pazukaza @ pazukaza @lemmy.ml

Posts

1

Comments

228

Joined

2 yr. ago

I think sometimes people just want others to go straight to the point. I don't want to hear the personal stories of this guy, just rambling about his past and his skills.

Maybe he could say the premise and a conclusion. Then explain why he reached that conclusion. But no, he chose to torture you with personal anecdotes to get to a point he could have summarized in a few words.

So you're saying YouTube is an abusive husband and you're a wife who can't get away from that relation because you're too afraid for your life or your children's future?

I never saw it like that. I hope YouTube doesn't kill you or take away your children.

You're comparing very serious cases with the most ridiculous type of dependency ever. You're comparing an abusive employer/employee relation with YouTube making you watch ads. Holy shit. A husband beating the shit out of his wife with YouTube making you watch ads.

What's next, are you going to compare this with African-American slavery? A level 7 intergalactic species dominating the milky way and extracting resources from defenseless planetary systems?

I really need to know what's next.

OK, let's start from scratch then. The person who replied to my comment said it was abusive. "Abusive" is totally subjective, how can we know if this is abusive or not? You're right, numbers might not reflect this but they do show if they think the content is worth watching the ads.

For me, it isn't worth it so I almost never use YouTube, but I don't think it is abusive. It's a really high quality service with incredible engineering.

So there's no point in talking in subjective terms, people will always disagree. Let's just wait and see if people still want to use their platform after the change. If they do, that is their decision, they are free to make a choice. There are many video streaming platforms out there. Just not as high quality as YouTube. They also don't have as much content because content creators want to receive ad money.

But the reason why YouTube overregulates is because of how massive their service is. They couldn't pay lawyers to check every single video, and they can't take risks of copyright infringement.

Do you have any proposed solution? It just seems like Youtube's nature make this a very hard problem to solve, it's not a copyright thing itself. I really can't imagine a solution. Having someone check every claim would be insanely difficult. But removing copyright all together would basically remove all incentive from content creators because anyone can clone their creativity and ideas with zero effort.

Just watched the video. He has 2 points:

1. copyright is hard because it has to go through bureaucracy. But one thing is the law itself and another is the process. If the process is slow is not the content of the law's fault. This is why YouTube created Content ID, to try to resolve these cases in a more agile way. They are too massive to make every case go through the whole legal expensive path.
2. the threshold for content to turn into public domain is too large. No idea how this relates to YouTube copyright issues though. Yeha, maybe the threshold is too large, but is that related to the complaints content creators have around Youtube's Content ID? Nope. That's just something he wanted to throw in there, which is just opinion.

Thinking about it.... Maybe lowering the threshold could be a relief on the bureaucracy because there would be less open cases. Still, not sure if that would be enough. We're uploading content exponentially, any justice system would collapse if experts had to check every single case.

This is a very hard problem to solve. With the HUGE incoming wave of AI generated content and the copyright issues surrounding AI, I'm expecting the shit to hit the fan spectacularly.

And they can do anything they want with their property so they'll block you if you do that.

But that is the point!! Don't use their service man, nobody is forcing you :)

There are many forms of entertainment out there, you're not tied to any of them. Be free, enjoy your life.

So please give me the objective definition of what is abusive. Because in my book that is totally subjective. I just told you they created an almost perfect service that let's you stream infinite amounts of information with zero downtime and minimal buffer times, and they are asking a few minutes of your time per day, so they can make a profit and pay fairly to content creators and very smart engineers.

For me that is fair. For you, that's abusive. Who is right? You because you agree with yourself?

Just because you think making you watch ads make it abusive doesn't mean it is.

Why do you hold the voice of truth? I just told you, I don't think it is abusive because that is giving more money to content creators. If you think it is abusive, stop using the service. Also, you knew about the data they are mining and you're still using the service. Do you think others are blind to the fact Google collects data? They just don't care, like you.

Yes, corporations get to do whatever they want with their property. If you don't like it, you can choose other services, nobody is forcing you to stay there.

Well, if it is abusive or not will be determined by the majority of people. If their numbers start going down because of this, they'll act on it. If not, it means the majority of people are willing to see the ads to get to the content. People also complained when YouTube implemented ads in the beginning, very short ones. Clearly, the majority of people were fine with it. Free market, supply & demand.

Personally, I run away from ads so I don't use YouTube that much. I watch Veritasiun and 3Blue1Brown mostly and every time I see an ad come up, I like it because I know I'm giving money to the dudes giving me great content. It's my way of giving back.

I mean, not in the traditional sense. You don't have your family and friends as Lemmy contacts and share posts with them. It's more anonymous.

But that's a YouTube problem, not a copyright problem, right?

And he thinks TL;DRs are for kids with ADHD. Totally egotistic. I'm sure his whole point can be heavily TL;DR'd.

100%

I feel they'd make more money that way too. I'd pay for YT but I don't because I love Spotify, so I feel like I'm paying for something I already have.

Just wondering, are there any successful anarchist societies? I'd love to learn about them.

I can only imagine small adjacent societies that choose to be anarchist as a preference but use the hierarchical power structures (normal society) as the backbones of their operations. Meaning, these small societies would look for real doctors in case someone got cancer or a neurological disease. They probably use the electricity provided by private companies in coordination with the government. Same goes for internet infrastructure. Roads. Clean water. Medicine. Metallic tools. Money (like bills and coins). Urban planning.

Even stuff like security. They know they are safe in their land be use nobody will try to take it away from them, the government is taking care of that. They can call the police if someone in their community is murdered.

It's like an escape society, but not like a functioning globalized society. I'm not sure an anarchist society could create complex structures itself, so if there's any, I'd love to learn.

It's missing the "wahmen ☕" kick, but checks out as grandpa material.

If by location you mean IP address, the XSS script could also send the IP address of the user to the attacker. Then the attacker could do write operations spoofing that IP. They wouldn't get a response but the write operation would be done anyways.

Maybe doing a 3 way handshake before every administrative action to ensure the IP wasn't spoofed? Idk, I'm not a security person.

1. User sends IP and JWT + administrative action. I mean, IP is extracted from src addr, not sent.
2. Server saves the command in a cache with a TTL of 10 seconds. Then sends a randomly generated string to the user. The random string is sent in A HTTP-only same-site cookie to avoid it being read by JS scripts or being sent to external domains.
3. The user sends it's JWT + randomly generated string cookie back to the server. The server checks the cache. If an action is found, it is executed.

Edit: actually, after thinking about it. If the XSS is not sending the JWT to a remote location but running the attack directly in the victim's browser, there's nothing that can be done. XSS is fucked up.

nerve.struck = true;

:)

Billionaires being pieces of crap, what a surprise.

Ghost spoon

Yes