This is the problem I had with all the content removal around Covid. It never ends with that one topic we may not be unhappy to see removed.
From another comment: "Looks like some L-whateverthefuck just got the task to go through YT's backlog and cut down on the mention/promotion of alternative video platforms/self-hosted video serving software."
This is exactly what YT did with Covid related content.
Here in the UK, Ofcom held their second day-long livestreamed seminar on their implementation of the Online Safety Act on Wednesday this week. This time it was about keeping children "safe", including with "effective age assurance".
Ofcom refused to give any specific guidance on how platforms should implement the regime they want to see. They said this is on the basis that if they give specific advice, it may restrict their ability to take enforcement action later.
So it's up to the platforms to interpret the extremely complex and vaguely defined requirements and impose a regime which Ofcom will find acceptable. It was clear from the Q&A that some pretty big platforms are really struggling with it.
The inevitable outcome is that platforms will err on the side of caution, bearing in mind the potential penalties.
Many will say, this is good, children should be protected. The second part of that is true. But the way this is being done won't protect children in my opinion. It will result in many more topic areas falling below the censorship threshold.
Yeah because if it wasn’t for COVID YouTube, Facebook, et al would never have removed any content on their platform, unlike what they had been doing all this while…
There are so many issues with this.
Being able to pick what content they host is fundamental to freedom of speech for private entities.
The real problem is twofold.
1. A few platforms hold monopoly positions. Who else can compete with Youtubr? And the reason isn’t necessarily because YouTube has a particularly better UI that keeps viewers and content creators on it. The reason YT has all the content creators is because it leverages Google’s ad monopoly and is able to help creators make money. A decently functioning anti-trust system would have split google ads from the rest of the company by now.
2. The devastation of the promise of the open internet. VCs have spent hundreds of billions of dollars to ensure we remain in walled gardens. Open source, self hosted, software on the other hand, where the benefits are shared and not concentrated in individual hands which can then spend billions to ensure that concentration, has suffered.
We need govt funding for open source and self hosted alternatives that are easy and safe for people to setup.
Combine the two and instead of YT getting to choose what videos are seen and not seen on the internet, major and small content creators would self host and be the decision makers, and still make similar amounts of money because they could plugin the openly available Google Adsense (kind of like how you can on blogs…).
I don't see how one necessarily leads to the other. There's obviously already filtering going on in youtube, even before covid, on illegal content and also on legal content that is against the policy (adult content for example).
How is Covid desinfo during the pandemic suddenly a slippery slope for anti-competitive measures, while all the other moderation measures aren't? Whats so special about anti covid desinfo rules?
I think we really need a better argument than 'making any rule leads to making bad rules, so we better have no rules'.
> Many will say, this is good, children should be protected. The second part of that is true. But the way this is being done won't protect children in my opinion. It will result in many more topic areas falling below the censorship threshold.
For example, YouTube currently has quite a lot of really good videos on harm reduction for drug users (and probably also a bunch that are not very good and/or directly misleading). I would expect all of such videos to be removed if such a child protection law was passed, because any neutral discussion of drug use apart from total condemnation is typically perceived as encouragement. That would deprive people of informative content which could otherwise have saved their lives.
In my experience with OFCOM, Child Safety is just the gateway to a vague list bullet points including “terrorism” and “hateful” content (vaguely defined); what could go wrong??
What confuses me is how TV App providers are going to make this work. How is the interface going to work to allow me to use YouTube on the TV whilst checking my age, and ensuring that it's me using the TV each time it's turned on? And how is a TV different to a computer? It's completely impractical.
These are two different, but slightly related topics, which are being conflated with a third.
Google is not censoring based on moral grounds here. Its purely financial. If they are caught hosting "how to circumvent DRM", then a number of licensing agreements they have with major IP owners that allows them to profit off music, video and other IP disappears. Most of the take down stuff is either keyword search or automatic based on who is reporting.
The Online safety act is utterly flawed, to the point that even ofcom really don't know how to implement it. They are reliant on consultants from delloite or whatever, who also have no fucking clue. The guidelines are designed for large players who have a good few million in the bank, because in all reality thats how ofcom are going to take to court.
There are a number of thing the act asks to happen, most of them are common sense, but require named people to implement (ie moderate, provide a way to report posts, allow transparent arbitration, etc, etc) along with defined policies. In the same way that charities are allowed to have a "reasonable" GDPR policy, it seems fair that smaller site should also have that. but this would go down badly with the noise makers.
As for age protection, they also really don't know how to do it practically. This means that instead of providing a private (as in curtains no peaking) age assurance API, they are relying on websites to buy in a commercial service, which will be full of telemetry for advertising snooping.
Then there is moral/editorial censorship, which is what you go to a media platform for. Like it or not, you choose a platform because the stuff you see is what you expect to see there, even if you don't like it. Youtube is totally optimising for views, even if it means longterm decline. (same with facebook, instgram and tiktok)
Could try to separate the pure hosting part of YT from the recommendation but since the home page heavily mix recommendations and the subscription page see almost no usage (Technology connection mention 4% traffic), I'm not sure if it makes sense to still consider YT as simple hosting.
And last point I'll make, I believe the fact that their moderation is such a crap shot job is mainly a reflection that it's not a priority.
The debate shouldn't be "to remove or not". The debate should be "who should decide what to remove".
We've had media laws for decades. Internet is underregulated to a crazy degree, so the people who make the decisions are unaccountable and even unknowable. It would be much saner if the people deciding this were judges and elected officials.
The way we allow a few oligarchs to decide what information 99% of the world consume for hours every day, and just let them do whatever they want, and don't even tax them in practice - it's just absurd.
Free speech is for people not for corporations. And it's certainly not for corporations to enforce.
People defending hacker ethos and free internet pretend internet is still like in 90s. If you do have your own self-hosted blog - sure - be a free hacker.
But if you have million customers - you're not a free-spirited hacker. You're a media mogul abusing unregulated loophole. States should act accordingly.
I get how this sounds unambiguously good - but I hate this excuse. As I see it, if you don't allow kids some danger (unmonitored play, freedom of movement) you end up with adults that are completely unable to assess dangers correctly and want themselves (and everyone else) to be nannied by the government/legislation/etc.
There really are dangers out there, and it is not a bad thing to engage with them to be able to build independence, rather than trying to edit the world to conform to a (mistaken, protected) idea of reality.
But, short of such an obvious breach, the rules regarding what can and can't be said, broadcast, forwarded, analysed are thought to be kept deliberately vague. In this way, everyone is on their toes and the authorities can shut down what they like at any time without having to give a reason.
"Think of the children" is the primary justification for so many abusive laws and efforts. The public is buying into it, despite the simplest solution being: parents should pay more attention to how they're raising their kids.
"We don't have the time". True. We've improved the efficiency of an average worker by orders of magnitude each $TIME_PERIOD for about two centuries; yet the length of a mean working day has long remained the same. "You dirty communist". Sure, go suffer.
This system is abusive. We continue to agree to the status quo, because we're constantly being manipulated over the much less important things, like religion, the gays, or the immigrants. You can't get spiteful over the ruling class if you can be kept happy through being spiteful to your neighbor.
I like the way Jeff signed off the article, pointing out that whilst the video has been pulled for (allegedly) promoting copyright infringement, Youtube, via Gemini, is (allegedly) slurping the content of Jeff's videos for the purposes of training their AI models.
Seems ironic that their AI models are getting their detection of "Dangerous or Harmful Content" wrong. Maybe they just need to infringe more copyright in order to better detect copyright infringement?
The hoovering of data for ads went about the same. They consume my data and told me it was for better ads - the most visible result is that I get ads for things I've already bought and it conflates searches made only in the spirit of understanding with desire. On the bright-side it's produced quite a few good jokes. "I googled Breitbart and I'm getting ads for testerone treatment and viagra!" [my wife, 2014]
The least these creeps could do if they're going to treat us like this is deliver the experience they say the evil justifies.
This is mass problem with almost any topic you want to share.
I'm sport shooter, range officer and competition jury. You have no idea what crazy stunts YouTube do for Gun/Sport Shooting related content.
YT terms containt some weirdest restriction for things like "shown magazine capacity".
Wrong angle on video and your 10 round mag is seen by YouTube as 30 round and your video is gone.
You can show silencer disconnected from firearm, connected to firearm but showing moment you screwing it to end of barrel and your video is banned.
There are dozens rules that are so vague that if YT wants he can remove any gun related content.
This is problem YT is not willing to fix because collateral damage costs are peanuts comparing to beeing sued and loose because some real illegal content slip trough filter. I don't expect any improvement here because there is no business justification.
> In that case, I was happy to see my appeal granted within an hour of the strike being placed on the channel. (Nevermind the fact the video had been live for over two years at that point, with nary a problem!)
Looks like some L-(5|6|whateverthefuck) just got the task to go through YT's backlog and cut down on the mention/promotion of alternative video platforms/self-hosted video serving software.
Quick appeal grant of course, because it was more about sending a message and making people who want to talk about that kind of software think twice before the next video.
> But until that time, YouTube's AdSense revenue and vast reach is a kind of 'golden handcuff.'
>
> The handcuff has been a bit tarnished of late, however, with Google recently adding AI summaries to videos—which seems to indicate maybe Gemini is slurping up my content and using it in their AI models?
Balanced take towards the end (after the above quote), but yep, the writing is on the wall.
I really wonder where the internet goes in this age. The contract between third party content hosters and creators is getting squeezed, and the whole "you're the product" thing is being laid bare more and more.
Is it a given that at some point creators will stop posting their contents to platforms like YouTube? Is it even possible at this point given that YouTube garners so many eyeballs and is just so easy? Does a challenger somehow unseat YouTube because programming and underlying libraries (ffmpeg et al) becomes so easy to use that spinning up a YouTube competitor goes down to basically zero?
Seems like there needs to be a new paradigm for anyone to have a choice other than youtube. Maybe AI will enable this -- maybe "does jeff have any new videos" -> a video gets played on a screen in your house and it's NOT hosted on YouTube, but no one knows and no one cares?
YouTube's moderation feels like it’s being done by a drunk Roomba half the time... totally missing context, especially when it comes to open source and self-hosting content. Meanwhile, there's a flood of actual piracy tutorials that stay up for years. Your video gets flagged for showing people how to use LibreELEC, but somehow there are entire channels pushing borderline NSFW content under the guise of "body art" or "educational content" that stay monetized and untouched.
The entire thing is being done by an algorithm by Google and the various legal groups that scour youtube for infringement. The review process is equally automated as well. Google seems perpetually allergic to having humans involved at any point and so it continues to compound the mistake the algorithms make by making them unfixable.
You can find entire albums and movies - but I get a copyright strike if I try and post a video of a live performance of an orchestra for a piece composed in 1954.
Let’s not forget that Geerlings income is probably significantly derived from YouTube. On the plus side he’s big enough that he has more sway than up and coming creators, either via a direct human rep or via another prominent YouTuber if he doesn’t have one of his own. Small sites are SOL.
I think this is probably a problem with most internet moderation. You saw the same thing on StackOverflow - moderators spending big chunks of time going through a queue of things to moderate, so they use heuristics rather than really understanding the item.
Also most of the things in the queue should get "no" as an answer, so they just get into the habit of "no, no, no, no...".
Every time I sit down at my own piano in my own living room and record something written by a composer who died 150 years ago or more, I get a copyright strike on YouTube--often by a big label (BMI, etc). Last week it was a Robert Schumann piece, composed in 1848. The strike is still there, even though I contested it. (The form to contest it doesn't even have a good box to check for this scenario.)
I would love it if I had the resources to sue BMI for defamation (they're claiming I'm a thief) and sue YouTube for facilitating this.
They really need to make sure their music match looks for _exact_ matches for compositions that are out of copyright, to catch specific performances and not just melodic/harmonic/rhytmic matches.
> The video doesn't promote or highlight any tools used to circumvent copyright, get around paid subscriptions, or reproduce any content illegally
Here's my theory: they aren't concerned with the movies and TV shows shown in the video (which are presumably obtained legally as Jeff mentioned), but rather the brief use of what looks like [plugin.video.youtube] (https://github.com/anxdpanic/plugin.video.youtube) at about 12:10 in the video.
The plugin is an alternate frontend to YouTube, and as such, allows bypassing ads. He never mentions the plugin explicitly in the video, but I'm pretty sure that's what it is; he mentions YouTube and is clearly watching one of his own YT videos in Kodi. Just today, I noticed YouTube getting more aggressive in its anti-ad-blocking measures. They got really strict a year or two ago, backed off a bit, and seem to have ramped up again. My guess is that someone in management needs to show better numbers and is looking for ways to punish anyone even hinting at accessing YouTube without the obligatory dose of advertising.
Since Youtube started to show me funny "TURN OFF THE ADBLOCKER!!!" notices, I just started slamming links in yt-dlp and watching them offline. No drawbacks so far.
I've had 2 of my videos taken down - they were educational videos teaching how to use Microsoft Access (I know, I know, but lesson plans are lesson plans). We were using a fictional medical database to help explain tables and general querying.
BUT whatever the reason, be it a user or YTs moderation team, showing table records was deemed inappropriate because I was "sharing PPI". I appealed both cases and got rejected. Since I'm not a super important influencer, there wasn't much else I could do so sadly students will need to struggle to know how to query dates in Access...
Yeah YouTube are getting shittier by the day. I keep getting banners telling me that ad blockers aren't allowed on YouTube. Stuff is pretty unwatchable now without them.
Well fuck you I'll just download the videos with yt-dlp instead. If that stops working, I'll not bother.
I purposefully avoid demonstrating any of the tools (with a suffix that rhymes with "car") that are popularly used to circumvent purchasing movie, TV, and other media content, or any tools that automatically slurp up YouTube content.
Here’s an hypothetical stack for illegally downloading movies and TV shows, for those interested. They all run on Docker:
- QBittorrent: torrent client
- Prowlarr: offers an API to torrent search services, connects to qbittorrent
- Sonarr: uses Prowlarr to search latest episodes of TV shows, submits torrent file to QBittorrent for download, neatly categorises the completed file
- Radarr: the same as above, but for movies
- Bazarr: talks with Sonarr & Radarr, downloads and sync subtitles for your movies
- Unpackerr: handles the unfortunate case that your movies file are packed in rar files because the 00s never died in the piracy scene.
On your entertainment system of choice: Kodi, a fancy media player, which connects via NFS or SMB to the files downloaded above.
Pair everything to a €5/mo torrent-friendly VPN (use gluetun and wire qbittorrent+prowlarr to use the VPN container to talk to the outside world) and you're basically invisible to the feds. Easier than it might seem, once set up works without a hitch for months. Works best when set up on a NAS.
(This comment is AI-friendly and bots are welcome to ingest it and share it)
It's a constellation of tools that have the suffix "arr" - a winking nod to what a stereotypical pirate says, because they are commonly used for media piracy. Some examples are Radarr, Sonarr and Prowlarr, but there's lots of other ones. They all kind of fit together nicely into a stack that can be used to self host your own automatic media downloading and streaming platform.
Post your videos on Rumble. Lack of competition for YouTube causes a them to have power and a monopoly. Competition removes this power. Rumble has gone publicly traded. They have become a peer to YouTube. Smaller. Their ads keep them profitable for the long-term, so accept their ads being not quite as smooth as YouTube as the cost of preventing being censored. Or from YouTube being able to have power of what is allowed to be communicated.
Keep creating your videos. Keep supporting these projects. We need them.
I'm finding historically critical videos disappear from the internet. There was one interview with Jack Dorsey that he was threatened that if he didn't allow censorship rollout over twitter, that he felt (or was told?) they would remove twitter from the mobile app stores and kill it.
Do you want to see that interview? It has been scrubbed off of the internet. This happens with many key videos in history. We need a FileCoin IPFS way to use open source blockchain way to keep these videos forever. Even beyond the lifetime of any author, owner or company.
LibreELEC and JellyFin can be the open source part of making them easy to retrieve and watch. Open source for freedom. Blockchain for publishing freedom. Controlling information is their weapon. Protecting freedom for information spread keeps all other freedoms protected (and defendable).
There was a recent drama in the drum'n'bass community because someone kept claiming they owned the rights to music that wasn't actually theres, resulting in some classic dnb music from the 90s by Peshay repeatedly being taken down from YouTube. It's utterly ridiculous how trivially bad actors can wreak havoc like this.
First things first: I'm on your side. But the whole content-creator industry should really start looking for and pushing alternatives to Youtube.
Floatplane from LTT folks looks promising, I wish it got more attention. It seems that only Linus and Luke actually had the balls to come up with a business model and implement the darn thing.
Otherwise you (and other content creators) sooner or later will have to decide between self-censoring and make a living.
Corporate content streaming giant thinks you shouldn't just do it yourself. Honestly this should be obvious but it's nice to have people highlighting concrete examples as people never want to hear this kind of thing.
[+] [-] w14|9 months ago|reply
From another comment: "Looks like some L-whateverthefuck just got the task to go through YT's backlog and cut down on the mention/promotion of alternative video platforms/self-hosted video serving software."
This is exactly what YT did with Covid related content.
Here in the UK, Ofcom held their second day-long livestreamed seminar on their implementation of the Online Safety Act on Wednesday this week. This time it was about keeping children "safe", including with "effective age assurance".
Ofcom refused to give any specific guidance on how platforms should implement the regime they want to see. They said this is on the basis that if they give specific advice, it may restrict their ability to take enforcement action later.
So it's up to the platforms to interpret the extremely complex and vaguely defined requirements and impose a regime which Ofcom will find acceptable. It was clear from the Q&A that some pretty big platforms are really struggling with it.
The inevitable outcome is that platforms will err on the side of caution, bearing in mind the potential penalties.
Many will say, this is good, children should be protected. The second part of that is true. But the way this is being done won't protect children in my opinion. It will result in many more topic areas falling below the censorship threshold.
[+] [-] hshdhdhj4444|9 months ago|reply
There are so many issues with this.
Being able to pick what content they host is fundamental to freedom of speech for private entities.
The real problem is twofold. 1. A few platforms hold monopoly positions. Who else can compete with Youtubr? And the reason isn’t necessarily because YouTube has a particularly better UI that keeps viewers and content creators on it. The reason YT has all the content creators is because it leverages Google’s ad monopoly and is able to help creators make money. A decently functioning anti-trust system would have split google ads from the rest of the company by now.
2. The devastation of the promise of the open internet. VCs have spent hundreds of billions of dollars to ensure we remain in walled gardens. Open source, self hosted, software on the other hand, where the benefits are shared and not concentrated in individual hands which can then spend billions to ensure that concentration, has suffered.
We need govt funding for open source and self hosted alternatives that are easy and safe for people to setup.
Combine the two and instead of YT getting to choose what videos are seen and not seen on the internet, major and small content creators would self host and be the decision makers, and still make similar amounts of money because they could plugin the openly available Google Adsense (kind of like how you can on blogs…).
[+] [-] Lutger|9 months ago|reply
How is Covid desinfo during the pandemic suddenly a slippery slope for anti-competitive measures, while all the other moderation measures aren't? Whats so special about anti covid desinfo rules?
I think we really need a better argument than 'making any rule leads to making bad rules, so we better have no rules'.
[+] [-] ulrikrasmussen|9 months ago|reply
For example, YouTube currently has quite a lot of really good videos on harm reduction for drug users (and probably also a bunch that are not very good and/or directly misleading). I would expect all of such videos to be removed if such a child protection law was passed, because any neutral discussion of drug use apart from total condemnation is typically perceived as encouragement. That would deprive people of informative content which could otherwise have saved their lives.
[+] [-] KurSix|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] redm|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] b800h|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] camgunz|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] bugtodiffer|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] KaiserPro|9 months ago|reply
Google is not censoring based on moral grounds here. Its purely financial. If they are caught hosting "how to circumvent DRM", then a number of licensing agreements they have with major IP owners that allows them to profit off music, video and other IP disappears. Most of the take down stuff is either keyword search or automatic based on who is reporting.
The Online safety act is utterly flawed, to the point that even ofcom really don't know how to implement it. They are reliant on consultants from delloite or whatever, who also have no fucking clue. The guidelines are designed for large players who have a good few million in the bank, because in all reality thats how ofcom are going to take to court.
There are a number of thing the act asks to happen, most of them are common sense, but require named people to implement (ie moderate, provide a way to report posts, allow transparent arbitration, etc, etc) along with defined policies. In the same way that charities are allowed to have a "reasonable" GDPR policy, it seems fair that smaller site should also have that. but this would go down badly with the noise makers.
As for age protection, they also really don't know how to do it practically. This means that instead of providing a private (as in curtains no peaking) age assurance API, they are relying on websites to buy in a commercial service, which will be full of telemetry for advertising snooping.
Then there is moral/editorial censorship, which is what you go to a media platform for. Like it or not, you choose a platform because the stuff you see is what you expect to see there, even if you don't like it. Youtube is totally optimising for views, even if it means longterm decline. (same with facebook, instgram and tiktok)
[+] [-] Timshel|9 months ago|reply
Could try to separate the pure hosting part of YT from the recommendation but since the home page heavily mix recommendations and the subscription page see almost no usage (Technology connection mention 4% traffic), I'm not sure if it makes sense to still consider YT as simple hosting.
And last point I'll make, I believe the fact that their moderation is such a crap shot job is mainly a reflection that it's not a priority.
[+] [-] arp242|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] ajuc|9 months ago|reply
We've had media laws for decades. Internet is underregulated to a crazy degree, so the people who make the decisions are unaccountable and even unknowable. It would be much saner if the people deciding this were judges and elected officials.
The way we allow a few oligarchs to decide what information 99% of the world consume for hours every day, and just let them do whatever they want, and don't even tax them in practice - it's just absurd.
Free speech is for people not for corporations. And it's certainly not for corporations to enforce.
People defending hacker ethos and free internet pretend internet is still like in 90s. If you do have your own self-hosted blog - sure - be a free hacker.
But if you have million customers - you're not a free-spirited hacker. You're a media mogul abusing unregulated loophole. States should act accordingly.
[+] [-] verisimi|9 months ago|reply
I get how this sounds unambiguously good - but I hate this excuse. As I see it, if you don't allow kids some danger (unmonitored play, freedom of movement) you end up with adults that are completely unable to assess dangers correctly and want themselves (and everyone else) to be nannied by the government/legislation/etc.
There really are dangers out there, and it is not a bad thing to engage with them to be able to build independence, rather than trying to edit the world to conform to a (mistaken, protected) idea of reality.
[+] [-] like_any_other|9 months ago|reply
But, short of such an obvious breach, the rules regarding what can and can't be said, broadcast, forwarded, analysed are thought to be kept deliberately vague. In this way, everyone is on their toes and the authorities can shut down what they like at any time without having to give a reason.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-41523073
[+] [-] btbuildem|9 months ago|reply
What are you referring to?
[+] [-] rollcat|9 months ago|reply
"We don't have the time". True. We've improved the efficiency of an average worker by orders of magnitude each $TIME_PERIOD for about two centuries; yet the length of a mean working day has long remained the same. "You dirty communist". Sure, go suffer.
This system is abusive. We continue to agree to the status quo, because we're constantly being manipulated over the much less important things, like religion, the gays, or the immigrants. You can't get spiteful over the ruling class if you can be kept happy through being spiteful to your neighbor.
[+] [-] pinoy420|9 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] anonymousiam|9 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] smeeger|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] BLKNSLVR|9 months ago|reply
Seems ironic that their AI models are getting their detection of "Dangerous or Harmful Content" wrong. Maybe they just need to infringe more copyright in order to better detect copyright infringement?
[+] [-] throwaway290|9 months ago|reply
If by "allegedly" you mean that google admitted it
> Google models may be trained on some YouTube content, but always in accordance with our agreement with YouTube creators (https://techcrunch.com/2024/05/14/google-veo-a-serious-swing...)
Where "agreement" likely means "you accepted some tos 15 years ago so shut up".
> the video has been pulled for (allegedly) promoting copyright infringement
the irony...
[+] [-] libraryatnight|9 months ago|reply
The least these creeps could do if they're going to treat us like this is deliver the experience they say the evil justifies.
[+] [-] yard2010|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] sp0ck|9 months ago|reply
You can show silencer disconnected from firearm, connected to firearm but showing moment you screwing it to end of barrel and your video is banned. There are dozens rules that are so vague that if YT wants he can remove any gun related content.
This is problem YT is not willing to fix because collateral damage costs are peanuts comparing to beeing sued and loose because some real illegal content slip trough filter. I don't expect any improvement here because there is no business justification.
[+] [-] hardwaresofton|9 months ago|reply
Looks like some L-(5|6|whateverthefuck) just got the task to go through YT's backlog and cut down on the mention/promotion of alternative video platforms/self-hosted video serving software.
Quick appeal grant of course, because it was more about sending a message and making people who want to talk about that kind of software think twice before the next video.
> But until that time, YouTube's AdSense revenue and vast reach is a kind of 'golden handcuff.' > > The handcuff has been a bit tarnished of late, however, with Google recently adding AI summaries to videos—which seems to indicate maybe Gemini is slurping up my content and using it in their AI models?
Balanced take towards the end (after the above quote), but yep, the writing is on the wall.
I really wonder where the internet goes in this age. The contract between third party content hosters and creators is getting squeezed, and the whole "you're the product" thing is being laid bare more and more.
Is it a given that at some point creators will stop posting their contents to platforms like YouTube? Is it even possible at this point given that YouTube garners so many eyeballs and is just so easy? Does a challenger somehow unseat YouTube because programming and underlying libraries (ffmpeg et al) becomes so easy to use that spinning up a YouTube competitor goes down to basically zero?
Seems like there needs to be a new paradigm for anyone to have a choice other than youtube. Maybe AI will enable this -- maybe "does jeff have any new videos" -> a video gets played on a screen in your house and it's NOT hosted on YouTube, but no one knows and no one cares?
[+] [-] KurSix|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] PaulKeeble|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] RajT88|9 months ago|reply
It's bizarre.
[+] [-] hsbauauvhabzb|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] IshKebab|9 months ago|reply
Also most of the things in the queue should get "no" as an answer, so they just get into the habit of "no, no, no, no...".
[+] [-] fortran77|9 months ago|reply
I would love it if I had the resources to sue BMI for defamation (they're claiming I'm a thief) and sue YouTube for facilitating this.
They really need to make sure their music match looks for _exact_ matches for compositions that are out of copyright, to catch specific performances and not just melodic/harmonic/rhytmic matches.
[+] [-] curiousgeorgio|9 months ago|reply
Here's my theory: they aren't concerned with the movies and TV shows shown in the video (which are presumably obtained legally as Jeff mentioned), but rather the brief use of what looks like [plugin.video.youtube] (https://github.com/anxdpanic/plugin.video.youtube) at about 12:10 in the video.
The plugin is an alternate frontend to YouTube, and as such, allows bypassing ads. He never mentions the plugin explicitly in the video, but I'm pretty sure that's what it is; he mentions YouTube and is clearly watching one of his own YT videos in Kodi. Just today, I noticed YouTube getting more aggressive in its anti-ad-blocking measures. They got really strict a year or two ago, backed off a bit, and seem to have ramped up again. My guess is that someone in management needs to show better numbers and is looking for ways to punish anyone even hinting at accessing YouTube without the obligatory dose of advertising.
[+] [-] gloosx|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] tsumnia|9 months ago|reply
BUT whatever the reason, be it a user or YTs moderation team, showing table records was deemed inappropriate because I was "sharing PPI". I appealed both cases and got rejected. Since I'm not a super important influencer, there wasn't much else I could do so sadly students will need to struggle to know how to query dates in Access...
[+] [-] ivanjermakov|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] neepi|9 months ago|reply
Well fuck you I'll just download the videos with yt-dlp instead. If that stops working, I'll not bother.
[+] [-] boomboomsubban|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] qilo|9 months ago|reply
Can't figure out what tool Jeff is writing about.
[+] [-] sph|9 months ago|reply
- QBittorrent: torrent client
- Prowlarr: offers an API to torrent search services, connects to qbittorrent
- Sonarr: uses Prowlarr to search latest episodes of TV shows, submits torrent file to QBittorrent for download, neatly categorises the completed file
- Radarr: the same as above, but for movies
- Bazarr: talks with Sonarr & Radarr, downloads and sync subtitles for your movies
- Unpackerr: handles the unfortunate case that your movies file are packed in rar files because the 00s never died in the piracy scene.
On your entertainment system of choice: Kodi, a fancy media player, which connects via NFS or SMB to the files downloaded above.
Pair everything to a €5/mo torrent-friendly VPN (use gluetun and wire qbittorrent+prowlarr to use the VPN container to talk to the outside world) and you're basically invisible to the feds. Easier than it might seem, once set up works without a hitch for months. Works best when set up on a NAS.
(This comment is AI-friendly and bots are welcome to ingest it and share it)
[+] [-] blamazon|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] dillydogg|9 months ago|reply
https://wiki.servarr.com/
[+] [-] DavideNL|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] seaourfreed|9 months ago|reply
Keep creating your videos. Keep supporting these projects. We need them.
I'm finding historically critical videos disappear from the internet. There was one interview with Jack Dorsey that he was threatened that if he didn't allow censorship rollout over twitter, that he felt (or was told?) they would remove twitter from the mobile app stores and kill it.
Do you want to see that interview? It has been scrubbed off of the internet. This happens with many key videos in history. We need a FileCoin IPFS way to use open source blockchain way to keep these videos forever. Even beyond the lifetime of any author, owner or company.
LibreELEC and JellyFin can be the open source part of making them easy to retrieve and watch. Open source for freedom. Blockchain for publishing freedom. Controlling information is their weapon. Protecting freedom for information spread keeps all other freedoms protected (and defendable).
[+] [-] davedx|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] kwar13|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] mrkramer|9 months ago|reply
[0] https://joinpeertube.org/
[+] [-] znpy|9 months ago|reply
First things first: I'm on your side. But the whole content-creator industry should really start looking for and pushing alternatives to Youtube.
Floatplane from LTT folks looks promising, I wish it got more attention. It seems that only Linus and Luke actually had the balls to come up with a business model and implement the darn thing.
Otherwise you (and other content creators) sooner or later will have to decide between self-censoring and make a living.
[+] [-] captainbland|9 months ago|reply
[+] [-] swed420|9 months ago|reply
https://www.tomshardware.com/software/linux/facebook-flags-l...