

edit: what I'm trying to say is: people don't care about freedom; they won't
care until stupid, useless things like cat videos are threatened

------
dvfjsdhgfv
It's interesting that Google had an issue with Pixie Dust. This makes no
sense: more people should know this type of attack exists as many of not most
home routers are vulnerable.

------
buboard
Hey , it lowers their security costs, that s very reasonable. Next they ll ban
videos that teach how to install an ad blocker. It lowers their advertising
loss, thats reasonable.

------
exabrial
Why does SV push half baked algorithms into production constantly?

------
brians
Oh, thank goodness.

I consume a relatively large amount of such content, and I can read twenty
good articles in the time it takes to watch one video.

Do you think I can get them to ban video game walkthroughs?

------
miguelmota
YouTube has network effects which are hard to beat; the uploader can use a
YouTube alternative but will take a hit in discoverability. Is d.tube still a
viable option?

------
vincent-toups
Time to plug MeansTV: [http://means.tv/](http://means.tv/)

Hardly politically neutral but also not owned by a giant corporation!

~~~
dhritzkiv
> Time to plug MeansTV: [http://means.tv/](http://means.tv/)

This appears to be a parked domain?

~~~
vincent-toups
Sure is: [https://means.media/](https://means.media/)

------
Jabbles
I bet that this new policy incorrectly flagged this video, it will be
restored, and none of the apocalyptic descriptions in the other comments will
come to fruition.

------
ricardbejarano
Their city, their rules.

You don't like the rules? Then leave the city.

~~~
50656E6973
There's also the option of having the government break up the city

------
PopeDotNinja
It feels weird to think that this kind of content might be safe on PornHub. To
teach people how to secure things, they need to appreciate attack vectors.

------
X_Y
Maybe they just figured they have enough of how to bypass their android
factory reset protection and someone who wrote new rule stated too general
policy?

------
soulofmischief
Web dev reporting in, who wants to make a competitor?

------
vernie
This might not be particularly relevant but what was the video actually about?
Did it show how to remotely launch professional fireworks shows?

------
kevin_thibedeau
Shouldn't this apply to lock picking videos too?

------
dewaine
This is a logical fallacy. How can you bypass a truly secure system? By
definition if you can bypass it then it's not secure, is it?

------
dgudkov
Who thought couple years ago that would be coming.

------
mamon
Ok, so Google is acting like Inqusition, banning some domains of knowledge...
Guess humans haven't evolved much since Middle Ages.

------
burtonator
Isn't this a completely legal activity in many situations?

If you're trying to bypass DRM for backup purposes it's completely legal.

------
drngdds
This sucks but it's not that surprising. I hope people (Archive Team?)
download hacking videos before YouTube deletes them.

------
calciphus
One entertaining legal point to question: if you can get around them by
following a YouTube video, are they really secure?

------
imjustsaying
Thought experiment: would 'sci-fi AI' seek to ban humans from learning about
disabling its computer security?

------
esoterae
Ummm technically if the computer systems in question were secure, wouldn't
demonstration be impossible? Q.E.D.

------
Fazel94
If the intended systems were "secure", One couldn't bypass it and stream it on
youtube :-D.

------
CommanderData
A new YouTube is needed but accomplishing this with any success the same scale
as YT would be near impossible.

------
hateful
This is like pulling a video on how viruses work (biological viruses, not
computer ones)!

------
mikeash
YouTube has never been anything like a free for all. Why is this suddenly a
problem?

------
qwerty456127
WTF? Now this is getting weird.

------
sleepysysadmin
[https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964?hl=en](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964?hl=en)

Instructional hacking and phishing: Showing users how to bypass secure
computer systems or steal user credentials and personal data.

------
Swaglord333
Actions like this push users towards decentralization. Let them dig their
grave

------
alasdair_
Is there any evidence of things like Defcon and Blackhat talks being pulled?

------
cbush06
Well, this is dumb as hell. Basically, YouTube (i.e. Google) is unwilling to
close the holes in their security systems, so they hope to keep everyone in
the dark about them??? Any sane person would want people to find and report
these vulnerabilities so they could be repaired...

------
armed-armadillo
So who wants to start an open-source effort to make a new video platform?

------
greenie_beans
cool so who’s got some links to non-youtube videos? i’m trying to learn

------
naveen99
i suppose a video tutorial on youtube-dl is out of the question then.

------
x0rx0r
This is disgusting that youtube would ban computer security videos.

------
lone_haxx0r
Ok, that's enough. I'm adding Youtube to my hosts file.

------
JTbane
There's a fine line between pentesting education and "how to break into a
computer", and it's sad that instructional videos are now being banned due to
this policy.

~~~
marcosdumay
Is there a line? I fail to see any difference.

I also don't understand how a video teaching how to make your software more
secure is different from a video teaching how to exploit insecure software.
For all I know, they are the exact same video.

~~~
unreal37
If I create a video that shows "how to hack into Facebook Corporation", that
is teaching an illegal act. You do not have authorization to hack Facebook.

If you teach "how to hack your own system, that you own", that's a different
thing entirely.

Two different videos.

------
emiliosic
The question is why? Is this something G decided to do or is it required by a
government? If it's the first, it's just G being idiotic. The second would
worry me very much.

~~~
lone_haxx0r
Both are worrying, for different reasons.

------
DocTomoe
If they are bypassable, they are not secure...

------
m3kw9
They still have videos to by pass physical locks

------
jamesmadison66
Ippsec is still up, wonder what the line is

------
quotz
We are becoming like China...

------
ThefinalResult
Rest in peace sweet prince

------
anvarik
is there a link to the video though?

------
wanda
A move that will achieve little other than to damage Google's image further.

There are other prevalent video upload/streaming websites who will not as
actively enforce their content restrictions. The impact of YouTube's
aggressively purging cybersecurity content will be minimal in a practical
sense.

In a philosophical sense, the internet has no intrinsic governing body, and as
such content restrictions are placed in the hands of content hosts.

It is when the content hosts are so massive that they are effectively
dictating law (not to say that YouTube is forcing a precedent on other hosts,
but rather by placing restrictions on such a massive traffic volume) that the
"Big Brother" scenario is unsurprisingly brought up.

I think if Google tracked everyone who uploaded and/or watched said content
and then transmitted their information to the authorities, this would be Big
Brother level. And they may very well do this already, I lack the knowledge on
the topic to say.

But content restrictions are theirs to impose. I think most of us will judge
them by the execution of the prohibition of said content.

If they successfully keep their filters narrow enough to remove content that
is uploaded for the purposes of causing damage/harm to others, I do not think
many of us would judge. There are those who speak of freedom of speech, but if
I had a list of user credentials for an internet banking website or GMail, I
do not think my transmission of them to the masses would be a responsible
thing to do, and neither would I think that freedom of speech obstruction
would be a valid defence of my actions were I to transmit everybody's user
credentials to the masses for anyone to play with.

People are not simply recruited as pentesters or similar straight out of
school, they are typically required to have qualifications or at least core
competencies and I imagine an attitude appropriate to the sensitive work and
material involved.

It's not as simple as many contend. Many are content with videos about murder,
child abuse etc. being prohibited. They talk of their content options being
dictated, but look at prior mediums. Television never included these things,
because it was considered improper and/or illegal to disseminate material
instructing or capable of instructing people to commit or get away with
committing acts of crime. The internet had no such restrictions because people
are the content producers, not studios.

However, the internet has not changed. If you desire freedom of speech, put
your own website up as we all did in the beginning, rather than relying on a
mainstream host whose legal obligations are proportionate to its mass and its
media presence. If you use YouTube, you sacrifice your freedom for convenience
and access to traffic volume, just as you would if you were to broadcast on TV
or Netflix.

------
captainredbeard
First they came for the right-wingers...

------
qwsxyh
Regular reminder that Hacker News automatically removes content the community
doesn't like. Think about that before complaining on Hacker News about YouTube
removing videos.

------
bassman9000
Use. Another. Platform.

It's still not illegal to switch vendors.

------
afturner
Fuck you Google.

~~~
dang
Please don't do this here.

~~~
afturner
Complain? Swear? Or air a grievance without any other input? Wondering what
exactly is crossing the line..

~~~
dang
Sorry for the delay—only saw this now. The problem isn't the profanity, it's
that the comment didn't contain any information. Also, we're trying to avoid
pure indignation here—it tends to lead to more of the same and that makes for
low quality discussion.

------
cronix
I'd bet that some employees at Google got their interest and possibly initial
exposure to infosec by watching, or reading similar (like Phrack 'zine back in
the late 80s). Perhaps they're even doing very important things, like working
for Project Zero. It would be interesting to know how many people who work in
infosec started "on the dark side." I don't think it would be rare, at all.
The few actual whitehats I've met sure didn't start out as white hats, and got
their start with info publicly available.

------
unreal37
I know this might not be a popular opinion.

But showing people how to hack systems... that seems like an OK thing to ban.
It's a crime. Teaching people how to commit a crime has always been not OK.

~~~
ryanmercer
I don't know about banning something because it leads to illegal activity,
however I do see why they ban some content.

I'm Pro 2a but YouTube was demonetizing, and even removing some, many firearm
videos 1-2 years ago and it had everyone in the firearm community in an uproar
and the people screaming the most were the uploaders that had videos along the
lines of:

"what happens if I shoot a barbie doll with a 50 cal"

"what happens if I shoot a watermelon full of tanerite"

"what happens if I microwave ammunition" (Demolition Ranch has an entire
series of these)

"what happens if I microwave a full ak mag" (Demolition Ranch has an entire
series of these)

"what happens if I put the wrong caliber ammunition in a firearm" (Demolition
Ranch, also I believe King of Everything did this as well he also was in the
news for at least two of his videos and had legal action taken against him for
making explosives around the same time)

Like, you aren't teaching people how to safely shoot or reviewing firearms,
you're doing stupid stuff that is extremely dangerous and absolutely should
not be replicated by viewers at home.

Similarly Cody's Lab was losing it last year or the year before when his
account was suspended... after he literally rushed through an airport talking
to his phone animatedly about making explosives and --- ___blowing himself up_
__\--- in a previously uploaded prank video, and this year he 's been griping
about how his videos are being demonetized again... well... yeah... you poured
liquid mercury into your mouth and were squirting it through your teeth... and
you previously almost blew your finger off when you were whacking home-brew
nitro glycerine with a steak knife... and you had the federal agents visit
your house in response to when you talked about how to make yellow cake at
home and were showing your incredibly poor storage methods for radioactive
dust. You aren't being persecuted, Google and/or the authorities are trying to
make sure you aren't going to do harm to others or instruct others how to do
harm.

I imagine the spirit behind this is more to ban videos like

"hack your girlfriend's phone to install secret tracking apps"

and

"how to hack our neighbors WiFi"

instead of "how to assess vulnerabilities in your network"

~~~
Zak
> _what happens if I microwave a full ak mag_

I seem to recall Mythbusters baking a loaded .44 Magnum in an oven, and that
was on corporate broadcast TV.

I can't speak for the average person, but if I find myself curious about the
results of something obviously dangerous, I like to look up a video of someone
else doing it so I can find out with no risk. I don't find myself wanting to
replicate dangerous experiments once I've watched a video.

~~~
ryanmercer
>I seem to recall Mythbusters baking a loaded .44 Magnum in an oven, and that
was on corporate broadcast TV.

If this did happen in an episode they likely had firefighters and EMTs on
hand, an entire safety crew, ballistic glass and/or a proper bunker, etc.

Demolition Ranch though... he's a veterinarian that had a microwave in his
field in Texas with some cinder blocks around the sides. Likely with one other
person on hand in case he injured himself.

~~~
cabaalis
You're probably right. But.. so? Mythbusters has a huge budget and paid a
bunch of people to run something safely, vs. dude with a microwave--this does
not change one iota what was recorded and broadcast.

