- cross-posted to:
- selfhost@lemmy.ml
- degoogle@lemmy.ml
- technology@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- selfhost@lemmy.ml
- degoogle@lemmy.ml
- technology@lemmy.ml
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.
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
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
Nebula
Closed source, centralized and not even free…
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.
I will flat out shut down any Brave user simply because it tried to push crypto.
No thanks :)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.
No one is forcing brave on you lol
I tried a couple of other platforms but I keep running into a moderation issue where the other platforms market to the sort of people who would be permanently banned from YouTube.
Notably, Youtube does not consider exploiting children for profit harmful.
Harmful is just code for “threatens the bottom line of multibillion dollar companies”. There is no relation to anything that matters to real people.
Because there is profit in child exploitation.
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
Didn’t they recently greenlight adblocker advertising?
Google should have been broken up years ago.
“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.
In the 1970s/80s, the corporations just taxed blank media - because it was obviously used to pirate their warez.
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. :(
You’re being downvoted for being factually wrong about the title. It’s not targeted negativity.
To add on, the video is about self hosting, it was not self hosted itself.
Sue YouTube. They won’t change meaningfully until forced to.
Sue for defamation that Youtube are alleging he is promoting criminal activity of piracy.
YouTube didn’t publicly make that claim though, so they haven’t done any defamation.
People are quick to burn Youtube here when its clearly the american copyright reach that causes this.
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.
