Skip to content

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
95 67 4
  • 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.

  • Yep. Most of my favorite creators are on Nebula now.

    The ones that aren't get watched on SmartTube or in Brave Browser.

    Hypocritical Lemmy.... Preaching (F) OSS and then using Brave....
    LoL!

  • If that were true there would be no videos and no YouTube.

    of course the eventual enforcement is left to the service provider (google) as it often is how it works. when you can't define something with 100% precision, you leave some room for interpretation. they can then decide what to do on a case by case basis.

  • 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.

    The use of "self-hosting" is a little confusing here. To be clear, he wasn't self-hosting his video. It was published on YouTube, and the guidelines and procedures in question are Google's.

    Edit: I'm not defending Google's actions. It's just that the title gave the impression that a video he had self-hosted was somehow subject to "community guidelines", which didn't make sense.

    Edit 2: Ten downvotes in less than an hour, on a clarification comment? Wow. I'm disappointed to see that level of targeted negativity here. What rotten behavior. 😞

  • Hypocritical Lemmy.... Preaching (F) OSS and then using Brave....
    LoL!

    Brave is open source and using MPL license which is the same license Firefox is using. I am not using or recommending Brave to anyone.

  • The use of "self-hosting" is a little confusing here. To be clear, he wasn't self-hosting his video. It was published on YouTube, and the guidelines and procedures in question are Google's.

    Edit: I'm not defending Google's actions. It's just that the title gave the impression that a video he had self-hosted was somehow subject to "community guidelines", which didn't make sense.

    Edit 2: Ten downvotes in less than an hour, on a clarification comment? Wow. I'm disappointed to see that level of targeted negativity here. What rotten behavior. 😞

    The use of "self-hosting" is a little confusing here.

    Not really, no. The video topic was about self-hosting your own media server, so the title is perfectly clear

  • Brave is open source and using MPL license which is the same license Firefox is using. I am not using or recommending Brave to anyone.

    I will flat out shut down any Brave user simply because it tried to push crypto.
    No thanks 🙂

  • The use of "self-hosting" is a little confusing here. To be clear, he wasn't self-hosting his video. It was published on YouTube, and the guidelines and procedures in question are Google's.

    Edit: I'm not defending Google's actions. It's just that the title gave the impression that a video he had self-hosted was somehow subject to "community guidelines", which didn't make sense.

    Edit 2: Ten downvotes in less than an hour, on a clarification comment? Wow. I'm disappointed to see that level of targeted negativity here. What rotten behavior. 😞

    Its just confusing to you.

  • 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.”

    In the future, public domain media will be banned for harming corporate profits.

  • 847 Stimmen
    133 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    A
    reminds me of the time when something with Amazon was Indian employees
  • Why doesn't Nvidia have more competition?

    Technology technology
    22
    1
    33 Stimmen
    22 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    B
    It’s funny how the article asks the question, but completely fails to answer it. About 15 years ago, Nvidia discovered there was a demand for compute in datacenters that could be met with powerful GPU’s, and they were quick to respond to it, and they had the resources to focus on it strongly, because of their huge success and high profitability in the GPU market. AMD also saw the market, and wanted to pursue it, but just over a decade ago where it began to clearly show the high potential for profitability, AMD was near bankrupt, and was very hard pressed to finance developments on GPU and compute in datacenters. AMD really tried the best they could, and was moderately successful from a technology perspective, but Nvidia already had a head start, and the proprietary development system CUDA was already an established standard that was very hard to penetrate. Intel simply fumbled the ball from start to finish. After a decade of trying to push ARM down from having the mobile crown by far, investing billions or actually the equivalent of ARM’s total revenue. They never managed to catch up to ARM despite they had the better production process at the time. This was the main focus of Intel, and Intel believed that GPU would never be more than a niche product. So when intel tried to compete on compute for datacenters, they tried to do it with X86 chips, One of their most bold efforts was to build a monstrosity of a cluster of Celeron chips, which of course performed laughably bad compared to Nvidia! Because as it turns out, the way forward at least for now, is indeed the massively parralel compute capability of a GPU, which Nvidia has refined for decades, only with (inferior) competition from AMD. But despite the lack of competition, Nvidia did not slow down, in fact with increased profits, they only grew bolder in their efforts. Making it even harder to catch up. Now AMD has had more money to compete for a while, and they do have some decent compute units, but Nvidia remains ahead and the CUDA problem is still there, so for AMD to really compete with Nvidia, they have to be better to attract customers. That’s a very tall order against Nvidia that simply seems to never stop progressing. So the only other option for AMD is to sell a bit cheaper. Which I suppose they have to. AMD and Intel were the obvious competitors, everybody else is coming from even further behind. But if I had to make a bet, it would be on Huawei. Huawei has some crazy good developers, and Trump is basically forcing them to figure it out themselves, because he is blocking Huawei and China in general from using both AMD and Nvidia AI chips. And the chips will probably be made by Chinese SMIC, because they are also prevented from using advanced production in the west, most notably TSMC. China will prevail, because it’s become a national project, of both prestige and necessity, and they have a massive talent mass and resources, so nothing can stop it now. IMO USA would clearly have been better off allowing China to use American chips. Now China will soon compete directly on both production and design too.
  • 99 Stimmen
    48 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    Y
    enable the absolute worst of what humanity has to offer. can we call it a reality check? we think of humans as so great and important and unique for quite a while now while the world is spiraling downwards. maybe humans arent so great after all. like what is art? ppl vibe with slob music but birds cant vote. how does that make sense? if one can watch AI slob (and we all will with the constant improvements in ai) and like it, well maybe our taste of art is not any better than what a bird can do and like. i hope LLM will lead to a breakthrough in understanding what type of animal we really are.
  • signal blogpost on windows recall

    Technology technology
    5
    1
    69 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    P
    I wouldn't trust windows to follow their don't screenshot API, whether out of ignorance or malice.
  • Why Japan's animation industry has embraced AI

    Technology technology
    12
    1
    1 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    R
    The genre itself has become neutered, too. A lot of anime series have the usual "anime elements" and a couple custom ideas. And similar style, too glossy for my taste. OK, what I think is old and boring libertarian stuff, I'll still spell it out. The reason people are having such problems is because groups and businesses are de facto legally enshrined in their fields, it's almost like feudal Europe's system of privileges and treaties. At some point I thought this is good, I hope no evil god decided to fulfill my wish. There's no movement, and a faction (like Disney with Star Wars) that buys a place (a brand) can make any garbage, and people will still try to find the depth in it and justify it (that complaint has been made about Star Wars prequels, but no, they are full of garbage AND have consistent arcs, goals and ideas, which is why they revitalized the Expanded Universe for almost a decade, despite Lucas-<companies> having sort of an internal social collapse in year 2005 right after Revenge of the Sith being premiered ; I love the prequels, despite all the pretense and cringe, but their verbal parts are almost fillers, their cinematographic language and matching music are flawless, the dialogue just disrupts it all while not adding much, - I think Lucas should have been more decisive, a bit like Tartakovsky with the Clone Wars cartoon, just more serious, because non-verbal doesn't equal stupid). OK, my thought wandered away. Why were the legal means they use to keep such positions created? To make the economy nicer to the majority, to writers, to actors, to producers. Do they still fulfill that role? When keeping monopolies, even producing garbage or, lately, AI slop, - no. Do we know a solution? Not yet, because pressing for deregulation means the opponent doing a judo movement and using that energy for deregulating the way everything becomes worse. Is that solution in minimizing and rebuilding the system? I believe still yes, nothing is perfect, so everything should be easy to quickly replace, because errors and mistakes plaguing future generations will inevitably continue to be made. The laws of the 60s were simple enough for that in most countries. The current laws are not. So the general direction to be taken is still libertarian. Is this text useful? Of course not. I just think that in the feudal Europe metaphor I'd want to be a Hussite or a Cossack or at worst a Venetian trader.
  • Pocket shutting down

    Technology technology
    2
    2 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    B
    Can anyone recommend a good alternative? I still use it to bookmark most wanted sites.
  • Microsoft is putting AI actions into the Windows File Explorer

    Technology technology
    11
    1
    1 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    I
    Cool, so that's a specific problem with your needed use case. That's not what you said before.
  • *deleted by creator*

    Technology technology
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet