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

[whyjiffie@sh.itjust.works]

totally clear. and exactly the subject is the broadest: harmful to anyone or anything

[ulrich@feddit.org]

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

[appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

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

[whyjiffie@sh.itjust.works]

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.

[who@feddit.org]

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.

[coolmojo@lemmy.world]

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.

[gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

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

[appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

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

[mehblah@lemmy.world]

Its just confusing to you.

[duamerthrax@lemmy.world]

“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.

[coolmojo@lemmy.world]

Not just crypto, they were diverting ad revenue from websites to themselves, collecting unsolicited donations for content creators without their consent, suggesting affiliate links in the address bar and installing a paid VPN service without the user's consent. Don’t forget they had a “bug” in Tor which sent all DNS queries to your ISP instead of routing it through tor and also weak fingerprint protection. Not to mention the political affiliation of the CEO. But it IS open source.

[appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

Still fuck them (openly). From the source of my heart

[anafabula@discuss.tchncs.de]

Depends on the country

[bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works]

They are so pissed that we dare own anything. Fuck corpos.

[rottingleaf@lemmy.world]

Yeah, people who thought Google wasn't openly strangling the free (as in libre) stuff because they weren't that evil - these people just have bad memory. In year 2012 it clearly felt that corps, Google and Facebook and MS and Apple and everyone, are on the move to capture it all without a way out. They kinda made the illusion of being softer later.

So the question is - how do we even advertise legal but unpleasant for them things, avoiding their censorship.

The devices are sold together with the operating system (often unchangeable) and packaged applications and means of installing software, right from the markets.

I mean, I have a solution. It's counterintuitive and seems unconnected, and too direct, but I guarantee you it'll work.

Forbidding companies to do moderation or refuse to accept content without technical problems, or banned content (CP and such), and similar good justifications. As in - if your service is up, and there's user content served from it, it shouldn't be removed without legal substantiation. It doesn't matter it's free, that doesn't mean you can do all you like. You are not a media outlet, you are a platform for many media, that's how you work in fact, so yes, your actions do constitute censorship if you do moderation. If you can't afford to keep it free with such rules, then start charging money for hosting, as it normally should have been.

And, of course, this should include public offering status, the prices should be the same for all users.

I mean, if we had this from the beginning, we'd probably still have the Web like in year 2003.

[jcbazpx@lemmy.world]

You're being downvoted for being factually wrong about the title. It's not targeted negativity.

[sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone]

To add on, the video is about self hosting, it was not self hosted itself.

[saharamaleikuhm@feddit.org]

Google should have been broken up years ago.

[psud@aussie.zone]

And beyond the law it depends also on enforcement

The US doesn't give a right to break Bluray copy protection and make a personal backup or access it on a device that otherwise couldn't play it. But the only enforcement is on people sharing copies, no one is prosecuted for format shifting their collection to play over their LAN

[psud@aussie.zone]

I believe you're (if you're American) now allowed to rip DVD but not anything newer. DMCA protection was removed from CSS