YouTube recently blocked some videos from the Corbett Report (incl. one uploaded 9 years ago!)

tabesadff · 2021-01-14T02:30:40+00:00

You are not listening. As a user, I want to chose what I download. I don't want to leave it to the site creators. If I cannot control it myself, then that means I have to inspect every single fucking site to make sure it is ok.

How do you think the normal web works? The only way you get to choose what you download from a normal website comes from the choice of which specific websites you choose to visit or not visit (unless if you're doing something like blocking ads with an adblocker, though, even in that case, that usually works by blocking certain domains, so it's still a choice of not visiting a certain URL, just a choice that gets made in the background). Once you click on a link, or type in a URL and hit enter in a browser, you're at the mercy of the site owner as to what your computer downloads. I'm sure that's not something you'd blame on the normal web though, right?

You even acknowledge it is a problem. Stop pretending that it isn't.

In a limited context that is entirely avoidable, that is my entire point. Further, you are straight up saying things that aren't even true! Seriously, look up "ZeroNet optional files".

tabesadff · 2021-01-13T03:45:11+00:00

Wow. OK, this conversation is nearly over. I visit hundreds of sites a week. But then I was born long before google, when the intenet really was a lot of people's machines joined together, and we hosted out own websites, and that anarchic joy has stayed with me.

We've established that your use case is wildly limited. You are the perfect consumer, so why you think you have the right to even speak on zeronet safety to anyone who actually uses the internet is beyond me

Alright, good for you if you that's what you do, but you realize you are in a very small minority of Internet users out there, right? I was also somewhat exaggerating, obviously I use more websites than that, but it's not like I feel the need to go clicking on every random link that people post on the Internet since that's obviously risky, and I do at least like to check out additional information about sites before I visit them, especially if they're ones I didn't learn about from someone who I trust, and if I can't find any info about it, or I find out bad things about it, I don't visit it, and frankly, I don't feel like I'm missing out on very much by not seeing the "thoughtful" political discussions that are happening on 8chan...

Because the entirety of facebook and twitter are not downloaded to my computer regardless of whether or not I actually interact with the files. If I do not visit <profile X>, the associated files are not on my computer. Its quite a simple concept

OH MY GOD! It is like you are INTENTIONALLY ignoring everything I've said about optional files. Sites on ZeroNet which force people to download the whole thing are SHITTY SITES that aren't designed very well (even from just a performance perspective, it's a bad idea). That's a problem with THOSE SITES. It is entirely possible to design sites on ZeroNet which don't force people to download content that they don't request. Why do I keep explaining this most basic fact over and over again when you refuse to understand it? You should probably do a little bit of research on optional files before so confidently claiming that it would be impossible to create a Facebook or Twitter-like service on ZeroNet which doesn't download content that's not requested by the user!

question not answered. Can you go back and read what you write as if you are a third person, and tell me if any of your arguments are convincing or even complete

How? that's a very nebulous response, and We both know the answer to "and how do you learn that trust?" is is "I don't know".

Okay, how do YOU trust that any normal website won't have CP on it? If you go to as many websites as you claim to, then surely you must be an expert on this! There's nothing about the design of the Web itself that prevents CP from showing up on websites any more than there is for ZeroNet, so why isn't it very likely for the average web user to run into CP on a daily basis? The answer is with the websites themselves, every website I use has a TOS and engages in moderation of user generated content that violates that TOS. Is it perfect? No, there's always a risk someone could upload CP to one of those websites, but it's not something I live in constant fear over because the risk is very minimal when active moderation is taking place, something that's completely possible to also do on ZeroNet, but there are some shitty websites on there that CHOOSE NOT TO, and some of those shitty sites also CHOOSE not to make use of optional files. So AVOID those kinds of sites, which is something most people would want to avoid on the normal web too!

I don't give a stuff about perception. what matters is the reality. You keep making apples vs oranges comparisons to try and make your point, but the truth is, I can visit a normal website that contains, without my knowledge, CP content posted by someone.

Firstly, all of what you're talking about is entirely conditioned on the premises that 1) you visited a site that has CP on it and 2) the site's design was shitty enough to not make use of optional files, and in that specific situation, which I don't think is very likely for someone to encounter unless they're either seeking it out or are extremely careless about the links they click on, but sure, in that specific situation, there's an increased legal risk when compared to the normal web. Why I'm saying it's more about perception is because I think the likelihood of an average Internet user who doesn't just go around clicking on every damn link they see running into CP is pretty low, and the fear of it is pretty exaggerated. It's just like with terrorism, is it a real threat? Absolutely! Is it a really bad thing if you are a victim of it? Yes! Does going outside increase your risk of dying in a terrorist attack? Sure! Should we be living in constant fear of terrorism to the point where we're afraid to go outside? I don't think so, and I think the threat of it is extremely exaggerated.

If I do not look at the content, it is not on my computer, or, with prefetching, at the most it is in volatile cache and gone with the session.

Not exactly true, ordinary websites are also fully capable of forcing you to download images that you never see (not even talking about pre-fetching, you can make a site with images that take up zero pixels, and site visitors will still download the whole image without being aware of it, and if you think that's a terrible way to design a website, I AGREE, in fact, that's one of the major points I'm making!), and also if you're talking about things that are stored in browser caches, those are saved on disk, so it's not exactly that volatile.

With zeronet, if i visit the same site, I become a CP distributer and continue to share it long after I've left.

You're only seeding while ZeroNet is running, and you can also delete all the files ZeroNet stores on your computer, which will automatically make it so they're not seeding (you can't seed content you don't have). The files that ZeroNet stores aren't magic, unremovable files, they're just like any other file. Now, ZeroNet's GUI could be improved to make it so users have more options available about which content to seed and it should also allow users to delete non-optional files from a site on a per-file basis instead of a per-site basis, but nonetheless, there is a course grain option of deleting a whole site if you don't want to be seeding it.

tabesadff · 2021-01-12T06:22:52+00:00

expand on this in detail, to prove your argument

An optional file is a file which isn't downloaded unless it is requested by a user. For example, any site owner can design their site so that images on their site are "click to view", so a user will only download an image if they click to view it. It also means that users can choose to delete (and therefore not seed) a single optional file without needing to delete (and therefore not seed) the entire site. I think it would be better to allow more user-control, and make it so any file can be removed as though it were an optional file without relying on a site owner to mark it as such (I suppose you could still do that just through the normal file system, but as far as I'm aware, not through ZeroNet's GUI), but there is always at least the coarse grain option of deleting an entire site to stop seeding it.

so you accept that your use of zeronet is heavily limited?

Sure, just as I accept that my use of the regular web is heavily limited. In both cases, I only use about 6 or 7 sites, and don't have any interest in going anywhere that's likely going to have CP on it. The main use case I have for ZeroNet is that it's one (of several) ways I use to get around Big Tech's censorship of political speech, and for that purpose, I think it is an excellent tool. Maybe it doesn't fully replace the normal web for me, I still am on here after all, but it is something I see as being useful nonetheless.

Unless you are very much aware of exactly what zeronet does, the safety of zeronet is not assured, neither is the anonymity.

Nor is it for the normal web, especially when you venture outside of the 4 or 5 sites that everyone else is on, and for anonymity, there is zero anonymity on the normal web unless you're using something like Tor, and even then, your anonymity can still be compromised, all it does is make it more difficult for that to happen.

SO not a safe replacement system for chan, twitter and facebook style sites AT ALL

Why do you think people are safe from accidentally downloading CP on Facebook or Twitter? It's probably not because nobody has ever uploaded CP to those platforms, it's much more likely because those platforms moderate the content that is allowed on them. ZeroNet allows sites to be moderated as well, just many site owners on there CHOOSE not to moderate them, and further, if someone were trying to create something like Twitter or Facebook on ZeroNet, it can be made so that the only content users see by default is from people who they follow, and that way, as long as you're not following a pedo, you would have nothing to worry about in that case even if there was no moderation taking place.

The real question is: which sites? does anyone really know?

So for one thing, sites such as ZeroTalk that don't allow images are obviously going to be pretty safe from CP since they're just text based. Also, there's some blogs on there that I read where only the site owner is able to upload images/videos, and these are people I trust to not upload CP to their own blogs. As of now, there's sadly not very many sites that I'm aware of which both allow user uploaded media content and also are committed to moderation of the site to make sure that things like CP don't get uploaded to them, but again, that's not really so much a problem with ZeroNet's design as it is a problem of that not being something that it really has much of yet, and I'm sure that would change quickly if it had more normal people on it.

and how do you learn that trust?

I mean, that's going to be something that's going to have a different answer depending on who you ask since a thing like trust is extremely subjective. If, say a trusted friend told me about a site they recommend, I think it likely wouldn't be a problem to visit it, but if I see a link some stranger posted (even on the normal web), I at least would try to do some research about it before I would consider visiting it, and if I can't find any info, or the info I found indicates it might have something I don't want to see, I just won't visit it. For example, I know to avoid 8chan despite having never visited it just because I've easily been able to find information about it online that indicates it's not a place I would want to go.

nope, not an equivalence there, at all. Zeronet is fundamentally a sharing service, not a browsing one. Whole different legal game there.

So IF you are on a site that allows CP AND that site doesn't make use of a "click to view" system with optional files, then sure, you would be at risk of potentially facing more legal consequences by seeding it than what you would for just merely downloading it, but it's also not like downloading CP on the normal web is exactly free of legal risks either. I don't think that the fact that someone can face significant legal risks for unintentionally viewing CP on the normal web is something that's the fault of the web so much as it is with the specific sites that don't take any measures (such as moderating content) to prevent CP from being on them. With that said, I agree that ZeroNet should give more control over seeding to its users, not because I think these "you could unknowingly seed CP" scenarios are particularly likely or unavoidable (maybe we can agree to disagree? seems like it might depend on specific use cases?), but because for one thing, it would do a lot to at least combat the perception of that being an issue, which would give more people peace of mind while using it, and for another thing, I'm always in support of software that puts more control in the hands of its users.

tabesadff · 2021-01-12T00:17:23+00:00

I don't think you really understand the issue at all.

I understand the issue, I just don't think it's fair to characterize it as being something that's entirely unavoidable, or that it's so much a problem with ZeroNet as it is with those specific sites on there (though I do agree, ZeroNet could do better in terms of making it easier to have more control over seeding, and as I've said previously, I'd like to see more forks of it). There are ways to use ZeroNet without having much of a risk of that problem, but yes, with any technology, there are risks from bad actors that you need to worry about, and you need to exercise caution when using it.

See, this is the bit where I did my due diligence. And where i ran into the issue that is the lack of control of downloading / seeding .

But you're saying things like "Zeronet auto downloads whole sites", and that's not true, there are optional files which make it so you don't need to download a whole site. You also said "If I used zeronet, I'd have no idea what i was hosting", but it's definitely possible (in fact, even easy) to know what you're hosting, you can see every file that ZeroNet saves on your computer. Please forgive me, but those kinds of statements make me think that you haven't actually looked into these things.

Absolutely not the same at all. With a torrent, all files in that torrent can be inspected before downloading. Tell me, how many zeronet imageboards have you used? How many times have you looked at the image folder of a website before browsing the front page?

With any kind of file that you want to inspect from the Internet, you're going to need to download it before you can inspect its content, how do you think it works otherwise? Also, not every site on there is an imageboard, I personally avoid them since, yeah, I don't really have an interest in going to any sites where there's a potential risk of running into CP. Again, that is a problem with those specific sites on there, not with ZeroNet as a whole, and site owners have plenty of options when it comes to preventing CP on their sites, so it's not an inevitable outcome. I think that might help explain why we have such different views since we probably have very different use cases for ZeroNet.

Seems to me you are whitewashing an issue that has turned a lot of people off zeronet. Maybe do a bit of searching with the terms "zeronet" and "CP" to see that the problem has been around a long time and nothing has been done to allow users to mitigate the issue

I'm aware of all the FUD out there, and I'm not saying there is zero danger of that kind of thing at all if you go to certain sites on there (all good FUD has a kernel of truth), all I'm saying is that it is only a problem if you visit sites that allow CP, other than that, the fears about that are highly exaggerated. The solution is to only visit sites that you trust, just as is good practice on the normal web.

tabesadff · 2021-01-11T23:18:27+00:00

You can look at deleted and/or removed tweets from any politician at: https://projects.propublica.org/politwoops/

tabesadff · 2021-01-11T22:29:55+00:00

Of course, if you invent ever more complex scenarios, it could be that my computer is running web hosting via some obfuscated method that bypasses my local and network firewalls, doesn't show up in my task manager or registry and evades various anti-malware and anti-viral protections, but now we are getting into silly territory.

You're the one who brought up TLA-related scenarios, not me, and I agree, it is in silly territory, which was the entire point I was making.

If I used zeronet, I'd have no idea what i was hosting

You can easily look at every file that ZeroNet downloads by looking in the data directory, it's not that hard, just like you can look at any data that gets downloaded when you visit a normal site, and you can even configure ZeroNet to block certain sites, you can easily delete all the data from any site you visit, etc. You're also not hosting anything unless you're actually running ZeroNet, and again, the risk you're talking about would only be applicable in instances where you visit a site that ALLOWS CP and doesn't use optional files for images with a "click to view" system. All of the criticisms you're making are maybe applicable to certain, specific sites on ZeroNet, but are definitely not representative of the entire thing.

If you were honest with yourself, you'd recognise this increased risk and perhaps share concerns, instead of fanboying it.

You're free to make whatever criticisms of ZeroNet you want, I just think they should accurate. I even have some criticisms of it myself, I think there are still too many single points of failure that need to be addressed (for example, there's not really any major forks of the code base, and there's also not very many authentication services). I even agree that with certain, specific sites on there, namely, ones that ALLOW CP, there IS a potential problem of hosting it if you visit those sites that ALLOW CP. My point though is that that is a criticism against those sites, not against ZeroNet as a whole, and there's ample moderation tools available that make it so that not every site on there is condemned to becoming a CP haven that forces you to host it in the way you're making it out to be. It all depends on the site owner and what they allow, and ZeroNet doesn't force you to visit or host any sites that allow CP, though it is possible maybe someone could trick you into going to one (a risk I don't think is very likely in the first place, and even less likely if you're taking precautions). It's clear to me that you haven't done much research into how ZeroNet actually works, because if you had, you'd realize it's just like any other p2p network where sure, some content on it may be illegal, and sure, maybe someone could trick you into seeding that illegal content for some amount of time, but as long as you're being careful, that's not going to be a particularly likely risk. If you're willing to accept the risks of something like torrenting, there isn't really much that's fundamentally different with the risks of that and the potential risks of ZeroNet. It seems to me you're just hyping up a lot of FUD.

tabesadff · 2021-01-11T15:21:28+00:00

I mean, you're asking me to prove a negative. How does ANYONE who hosts an ordinary website KNOW that they aren't also hosting CP? TLAs can hack into pretty much anything they want, including ordinary web servers, or whatever device you use, hell, how do YOU know that CP hasn't been planted on your device by the CIA? Also, if they can hack into your email account (not really an "if", they can do that easily), they can use it to send CP to others, so now you're distributing it too! The only assurances that any of us have is that TLAs do have limited resources, so they can't go after EVERYONE, and we're not really interesting enough for the CIA to even bother, and even if we were, and never used ZeroNet even once, they have PLENTY of other tools at their disposal. Fuck, they can even hack into someone's car and assassinate them by causing it to crash. Staying off of ZeroNet isn't going to protect you from TLAs if they're after you, but it will ensure that you're only getting info from websites that these TLAs are allowing to stay up on the normal web.

The only way an ordinary person would reasonably have to worry about unknowingly hosting CP is if they go to a zite that allows images to be uploaded by anyone, and where there's no moderation taking place, and that isn't making use of optional files. So in other words, don't go to places like 8chan, and maybe be cautious of clicking random links from people who you don't trust. Same applies to the normal web too! To me, it really seems a lot of these arguments are basically no different from saying "there's some bad websites on the web, so therefore, stay off the entire web".

tabesadff · 2021-01-11T01:40:54+00:00

That's not necessarily true, there is a thing called "optional files", which makes it so you don't have to download the entire zite. Not to mention, there's ways for TLAs to get people to download images without their knowledge on the normal web too.

Also, I'm pretty sure that would again, only be a problem if you're accessing a zite where there's no moderation against CP taking place. These critiques are maybe applicable to certain specific zites, but I'm not convinced that they really apply to ZeroNet as a whole, just as I don't think the existence of malicious sites on the normal web should be seen as though it was representative of the entire web or a reason to never use any website at all.

tabesadff · 2021-01-11T01:19:37+00:00

I suppose that could be a concern, but wouldn't that also be something the NSA/FBI/CIA/etc. would be capable of doing to someone through the normal web anyway? I still have yet to see an argument of why any problems with CP or malware, etc. are somehow a bigger problem on ZeroNet than they are on the normal web, and it kind of makes me think that a lot of these things are FUD that's only going to discourage people from using anything that's truly censorship-resistant. It's obvious to me that any platform where the technology doesn't protect against censorship will eventually become just as censored as the rest. Just look at how reddit went from being extremely pro-free speech in its early days to now where it's practically impossible to even have a normal political conversation on there.

tabesadff · 2021-01-10T21:10:41+00:00

Sadly, you're going to have that problem with any technology that is censorship-resistant, but that's still not an argument against the use of censorship-resistant technologies. You're also going to see the same problem with services that use end-to-end encryption as well, is that a reason to never use Signal? Also, ZeroNet does allow for moderation of zites, so it's not like there's nothing that can be done about it. Zites that have CP on them are ones in which the owner of that zite has made a decision to allow it, so just avoid those zites. If you're on ZeroTalk, for example, it doesn't even allow anyone to upload images of any kind, so you're not really in danger of running into it even on accident on there (well, people might link to other zites that have it on there, so maybe don't click random links from people you don't trust, which you really shouldn't do on the normal web either).

tabesadff · 2021-01-10T19:21:13+00:00

This would be a good time to point people toward ZeroNet, which is a fully p2p alternative to the web, and therefore extremely difficult to censor (it also can be accessed from Tor to get around ISP blocks). I highly recommend checking it out!

tabesadff · 2021-01-10T17:59:19+00:00

Not to mention, of all the criticisms to make of Parler, the fact that there might be some idiots on there (regardless of how representative they are of the entire platform) is probably the stupidest criticism to make. I'd be pointing out how it doesn't even keep the promises it makes to its users. It's not "privacy friendly" to require users to upload a photo of their driver's license, nor is it to require people to give their SSN to become part of the "influencer network". Further, the biggest promise they make is that they "don't censor", which really means that they don't censor right-wing points of view. Parler has no problem censoring any viewpoints that the Mercer family disagrees with.

tabesadff · 2021-01-10T03:03:35+00:00

Nobody's forcing you to do anything, but I thought I'd at least give people who were interested some instructions on how to access the original post that I took the screenshot from, which was needed since it isn't from the normal web, it's from ZeroNet, which is an extremely censorship-resistant alternative to the normal web, but you do need to install it before using it.

tabesadff · 2021-01-09T21:37:41+00:00

Looks like that video is getting soft-censored, and YouTube is requiring people to log in to view it. A nice tip to get around this is modify the URL by replacing "youtube.com" with the URL of an Invidious instance. For example, for this video, the URL is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rywAe9lBpyg so if I want to link to the invidiou.site Invidious instance, I'd use the URL: https://invidiou.site/watch?v=rywAe9lBpyg

tabesadff · 2021-01-09T18:43:15+00:00

Original post from ZeroTalk (note: you'll need to install ZeroNet to access that link)

tabesadff · 2021-01-07T21:55:26+00:00

Sorry, but when you said that I needed to link to a "smaller, more ethical outlet", I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant an actual small, independent, non-corporate media outlet, but now that it's clear that by "smaller, more ethical outlet", you actually meant "another, different giant corporate media conglomerate, only one that pushes a conservative corporatist agenda instead of a liberal corporatist agenda", you've removed any amount of doubt that I was willing to give you the benefit of.

tabesadff · 2021-01-07T21:44:36+00:00

Sky News Australia.

LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CNN is trash, but Sky News is totally fine! I had no idea that Sky News, which is owned by the largest media conglomerate in Australia, counts as a "smaller, more ethical outlet". Is this a Poe's Law? Please tell me this comment of yours was supposed to be satire!

tabesadff · 2021-01-07T21:21:47+00:00

And what happens when you get a million people going "It's a trash source.....bbbbbuuuuutttt my view won't matter!"

Alright, so we should completely ignore CNN altogether, which will give them 2 fewer views in their view counts, and now we have no idea what narratives they're pushing, and now we are unable to counter those narratives... great idea /s

If you really cared you would've found the clip from a smaller, more ethical outlet.

If you really cared, you'd be doing that too, but right now you're just complaining without contributing anything useful. Also, make sure you don't link to anything on YouTube ever since Google also has its own propaganda machine. I, on the other hand, am not even claiming that I care in the slightest about CNN getting a very small handful more views out of the 1.3 million that it already has, and I'm not going to spend half an hour trying to find the clip from a "smaller, more ethical outlet". I try to link to those kinds of sources whenever it's reasonable to do so, but it's pretty ridiculous to demand that smaller outlets be the only place we can get information from when many times there's information that just isn't available from anywhere but the big outlets.

tabesadff · 2021-01-07T20:17:28+00:00

If you're worried that CNN is going to get 1/1000th of a penny from you watching ads on one of its YouTube videos, you have some options here: 1) use an adblocker, 2) access it through invidious, or 3) go find the clip from some other source. I don't like CNN either, and I also think it's very much a trash source, but it's a little ridiculous to think that linking to one of their videos is in any way, shape, or form an endorsement of their propaganda.

tabesadff · 2021-01-07T18:57:27+00:00

See the video of other protests, like the 2007 Iraq Vet protest, or more recently the BLM protests. The capitol pigs and DHS storm troopers are the armed forces, with every weapon and toy and trick in the book at their disposal. Unless, of course, they are ordered by some command authority to stand down, and open the gates to let ‘em walk right in.

Definitely, it's totally absurd to believe that these people were able to overpower the police and barge right into the Capitol building, there's even fucking video of the cops letting them in. CLEARLY the whole thing was staged in order to justify further crackdowns on our First Amendment rights. Granted, the state is a lot more fragile than I think most people realize, but not that fucking fragile, LMFAO!

tabesadff · 2021-01-07T18:53:19+00:00

It's just raw footage of McConnell giving a speech, it's not like it really matters what the source is in this case...

tabesadff · 2020-12-30T18:31:23+00:00

Archive link for paywall.

tabesadff · 2020-12-12T06:06:52+00:00

I'm honestly shocked that YouTube hasn't slapped a misinformation label on the video or taken it down. The guy at the end clearly says that the 2020 election will be hacked.

tabesadff · 2020-12-10T21:42:11+00:00

Notice the shill attacking OP:

You know it's only the democrats who are pushing ranked choice voting in this country, right?

What's funny about this is that it is 100% true that Democrats are the ones pushing ranked choice voting, but what they're not telling you is that ranked choice does jack shit in terms of making elections fair for third parties and ending the two-party duopoly (well, really one-party monopoly...). This could already be seen in Australia, which has been using ranked choice for longer than any other country (nearly a century), yet still has two-party domination, and it can also be seen in Maine (where Democrats pushed for ranked choice hard), which since adopting ranked choice, has only elected a total of one non-major party candidate to federal office, and that's Angus King, who: 1) won an outright majority, meaning the result would have been no different had plurality been used, and 2) was an incumbent who already was winning in Maine before it switched to ranked choice. In the 2020 election, Lisa Savage didn't even break 5% of the vote, and Howie Hawkins received fewer votes than Jill Stein got in 2016, back when Maine was still using plurality.

tabesadff · 2020-12-05T23:36:28+00:00

Looks like Google is trying to censor this video by labeling it as "age restricted content", which means that they force you to log in to YouTube in order to watch the video. A nice tip to get around this is modify the URL by replacing "youtube.com" with the URL of an Invidious instance. For example, for this video, the URL is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2khAmMTAjI so if I want to link to the invidiou.site Invidious instance, I'd use the URL: https://invidiou.site/watch?v=_2khAmMTAjI

Of course, the problem with Invidious is that it still relies on YouTube for its content, so if YouTube removes a video completely instead of using "soft censorship" as it has in this case, then that trick won't work. For a long term solution to YouTube's censorship, we should be reaching out to content creators and encouraging them to start uploading their content to YouTube alternatives such as Odysee and PeerTube.

tabesadff · 2020-11-25T20:03:48+00:00

When are we moving here?

Hopefully as soon as possible, but that requires 1) bringing more awareness about the existence of this backup to the people on the original WOTB, and 2) encouraging more people to post/comment here (which will in turn, have an effect of encouraging even more people to post/comment here).

I had an idea for how to take advantage of this situation to accomplish both of those goals, which I wrote about here, so feel free to give that a read :)

tabesadff