Self-hosting your own media considered harmful - I just received my second community guidelines violation for my video demonstrating the use of LibreELEC on a Raspberry Pi 5, for 4K video playback
Technology
96
Beiträge
68
Kommentatoren
31
Aufrufe
-
YouTube pulled a popular tutorial video from tech creator Jeff Geerling this week, claiming his guide to installing LibreELEC on a Raspberry Pi 5 violated policies against "harmful content." The video, which showed viewers how to set up their own home media servers, had been live for over a year and racked up more than 500,000 views. YouTube's automated systems flagged the content for allegedly teaching people "how to get unauthorized or free access to audio or audiovisual content."
Geerling says his tutorial covered only legal self-hosting of media people already own -- no piracy tools or copyright workarounds. He said he goes out of his way to avoid mentioning popular piracy software in his videos. It's the second time YouTube has pulled a self-hosting content video from Geerling. Last October, YouTube removed his Jellyfin tutorial, though that decision was quickly reversed after appeal. This time, his appeal was denied.
This kind of crap is driving popular creators, like Geerling, to move to other places. YT / Alphabet has lost the plot.
-
I mean maybe if YT said that? The only thing they said is that it's "harmful" somehow. And they won't elaborate anymore than that.
If harmful isn't defined in the ToS, then the Merriam Webster definition will likely be construed to mean to be harmful to YouTube's business or to users. Although YouTube has been selective in this enforcement, ie not banning all videos pertaining to martial arts or fighting clips, drug use, or ad block tutorials.
-
If harmful isn't defined in the ToS, then the Merriam Webster definition will likely be construed to mean to be harmful to YouTube's business or to users. Although YouTube has been selective in this enforcement, ie not banning all videos pertaining to martial arts or fighting clips, drug use, or ad block tutorials.
That just answers a question that no one is asking. This is not an issue of defining words, it's an issue of what the words are referring to, exactly.
-
But being a pushover is not the answer, so...
Neither is throwing money away on a lawsuit with no chance of success.
-
That just answers a question that no one is asking. This is not an issue of defining words, it's an issue of what the words are referring to, exactly.
Exactly, I haven't read the ToS to see if it is defined or references anything in there. I usually default to the standard definition of a word unless explicitly stated otherwise. For example, Sony changed the definition of purchase to remove any notion of ownership when buying content on their streaming platform.
-
Exactly, I haven't read the ToS to see if it is defined or references anything in there. I usually default to the standard definition of a word unless explicitly stated otherwise. For example, Sony changed the definition of purchase to remove any notion of ownership when buying content on their streaming platform.
What? LOL no, not "exactly". Again the definition is not in question. The question is what the word is referring to.
-
I think ripping DVDs is still technically illegal, even though CSS has long since been broken. It is still illegal to circumvent encryption in a copy protection scheme, even if it's for your own personal use and the encryption scheme has been pwned.
I bet if he didn't mention that his videos were ripped from DVD, they might have left it up.
Iirc, you are entitled to have/create a backup of your physical media, as long as it is for your personal use.
-
This kind of crap is driving popular creators, like Geerling, to move to other places. YT / Alphabet has lost the plot.
Yep. Most of my favorite creators are on Nebula now.
The ones that aren't get watched on SmartTube or in Brave Browser.
-
What? LOL no, not "exactly". Again the definition is not in question. The question is what the word is referring to.
Just did a cursory search for harm on the YouTube ToS. There is no definition that I saw, but it does say "may cause harm". So my suspicion that anything could be construed to be harmful to YouTube's business is likely correct. Quoted sections of the YouTube ToS containing the word "harm" as of 2025-06-06 17:20 GMT.
Removal of Content By YouTube
If any of your Content (1) is in breach of this Agreement or (2) may cause harm to YouTube, our users, or third parties, we reserve the right to remove or take down some or all of such Content in our discretion. We will notify you with the reason for our action unless we reasonably believe that to do so: (a) would breach the law or the direction of a legal enforcement authority or would otherwise risk legal liability for YouTube or our Affiliates; (b) would compromise an investigation or the integrity or operation of the Service; or (c) would cause harm to any user, other third party, YouTube or our Affiliates. You can learn more about reporting and enforcement, including how to appeal on the Troubleshooting page of our Help Center.
Terminations and Suspensions by YouTube
YouTube reserves the right to suspend or terminate your Google account or your access to all or part of the Service if (a) you materially or repeatedly breach this Agreement; (b) we are required to do so to comply with a legal requirement or a court order; or (c) we reasonably believe that there has been conduct that creates (or could create) liability or harm to any user, other third party, YouTube or our Affiliates.
Notice for Termination or Suspension
We will notify you with the reason for termination or suspension by YouTube unless we reasonably believe that to do so: (a) would violate the law or the direction of a legal enforcement authority; (b) would compromise an investigation; (c) would compromise the integrity, operation or security of the Service; or (d) would cause harm to any user, other third party, YouTube or our Affiliates.
About this Agreement
Changing this Agreement
We may change this Agreement, for example, (1) to reflect changes to our Service or how we do business - for example, when we add new products or features or remove old ones, (2) for legal, regulatory, or security reasons, or (3) to prevent abuse or harm.If we materially change this Agreement, we’ll provide you with reasonable advance notice and the opportunity to review the changes, except (1) when we launch a new product or feature, or (2) in urgent situations, such as preventing ongoing abuse or responding to legal requirements. If you don’t agree to the new terms, you should remove any Content you uploaded and stop using the Service.
-
But being a pushover is not the answer, so...
It absolutely is on an individual level in a system where capital decides who writes the laws and who gets justice. The way you push back is by organizing as a class or at least a group.
-
Iirc, you are entitled to have/create a backup of your physical media, as long as it is for your personal use.
But if I remember from back in the day, the DMCA doesn't have any exception for that. This is why CD ripping was legal, while DVD ripping was not. It had nothing to do with fair use or backups, but rather that DVDs have encryption, and CDs do not. Circumventing that encryption for any reason was illegal.
I don't think it has changed, but it's been a hot minute since the Cypherpunks all wore DeCSS T-Shirts....
-
Perhaps this can a driver of sorts for Peertube.
It's a good thing that I can't stand video tutorials or reviews (with the exception of video games).
I think so. A relatively small subset of the video upload firehose at YouTube who produce rewatchable content is going to require a lot less resources to provide than doing a free-for-all upload-anything video. This might actually be feasible.
-
Yep. Most of my favorite creators are on Nebula now.
The ones that aren't get watched on SmartTube or in Brave Browser.
I love Nebula. I go there to watch Nebula Exclusives but it's not great for browsing or discovering new channels...I found everyone I subscribe to on YouTube first
-
Just did a cursory search for harm on the YouTube ToS. There is no definition that I saw, but it does say "may cause harm". So my suspicion that anything could be construed to be harmful to YouTube's business is likely correct. Quoted sections of the YouTube ToS containing the word "harm" as of 2025-06-06 17:20 GMT.
Removal of Content By YouTube
If any of your Content (1) is in breach of this Agreement or (2) may cause harm to YouTube, our users, or third parties, we reserve the right to remove or take down some or all of such Content in our discretion. We will notify you with the reason for our action unless we reasonably believe that to do so: (a) would breach the law or the direction of a legal enforcement authority or would otherwise risk legal liability for YouTube or our Affiliates; (b) would compromise an investigation or the integrity or operation of the Service; or (c) would cause harm to any user, other third party, YouTube or our Affiliates. You can learn more about reporting and enforcement, including how to appeal on the Troubleshooting page of our Help Center.
Terminations and Suspensions by YouTube
YouTube reserves the right to suspend or terminate your Google account or your access to all or part of the Service if (a) you materially or repeatedly breach this Agreement; (b) we are required to do so to comply with a legal requirement or a court order; or (c) we reasonably believe that there has been conduct that creates (or could create) liability or harm to any user, other third party, YouTube or our Affiliates.
Notice for Termination or Suspension
We will notify you with the reason for termination or suspension by YouTube unless we reasonably believe that to do so: (a) would violate the law or the direction of a legal enforcement authority; (b) would compromise an investigation; (c) would compromise the integrity, operation or security of the Service; or (d) would cause harm to any user, other third party, YouTube or our Affiliates.
About this Agreement
Changing this Agreement
We may change this Agreement, for example, (1) to reflect changes to our Service or how we do business - for example, when we add new products or features or remove old ones, (2) for legal, regulatory, or security reasons, or (3) to prevent abuse or harm.If we materially change this Agreement, we’ll provide you with reasonable advance notice and the opportunity to review the changes, except (1) when we launch a new product or feature, or (2) in urgent situations, such as preventing ongoing abuse or responding to legal requirements. If you don’t agree to the new terms, you should remove any Content you uploaded and stop using the Service.
There is no definition
Okay, I get it. I'm being trolled. Well played, I guess.
-
What? LOL no, not "exactly". Again the definition is not in question. The question is what the word is referring to.
if they haven't defined it, then legally it is meant in the broadest sense, isn't it?
-
if they haven't defined it, then legally it is meant in the broadest sense, isn't it?
I don't know how to be more clear about this. The definition is not in question. It doesn't matter what sense it's being used. What matters is the subject of the harm.
-
There is no definition
Okay, I get it. I'm being trolled. Well played, I guess.
I meant in the ToS, but no, troll not my intentions. I thought I was agreeing with you and just expounding on your point.
-
YouTube pulled a popular tutorial video from tech creator Jeff Geerling this week, claiming his guide to installing LibreELEC on a Raspberry Pi 5 violated policies against "harmful content." The video, which showed viewers how to set up their own home media servers, had been live for over a year and racked up more than 500,000 views. YouTube's automated systems flagged the content for allegedly teaching people "how to get unauthorized or free access to audio or audiovisual content."
Geerling says his tutorial covered only legal self-hosting of media people already own -- no piracy tools or copyright workarounds. He said he goes out of his way to avoid mentioning popular piracy software in his videos. It's the second time YouTube has pulled a self-hosting content video from Geerling. Last October, YouTube removed his Jellyfin tutorial, though that decision was quickly reversed after appeal. This time, his appeal was denied.
how to get unauthorized or free access to audio or audiovisual content
Well, the "unauthorized" is a lie. And tutorials, how to share free content, is against community rules?
-
I don't know how to be more clear about this. The definition is not in question. It doesn't matter what sense it's being used. What matters is the subject of the harm.
totally clear. and exactly the subject is the broadest: harmful to anyone or anything
-
totally clear. and exactly the subject is the broadest: harmful to anyone or anything
If that were true there would be no videos and no YouTube.
