On both of those pages, you can see the titles of the videos that were posted. On the Facebook page, you can still see the video thumbnails.
I wonder if YouTube removed his channel for the cybersecurity videos, or if they removed his channel for posting walkthrough videos on how to pirate Burp Suite Pro ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It also has how-to for pirating "Facebook Social Toolkit – Premium Version" along with things like "how to hack anyone's whatsapp"
This looks like piracy & script-kiddie guides channel, not a "cybersecurity channel" or anything educational-related. But the pitch forks are already out, so whatever.
Yeah, you can achieve the same educational aims with one of the thousands of crackmes out there. It’s pretty sketchy to demo cracking for pay software in a public place like this. Maybe that was old content and they forgot about it, but still, it does shed some light on it. Cybersecurity content in general, and especially that focused on tools and techniques, should be presented with at least some moral and ethical concern.
> I wonder if YouTube removed his channel for the cybersecurity videos, or if they removed his channel for posting walkthrough videos on how to pirate Burp Suite Pro ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I don't know, but I'm going to automatically berate YouToob's motives/competence, compare some other topics that I feel are less censored than cybersecurity (which is confusing since I haven't bothered to read YouTube's content policy), and preach about the importance of local backups!
It's a mistaken position to believe sharing "how to" information somehow mints cybercriminals; however, this is the position YouTube has repeatedly and is increasingly taking with striking innocent content creators sharing information about how security vulnerabilities work and how to test for them.
This type of content is widely available on mainstream online blog sites, in published books, and through established, expensive training outfits like the SANS Institute. YouTube has really missed the mark thinking there are real risks they are mitigating by culling it out from their platform.
This is an editorial decision by YouTube on what they want to groom YouTube's community to be, not a content decision based on sound public policy or realistic threat models.
It would be nice if Youtube had a clear policy written in clear English (or indeed made a series of videos on the subject) explaining what's not allowed on the platform.
Some channels post videos which stay up for years without any strikes or problems and then out of the blue the whole channel gets taken down under a vague "you violated our T&Cs" notice without Youtube bothering to highlight which of the T&Cs. They sometimes take down huge channels without first contacting the channel owners to warn them in advance and give them the opportunity to do something about it.
Rather than take down the channel why can't Youtube just remove the videos?
It's true, and the way they try to hide this fact is by pretending that the censorship and policy switch-up is done in the name of "anti-racism."
YouTube & co could not have been more lucky that an entire segment of the culture came up with the perfect catch-all term to enable them to walk back their horrible business blunders.
YouTube doesn't have a defined policy because they say if they do, the racists will abide by it while finding ways to still be racist that don't violate the policy. By not having a defined policy, they can declare anything racist. It's not that they're declaring hacking videos to be racist, it's that they're using the perceived threat of racists using the letter of the law to continue to post racist content as a way of not needing to justify their deletion of anything on any topic without explanation. If racism didn't exist, YouTube would want to invent it to justify their policy of not having a defined content policy.
> YouTube & co could not have been more lucky that an entire segment of the culture came up with the perfect catch-all term to enable them to walk back their horrible business blunders.
I don't think they were lucky at all. There's always a "ism" assholes can hide behind to justify their actions, whether it's Racism, Terrorism, Communism, Nazism... etc. As well as the timeless "Think of the Children" shtick.
Racism is a particularly effective vehicle today, as it deals with conditions common in a globalized society. It has the added bonus of being seen to transcend ideology (in many of the same ways Nazism did in America during WWII). This makes the effects of its invocation extremely fluid and potent throughout the culture.
It's becoming painstakingly difficult to be actively against all of the overwhelming misinformation leveled one's way, because anti-racism's tenants are so easily generalized.
I can't stop thinking about the concept of "policy-based innovation" a new startup could build off of to disrupt an industry, but I feel like it violates one of the primary tenets of Starting a Startup because a big player can theoretically "just change their policy" to eat your lunch.
For example (given enough capital), is there genuinely an opportunity to build a YouTube-like platform that simply doesn't have the policies YouTube has (e.g. shares revenue more fairly, has a more-sane copyright law enforcement, explains their moderation actions)?
The idea here is that while it's true, in theory, that YouTube could make those policy changes and your YouTube alternative would then be pointless, the reality is they never will, even if it begins to cost them.
I really wish I could talk to someone more about this, or if there was targeted reading, but I haven't really found much, because I think most folks dismiss this as a viable strategy.
Ideally people would host their own content. Then there would be no "policy" at all. Every channel should be its own website, and if they want they could engage in mutual link agreements with other content creators they like. Something like wordpress for video content, and maybe with some torrent tech involved so more viewers would distribute the bandwidth.
There is Peertube which is part of the Fediverse, where multiple instances each with their own policies exist.
You can have an account on an instance and still discover/follow content on other instances (if they were not banned by your instance owner)
To me this seems like a good middle ground between having your own website and relying on a monopolistic service.
Downside still is that your identity is fixed to an instance, but there are discussions on how to change that.
It can work, just depends. DuckDuckGo is an example of a success doing this. For things like YouTube it's much harder. Content creators go where the consumers are, and consumers don't know about or care about these types of policy things until it effects content they watch.
TIDAL tried this as a Spotify competitor and have basically failed.
Tidal’s still trying. I see ads for it every so often. But you’re correct: they haven’t “broken through” yet like Spotify and Netflix did. First mover advantage?
Yeah I was thinking about this -- when you try to innovate via policy, do you basically start at the bottom? That is, do you have to more or less a) match features with the incumbent, b) baseline need to meet the incumbents user volume (or a substantial fraction) and c) be able to benefit from the scale that the incumbent already benefits from?
Or can you throw money at it until you have those? TIDAL seems to be trying the "throw money at it until it's winning" strategy...
I suspect one big problem for Google is the ignorant politicians and lawmakers/enforcers who think that the dissemination of information which _could_ be used for illegal activities is akin to the promotion of such activities.
And since you cannot without great effort educate people who are incapable or intentionally unwilling to learn, the easiest solution is to sacrifice some of your users to placate the idiots.
Maybe this is not Google's excuse, but it certainly applies to many other internet companies (craigslist for example).
All of said people swore an oath to uphold a core document with detailed restrictions on government power. They don't get a say in the dissemination of information.
It's a mistaken position to believe sharing "how to" information somehow mints cybercriminals
How so? I wouldn't have gotten into phreaking in the 80's without Phrack.
However, I think you would be correct if you amended your statement to read, "It's a mistaken position to believe sharing "how to" information solely mints cybercriminals."
I believe this is why it's important to have your own domain name, so you can have your own website with content you create and control. If you just want to make funny cat videos (or something similar) then YouTube is probably not a bad choice.
It still doesn't work. It's sad but even payment processors are able to make editorial decisions on who can accept payments. You can control all your content and still be at the mercy of payment processors, ISP, domain hosts, and even getting delisted or hidden from Google basically kills your website. It's even worse when you see all of these working in concert together. I believe all in the same weekend Alex Jones was banned from Facebook, Google, Twitter, and even Paypal after he made a video harassing a journalist. It's not like Alex Jones was doing anything that bad, basically just shouting at some dude for like 10 minutes, but they basically said that's enough and somehow all together decided in one fell swoop to implement the Ban. Apple joined shortly after banning him from iTunes. Pornhub recently just had Mastercard and Visa cooperate together to stop providing payments to them. Now whether all those were deserved is a debate, but it just shows that even without government intervention, no company, business, or person is safe from basically being forcibly removed entirely from where all traffic on the internet occurs, at the whim of a consortium of massive companies working together.
Looking at the titles of some of the videos, it seemed to be more about how to pirate commercial software than security. I think YouTube probably did the right thing.
YouTube is free to do what they want but sensible actions should be informed by the law. Currently, you can't be charged with anything for describing how to do something.
It goes even further: you can sell a kit with instructions on how to make something illegal and this is perfectly fine.
The channel seemed to be offering links to download pirated software too. If this was occurring, YouTube did the right thing.
"Burp Suite v1.7.30 Pro Cracked Version Download Details:- Version:- 1.7.30 Pro License Expires:- Dec 2 , 2018 Size:- 26 MB Download links:- https://drive.google.com..."
If you want to see some other opinion about your exact analogy, Richard Stallman--one of the most influential thinkers of the free software world--gave an answer to the same question, at large [1].
As a summary:
- Output from a proprietary program (in this case it would be food) is not unethical.
- The _user_ must be free, not the developer. The users of the recipes are the cooks, not the customers. Cooks are free to change and distribute recipes. There is no recipe that a cook can't make, because in this case, the cook is the executant, not some computer. There are no compiled recipes.
- If there were cooking robots that would cook compiled recipes that would not be free, he would be against it, as he is with proprietary software.
>At what point in the process of making software does proprietary software become unethical?
The start.
>If I open a restaurant and sell food, but don’t publish my recipes, that isn’t unethical?
No - this is also unethical.
>If I make software, and I choose to offer it for money but not offer the source, what is unethical about my behavior?
If software runs on the user's hardware or uses the user's data, I have a right to know how it works, to modify it to do something different, and to share those modifications with others. I hold the copyright to those modifications, and I should even be able to sell it to others. The software is just information at that point, and information is inherently valueless - it's the creation and distribution of information that costs money. And money itself, remember, is an abstraction for value, not valuable in and of itself. Just because something is a viable business model does not make it ethically agreeable.
Note for recipes that restaurants are required to share some information, like ingredient lists and nutritional content. This doesn't go far enough, but even at this level of transparency, the food industry is held more accountable than software.
I think it’s clear that we have fundamentally differing opinions on what constitutes “ethics”.
If I make something, it’s perfectly ethical for me to decide my criteria for giving it to somebody else. If the cost I impose or the restrictions I require are too onerous, nobody is going to agree to enter into a transaction with me. But if they do, they’ve agreed to pay my cost and abide by my terms.
The same is true of meals at a restaurant or sale of land or any other societal transaction. As a consumer of food, I can take as a personal stance the ideal that I’ll only eat food if I can know the recipe, but restaurants aren’t obligated to change their offering to account for me, any more than I’m obligated to eat at their establishments.
You're free to sell software at any cost the recipient is willing to pay, at least such that it squares with your concience. However, if you don't sell the source code with it, I consider that unethical.
Land is a finite resource with intrinsic value, not the same thing. So is the meal itself. Recipes are different.
We have social obligations. That's what being a society is.
Hmm, just to try and understand your view a little better, it sounds by that logic that toy makers should also provide technical schematics when they sell toys so that consumers could add or fix elements of what they bought?
No, not even close. It is 100% ethical to sell software but not the source to it. It isn't a social obligation of any kind to do so. You may choose to do so but you can't force that choice on others.
Not every ethical notion needs to be legislated. I don’t think anyone is suggesting everyone enforced to publish all source code, however, not releasing source code can be perceived as unethical...or shady AF if that makes more sense.
The fact is, it may protect against piracy but practically all consumer software nowadays is doing something on your device that you wouldn’t approve of. The only realistic way for a user to know how their resources are being used would be to look at the source code.
This is an interesting POV I hadn't considered before, thanks for sharing. I will share my own view on the matter.
I can see two main reasons for business not distributing source code:
The first is to prevent users from using it without paying. If someone acquires a copy of the source code, they can redistribute at will at no cost.
For some business models this might be fine, internet services being an example. "Normal" users would prefer paying for just using such services, instead of maintaining the necessary infrastructure themselves.
But what about desktop applications or other software that just runs in the user's device? If all the user needs to use the software is a download link, there would be no tangible incentives to pay for it. There are other incentives, such as helping maintain a software that is useful to you, but most users don't grasp the concept of software maintenance and wouldn't see that as a good investment.
The second reason is to prevent low barrier competition. As you said yourself, creation and distribution of software costs money, so consider this:
Software company "A" spends months developing a desktop application which it plans to sell for $30, which will be enough to get initial investment back after selling 1000 copies. Since the product is a desktop application, and the company is using a free software licence, they distribute the source code with the compiled version. In this scenario, what's to prevent software company "B" from taking the source, rebranding/recompiling and launching a competing version with the same features for $10? In a purely ethical world, everyone would do the "right thing" and this scenario wouldn't exist. In our world, incentive-based systems are used to keep chaos from taking over.
Currently I'm an intermediate Linux user and can get by with only free software, but that was not always the case. My first contact with computers happened before I was 10 when my father had brought a 386 and installed MS-DOS and later windows 3.1.
In the early 2000's I began my software development career using Microsoft technologies such as .NET and VBA. Sure Linux existed at the time, but it was much less accessible than it is today (especially to someone who mostly used MS products so far). Eventually I released myself from "Microsoft prison", but I had to use MS products in order to access the internet and acquire the necessary knowledge.
Today I wonder if the free internet would have developed so quickly if it was not proprietary software developed by "unethical" software companies and sold to end users. Free software is more ethical, but initially it was only for the technical elite at universities.
PS: I'm a big fan of your software (been using sr.ht since the start). Keep up the good work!
"Comes with source code" != "must be given away for free". You can charge them to download the source code. You can charge them to download pre-compiled executables. Someone else could build it and put it up online, but you'd have the only authoritative source, the first word on updates (including security updates), the only source that they can trust hasn't been manipulated, and the first-mover advantage. And if someone goes to a shady site to download your software to avoid paying you for it, maybe they can't afford it and you should look the other way.
>I think that business model could work well for 1-2 person companies, but how well would it scale?
I have no reason to suspect it would not scale up. In fact, the larger the force behind the software, the more difficult it is for a competitor to step in and try to maintain a fork.
>TBH I'm not very informed in this regard, do you know where can I read more about open source business models?
> Proprietary software is inherently unethical, so I support anyone teaching people how to pirate it.
If you consider proprietary software to be inherently unethical, how does it follow that pirating it is to be encouraged? Shouldn’t you be against the usage of such software, regardless of how it was obtained?
Yet you can browse youtube and learn how to build an AR-15 lower reciever, learn tactical shooting, and knife fighting*... But for the love of all things lawful don't explain a buffer overflow or a side-channel attack.
I am not suggesting those videos/channels be banned either just pointing the uneven absurdity of YT's policies.
Gun channels have almost all been demonetized. In fact, just about every vertical is "demonetized" in large portions of their content creators.
It's almost like youtube is the only one profiting at scale, weird.
Are there not gun companies that would want to advertise on these gun channels? Seems like a lot of YouTube's problems would go away if they just allowed advertisers to choose which channels to show ads on.
YouTube doesn't run ads on demonetized videos - that's what demonetizing a channel is all about. It means the advertisers don't want to pay for the ads to show next to those videos.
Is that something YouTube does? I was under the impression demonitized videos had no ads of any kind. As opposed to the copyright system rules where you will get ads but the revenue is diverted to someone else instead.
To clarify - often videos will have ads on them prior to being demonetized. My understanding is that when this happens, YT keeps all of the ad revenue and the creator sees none. Over time this is a lot of money I am sure.
*don't see any from the Youtube Partner Program. They're still free to get sponsors and run their own advertisements. That just requires, you know, work.
Well I presume they would just kick the creators off if they thought they could get away with it without massive backlash, they're happy to randomly ban them at least
A lot of the gun channels have been de-monitized. Most of them have recorded promotions for various companies as part of the video. Others use patreon to fund the channel.
De-monitized just means advertisers don't want to advertise on those channels via YouTube. It doesn't mean the channel can't find other means of funding itself. It's not YouTube's responsibility to fund a channel regardless of feedback from its advertisers. Simply put, you can't expect free money.
They have removed ALOT of gun channels as well. Most of the bigger Gun channels now just talk about news / reviews not really educational for that it is moved to BitChute or other YT Alternatives
I really miss the discussions of manufacturing improvements and design revisions that Ian Mc-whatever has in his older videos. Even if he's uploading elsewhere he's tailoring he newer stuff to the YT rules so he's not discussing manufacturing as much. Which is stupid when you consider that so much of the stuff he deals with is historical curiosities from over a century ago and incremental manufacturing innovations of the industrial revolution was what spurred the creation of a lot of the stuff he deals with.
They don't let him talk about manufacturing? That makes no sense. Though I guess he's just reverse engineering the rules so it could be some random thing he's mentioned a few times when discussing manufacturing that YouTube takes offence to.
Well he probably could and defend it since it's historical education but Youtube's enforcement is so sporadic and heavy handed and the appeals process is so broken it's not worth the risk.
Yes uncensored sites will have distasteful, terrible, and repugnant content.
That is a GOOD thing, and a FEATURE not a deterrent.
You do not defeat bad ideas, and repugnant ideologies with suppression of speech. Sorry it does not work that way no matter how much the Authoritarian Left and the Authoritarian Right would love it to
You don't defeat bad ideas by promoting them either; you defeat them with shame, i.e. consequences for being willfully ignorant or acting like a jackass. But the internet rarely delivers meaningful feedback to the folks that craft this type of "distasteful, terrible, and repugnant content."
Now, you might be the sort of person that would choose to live with a group of sadistic trolls for the edification that might result. I suspect most humans would react badly to that type of environment; our psychology is not well adapted to a constant barrage of persuasive deception and emotional manipulation.
Personally, I hope this latest crop of trashtube sites is driven offline and into bankruptcy; the sooner, the better.
You can't defeat bad ideas with shaming; shaming means you don't have an argument and are approaching the topic as a belief. You cannot persuade others with your beliefs.
You can defeat ideas only with better, well argumented ideas.
I used to believe that as well. But it seems that even a "well argumented" idea can get very little traction unless the circumstances are right, i.e. your interlocutor doesn't care much about the topic. There was some study about this a little bit ago, where pointing out problems with an erroneous but established "fact" just caused people to dig further into their position, even after the "fact" their position was supposedly based on was proved to be completely and irredeemably false.
This is the problem with letting idiots and hucksters push out garbage "facts" - they build communities that are uninterested in counter-arguments. It doesn't even matter if the "facts" are somehow eventually refuted, because the attitudes informed by them have already hardened. And, the only way I can think of to prevent those idiots and hucksters from being so effective is to introduce some kind of social restraint - thus, shame.
The point was not "there are repugnant ideas". The point was "the first thing shown to me, on the front page, are repugnant ideas". Big difference.
Free alternative sites always seem to end up being just, or at least mainly, a place for hosting extremists. call it the voat effect if you will.
And to be clear, I do think that having that kind of content being offered a platform is not, at all, good. But I don't think you need to agree with that to agree with the specific point I was making.
And the reason those sites will never see mainstream success is because the selection bias is too strong. They all are inherently seeded by highly disproportionate numbers of users that are outcasts from other services, and that sets the tone of the community from the start.
They’ve issued rules prohibiting all sorts of firearm related content. Firearm and ammunition manufacture is banned. You won’t find build receiver videos any more. And since rules are vague it has chilled much other content. Is replacing hand grip assembly? Is refurbishing milsurp Moses?
> I am not suggesting those videos / channels be banned either just pointing the uneven absurdity of YT's policies.
I make the same clarifications in each comment I make so as not to receive a wave of downvotes, it is incredible how HN decreases in quality more and more.
Just to clarify, I didn't make that distinction to avoid downvotes, I made it because I believe it, down or up votes be damned. If the freedom to exchange knowledge has devolved into a popularity contest that determines what knowledge is acceptable to share then we should all be very afraid.
Personally, I am not interested in getting positive votes, but it bothers me that my comment is "censored" by a couple of people who did not understand what I said and who do not even participate in the conversation... It is like if you were in a meeting in your work and a random person on the street say that your idea is bad and they do not take you into account for it.
I make similar distinctions in some of my comments. Without that distinction, the author's point about inconsistencies may not make sense. The downvotes can sometimes be a symptom of that lack of clarity.
If you're looking for a quick way to kill your youtube addiction privacy redirect sends youtube to invidious which has a much less addictive recommendation algorithm.
They should be required by law to allow him to download a full archive of all the videos he posted if he doesn't have a local backup, so long as they're not clearly illegal (e.g. child abuse).
They are required, depending on jurisdiction, to provide the information that they have about you that they have derived from other sources, and if the data you have provided is small enough it makes sense to give a download if everything rather than making an effort to separate it out.
But for a video site the provided content is going to dwarf the other data/metadata stored about a person/account/channel so it does make sense to separate them, and I don't see why they should be required to give over resources so you can download data that in theory you should already have. They are a content hosting service, not a content backup service.
> so long as they're not clearly illegal
That makes things even more complicated. How do they decide, given some things are grey areas almost everywhere and some things are very much illegal in some places but not others?
Don't know about where you live but where I do storage units are regulated and could not put a "burn your stuff" clause into the tenant contract even if they wanted to. It's a surprisingly highly regulated business.
Yeah, but most places will put your storage unit into "default" for some time, usually 30 days, and make multiple attempts to contact you before auctioning your stuff. Generally speaking, in the U.S. most states have lien laws that dictate how and for how long a company must attempt to contact you before they can auction.
Youtube could do something similar, by providing you 30 days to download your content.
exactly! I see no excuse for YouTube not to allow this, as long as videos haven't been flagged for e.g. sexual abuse (where YouTube itself would be liable for continuing to store it.) I think the only reason they don't do it is because they don't have to and they don't care.
instituting a 30-day retention period to exporting content would be really good for users. shame we can't pass tech laws in the US.
You did look up what else the channel did, right? Because I would hope that a channel where someone tells people what pirated software to download where gets banned on your alternative, too.
Looks like he started a channel on a Peertube server, but it has nothing on it yet. I hope he has a backup of all his videos.
ALWAYS HAVE A LOCAL BACKUP of all the content you upload to other services. Facebook is not your photo backup. All your stuff could disappear off Google tomorrow. The cloud is literally someone else's computer.
The biggest takeaway for all YouToobers is to organize all their videos in a manor that they can upload them to a new place when (not if) the time comes.
YouTube is going to become a dinosaur in a few years. I don't see people finding meaningful content on it with the shit they keep pulling.
I would go even further: Always have a local backup of anything on the Internet that is important to you, whether you made it or not, unless you know there are many other accessible versions of it for redundancy. You never know when a large company will delete it without notice.
(Is this feasible? Perhaps not, but given how cheap storage is, if this could be even semi-automated, it would easily save a lot of heartache for some at many points in their life, especially in the worst cases of things like their Google accounts being banned)
I maintain a list of content that various members have archived, such that if anything is removed, people can direct inquiries to people who have archived that content.
It's a small way to keep track of what things have been successfully archived, and direct efforts toward at-risk channels.
This is great; is there any view towards rehosting this stuff on peertube or whatever? Or is it okay for now, to just know that it's sitting on someone's disk, as long as we know how to reach that someone if needed?
I've considered uploading to a peertube instance, but I ran into an issue where the instance seemed to have a policy prohibiting mirroring existing/live channels.
For the moment I make my archive available via Soulseek, and am open to requests!
ArchiveTeam has a larger YouTube archival effort running (on IRC, hackint/#youtube-archive) -- I think the channel list is on the order of tens of thousands. You can email me or ping me on IRC if you want to setup some coordination effort (no sense in doing duplicate work).
Not very wise of you to depend on Discord and Google Sheets instead of more open alternatives when you're organizing a group whose purpose is to literally preserve the victims of corporate censorship.
That's fair. I take automatic backups of the sheet, such that if access to that is eventually lost I can republish via another method.
Discord is used for the simple reason that the current goal is to gain as much traction and participation as possible. The Rocketchat server I host, and the IRC channels I could have used would both acted as barriers of entry to a lot of possible participants.
Perhaps with time I can push for a migration to a solution I host. For the moment I'll stick with these tools, and plan for their failure as best I can.
I'd suggest matrix. It may be the closest you can currently come to something self hosted where most people with reading skills can figure out how to join.
There's certainly irony there, but then they're actually getting on with stuff rather than debating tooling. Discord and sheets are also both free - anything else is going to require an investment of money and time.
This 1000%. I can't tell you how many times I click a link, find it's broken, plug it into Wayback Machine, only to find it was never indexed, or the images weren't archived, or only the homepage was indexed, etc.
Agreed. Nowadays if I found anything really interesting and not a video I'll just save the while webpage in local. Usually only the texts and pictures matter so when I reopen them the webpages still look OK.
Videos are big. I have a YouTube channel and don't back my videos up. Quite the opposite, I regularly delete them to free up harddisk space. I do cross post them to lbry.tv though which I've found a lot better than peertube.
Features and monetization. Peer tube instances had serious upload limits, and it’s been a while since I looked but there were some major missing features like descriptions or editing or something. I actually really like pornhub’s monetization options but there is no audience there for the videos I make. Lbry struck a balance between features and not a porn site.
I make computer security videos so there is a non negligible chance my YouTube will get deleted.
>I don't see people finding meaningful content on it
I think the problem is that "meaningful content" doesn't really matter. Ever heard of mukbang? Or reaction videos? Lots of people understand that if you make a 10 minute video that can be used as background noise while working or playing video games, you can make a lot of money. Youtube has to be aware of this, which would explain why they so quickly take down any video that advertisers might not like.
It may become a dinosaur to people who value quality content, but go search the topics I mentioned and compare the view counts to the types of videos you normally watch.
On one hand people preach "always have a local backup" and on the other "back ups on google drive is super easy". heh.
i guess we should get ready for next decade hearing a lot of "Have you lost pictures and memories of loved ones on Google Drive or a service affiliated with AWS? We at lawyer & lawyer ..."
Yep! I had a department head tell me that we shouldn't prioritize a fix for an SQL injection vulnerability (with full schema privileges!) for a critical system because we have a backup service. I then asked if we've tested it - Nope. I then asked if we had documentation on how to do it - Nope. I left that department as soon as I could.
Not really. It was an internal application, which greatly reduced the risk. The type of information wouldn't be very useful to an attacker. The main problem is that there are developers and business people who also run some SQL and use the system. If they accidentally paste SQL into a search box, it will execute. They could drop tables or anything, even in PRD. If someone were disgruntled or an attacker gained access they could intentionally wipeout the database.
one of the biggest issues with peer tube is of course discoverability, but also that most instances don't give you any real space to work with to publish content as well.
Shouldnt they allow data export in a way that could be used to upload all content to a different platform? I think that's GDPR data portability clause. Unless YouTube is exempt (and probably technically is exempt as no civil servant will dare to touch such a giant)
YouTube is now a hostile space for creators of any political or social creed that create "edge" worthy content. Plain and simple.
If you're a trans or LGBTQ creator your content is not safe. If you produce "hacking" or firearms videos your content is not safe.
Maybe some day the millennial generation will end the boomer era mantra of passing legislation federally or adopting policies that censoring content for the children TM.
I agree, it's curious how in recent times a foundational aspect of modern democrats is a belief that not being aware or able to see something really solves an issue or corrects a perceived ethical wrong.
For instance, don't like what your opponents have to say? Just make it so their supporters have to go to their own platform. The insidious angle of this is how this kind of thinking starts to bleed into payments processing / CC companies.
But I think it's largely millennials who are pushing for more content moderation on the web. That's been my impression reading forums such as HN and Reddit.
This sounds like an incredibly bigoted, or at best ignorant, stance to take. I think it can be safe to assume that the GP meant that LGBTQ creators can be marginalized based on how they act, look, or simply identify. There is nothing about those 3 things that telegraphs "a man's bedroom activity".
> When they "act, look, or simplify identify," in a way that easily identifies them as not cisgendered and/or not heterosexual, how are they not telegraphing information about their bedroom activities?
Because all they are really telegraphing is a preference for persons to collaborate with in said bedroom activities to be a specific gender, and even that is hardly certain.
In any case there is actually very little in the way of "bedroom activities" that is exclusive to particular gender combinations. Most people are physically capable of performing most acts unassisted with most other people.
And quite a few of the acts that are excluded can be accomplished with an appropriate adapter.
All of which says almost nothing about anyone's odds of doing any particular thing with anyone else.
Every other generation: "A person who happens to be gay."
Millennials: "A gay person."
For some reason, a lot of younger people are hung up on defining themselves by their sexuality, rather than defining themselves by the kind of person they are or the things they have done.
No need to pretend. I hate to break it to you, but millennials weren't the first gay people. Gay people were accepted in society for a very long time before 2000. There wasn't suddenly some kind of awakening and the world changed.
Yes, there was persecution, just as there is today. But nothing near what Hollywood likes to make you young people believe in other to sell tickets and streams.
> But nothing near what Hollywood likes to make you young people believe in other to sell tickets and streams.
Maybe I got my information instead from friends who are history faculty who study queer history? Or maybe it comes from family experience of a gay relative who was unable to see his dying lover during the AIDS crisis because his lover's parents were bigots and the law didn't recognize their relationship?
Maybe some day the millennial generation will end the boomer era mantra of passing legislation federally or adopting policies that censoring content for the children TM.
You mean the "millennial generation" that invented "cancel culture" to destroy the lives of people it doesn't agree with?
And this is the Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/technux0/
On both of those pages, you can see the titles of the videos that were posted. On the Facebook page, you can still see the video thumbnails.
I wonder if YouTube removed his channel for the cybersecurity videos, or if they removed his channel for posting walkthrough videos on how to pirate Burp Suite Pro ¯\_(ツ)_/¯