YouTube deletes LTT video for teaching people how to live without Google | Hacker News Reader

YouTube deletes LTT video for teaching people how to live without Google

youtube.com

76 pointsbitcharmer43 comments

Comments here about "criticism of Google on a Google platform" miss the mark. YouTube is in a monopoly position. The EU courts will take notes of this. Maybe even the DoJ since they seem to be more active recently.

The video was telling users to break YouTubes ToS at the last adblocking segment.

I highly doubt the EU courts would have an issue with this particular case.

I'm not surprised that the video has been taken down since it explicitly talks about circumventing youtube ads or alternative interfaces to access youtube (newpipe, invidious etc) - https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1eT421r79x?t=1058.8

One thing which is missing in conversations about circumventing ads on youtube, is that such users are also depriving content creators of their income. For those who don't want to watch ads, feel free to subscribe to youtube premium to support creators(or directly support them).

Why not better support them via Patreon or something similar? Then you can support them without giving YouTube a cut.

I don't think that YouTube has anything against creators not using YouTube that can be funded via Patreon.

I'm pretty sure are just against it if people are using the platform and apps that they're are developing and maintaining without them having any possibility of getting any revenue in return. It's so popular that people are uploading 500 hours of video every minute, so I assume that this platform scaling doesn't come for free and people who're working for YouTube to make this possible wants some money too.

I think they have more than enough money ;-)

And then you might say "fairly earned"? I don't think so. But yeah everybody has their views on things.

Had exactly this video on my playlist. Now, of course, I'm even more curious about the video. Is there a way to see the video somewhere else to stay true to the Streisand effect?

Streisand Effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Links to reuploads and torrents of the original video: https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/1f8be8l/comm...

Thanx!

I hope that we will soon see limits to "they are a private company, they can do what they want."

Another instance of the issues with monopolization of the commons.

Clearly, videos have become an integral part of cultural expression and should belong to everyone (respecting the copyright of the creator). I find it strange how people on average tend to have such negative views of other gatekeepers of culture such as Meta/Facebook, Amazon/AWS, Microsoft but when it comes to google they fly under the radar. Perhaps they're too entrenched for people to realize how much they suck.

First thing I thought of was how long it was gonna stay up.

Why is it flagged?

And this is really, really bad. I hope Google gets hit so hard by this.

Isn't there a law where they are limited in the content moderation they have to do, because they act as dumb pipe? Won't they have violated this?

> Why is it flagged?

Coordinated flagging is the new norm on HN. YC don't seem to care though.

Honest answer, probably because it’s a YouTube video, convention in the past used to be to tag it as a video in the title, but people don’t seem to do that anymore.

There are thousands of HackerNewsers whose entire livelihoods are predicated on building the Google Panopticon Machine. The value of their RSUs is hopelessly dependent on things like this being swept under the rug.

Same goes for Apple. It is what it is.

The problem is not on the big companies either, it's on the lawmakers not doing anything about it.

> the video has been taken down since it explicitly talks about circumventing youtube ads or alternative interfaces to access youtube (newpipe, invidious etc) -

From someone in another comment

If it's been deleted, how did I just watch it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnSv8ylLfPw

It's part 2 that's been deleted

This is the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsjHMzGl-VY

Right now it says "This video has been removed for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines"

"Youtube deletes LTT video that explicitly teaches users how to block ads on Youtube" might be a more honest title, but less clickbait.

I mean, that's their business model. Watch ads or pay for premium. Do you really expect them to host videos on how to cheat their business model?

If I went on LTT forums and wrote about how to steal floatplane (LTT's subscription service) content, would they leave my post up?

Yep, I would expect a platform to let someone to post on how to do basic ad hygiene, it's weird that you would think that's not ok.

There's literally thousands and thousands of videos on how to do this on youtube that have no such reaction.

It's not theft for a user agent to represent the interests of the user. Youtube is free to paywall content if ads are not sufficient.

I watched the video, but youtube wasn't covered, nor SponsorBlock, so this is not really true.

Sure, Brave does block youtube stuff but they did not advertise Brave for that purpose, but just as an alternative to Chrome

In Linus's follow up video, he admits it is true and even agrees with Youtube's takedown. He states flat out that he knows other youtubers have been banned for teaching folks how to get around youtube's business model and it was a risk that wasn't worth taking for his company.

Just like how I made the analogy with floatplane, he made a very similar connection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apdZ7xmytiQ

Looks like I was talking about the Part 1 while the one that was taken down is the Part 2

I can't really understand the outrage. YouTube is a private company, not a guaranteed free speech institution.

It's like trying to place an anti-Google ad and getting rejected.

I'm not even sure if this is protected by anti-monopoly laws. Perhaps if you want to advertise your own product, then yes, but if someone, out of the kindness of their heart, wants to advertise a competitor's product, is that protected?

I agree the status quo is not great where we rely heavily on platforms like YT, X without any guarantees of availability etc. and we should change that. But that's not at all news...

Company towns are private property and yet people still have rights there. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

It is most definitely protected by antitrust and anti-monopoly laws. Whether those laws are enforced or not is a different story.

Right, but do these laws say users' submissions are protected? IANAL but I never heard of that. Competition, sure, but random unfavourable posting?

Afaik, every little such point contributes to a legal case by the government against the monopoly. It adds weight to the legal argument. One point by itself may not make a case, but in combination it could.

The actions of private companies are a fair target for criticism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com