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

[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

[jasondj@lemmy.zip]

I managed to find Extra History via Nebula, and it's one of my new favorite channels...but I've found a lot more favorites from YouTube, definitely.

One thing I do love is finding a new channel I like that has years of backlog.

[freedomadvocate@lemmy.net.au]

YouTube didn’t publicly make that claim though, so they haven’t done any defamation.

[jimmycakes@lemmy.world]

Because self hosting is getting cheaper and easier while average internet upload speeds are crazy high for the home user. Of course Google is scared.

[drmoose@lemmy.world]

People are quick to burn Youtube here when its clearly the american copyright reach that causes this.

[fizz@lemmy.nz]

No one is forcing brave on you lol

[hack3900@lemy.lol]

I think it's both, a dumb system enforced in a somehow dumber way

[fodor@lemmy.zip]

YouTube took down the video because of its own policies, not because of copyright law. So we should be blaming YouTube.

I think it's easy to see exactly why if you consider how YouTube treats small content creators. If I post a video and companies claim copyright on it, the video gets demonetized and I might lose my account. I can respond and contest the claim and maybe I can win but I still lost money in the meantime, and perhaps more significantly, the companies that made their copyright claims will never face a consequence for attempting to burn my channel. In other words, if I get things wrong a few times I'll lose my channel and my income source, but if they get things wrong a million times, they face zero consequence.

And you might be inclined to blame the media companies. But again, this is YouTube doing what YouTube wants to do of its own volition, and not something that's required by law. If YouTube valued small-scale content creators and end users, it would create different policies.

[fodor@lemmy.zip]

I think what you mean to say is that we should be pressuring public officials to try to bust up Google's monopoly on many things. And we are doing that, and it is showing some progress. But there is much more work to be done.

[nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de]

you say in the video that you use this setup to watch YouTube. I love watching YouTube with Kodi as it shows no ads. I guess they don't love that.

I'm not saying that justifies the strike, but it might be connected

[deello@lemm.ee]

Cries in single digit upload speeds

[redacted@infosec.pub]

Didn't they recently greenlight adblocker advertising?

[oz1sej@feddit.dk]

The video is up again:

But at some point, he shows he's moving some files to LibreELEC, and he has a folder called "Chernobyl" - how can that possibly be legal, if the folder actually contains files with the HBO show of the same name? Just asking because I'm curious

[mio@feddit.nu]

You don't know the exact content of the files. He did not show those vidoeclips. I dont know if you can buy that or not. Sure it can be indication but in general you dont know as it varies between video to video if it is possible to buy.