YouTube erased more than 700 videos documenting Israeli human rights violations

>I think to maintain any sort of real open web, we're going to need some sort of new Tor network that can support billions of users anonymously accessing information which can't be deplatformed

That already exists. They're called onion sites. What we really need is something that performs about as well as the current Internet, but is stronger against deplatforming: decentralized DNS. It doesn't even need to give memorable names like DNS does, it just needs to be a second, stable addressing layer on top of IP so clients can always find the server.

>I wonder if the future should simply be a cloud version of a personal computer.[...] Including your video library, part of which you can choose to expose to the outside world through a public IP.

A personal computer in a colo rack is technically possible but that self-maintained software stack doesn't really solve the problem for these advocacy groups.

What "corporate" platforms like Youtube/TwitterX/Instagram/TikTok/etc provide is mass audience reach. Because ... (1) recommended by the algorithm as "suggested/related" and (2) a billion mainstream people have those video apps on their smartphones

It means Youtube/etc are "distribution platforms". They provide leverage to raise awareness.

A personal pc with a public ip address doesn't accomplish those goals of spreading awareness. Consider that most HN stories with video links that make it to the front page are Youtube urls and not Peertube nor a random computer with a public ip.

People want "free speech" in the busy town square where all the people gather instead of just shouting in an empty forest with nobody around. A personal pc in the cloud with an ip address is the "empty forest".

You just described worst case scenario

I certainly hope it shouldn't look like that, that sounds horrible on many, in fact all levels.

And then the company goes under, or decides your variant of the service is not worth maintaining, or that there is potential for enshittification. All your data, gone. And it WILL happen.

Youtube is certainly useful for discovery and monetization but if the goal is to share a video that may be censored I would suggest everyone should upload to {n+2} locations at a minimum and link to both YT and the self hosted mirrors from a blog after linking to the blog from YT. It's easier than friends of YT would suggest.

In case of YouTube I wouldn’t be so sure. Yes, it’s the central hub for making your name but many YouTubers came up with their own platforms for exclusive content to have more control over their business once they got big. PeerTube is inline with that idea and because of that might be promoted by big creators soon.

From my experience, it used to be quite normal for a lot of my non-technical peers to have a personal webpage on the internet with frontpage express, wordpress or geocities. Nowadays, even a lot of businesses don't have a website, but instead an Instagram or Facebook entry. YMMV

The internet is still decentralized today.

> What does this even mean in this context?

Look, you've forgotten it otherwise you wouldn't ask this question.

Is that a joke? They're all 'at risk' of deletion.

Neocons/Zionist is a huge percentage of people in power (including the ones appointed or who ruthlessly climbed up the corporate ladder)

> When our enemies say: well, we gave you the freedom of opinion back then - yeah, you gave it to us, that's in no way evidence that we should return the favor! Your stupidity shall not be contagious! That you granted it to us is evidence of how dumb you are!

-- Joseph Goebbels, 1935

Exactly, it's laughable that this is coming from the same people who cheered on auto de-monetization for even mentioning the word "Covid" in a YT-video or the countless de-platforming and de-banking of individuals. Is this still gaslighting or something else?

[dead]

> nor is YouTube bound by the Constitution.

nitpick - Youtube is bound by the US Constitution, it is the highest law of the land. 1A[1] is only about binding the government/congresses power though so youtube is not bound by 1A.

[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

The problem is that these private companies have taken a disproportionate place in public discourse. You are absolutely right that freedom of speech does not guarantee the right to post anything on YouTube (someone else's website). In fact YouTube has the right (protected speech) to censor you and refuse to let you post long as they don't do in a discriminatory way (for instance, only "white people" can post would be discriminatory/illegal).

The problem is that in practice, if you can't do YouTube, Facebook, Tiktok, INsta, etc... your speech will not be heard by anyone. It's like if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, the fact that it makes sound is irrelevant. So effectively, it amounts to censorship, even though the government potentially had no hand in it.

Now imagine someone in Trump administration pressured Google with a juicy contract, or the prospect of an expensive lawsuit, and the quid pro quo was dumping these videos that annoy "our Israeli friends". This kind of "pay to play" is at minimum corruption. It may also fall of short of constitutional guarantees for free speech. Ironically, it is exactly the same thing a lot of members of the Trump administration have accused Biden of doing (exhibit: the so called "Twitter Files" etc... ), although I don't believe this went anywhere in federal courts (am I wrong?)

I honestly don't know what the answer is. But I would not be surprised if in 50 years time, some of these large companies get regulated as "utilities" and are no longer able to yank "videos" from their platform just because they feel like it. And every time they "abuse" their powers, I feel like we get an inch closer to that onerous regulation.

A peculiar bit of whataboutism.

> Did the government force YouTube to take down the videos?

Yes, according to the article. That argument is made over and over in it, it’s hard to miss. “Forcing” doesn’t just mean directly requiring the action, it also means the threat of “this is not going to end up well for you if you don’t comply”. Of course, you can argue that Google could and should fight it, but that doesn’t change what the government is doing.

> but a social media site censoring what they don't want to host seems like fair game.

Again, the article makes it really clear they are doing this as the direct result of government actions.

> Did the government force YouTube to take down the videos?

The article answers this:

> YouTube, which is owned by Google, confirmed to The Intercept that it deleted the groups’ accounts as a direct result of State Department sanctions against the group after a review.

If by "the government" you mean the Israeli government? Probably. They have unlimited control over the US, quite possibly due to a decades-long blackmail operation.

It was nice of him to give you a hook to hang a comprehensive answer off. We should thank him for helping get the message out there.

[dead]

Or maybe that's a war. It's not automatically a war crime when a civilian dies. If it was, then 100% of all wars is "war crime", which makes the term meaningless.