YouTube removes “I Can't Believe You've Done This” video from 2007
twitter.com
twitter.com
Earlier this year my Google ads account got banned after not having used it for more than a year. The reason given was some vague message about violating their terms. Which terms or why? They didn’t say. Which ad or campaign? They didn’t say. Tried an appeal, rejected by a robot, tried again, rejected by a robot again.
So they still ran the campaigns back in the day, they took my money, they didn’t say a thing, but then a year later they auto-ban my account? smh.
Man I feel so powerless sometimes.
Facebook, too.
I don't have an Oculus Quest 2 but have heard good things about it. But I can't get one because my Facebook account was shut down without explanation in 2019. Despite its age (15 years) I barely used it, let alone for anything "controversial", but did regularly log into it. I repeatedly tried to verify my identity by submitting an image of my driver's license, without any response.
If a Facebook employee is reading this ... I don't want to create a fake new Facebook account (which would be against the TOS, anyway). I want my own back.
The "review" that claimed it still violated policy: https://twitter.com/Twotafkap/status/1443099098438045697/pho...
The back and forth is what really reinforces that nobody knows what they're doing and content creators are really just at the whim of tech giants. Trying to come up with and impose policy on what humans produce is hard for the justice system, with it's multiple levels of courts and lawmakers and hundreds of years of jurisprudence. What hope does one company have.
It might not be glamorous, and it might be a little stupid, but damnit this is our culture, for better or worse! And we should preserve it.
Private companies seem to be the only ones with the resources to store all the video content we produce, and they're also exactly the wrong ones to be hosting our collective shared culture for posterity.
It's a shame a torrenting-based youtube wouldn't really work for various reasons, both legal and social.
So, short of that, at least being able to download stuff important to us as individuals is an important right to preserve.
My personal stake in this fight is a video of "Scotland the Brave" that I used to listen to a lot, which featured an older Scottish gentleman standing in the beautiful highlands, loudly and proudly calling down through the glen.
It got randomly copyright-removed recently and I've been unable to find it elsewhere. I don't even know who the person in the video was.
You don't need to. It would be enough to allow users to download all videos by default as a sort of local cache, have settings for max cache size and cache policy with LRU by default, and also support pinning.
Heck, doing what Google already does with Google Play updates would already be a step up.
The problem is there are privacy concerns with this type of system as it's possible for anyone to find out who has consumed particular content.
Let's say you watch new and unique youtube videos for an hour a day, or 365 hours a year. (This is a lot more than I watch, btw)
Let's say we have 5Mbps videos, or half a megabyte per second.
365 * 60 * 60 * 0.5 = 657G/year
A 1TB disk is about $50, for about $25/year to store it at home.
If you upload your videos to S3 Glacier it'll run around $8/year (per year, so after a few years this is more expensive than buying drives).
For comparison, YT premium is $144/year.
I only watch about 10 minutes of unique youtube videos a day on average, so I'm looking at around $1/year cost if I want to archive every single youtube video I've ever seen. It's pretty affordable.
I wonder for how many users this is true. I personally watch several hours a day of youtube because it's mostly on in the background instead of music. Lots of infotainment channels. I'm pretty sure on average it's like 20mins per day can't find the source though.
I was just thinking about this problem from a different angle.
What if everyone, or at least a bunch of willing souls, ran the following script on their on pc's:
1. YouTube-dlc every video you ever watch automatically in the background and save to NEW_VID directory
2. make a checksum of every file that comes into NEW_VID
3. Check by using the checksum if the file already exists on open platforms like https://joinpeertube.org, https://odysee.com or https://d.tube
4. If not, upload the file.
5. Delete the file.
I was thinking about this a few months ago and wish there was some sort of background app that could keep and eye on my YT accounts likes and archive them.
Definitely not. It's an addressing problem. I guarantee plenty of people have the youtube video downloaded with more redundancy than Google, and the OP even has the source files. The problem is that Youtube became the canonical URL for referencing the video, assuming singular power to control that address based on the flawed protocol of http(s), and now there's going to be a lot of strife and damage as we readjust at a higher level.
EU Data Address Ownership Directive: All services that allow users to upload data that is then made publicly available, MUST have a method for the user to create a 301 redirect to another location where the content is available.
(Maybe allowing for a "Are you sure you want to follow the link to https://alternative.com and leave Youtube? We have no responsibility nor control for the content on alternative.com")
Once you switch to a permanent resource identifier, you don't need to rely on Google for locating the video anymore. That won't replace Youtube as the massive video store it is, which is probably not a (financially, legally) feasible undertaking even on a national level, but at least you untangled one part of the kludge.
If you are producing videos at such a rate that you as the producer cannot actually save the content, then maybe you're doing it wrong.
If you are producing content for the exclusive use/distribution by a private company that is known to have draconian automated decision making processes, you have to expect that you will one day run afoul of those decisions.
The majority of content produced in mass quantity is also content that is such banal quality that it deserves to be lost to the ether.
You can film 8K video on a smartphone these days… but only about 15 minutes of it before you fill up the phone’s internal storage.
If you don’t have a computer with a big hard drive to dump the video off on, you’re basically stuck shoving the video out to “the cloud” and then deleting the local copy so that you can film more. Whether that means pushing the raws to a private object store with an online video editing system hooked up to it, vs. uploading to YouTube where they transcode the raw to lower quality and then throw away the original, it still creates a dependence on the continued existence of some cloud provider.
If you are shooting 8K video and don't know what to do with it, that is on you. Just because you can does not mean you should.
Is it possible for a home user to build a storage system with high availability and off-site backups? Sure. Will it be affordable and convenient? Extremely unlikely.
I was just thinking about this problem from a different angle.
What if everyone, or at least a bunch of willing souls, ran the following script on their on pc's:
1. YouTube-dlc every video you ever watch automatically in the background and save to NEW_VID directory
2. make a checksum of every file that comes into NEW_VID
3. Check by using the checksum if the file already exists on open platforms like https://joinpeertube.org, https://odysee.com or https://d.tube
4. If not, upload the file.
5. Delete the file.
I'm just so not understanding how the concept of ownership is lost to others.
Or seed a BitTorrent. Or both.
Now, i cannot recall what it was called, but there was this one app that could upload files to dozens of them at the same time, provided that you have the accounts - if the files aren't publicly listed and don't compromise your privacy, that's definitely a route to consider.
People should really consider storing their data only on a cloud provider that they don't pay for as equivalent to storing it only on a single USB stick.
Even storing it on a provider you do pay for should be seen as equivalent to storing it on a NAS located in your house/office: it's somewhat protected against hardware failure, but still not "backed up". Instead of fire/theft, your concerns should be account closure/compromise, or the provider just going out of business.
I've know youtubers that did upload videos as a hobby, but couldn't even afford to keep them locally stored in their hard drives after a few years. Makes the videos less valuable? In no way.
I sincerely don't understand any of your points.
If you build a house of straw because you're not technically savvy to build it out of brick doesn't mean you get to complain that the wind blew it down even if it was a big bad wolf. If you don't do something right, it's nobody's fault but your own. It's often called growing pains. Backups are a lesson best learned before they are needed but regularly only thought about after data is lost.
Let's apply this reasoning to a few other examples. Let's say you live in the jungle, and build your house to jungle building codes. Then, a logging company comes in and dismantles your furniture to make particle board for IKEA products. One could argue that if you were more competent, you'd be able to form a well-armed militia, build land vehicles and air craft, and defend your jungle home against the invaders, who are not infinitely powerful and could be dissuaded by even a reasonably well-run guerilla uprising. One might also argue that that's crazy. ;)
To put it another way, if being a guerilla fighter is the only way to have furniture in the jungle, we wouldn't expect everyone to become guerilla fighters, we'd expect a few people to become guerillas while most people lost their furniture.
Here's another example. Let's say you're a US citizen concerned about civil asset forfeiture. If you were more competent, you would smuggle your wallet across the states where that happens inside of your hubcaps, or maybe in a drone, or perhaps in a shallow-water submarine. On the other hand, it's a bit might-makes-right to assert that only people who can assemble smuggling vehicles have property rights. Again, if that was the way to have property rights, we'd expect a few people to become smugglers and almost everyone else to lose property.
So finally coming back around to the YouTube thing, if we say that the way to have a platform is to build servers, organize communications networks, and arrange payments outside of the usual system, then we would expect a few people, almost all of them criminals, to do that, while most people simply would lose their platform.
If you don't rely upon youtube, you don't need to worry about youtube. If you choose to take advantage of the ease and convenience of utilizing their freely-available service, you have to deal with their rules. For most people, it's a small price to pay. For everyone else, there's stackoverflow.
> It's a shame a torrenting-based youtube wouldn't
> really work for various reasons, both legal and social.
It used to be that LoC submission was part of the deal with copyright, but somehow we forgot that and important history has already been lost.
Courts have ruled that the justification in the Second Amendment, of establishing and protecting "a well-regulated Militia", does not bind the amendment to apply only to the establishment and protection of a body designated as the militia (e.g., the National Guard).
Similarly, IP laws need not "promote the progress of Science and the useful Arts" to be legitimate. If Congress passes IP laws to protect large cartels with no public benefit, and maybe even public harm, those laws are in full force and 100% constitutional.
It does, but only because US code says that there's two militias. The organized militias (the National Guards), and the unorganized militias consisting of every able bodied man 17-45. Since the 14th amendment was written later, that bit of code is now interpreted to mean all adults.
> The Supreme Court held:
> (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> (a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
Per Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Hell...
> (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
You can also see this clearly in US v. Miller, where sawed off shotguns were allowed to banned only because they had no military use (at the time). The unorganized militia must be allowed to use military weapons, which is why you can still go out and buy all sorts of crazy stuff like miniguns if you have enough money.
I'm making the upstream normative claim: so long as we have intellectual property (there are certainly moral and practical arguments against it), laws passed by Congress should reflect that intent: that temporary artificial monopolies also carry positive externalities to society at large. While incentives for creation are certainly part of that story, I think there is a strong case for reforming that balance: shortening copyrights, limiting/eliminating patents on software and business methods, and strengthening fair use and consumer rights.
[1] https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork
I couldn't agree with this more. It's our culture and it's our life. Is it sad that so much of our lives is defined by consumption of media and staring at screens instead of being in touch with nature and living off the land or pursuing our own passions? Yeah, it is. But it is what it is. We are defined by our experiences, memories, and stories, and the only way to preserve digital media is to have a copy.
This is what got me into digital hoarding. I hated having so much emotional investment in things that I couldn't even access like old cartoons and movies, videos from youtube, or websites. Even worse when it's an old forum with conversations and activity from your teenage years, and the forum goes offline (this has happened to me with Bungie.net, though thankfully I was able to archive at least my gameplay stats).
I got 3 12TB hard drives this year (1 primary, 2 backups) and already see myself running out of room soon. It probably cost around $600 total, but it's been 100% worth it. I plan to expand in the near future to make sure I have plenty of room for everything I want without having to leave out anything that's really special. I love being able to re-live media experiences from my life, share them with loved ones, and even revisit moments that were defining for me in some way or another.
It's a shame that our culture is so based on consuming media. But the bright side is that it's the easiest kind of culture to preserve, compared to things like a physical book or dance, so I highly recommend others to check it out and be a part of the digital preservation world.
Oh, come on. A Youtube video is culture just like ancient Greek plays are culture, or Sumerian cuneiform tablets.
There is an overconsumption problem, but even if it wasn't there, that'd still be the culture that we'd want to at least archive.
There are two orthogonal reasons for culture to be preserved:
* there are things that will be valuable to future generations to build upon and enrich them
* someone in the future would ask, what was life like in 2020, and without the "trash" culture, the answer will be very much off the mark
Trash or not trash, this is what we have.
This is why archive.org is important, this is why preserving Usenet archives is important, and why I'm happy that many geocities websites were archived before Yahoo axed them.
But we need to entertain the option of letting go
But archiving doesn't do that either. There are many more silent films archived than either of us have watched, for example.
Then sure, not everything needs to be archived. I believe there's a reasonable, subjective threshold of what you'd need to keep to get an idea of a person living in the time period.
Letting go and keeping are not incompatible ideas.
If you want to invest in a time capsule for your favorite fancy go ahead.
But please don’t go “ad hominem”-y when implying anyone is violating or oppressing you if they don’t happen to have your same priorities.
> The term culture industry (German: Kulturindustrie) was coined by the critical theorists Theodor Adorno (1903–1969) and Max Horkheimer (1895–1973), and was presented as critical vocabulary in the chapter "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception", of the book Dialectic of Enlightenment (1947), wherein they proposed that popular culture is akin to a factory producing standardized cultural goods—films, radio programmes, magazines, etc.—that are used to manipulate mass society into passivity.[1] Consumption of the easy pleasures of popular culture, made available by the mass communications media, renders people docile and content, no matter how difficult their economic circumstances.[1] The inherent danger of the culture industry is the cultivation of false psychological needs that can only be met and satisfied by the products of capitalism; thus Adorno and Horkheimer especially perceived mass-produced culture as dangerous to the more technically and intellectually difficult high arts. In contrast, true psychological needs are freedom, creativity, and genuine happiness, which refer to an earlier demarcation of human needs, established by Herbert Marcuse.[2]
That's why it needs to be preserved, especially if it's harmful.
We keep museums not only to be wowed by amazing artifacts, but also to know our past, what life was like.
And for the same reason, everything from Hitler's radio broadcasts to doge memes is worth preserving.
See my other response in the thread.
...old videogame advertisements[1]
The irony is just so, so beautiful.
I never made such a claim.
The problem is that everyone has their opinion on what needs to be preserved. I might not care at all about what you have on your hard drive, and vice versa.
Archive and libraries aren't Eternal and Forever Storage. Future archivist might as well prune them (as they do).
However, at the current time we don't have enough data to decide which things are worth preserving, and which are not.
Funny thing you say that.
Because today on the front page on Hacker News, we find... Old game advertisements[1].
Irony notwithstanding, I hope that proves my point.
The hard drive you'd leave behind would be a treasure someone 40 years in the future.
> Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44097-3
Culture includes lifestyle and activities, which is why I made that particular point about nature.
Of course before the widespread adoption of videorecorders in the 80s the public could never rewatch anything. Nothing was meant to last.
For now, note the conscious blowing-off, on YouTube's part, of all the re-uploads. Will they also get got? If not, why not?
I-- I can't believe they've done this.
They are not your friend. Nor anybody's friend.
>Their mission is to make money, not to archive the internet.
So how did deleting this make YouTube money?
I assume they remove "violent" videos to appease advertisers. In this case, they did not consider the value of the video being removed, instead prioritizing the safety of the content with respect to the advertisers.
In the large, YouTube's terms of service are structured around retaining an audience (both in terms of individual and institutional choice... Without a TOS that at least nominally says what constitutes offensive content, businesses and schools block access to YouTube and that decreases viewership which decreases revenue potential). They are also structured around being a hospitable place for advertising, and advertising (in particular brand advertising) gets real gun-shy on spending dollars on content that might be significantly off the bead from "wholesome."
Whether or not this video in particular violates the TOS is debatable (though having never heard of this before this link on Hacker News, my naive read on it is that it's simple violent aggression and a display of unadulterated physical violence, which generally doesn't pass the TOS for graphic violence... "Content featuring anything listed above where the viewer is not given enough context to understand that the footage is dramatized or fictional").
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170812/01102937985/once-...
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/youtube-ai-deletes-war-cr...
Sometimes we want it big enough to fight against state-level censorship; sometimes we want it small enough to obey anti-trust or privacy law.
Do they actually delete the videos? For all we know, the video is still stored on Google's servers indefinitely, there is just a flag set which blocks public access to it. If a government or UN agency asks for a copy of the video, is Google able and willing to provide it? Knowingly destroying evidence of a crime is (often) a crime; denying public access to evidence of a crime is not a crime, especially if you are still happy to provide it to the proper authorities on request.
Regarding "Destroying or covering up evidence of war crimes is, itself, a war crime", I don't believe that is actually true. Under the Rome Statute of the ICC, war crimes are crimes against article 8; destroying evidence of a war crime is not a war crime, because it is not an article 8 crime, it is a crime against article 70 ("Offences against the administration of justice"). Other international treaties against war crimes (such as the Geneva Conventions), and national laws against war crimes (such as the US War Crimes Act codified at 18 USC 2441), likewise do not consider destroying evidence of a war crime to be a war crime, instead it is a non-war crime against the administration of justice.
But you are making an assumption that the average worker (probably from India) making $1 an hour, can tell the difference between newsworthy war crimes, and a snuff film.
I don't think anyone is going to get that right 100% of the time. So no, I don't really see it as a problem.
Also, lol at Youtube getting filled with war crime videos. Youtube has plenty of space.
Clearly they are relying upon an immature AI dragnet to classify and kill categories of objectionable material. Thankfully they have an appeals process, but it seems to me that automated takedowns are blatantly wrong. Instead they ought to use that data to generate a queue for humans to review and flag, where more popular videos have more reviewers requiring consensus. No matter, it’s clear we’ve allowed a commercial platform to outgrow its structural integrity, and no algorithm can do a thing but delay its collapse under its own weight.
Don't even need to prove you own your target video, just claim it and boom, you get what you want (redirect monetization to your MCM, takedown the video, etc).
*Not you you, but the royal you
Or well, not acting evil.
The aurora borealis perhaps? The sun could decide to throw us a particularly nasty geomagnetic storm one day and suddenly Google would go to fearsome tyrant to basically irrelevant overnight. I imagine most of us on HN would be out of a job too!
(can't wait for this one to get deleted...)
YouTube users: Can I see it?
Google: ...no.
Emphasis on easily - if it ever becomes straightforward, without going through scary settings menu, Google will be quite scared.
There’s been a lot of controversy lately about Robinhood/Citadel/GME/Reddit. And it looks like either Google might be taking sides, or that if you are powerful enough you can get Google to block some search results/suggestions.
1. 1984 is not a religious prophecy. That something has happened which bears some aesthetic similarity to a part of the book is not significant or interesting by itself. If you wish to assert that Google has the power to shape the truth then you will first have to explain why,
2. The video still exists, in a thousand forms, both on YouTube and elsewhere on the internet where YT has no power. If YT wished to scrub it from the site they could do so, but they didn't.
Man, if only there were other examples of Google's censorship of videos on even more important issues. Maybe an example at the top of Hacker News from today... [0]
I'm vaccinated and I'm not a fan of insane anti-vax conspiracy theorists. But I absolutely don't think the government or the de facto public space owners being able to ban entire topics of discussion.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/29/youtube...
What's the line here? A scripted video depicting one friend punching another gets taken down, but MMA fights, movie scenes of executions, and Jackass clips stay up?
It's dangerous how much of our culture is in the hands of private companies who can restrict or deny your ability to view that piece of culture. They do so on a whim and you have no recourse.
https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube
Example instance: https://peertube.cpy.re/
Partridge: Don't you see, Preston? It's gone. Everything that makes us what we are, traded away.
John Preston: There's no war. No murder.
Partridge: What is it you think we do?
John Preston: No. You've been with me. You've seen how it can be, the jealousy. Rage.
Partridge: A heavy cost. I pay it gladly.
The cat is out of the bag on this one though. So much so, that I'd argue the video now has cultural and historical significance that justifies its wanton violence. That is to say, even a general purpose video platform that forbade violence should probably still allow war documentaries.
A vanishingly rare sentiment.
>punching someone outside of a boxing ring
I could probably find 100,000 unique instances of violence solely from big Hollywood studios on Youtube as we speak
For example, many people jaywalk because they see people doing it all the time without consequences.
Some kid inevitably sees it on the internet with 12m views. He has been wanting to start a channel on his own and thinks "I'll punch my unsuspecting brother on camera, how funny!" now someone's in the hospital. Don't blame the bullets or the gun, blame the wielder who is a minor. Who is to blame for such an eventuality? I see a danger that Goog is potentially liable for.
Kids are on the internet. There is a higher bar for moderation than people want now (partly because of it), but that's how it is.
I don't have a problem with this video being taken down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKbU8B-QVZk
The Wayback Machine archives YouTube videos. I don't know how it archives or determines which videos to archive, but it has a surprising number of popular videos (but also ones with only a few thousand views and not some of those with billions, possibly because they're so high-profile due to copyright?). It also archives the video only once (creators may alter videos slightly, IIRC) and not always with the highest-quality format (possibly due an underlying problem with youtube-dl's `best` option).
YouTube is special-cased with processing to replace the player on the archived video page with the archived video (which is indexed with a mangled googlevideo.com URL, the same type as retrieved by youtube-dl), but this doesn't always work. Fortunately, archived videos can also be accessed directly by video ID through the (very undocumented) WB Machine-specific 'fake' URL:
http://wayback-fakeurl.archive.org/yt/<ID>
The video in question is at:
https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://wayback-fakeurl.archive...
Edit: A very early reupload (2007-10-28, compared to the original video's 2007-07-13) is still up at _X6VoFBCE9k, but is of degraded quality and has an additional watermark.
This video was taken down because 2 or 3 people reported it in short succession. Those reports flagged it for review by a human moderator, who removed it.
If it had never been reported, it would have stayed up. If no one ever reported it, it's possible a human never reviewed it in those 14 years.
The 14 years it was up doesn't mean YouTube reviewed it previously and decided to keep it.
If YouTube did a better job explaining exactly how its content moderation works, outrage like this might be less common. However YouTube doesn't explain better because it encourages gaming the system and report-brigading.
You cannot possibly know, unless you work on YT moderation in Google. Also, moderation rules might vary over the years, so it might have even been checked once per year and survived for 14 years, til now. The real issue here is that nobody outside an internal Google team has voted on these policies.
It might not have been literally "2 or 3 people," but it's a reasonable assumption that the differentiating factor in 14 years is that a bunch of people saw it all at once, and some critical mass of those who saw it flagged it.
The fact that this one specifically was taken down while copycats and reuploads have not strongly suggest it was hit by community moderation flagging.
Dear googlers: Quit. You’ll make plenty elsewhere; just stop ruining the Internet please.
You are assuming a correlation between technical competency and moral competency that I've never observed history guarantees.
Can it get worse? Because it looks like whatever good guys are left don't have a voice anymore.
Yikes... I can't believe you even typed that... inviting it to happen.
It can always get worse. There's always whistle-blowing, which would stop if all the good people left.
I could even imagine people wanting to work for Google to actively harm society as a form of Cold War. Because of this, it is probably better for people to stay and fight for good, but I might be wrong.
Sure, the Youtube team removed it, but ultimately, they're a private company, right? Aren't private companies allowed to moderate kind of however they want based on their own terms of service? They have a "graphic and violent content policy" that they're allowed to enforce. I always found the distinction between a private company's ToS and "the public good" a little tricky to understand.
Anyway, maybe this news will, in a tiny way, help other online video-sharing projects like PeerTube or Vimeo.
Most of the times no appeal is done and the video is lost until someone risks his account and reuploads it again.
Never trust an online website to keep your content up for you. Always back it up since it can be removed anytime and without asking.
Centralized : Dailymotion, Bitchute, Rumble, DTube, Vimeo, Vidlii, DLive, Triller
Decentralized : Odysee(LBRY), Peertube
Unfortunately, I actually believe that the people behind the YouTube censorship actually benefited from their censorship and scattering of the community by producing an environment where antitrust actions are far harder to argue because YT can now claim there are many "competitors", which none of the alternatives really are.
It first dawned on me that this was possibly a tactic when Google was catching heat for manipulating results. I found it odd that DuckDuckGo was given the duck.com domain that Google owned, free of charge.
It makes no sense other than that Google was trying to support controlled opposition in order to claim that there was a competitive market.
Do you happen to have any reference that points out which content was removed for political reasons?
You're on HN. If said censorship exists then nothing stops you from pointing it on HN.
I would go far as to say on uncensored platforms one sees the true nature of humans not bound by society and that's eye opening for the one who's fast asleep.
Better to be informed of reality than sweep under the rug and creating a faketopia where one is required to choose words carefully that the powers that be agree with, history tells us what that path that leads to.
Here are some well-written examples by Matt Taibi:
https://taibbi.substack.com/?sort=search&search=censored
Here is Glenn Greenvald explaining why he moved to Rumble:
https://rumble.com/vl268j-welcome-to-glenn-greenwalds-system...
Note that he doesn't claim he was censored. He just doesn't want to support a platform that censors in general.
...
The latest example I've seen directly was a strike against Dr. Mobeen Sayd's channel because he interviewed Pierre Kory. To put it into context, it's a channel from an MD with 10 years worth of educational content. It got a confirmed strike last week because he interviewed another doctor several month ago. There were also 50+ other videos deleted from the channel.
This is the video in question:
https://odysee.com/@DrMobeenSyed:1/dr.-pierre-kory,-ivermect...
Here is YouTube search confirming it does not exist on the original channel anymore:
https://www.youtube.com/c/USMLEOnline/search?query=Dr.%20Pie....)
It's time-consuming to provide these examples and it's impossible to know when people are asking for proof in good faith and when they are just play-acting ignorance.
Here's the thread for today, currently at #2: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28693060
A single party can’t archive everything they may ever look for, often enough you don’t even know what it may be (and when you do it’s too late).
Are there any projects like this? I imagine a decentralization through something like torrents or IPFS (with the caveat that different encodings of the same video will of course have different hashes).
Is such a project already a thing? Are other people interested in doing this?
I can't believe they've done this.
A proposed solution is:
What if everyone, or at least a bunch of willing souls, ran the following script on their on pc's:
1. YouTube-dlc every video you ever watch automatically in the background and save to NEW_VID directory
2. make a checksum of every file that comes into NEW_VID
3. Check by using the checksum if the file already exists on open platforms like https://joinpeertube.org, https://odysee.com or https://d.tube
4. If not, upload the file.
5. Delete the file.
What if everyone, or at least a bunch of willing souls, ran the following script on their on pc's:
1. YouTube-dlc every video you ever watch automatically in the background and save to NEW_VID directory
2. make a checksum of every file that comes into NEW_VID
3. Check by using the checksum if the file already exists on open platforms like https://joinpeertube.org, https://odysee.com or https://d.tube
4. If not, upload the file.
5. Delete the file.
The corporate wording for "Fuck you!".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7lRV1VHv1g
I've never heard of the meme before, but that seems pretty benign.
Sorry about the inconvenience to this guy, but at the same time, it got 14 million views and I'm sure he made some cash. He can probably not whine so much. It's likely an honest mistake by someone overworked.
YT: "K,bye"