YouTube bans content "showing users how to bypass secure computer systems" - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/KodyKinzie/status/1146196570083192832 <comment><USER3> Emperor G built a beautiful walled city, inviting everyone in, encouraging them to paint their houses whatever color they like. A year later, Big G banned blue houses. If you didn't like the rules, you were more than welcome to build your house outside the city and paint it whatever color you like.

Only most people don't leave - blue is just one color and they weren't very interested in it anyway. Besides, the city is so beautiful and provides for their every need. In the coming years, people who want to paint their house blue badly enough to leave paradise are heavily scrutinized and eventually considered outcasts.

Over the years, more and more colors are slowly banned, one by one. People start to notice and complain once their favorite color is outlawed. But decades have passed since Emperor G's generous invitation. Entire generations have lived, died, and raised children inside the city. No one knows how to navigate the wilderness anymore. And even if they could, why would they want to? Thorns and weeds have overgrown the wasteland; it's much safer to stay inside the city walls. Besides, it's cozy and we have everything we need in here.

 _In theory you are correct. In practice, if 97% of society exclusvely uses said aggregator /community to find videos - 97% of your potential audience will never know the video exists - is that not still censorship?_

<comment><USER4> > In theory you are correct. In practice, if 97% of society exclusvely uses > said aggregator/community to find videos - 97% of your potential audience > will never know the video exists - is that not still censorship?

I mean... no?

I think it's useful to have a separate concept for actual censorship (government-mandated), and just "someone built a really great way to connect to a bunch of users, that didn't exist 20 years ago, but now isn't letting you use it". I'm not saying it's not problematic (or that it is), just that it's _different in a meaningful way_ and therefore bad to conflate.

As for how much of a monopoly YouTube really is - it's clearly a huge aggregator that's gotten almost all "user watching video" engagement. Except other niches have been discussed here (e.g. porn), and they seem to be doing fine. So I don't think it's inevitable that YouTube is the only service that can exist.

<comment><USER5> This works in a non monopolized system. If you live in a large city with many different stores, and you get banned for one of them for wearing a blue shirt, that doesn't matter too much.

If you live in a remote city with one wallmart and no other stores, and wallmart bans you, that's a problem.

Yes, there are alternatives, but 97% of the market is definitely a monopoly.

<comment><USER4> The difference between your example and the YouTube case is in how accessible are the alternatives. If the only store close to you bans you, then it can be somewhere between a major inconvenience and practically impossible to go to an alternative.

On the other hand, replacing YouTube as a hosting platform isn't too hard (I think? I don't actually have much experience with this but there are alternatives).

Of course the big issue isn't YouTube the host, it's YouTube the marketing platform - but even here there are alternatives. Host on vimeo, but use other social media more. More Facebook posts. Get an audience via podcasts. I'm not saying it's easy, I'm saying that I'm not at all convinced that YouTube really is a monopoly in the sense where we want to do something about it.

<comment> loup-vaillant It's very easy to host a video elsewhere than YouTube.

It's very easy to view a video elsewhere than YouTube.

It's _difficult_ to convince other people to view a video elsewhere than YouTube. You'd have to be on YouTube to begin with to reach them. Sure, there are Facebook and Twitter. But if you want to get off those as well (and I do)… good luck.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One effective way to protest this would be to report videos by high-profile companies such as Microsoft, Amazon, and Google itself.

Take a few minutes to look for a video about Azure or AWS or GCP, or a video of a presentation at a conference around such things, and report it as Inappropriate content citing the relevant terms of service.

Be very careful only to report content that conforms to the above description — the point here is to show YouTube where they're wrong by forcing them into direct confrontation with their own vested interests.

Bonus irony points will be conceded to correctly flagging a Google Project Zero video, or a YouTube security team video, as in violation of the terms of service as stated.

Again, please do not do this indiscriminately. Use your judgement on how to create the maximum exposure of stupidity through honest and careful judgement of what obviously should be permitted and yet does not comply with the rules as stated today.

EDIT: Per commenters below — if you behave improperly and report a ton of videos inappropriately, you very well could get your account banned. If you're worried about this, report _one_ video only. Be selective, use your single vote, and then move on.

<comment><USER7> That's probably a great way to get your own Google account banned, and there is no way in hell I'm risking that.

<comment><USER8> > and there is no way in hell I'm risking that.

Yes. You need to keep a good balance in your social credit.

<comment><USER9> Self-sensure. Works as designed

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There's a lot of bad content on the Internet, and a lot of people wanted to ban it. And the free speech absolutists said, that's a slippery slope. Once you start restricting speech beyond whatever is illegal, there will be no end to the demands to ban certain content.

And a lot of us said, slippery slopes are silly arguments. All we're asking is to ban overt racism and calls to violence. We can evaluate these things individually on their own terms.

It may turn out the absolutists had a point.

<comment><USER11> I don't think this changes the idea that the slippery slope is a silly argument.

Aren't we evaluating these things on their own terms now? It's definitely possible to have a YouTube that is harsh on calls to violence but allows cyber-security instructionals.

We're not sliding down the slope just yet. We took a step too low and need to climb back up.

edit:

I should not have used "we" above, since only Alphabet controls the platform.

To clarify, I don't think this is the natural end of a "slippery slope" from removing hateful/violent videos from YouTube.

This was not an inevitability of moderation. It is possible to have a "YouTube" that takes down violent content and leaves educational material up.

If it makes them money and no one in power objects, it stays up (see harassment of Carlos Maza). If it jeopardizes those in power or YouTube's bottom line, it comes down.

Moderation is not to blame. Profit motive is.

<comment><USER12> It is possible to have a Youtube like this. Its also possible to have a Youtube that allows porn, or a Youtube that exclusively hosts videos from large media companies because its too risky to allow random people to upload any of these things.

All of these are possibilities. Some of them are more likely than others. But you want to know the _least_ likely possibility? The one with chances so unrealistically impossible that it practically will not happen? Its the possibility that Moderation will land on the point in the Gray Area that you believe is Fair.

Why is that? Its because everyone's point is different, and its insanely difficult to even define that point during day-to-day enforcement. So, Youtube, serving millions of users, having thousands of humans and millions of lines of code running enforcement, will continually become more conservative. Someone is outraged? Ban it. An advertiser is outraged? Oh damn, make a policy. Making a policy is easy. Reverting is is very difficult. At its very foundations this is why the world gets more and more conservative over time.

This is why freedom of speech is such an important thing. The first, best option is to find a gray area that is perfect for everyone... which is impossible. The second best option is to allow anything. Anything is better than nothing, and its also probably better than the conservative, whitewashed world that we're headed toward.

But, then again; they can run their platform however they want. And most people think they should ban violence... and self-harm... and suicide... and directions for making explosives... and hacking? Well, maybe there is somewhere they should stop. No one ever said it was easy. Or that allowing everything is the right move for them. But, the reality is, if they keep changing the rules, then the rules will eventually slide toward gross conservatism. That's the future of the platform. And next decade, a new platform will replace them, and the same thing will happen to them. Freedom of speech isn't necessary in private platforms like this; generally speaking, given enough time, the markets will take care of it.

<comment><USER13> > _" given enough time, the markets will take care of it. "_

And death finds all murderers in the end, but why wait for that? I prefer we actively hunt them down, to limit the damage they can do.

See also: _Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent._

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Does this mean that all the reverse engineering videos, con talks, prof of exploit demos, CTF walkthroughs', and fuzzing tutorials will be removed? What about videos showing me how to use tools like Twistlock? Will they be exempt, but videos about burp be banned? What constitutes a "secure" computer system?

Side note, I guess its time to fire up youtube-dl. Are there any channels that need to be archived? I normally just watch what comes up in a search, not anyone in particular.

<comment><USER15> Please use tubeup [1] to backup at risk videos to the Internet Archive. It uses youtube-dl on the backend for retrieving content, subtitles, etc, and will properly set metadata for the item in the archive. The content will be darked if there's an issue serving it, and the IA staff and storage system will throttle you if necessary (which will bubble up as s3 timeouts).

DEFCON, CCC, and other infosec groups need to move to peertube ASAP.

[1] [https://github.com/bibanon/tubeup](https://github.com/bibanon/tubeup)

<comment><USER16> CCC famously rolls their own streaming infrastructure during congress and all of it is available at [https://media.ccc.de/](https://media.ccc.de/)

<comment><USER17> Not just during congress. The C3VOC (CCC Video Operations Center) serves Chaos events and tech conferences throughout the whole year.

Source: Volunteered for VOC duty a few times.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I've been trying to argue for awhile that if the major public venues become privately moderated that it would have a chilling effect on free speech. I continually get the rhetoric that free speech only applies to the government (it doesn't; the First Amendment only applies to the government but the ideal of free speech is a universal human right) and that censorship is something only the government can do (also not true for the same reason).

This is not a new concept. In 1859, John Stuart Mill argued in On Liberty that the tyranny of the majority and the de facto censorship that they can create is just as if not far more dangerous to actual liberty than government control.

If we have laws for common carriers, and laws like network neutrality, then there must also be laws protecting the right of the people to participate in public discourse _even when the venue is privately held_. It is vital to the existence of a free state!

<comment><USER19> What you say is true, but the better solution is for huge corporations not to have a monopoly/oligopoly on channels for public discourse.

<comment><USER18> That's an extremely difficult problem given the speed at which social media changes and the slowness of legal changes. Look at the explosion of Discord. Also, social media isn't a commodity service. What happens if YouTube is broken up? Facebook? Instagram? Twitter?

It seems safer to also require that any platform that offers free, open access to social media style content not show any bias towards that content unless it is otherwise illegal. If you want to pretend to be a public venue, you've got to have the responsibility of keeping a public venue.

<comment><USER20> I'm so torn on this issue. I dislike the idea of the government interfering with private business very much, and I can see how easily it can get scary.

That said, it really is insane how influential and widely used a well made application/website can get (youtube/discord/etc). I really cannot think of something that YouTube could do that would make people leave the platform. The amount of users and content on there just totally cements their position.

In this specific situation I think tech-savvy people can find where these videos will be located. In other situations, it's pretty strange/scary. I wish people were more open to alternative platforms. Sometimes I talk about DuckDuckGo and get the weirdest stares

<comment><USER18> > I'm so torn on this issue. I dislike the idea of the government interfering > with private business very much, and I can see how easily it can get scary.

When corporations were first created, they used to have to show how what they were doing was for the benefit of the community. The protections against risk afforded to companies was once granted only in exchange for the ability of a company to add real value to the people and the state. This made sense because very few people would primarily profit, so it made sense to get a guarantee or promise that the company would invest into the community. Companies had a responsibility to ensure that happened.

None of that is true anymore, but that's not because it's immoral to require companies to invest in and have a responsibility for improving and supporting the community. Those corporations only exist by the leave of the state, and in a western republic, that means the leave of the people.

Food companies are responsible for producing healthy food. Automobile companies are responsible for producing safe vehicles. Social media services should be responsible for creating environments and discussions that benefit the people.

<comment><USER21> > Food companies are responsible for producing healthy food. Automobile > companies are responsible for producing safe vehicles. Social media services > should be responsible for creating environments and discussions that benefit > the people.

Are you proposing regulation/legislation for social media services?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> There are thousands of hours of excellent cybersecurity content hosted on YouTube. The possibility of losing this wealth of information and history is shocking to me.

Time to start the archive effort. And to finally appreciate what so many other communities have gone through when they've found themselves on the wrong side of one of the internet behemoths. I feel naive.

<comment><USER14> Do you have any recommendations on channels to archive?

<comment><USER22> \- Many convention talks are really good and are too many to list \- OWASP \- zseano \- hackerone \- Bugcrowd (Jason Haddix's stuff is a pretty important pillar) \- OWASP \- DarkOperator \- Absolute AppSec \- KacperSzureEN \- PwnFunction \- LiveOverflow

There are a ton more, these are just ones I've been watching in the past 6 months or so.

<comment><USER23> You missed a 'k' in 'KacperSzurekEN' \- [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDbNNYUME_pgocqarSjfNGw](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDbNNYUME_pgocqarSjfNGw)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The "solution" is choosing your priorities and being willing to make sacrifices, which, in my experience, many people are not willing to do.

"I don't want to be on a censorious megacorporate platform." Great! You can do this, you'll just have to be on the #2 platform rather than the #1 platform, and there won't be as many "free" tools & services. "What?? How can you suggest I abandon the #1 platform? I _need_ all those free tools and services + the exposure of the #1 platform!" :shrug: OK, in that case "free tools and services" & "exposure" are _higher priorities_ to you than user respect, privacy, free expression etc., and you're making the right choice to stay on youtube.

It feels a lot like people want to have their cake and eat it too.

Our (as users) only negotiating leverage with a provider like google is _willingness to leave their platforms_. If you're are not willing to do that, all this hand-wringing and complaining is just wasted breath as google has ~0 incentive to take your complaints seriously.

<comment><USER25> I think the truth here is that saying "Just use another platform" isn't taking into account reality.

Let's say for a moment that Google isn't evil (hypothetical, I know) and that you want a Facebook alternative. Google themselves tried to make one - <USER2> failed spectacularly.

If Google can't make a Facebook alternative, what chance does anyone else have? In what way does a #2 platform ever even approach Facebook while FB can just purchase them or otherwise stop them before a critical mass of users switch?

I'm very free market, but this is a clear monopoly and social media sites seemingly requires new rules that didn't exist for telecoms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Youtube updating its policy to ban videos they have already monetized from, while the creators get nothing. Youtube is a monopoly. Creators need to get off YT, and onto something else if it exists.

<comment><USER27> > if it exists.

It doesn't.

<comment><USER28> Vimeo?

<comment><USER29> An example of Vimeo terminating an account of a guy reviewing rat traps after he paid Vimeo's $240 fee:

deep link: [https://youtu.be/GGMdrBEumLE?t=87](https://youtu.be/GGMdrBEumLE?t=87)

<comment><USER30> Big fan of his channel. It's so fucking stupid how a simple educational channel on mouse traps (and other types of pest traps) can run into a wall of censorship and demonetization.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I bought a book on defeating burglar alarms because I wanted to install a burglar alarm that wasn't easily defeated.

I read up on what causes cancer so I can avoid those things.

I read up on security breaches because I'm interested in designing the D programming language so D programs are less susceptible to hacking attacks.

<comment><USER32> I watched videos on how to open padlocks because I bought a house with a padlocked gate to which the owner had lost the key.

<comment><USER33> Step 1: Obtain blue wrench.

Step 2: Turn on blue wrench.

Step 3: Apply blue wrench to padlock.

Step 4: Profit.

/can't be locked if it's a liquid...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> And here's the resolution:

> In a subsequent comment, a YouTube spokesperson confirmed to The Verge that > Cyber Weapons Lab's channel was flagged by mistake and the videos have since > been reinstated. "With the massive volume of videos on our site, sometimes > we make the wrong call," the spokesperson said. "We have an appeals process > in place for users, and when it's brought to our attention that a video has > been removed mistakenly, we act quickly to reinstate it."

[https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/3/20681586/youtube-ban- instr...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/3/20681586/youtube-ban- instructional-hacking-phishing-videos-cyber-weapons-lab-strike)

</comment><comment><USER35> This was a mistimed move by their leadership.

Most in silicon valley have no issue with Youtube banning political speech they disagree with, but if immediately afterwards they start banning education material dear to the hearts of most in the valley (who started as white/black hat hackers in middle/high school), then you highlight the obvious slippery slope.

Youtube is transitioning from a platform to a curator. That is a huge risk for them if the govt. realizes this.

</comment><comment><USER36> Lets keep in mind that YouTube has been around for 14 years... In societal terms that's a relatively short amount of time to have a free platform where anyone can post their ideas, no matter how crazy or toxic.

Before that, you could blog.

Before that, you could stand on a street corner and yell, or maybe use a megaphone.

The platforms for broadcasting your message to a large audience were mostly gated, often by large corporations. TV, Newspaper, Radio, etc.

It seems to me that what we are seeing is more like reversion to the mean.

It was great in the early days of the internet, because the communities were small, and often self policing. But once they get large enough it's very easy for the noise to overwhelm the signal. This idea of absolute free speech didn't scale once the population got large enough.

I don't even use Facebook and Twitter anymore because of this. (I also generally opt out of ad supported anything)

I'm really not convinced that providing a cheap / free platform for anyone to amplify their message was actually a net good. Not anymore at least. Like I said, it doesn't scale.

Before, the crazy and toxic could yell on the street corner. Now they have Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to shout their conspiracy theories etc.

IMO, we're overdue for scaling some of that back.

There is the right to say and think whatever you want. That does not imply the right to have your message amplified to millions.

<comment><USER37> I suspect many people were saying the same about the printing press when that was invented. "If anyone can print something quickly, how can will we stop the peasants from printing their own books".

Many would could say same about open source software, people developing their own technology. They are doing their own thing, there is a lot of rubbish code (noise) to good open source code (signal). Maybe a large company like Microsoft or IBM take control of it and be the guardians of the code.

Youtube has everything from make up tutorials, instructions on how to do fix your laptop, cook a meal, there are people making their own reviews of retro computer hardware. Other people are releasing their own music, tutorials on how to code, teachers helping people with their maths homework. Almost all of this would never see the light of day on regular television. Yet somehow you have concentrated on the negative elements.

Claiming it doesn't scale because you don't like some of the content on there is ridiculous and you are just projecting your personal politics on everyone else. If you don't like the content you can just not watch it. I don't like watching network television because it is awful, I like seeing people debate and debunk things like conspiracy theories because it is fun.

I really wish people like yourself would just be honest and just come out to say that you think that certain people shouldn't be allowed to speak because you think you are better than them.

<comment><USER38> To piggyback your comment and the depth of the analogy: Mein Kampf is still in publication today. Does any otherwise rational person want it stopped and all copies removed from public libraries in the way they seem to expect from Youtube/Facebook et al? Would they want Del Ray Books be held accountable for the content of The Turner Diaries?

<comment><USER37> I think generally they there seems to be a move to remove anything seen to be outside of the Overton Window ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)).

However a lot of people seem to forget that the politics of today is only within the Overton window because speech outside of the Overton window at the time was protected and thus the Overton window can "shift".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I can't wait for all the videos showing you how to repair your own stuff gets outlawed.

Right now it's 'hacking' or possibly circumventing proprietary systems that are trying to get you to purchase a new device or contact them directly rather than fix it yourself if you have the technical know how.

Today it's Software/Hardware and computer systems.

How long until looking up a you-tube video on how to repair your John Deer tractor or iOS device gets banned.

Take it further and how long until all repair/tear down/fix videos get banned from their platform.

Everyone is yelling, just repeal their platform status like it is going to change anything. They've used that status to grow to the size they are now and even if they are forced to go publisher it wouldn't change anything other than them being more brazen at the censorship in my opinion.

<comment><USER40> Considering John Deer does not want their users to perform self repairs, it might be more realistic than you think.

[https://theamericangenius.com/business-news/farmers-cant- leg...](https://theamericangenius.com/business-news/farmers-cant-legally-fix- their-own-john-deere-tractors-due-to-copyright-laws/)

<comment><USER41> I guessing that is what OP was referencing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> You want YouTube to be one way, but it's the other way.

Protest. Boycott. Build alternatives.

This is how you fight corrupt corporations. It makes no sense to force YouTube to host all content for free. YouTube is a video entertainment business, it's not insulin or a house. Again, it's a video entertainment site. It is wholly unimportant in reality.

The only power YouTube has is the power society willingly gives it by visiting the website. Society needs to take responsibility for its own browser history.

Upload your video somewhere else on the internet.

<comment><USER43> >it's not insulin or a house. Again, it's a video entertainment site. It is wholly unimportant in reality.

It's the greatest library of educational content in human history.

<comment><USER42> Why do you think that? YouTube has lots of content, some of it excellent, but the vast majority of it is of dubious educational quality with tons of trash and misinformation. Much of the educational content that is worthwhile is also superficial compared to other sites on the internet that have quality and accuracy standards for their content. Some examples include khan academy, coursera, and udemy. I'd even include wikipedia before YouTube.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most- subscribed_YouTub...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most- subscribed_YouTube_channels)

YouTube is mostly about video entertainment.

<comment><USER44> I think you're both right. It's very dilute, but even so it's many orders of magnitude bigger than the counter-examples you give, and even given the dubious content you have to wade through, the absolute volume of high quality info you can find there is unprecedented. Also it's much lower friction to access (well Wikipedia is about the same, but all the others are gated to varying degrees). So I would contend that YT is uniquely significant as a repository of educational material.

That all being said, I agree with your original point - how they moderate/censor that content is and always has been solely YT's prerogative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Remember this next time Alphabet execs claim YouTube is a neutral platform and that they can't be held responsible for what's posted.

Radicalization and harassment is ok because it makes them money.

Cyber-security education is a threat to rich and powerful interests, so it is taken down.

They've had their finger on the scale for a long time.

</comment><comment><USER45> Uh oh. You know it's bad when the conditions for a ban are an oxymoron.

</comment><comment><USER46> This is as good a time as any to start archiving your favorite channels, you can point youtube-dl at a video URL, a playlist, or a username.

      brew install youtube-dl
      youtube-dl https://www.youtube.com/user/DEFCONConference/

Showing 2460 videos, I'll have to grab a few harddrives.

<comment><USER47> but why? there's still [https://media.defcon.org/](https://media.defcon.org/)

<comment><USER46> Oof bad example, thanks

It's just a channel I'd like an offline backup of anyway.

Hoping people post other channels that are worth downloading.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> [https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/c6fh4x/after_h...](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/c6fh4x/after_hoarding_over_50k_youtube_videos_here_is/)

</comment><comment><USER49> Many of Google's actions can be explained by internal disarray, the way promotions are doled out, and lack of leadership. This cannot.

-No longer proud to have been a Googler

<comment><USER50> Be, if applicable, proud of the things you did and where your heart was at when you did them. Nothing can take that away from you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I've increasingly become of the opinion that we need actual regulation for any SV app/co that calls itself a platform.

Nearly everyone acknowledges that a platform by definition needs to be either the only co in its industry or part of a duopoly but generally with a 50%+ market share. The gov should acknowledge the benefits of having such platforms but should also recognize the pitfalls and regulate akin to common carrier.

Google wants to be the only search engine, fine. everyone benefits when search is consolidated, but it needs to be regulated like a monopoly even if there are 1000 other smaller competitors because it still has a controlling share of the market.

I hate regulation as I'm describing it here, but I cannot see another way out.... if trump doesn't pass something like the S-ATA in the next 2 (- 6?) years the next prez almost def will, we're really hitting that tipping point.

</comment><comment><USER51> I suspect the issue isn't YouTube per se but society. While they bear responsibility for their decisions any big entity which becomes the "mainstream" will receive the same pressure. With advertiser backing based on what they /think/ is good for their image regardless of what people other than the many noisy minorities (like every yellow journalist seeking a new moral panic) of all sorts think.

And rather than anyone involved learning they will push hard to be "more like TV" which we have been seeing for years on YouTube with every adpocalyose. If we cannot fix the underlying problem we are doomed to reoccurrence.

</comment><comment><USER52> How can anyone violate this rule? Any _secure_ computer system cannot be bypassed.

<comment><USER53> Haha! They don't even exist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Or thinkspot becomes the youtube killer and we all continue on

[https://www.ts.today/](https://www.ts.today/)

edit: I have no idea how thinkspot is going to play out. But if I know one thing about the internet it's that it's really hard to stop people from using it however they please. Attempts to squash mostly just result a shift of where it occurs, not the fact that it occurs.

<comment><USER55> > _I have no idea how thinkspot is going to play out._

I do. The uncensored alternative to a popular platform consistently attracts _all_ the toxic users, making it a place nobody else wants to go. Voat is a relatively recent high-profile example.

<comment><USER56> And who defines who's toxic and who's not? That's right: the censors.

<comment><USER55> Or in the censorship-free scenario, the other potential users who stay away because most people find hate speech distasteful (for example) and don't want to spend time somewhere they're exposed to it frequently.

<comment><USER56> Another buzzword used and defined by censors: hate speech.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> A good reminder that NYC decided that viewing adult content on computers at city libraries was protected by freedom of speech and is therefore allowed:

[https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/04/25/watching-porn-at- nyc...](https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/04/25/watching-porn-at-nyc- libraries-is-ok-officials-say/)

<comment><USER58> This is definitely relevant for multiple reasons. Pornographic content is legally protected free speech (except on broadcast TV for whishy washy reasons). Yet YouTube does not host pornographic content and is not required to do so. To my knowledge, no large groups of people have demanded that YouTube host pornographic content in the decade or so of its existence under free speech grounds. It's only when YouTube stops hosting stuff they like that they suddenly consider it to be a free speech issue.

And on the other hand, PornHub has offered to host the channels of people who were banned from YouTube. Few chose to move to PornHub because of the implications of this association, even though it is a more free option.

To me it's all nonsense. If you want to host your own stuff unrestricted, start your own site or something like peertube. The more decentralized things are, the freer they are. Alex Jones can still post crazy shit about Sandy Hook families on his own site and deal with his own legal consequences which I will not comment on. But it's pretty obvious why YouTube doesn't want to deal with him. And while it's a bummer for fans of these hacking shows that YouTube won't be hosting their content, perhaps it's an opportunity to work towards decentralization.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> My guess is that a tech player with a big ad spend is unhappy about YouTube tutorials teaching users to de-DRM their content or jailbreak their consumer devices.

</comment><comment><USER60> This comment thread says a lot about hacker news.

a) the flagged videos have already been unbanned, with YT saying it was a mistake and b) YT's policy exempts educational videos, which is why it was a mistake, and why e.g LiveOverflow et al should be fine.

<comment><USER61> What are concrete videos that they consider worth banning? Videos explaining 0-day exploits? Where do they draw the line?

<comment><USER60> Probably something like a how-to guide to hack into a specific site. An analogy might be that a video on how to lockpick a door wouldn't be banned, but a video on how to lockpick your neighbour's door (with his/her address) probably would be.

The whole hullabaloo seems to be semantics about the meaning of educational vs instructional.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Didn't they just host a CTF recently?

<comment><USER63> BigCo has silos. Water is wet. More breaking news at 11.

Sarcasm aside, I'm betting there's an organizational unit responsible for content policy and they have nearly zero contact with the organization unit that put on the CTF.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Devil's advocate: There's a very thin line between e.g. the Lockpicking Lawyer doing reviews of different padlock brands and e.g. an instructional video about how to break into someone's house. YouTube knows that if someone posts home invasion instructions, and then someone else watches those instructions and commits a crime, the news media will absolutely 100% blame YouTube, and politicians will jump on them to score points with the voters. Since it's essentially impossible to define a simple, objective difference between the Lockpicking Lawyer and instructional videos for actual crimes, YouTube needs to write broad policies that potentially cover both, and then rely on their discretion in individual cases.

Does this suck for everyone involved? Yes. Does YouTube have a choice about this? No.

<comment><USER65> Since when is censorship for the sake of preventing people from acquiring knowledge that _may be_ used in a later crime even on the table? This is insanity.

<comment><USER66> I think oconnor663 would agree that it is insane. I believe the argument is that YouTube needs to protect itself because someone could insinuate that they are complicit in a crime simply because someone was trained in the criminal act via YouTube video.

I think the counter-argument is that no policy will protect YouTube from these types of arguments. If some politician wants to demonize YouTube via hyperbolic argument, then they will find a way. These types of disputes rarely use facts.

YouTube should stick to Free Speech and accept that haters are going to hate. To me this just demonstrates that the YouTube leadership has no backbone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> This is good news. Censorship should've been something with wide bipartisan opposition, but due to the way Google and others cynically (or accidentally) used partisan tricks to make half the populace clamor for their rights to be violated, like they did with Alex Jones and others, they've gotten away with their censorship to grand applause.

Moves like this are a great opportunity to finally develop bipartisan opposition to these corporations. People who've been wearing tribalistic blinders will say, "hey wait a minute, that's _my_ voice you're shutting down, and _I 'm_ not a bad person." Even if they don't come to their senses from first principles, at least more of the burden of defending common liberties will now be shared on the shoulders of more people.

</comment><comment><USER68> Here comes an argument familiar from other domains (drugs, guns, censorship in general) but still valid:

This will serve to drive that content further out of sight and underground, into the realm of people whose hats are statistically more likely to be of a darker shade as it were.

</comment><comment><USER69> They day Youtube decides to ban the LockpickingLawyer Channel for "showing users how to bypass secure doors" will be the day I uninstall and block Youtube on all my devices.

<comment><USER70> If computers were still ENIAC-sized, then… well, you see where I am going

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> Google is going to regret this in a few years, when it needs security experts and they are in short supply (or rather shorter; they are already in short supply). Maybe we should be commoditizing security knowledge, which is what a platform such as you tube is capable of. Besides, there's a whole internet full of resources, and this isn't going to stop the script kiddies. The real issue is the nation state hackers from Iran, N. Korea, China, Russia. They are the problem.

Companies I know of and that people I know work with have been the victim of ransomware many times. It is almost always Iran or N. Korea, and companies I know of have even been victimized twice (they took a look while inside and found another vector; the second time, they knew they had insurance and would pay again). Then there's the espionage - if you're bigger or have something China or Russia wants, they'll go after you.

The FBI classifies this as terrorism, and yet does nothing. These are acts of war, and we keep getting stepped on because our government does nothing. Most of us know fully well that our three-letter agencies have exploits capable of disabling just about any thing; it's time they start knocking Iranian, North Korean, Chinese, and Russian infrastructure offline as a retaliatory measure. Each time we trace another attack to one of them, a power plant goes down (or something alike). This is the only solution I can see.

</comment><comment><USER72> The stigma IT gets from society with regards to security is abundant.

The term hacker for a geek is not the definition the media uses - I often correct people and ask - should Burglars be called Locksmiths? Which is absurd, but then the term hacker has been subverted to mean a computer thief, vandal, burglar or any form of digital crime.

As for showing how to break into a compter - the legal and valid reasons outway the criminal ones and yet this is a blanket ban mentality taking the edge cases and projecting them.

Forget your password - well thanks youtube for banning all valid digital locksmith usage.

So by doing this, it is akin to closing down a road because somebody got caught speeding, or banning anybody learning to drive because somebody got caught speeding. An extreme comparison, but is it?

Bigger issue is such digital rules are automated in action, so less due process, more so with some companies whose support due process depends upon you knowing somebody at the company to `actually` look into the automated oversights.

So what next, p2p and the darkweb have already been demonised by the media. So any attempt to offer an alternative will get negatively associated, and deemed guilty of a crime they did not commit. Which is nice for the establishments in our digital age, as it protects their effective monopoly.

</comment><comment><USER73> Youtube is making the case for IPFS. I didn't think it would happen so soon but here we are.

This is great news for the project and should drive more work on the convenience layers that need to be built above the IPFS layer.

</comment><comment><USER74> Saw this the other day:

Why Everyone's Leaving YouTube[1]

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQuE0wfjzf0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQuE0wfjzf0)

EDIT: I've submitted a separate post:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20347870](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20347870)

</comment><comment><USER75> "showing how to bypass secure computer systems" reminds me of the DCMA debate, where "circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a [copyrighted] work." is forbidden.

If it was a "secure" computer system, it shouldn't be breakable by anybody after watching a how to youtube video.

</comment><comment><USER76> I agree with others here, YT and it's like are de facto monopolies by their size and market share.

PeerTube [1] is a Mastodon [2] offshoot project that might allow users to get off YT, no idea where it's at though.

"One project, Peertube, does exactly this. A federated, decentralized video sharing platform using the same back end as Mastodon, but around the sharing of video clips."[3]

[1] [https://joinpeertube.org/](https://joinpeertube.org/) [2] [https://joinmastodon.org/](https://joinmastodon.org/) [2] [https://medium.com/tootsuite/replacing-the-pillars-of-the- in...](https://medium.com/tootsuite/replacing-the-pillars-of-the- internet-235836580a0e)

</comment><comment><USER77> Meanwhile, YouTube is flooded with pseudo-humoristic content from "artists" such as Paul Logan. Hopefully we will be able to transfer knowledge with short Instagram stories and accelerated video posts. Until it get censored and a new unregulated plateform appears

<comment><USER33> Surely someone by now has created a distributed video streaming system coupled with search? Maybe based on bittorrent or something? It seems like an obvious solution to this issue. It wouldn't be fast, and videos might not be as "permanent" (depending on number of "seeders").

The problem seems to be centralization of content and distribution; this seems to be the problem ultimately with many services and "platforms" on the internet. Decentralize it all, make it so that your browser is also a "server" or something of that nature, let the users become "peers".

Yes - I am aware of the various projects out there working on this, but all of them seem to be doing their own thing, with no standards or interoperability - maybe that's a good thing? It is fragmentary - but again, maybe that's better for the ecosystem as a whole?

The only downside is ultimately the ISP level; they already have TOS terms that they can arbitrarily enforce to prevent using "servers"; they currently don't because of so many things out there that need to operate like this, but they technically could, blocking all kinds of stuff, including a distributed "web" (or whatever you want to call it).

So many of these problems can be traced back to when all you had was a form of dialup modem system, and we were conditioned to think that we weren't "peers" on the internet, because the speeds were so slow. We were conditioned to think that our ISP was the endpoint, and we were just paying them to get some of their stuff - and in turn, we turned them into the "gatekeepers". Today, we have always-on connections that would rival or surpass what were actual peerage speeds back then - yet we still have the same broken model that (technically) prevents us from being free to set up our own servers and anything else we want (unless we pay a lot more money for so-called "business class" service - which some providers won't allow you to purchase if the end point is at a "residential address").

This all needs to change - but we might be way, way too late.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> Offensive security Youtube videos doesn't help the world to make computer systems more secure. The offensive security subculture deals more about fame, fun and profit. Therefore I'm a little happy on the reaction of some offensive/black hat security people, although I agree that the policy is to ambiguous to be fair. The obvious intention of the policy is obviously the removal script-kiddy like videos which are showing either "how to hack Facebook" bullshit videos or videos which are concretely showing how to harm one concrete business. The boundaries between immature script-kiddy videos and offensive/blackhat security videos are not very clear.

</comment><comment><USER79> Really hope they feel the heat for this -- upvote the OP. YouTube is now tumbling down a slippery slope. Tell them you hate this.

</comment><comment><USER80> Well, if some random dude is posting how to do it on YouTube, you can hardly call it a _secure_ system.

</comment><comment><USER81> Just thinking out loud here: it seems like Youtube has been restricting or pulling videos for a variety of reasons. Alternatives are great, but could still succumb to the same outcome. Personal hosting is an option, but not a solution for everyone. Maybe this could lead to a fun weekend project. Imagine something like MediaGoblin paired with git-annex. I really haven't given it any more thought than what I've just written, but could be a fun project!

</comment><comment><USER82> If true that sounds silly. If the videos aren't breaking the law or found offensive by your advertisers, why would you (as a business) want to stop that kind of content?

</comment><comment><USER83> I'm super concerned about this. I head up hacker education at HackerOne and the biggest part of that is Hacker101, which hosts all its videos on YouTube. I have the master files and could host them elsewhere, of course, but there's huge value in discoverability, which YouTube completely owns compared to any other platform. Definitely something that I'm going to have to keep an eye on, and be ready to adapt to if they end up enforcing this.

</comment><comment><USER84> Not entirely unexpected now that YouTube has grown up and can't be seen hanging out with certain folks by the other grownups in the room. Another example of this trend of getting popular on the backs of the same nerd/geek/hacker/counter-culture/ people who are then deemed unfit to be part of the community, one they become the minority (and hence wont affect your bottom line).

</comment><comment><USER85> I am canceling YouTube red as soon as I get home. It probably won't make much of a difference, but tech learning is the primary reason I bought Red.

</comment><comment><USER86> Ironically some of the people working at Youtube right now probably came up on hacking/modding tutorials on Youtube that would now be banned.

</comment><comment><USER87> I want to A) see the video and B) know why Google skipped age-restricting and simply banned it. Censorship is worse than irresponsible disclosure.

</comment><comment> r-s I dont understand this, if it can be bypassed, by definition, it is not secure?

<comment><USER88> As if there is any truly secure system on earth. Name a secure system.

<comment><USER89> Sending messages using One-time Pads are perfectly secure when used properly, which is pretty simple - don't reuse the keys and the message has to be shorter than the key you are using.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One- time_pad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad)

<comment><USER88> And is there an app or service in existence currently using OTPs "properly", as you say?

OTPs are extremely onerous, if not impossible to implement properly in real life in a way that scales. Hence why nobody uses them (instead people use RSA/ECC/AES/etc).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER90> They should just ban all interesting content already so creators finally move to better platforms some of which are probably yet to be created. Watching YouTube these days without adblocker is just painful, not to mention the broken copyright claim system which has to be the way it is partly because YouTube is just too big.

</comment><comment><USER91> Now, the editing has progressed from (legitimately) weeding out violent and often clearly illegal material (e.g., child porn), to material that some people find objectionable, in this case corporate sponsors.

They are now unquestionably editing the content on their site. Soon (as mentioned by others), it is likely to be 'how to repair' videos and the like that end up on the proverbial cutting room floor.

It is far past the time for YouTube, FaceBook, etc. to be stripped of their now demonstrably farcical "platform" status and recognized as publishers of content, and reqauired to operate with that set of rights & responsibilities.

It won't solve all problems, partly because this has gone on for far too long, but at least they'll need to take on some responsibility for their decisions. It is obvious why they've worked so mightily for so long to avoid exactly this responsibility.

</comment><comment><USER92> These kind of core communication platforms are way too important to leave in the hands of a single private company :(

</comment><comment><USER93> I guess we'll have to go back to BBS' and reading 2600 again.

Really though, this is ridiculously bad. A video on how to install Lineageos? Ubuntu on a Chromebook? DD-WRT? All Ostensibly banned. Hell, is showing how to use a VPN to get around geographic restrictions banned now too? Using TOR to escape the great firewall?

</comment><comment><USER94> Oh wow, that is so lame... I wonder how this will affect LiveOverflow ( [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClcE- kVhqyiHCcjYwcpfj9w](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClcE-kVhqyiHCcjYwcpfj9w) ) and all the DefCon video's, etc.

</comment><comment><USER95> Below the original comment in a reply is YouTube's full list. One of the items bans videos about "hard drugs" which it defines as any drug that causes a physical addiction. Is there an incoming wave of coffee- and tea-related takedowns? Because I'm pretty sure that headache you get when you don't drink caffeine for a day is not your brain longing for the rich aroma of freshly- ground beans. It's a physical addiction to ... a drug!

They should just make the rules say "We don't know what our standards are. If someone flags your video and whoever happens to be reviewing things doesn't like you, you're gone. Buh bye." At least people couldn't complain, as every takedown would comply with their written policy.

<comment><USER96> What about the premium series they produced, Mindfield? A good number of the episodes are about Michael Stevens (Vsauce) taking hallucinogens and describing the experience.

On second thought, I guess most of those aren't addictive. It still seems like a really odd line to draw.

<comment><USER97> I guess it depends on what Sergey or Susan are smoking these days... Odd throwing parties at 'plex when Prop 64 was approved, posing with joints, then banning drug videos...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> huh ?

What will happen to the Defcon and Blackhat talks ?

</comment><comment><USER99> From the wayback machine... looks like it changed sometime between Feb 3rd and April 5th...

It wasn't there on the Feb 3rd crawl... [https://web.archive.org/web/20190203030524/https://support.g...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190203030524/https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964?hl=en)

Pops up on the April 5th crawl. [https://web.archive.org/web/20190405094852/https://support.g...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190405094852/https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964?hl=en)

</comment><comment><USER100> Some Hacker communities already have their own video platforms - I only know of CCC so far but I bet there are others: [https://media.ccc.de/](https://media.ccc.de/)

This knowledge will become even more isolated and harder to find for beginners.

But these communities have so much content already, together with banned 'security bypass'-videos it could be combined (or cross-referenced somehow) to an impressive collection.

Aggregators and links to similar platforms play an important role whith 'illicit' content. Porn is not allowed on YouTube as well, it is hosted on different platforms and yet people still manage to find it somehow.

</comment><comment><USER101> Once you buy into the premise that mere words cause "harm", there's no limit to what you'll censor. It's important to take a hard line against speech restrictions in general: once you start, you can't stop.

</comment><comment><USER102> I didn't catch the video: was it for a specific system they didn't own/have permission for, or was it their own device that launched fireworks?

I hope IppSec doesn't lose his uploads. And all of the computer security conference videos.

</comment><comment><USER103> So only for computer systems? LockPickingLawyer is still safe for now?

That said, are they just going to push these people out to less annoying formats like a blog or a wiki instead of overly long video presentations?

<comment><USER14> The policy also says "Instructional theft: Showing users how to steal money or tangible goods." [0] I could see LockPickingLawyer falling under this category.

[0] [https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964?hl=en](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964?hl=en)

</comment></comment><comment><USER104> So more random bullshit YouTube censorship, but what are people going to do?

Hosting videos in 2019 is easy. Getting your content discovered is the hard bit.

We need a decentralised and/or federated alternative for video-content publishing. The sooner, the better.

YouTube has been taken over by big business and lawyers, and it seems they are gradually trying to "dumb" it down and take away any risky (read: useful/interesting) content to the point it might as well be cable tv.

We could use a viable, alternate and free platform this very instant.

<comment><USER105> Visit: [https://d.tube/](https://d.tube/) and spread the word please, it's current content is crap. It even awards crypto to uploaders.

<comment><USER106> Does anyone know what the ligality of uploading MIT's OCW lecture videos here would be? Personally that's what got me into watching youtube in the first place.

Also: does that really need javascript? (I'm guessing you're doing something with IPFS?) is there any way to brows it with some command line tool if it does?

<comment><USER105> I'm only partially familiar with the platform and have no aurhorship so I don't know unfortunately.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER107> Google's own bug bounty program (Vulnerability Reward Program) allows you to submit YouTube videos and even has a tutorial on how best to make one:

[https://sites.google.com/site/bughunteruniversity/improve/ho...](https://sites.google.com/site/bughunteruniversity/improve/how- to-record-an-effective-proof-of-concept-video)

</comment><comment><USER108> A lot of people (especially here) would like to see more competition from non- Google platforms like Vimeo or others (currently they're so obscure, I can't even name any others), so not making too big a fuss about this and not getting it reverted might be a good thing because it forces people to go somewhere else with kids or IT security videos.

</comment><comment><USER109> A government is an organization that governs. Any organization that polices it's customers/users beyond what the law requires them to is acting as a government. YouTube crossed that line a long time ago. Like home owners associations, YouTube is a government and should be forced by courts to recognize constitutional protections of civil liberties.

</comment><comment><USER110> So apparently the video was about how to light fireworks using WiFi, could it then be the case that it might fall under a 'dangerous handling of explosives' guideline instead of the 'showing users how to bypass secure computer systems'. The Google support pages says there are other guidelines not listed there.

</comment><comment><USER111> "Don't trust the cloud. Don't trust YouTube. Download. Download. Download. UbuWeb is the backup for the internet." [0]

[0] [https://mobile.twitter.com/ubuweb/status/1020549542503231488](https://mobile.twitter.com/ubuweb/status/1020549542503231488)

</comment><comment><USER112> Of course they are. It's not "brand safe" content. Few things are, really, as we'll soon find out.

</comment><comment><USER113> Ultimately the solution is to remove the allure and income YouTube presides over.

Imagine if the top 5% of YT channels deleted all their videos, leaving only one describing why.

Nothing short of this will actually stop them from forever widening the scope of what is disallowed.

If the channel owner doesn't get income, then YT doesn't deserve it either.

</comment><comment><USER114> Should probably change the name to UsTube.

</comment><comment><USER115> My absolute favorite youtube genre is children showing me how to pirate software, I'm not joking

</comment><comment><USER116> Not anymore a conspiracy theory. This is the actual big brother modeling our futures, a group of people powerful enough, with their own interests and their own agenda with access to most peoples minds/lives, and who already publicly explained how they plan to influence on global geopolitics and society building.

I find it disturbing this level of censorship. At first, it was pedophiles, murders and violent criminal acts, then terrorism and copyright... even without the need of a lawsuit or proper request from a court it is hard to argue against this sort of censorship. But now they started banning and censoring everything they find immoral and the definition of morals is subjective and not even philosophers could argue that there is any common moral, not even among the most uniform society. Good luck to everyone, sooner than later they will change their definition of morality and we all gonna pay with our freedom. I think it is a better win for everyone to defend individual rights over the supposed benefit of collectives as history proved because no one is authorized or qualified enough to decide our collective destiny. But many are the ones who feel entitled to do it.

<comment><USER117> I could definitely get behind your point if the subject were the government. It's not, though I understand the sentiment is the same.

At the end of the day YouTube is a private company. Yea, a very big one with huge reach, but private nonetheless. Taking a subjective moral position is something companies have been doing for a long time. If you disagree with them, don't give them your $ (don't use youtube).

<comment><USER118> Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk, even though the sidewalk was part of a privately owned company town. The Court based its ruling on the provisions of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama)

> "Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for > his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the > more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional > rights of those who use it."

<comment><USER119> The correlation between the digital town square and the physical one is often cited but tenuous at best.

Other video streaming sites exist. Moving to them is a click away - no need to pack up your family and put a deposit down.

<comment><USER120> The digital town square is where the people are at. Moving to other streaming sites is more like having your expression relegated to some dusty back road.

If YouTube wants to be editor over the content they host, then they ought to be subject to the same liabilities as a publisher. If they want to be considered a platform then should be forced to remain neutral. The conflation of these mutually exclusive roles serves money at the expense of everyone else.

<comment><USER121> I agree, I feel like they should host pretty much anything. But they are absolutely responsible for what they promote, since their algorithms select what to recommend. This makes it impossible to remain "neutral". And they are also responsible for effects their algorithms have on society. At the very least will less people want to work for a company who caused the next civil war by spreading divisive content.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER122> Just deleted my youtube account.

Google, and all its employees, can go fuck themselves with a pointy stick.

</comment><comment><USER123> Rhetorical question: If a YouTube video can show how to bypass it, does it really count as a "secure" system?

<comment><USER124> Rhetorical answer: If you can secure a system through legislation, it is no longer necessary to secure it through engineering.

<comment><USER125> That's certainly the (false) belief under which many legislative and governmental bodies operate.

<comment><USER126> Isn't that how most home door locks work, though?

Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water here, it's pretty helpful to have legal deterrents to amoral actions...

<comment><USER125> > Isn't that how most home door locks work, though?

Not at all. Short of building a fortress, you won't stop someone determined to get inside, but you _can_ make it sufficiently difficult that they're more likely to be noticed, or more likely to seek out an easier alternative.

> it's pretty helpful to have legal deterrents to amoral actions...

Nobody is suggesting otherwise; rather, the issue is that legislating against something doesn't stop it from happening, and therefore you _do_ still need to secure against it as part of your threat model.

Furthermore, laws tend to paint with a very broad brush; changing a number in a URL isn't "hacking", for instance. Laws should work _with_ technical measures. Climbing a fence makes it much more obvious that you're trespassing.

<comment><USER126> Wait, "Not at all"? Yes, it very much is, what you just said is literally the explanation I would give if someone asked me to explain why a front door lock is a legislative protection, not an actual security feature...

Legislation meaning you don't need to defend against it is actually _quite_ real in meat space (and quite effective), so pretending like it's universally a bad idea is incongruous with your own facts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER127> I wonder why YouTube has to be the go-to source for useful video in the first place. Seems steps like this drive important content to other, hopefully more privacy-conscious platforms.

This is a bigger loss for YouTube than the security community.

<comment><USER128> > _I wonder why YouTube has to be the go-to source for useful video in the > first place_

For the same reason Google became #1 in search: it's easier to look for something in one place than half a dozen miscellaneous places.

<comment><USER129> Video metasearch (as with DDG) is one way to obviate this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER130> I hope they leave my favorite YouTube channel alone

The Lockpicking Lawyer

[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm9K6rby98W8JigLoZOh6FQ](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm9K6rby98W8JigLoZOh6FQ)

</comment><comment><USER131> Nothing to see here, cat videos are safe. /s

edit: what I'm trying to say is: people don't care about freedom; they won't care until stupid, useless things like cat videos are threatened

</comment><comment><USER132> It's interesting that Google had an issue with Pixie Dust. This makes no sense: more people should know this type of attack exists as many of not most home routers are vulnerable.

</comment><comment><USER133> Hey , it lowers their security costs, that s very reasonable. Next they ll ban videos that teach how to install an ad blocker. It lowers their advertising loss, thats reasonable.

</comment><comment><USER134> Why does SV push half baked algorithms into production constantly?

</comment><comment><USER135> Oh, thank goodness.

I consume a relatively large amount of such content, and I can read twenty good articles in the time it takes to watch one video.

Do you think I can get them to ban video game walkthroughs?

</comment><comment><USER136> YouTube has network effects which are hard to beat; the uploader can use a YouTube alternative but will take a hit in discoverability. Is d.tube still a viable option?

</comment><comment> vincent-toups Time to plug MeansTV: [http://means.tv/](http://means.tv/)

Hardly politically neutral but also not owned by a giant corporation!

<comment><USER137> > Time to plug MeansTV: [http://means.tv/](http://means.tv/)

This appears to be a parked domain?

<comment> vincent-toups Sure is: [https://means.media/](https://means.media/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER138> I bet that this new policy incorrectly flagged this video, it will be restored, and none of the apocalyptic descriptions in the other comments will come to fruition.

</comment><comment><USER139> Their city, their rules.

You don't like the rules? Then leave the city.

<comment><USER43> There's also the option of having the government break up the city

</comment></comment><comment><USER140> It feels weird to think that this kind of content might be safe on PornHub. To teach people how to secure things, they need to appreciate attack vectors.

</comment><comment><USER141> Maybe they just figured they have enough of how to bypass their android factory reset protection and someone who wrote new rule stated too general policy?

</comment><comment><USER142> Web dev reporting in, who wants to make a competitor?

</comment><comment><USER143> This might not be particularly relevant but what was the video actually about? Did it show how to remotely launch professional fireworks shows?

</comment><comment><USER144> Shouldn't this apply to lock picking videos too?

</comment><comment><USER145> This is a logical fallacy. How can you bypass a truly secure system? By definition if you can bypass it then it's not secure, is it?

</comment><comment><USER146> Who thought couple years ago that would be coming.

</comment><comment><USER147> Ok, so Google is acting like Inqusition, banning some domains of knowledge... Guess humans haven't evolved much since Middle Ages.

</comment><comment><USER148> Isn't this a completely legal activity in many situations?

If you're trying to bypass DRM for backup purposes it's completely legal.

</comment><comment><USER149> This sucks but it's not that surprising. I hope people (Archive Team?) download hacking videos before YouTube deletes them.

</comment><comment><USER150> One entertaining legal point to question: if you can get around them by following a YouTube video, are they really secure?

</comment><comment><USER151> Thought experiment: would 'sci-fi AI' seek to ban humans from learning about disabling its computer security?

</comment><comment><USER152> Ummm technically if the computer systems in question were secure, wouldn't demonstration be impossible? Q.E.D.

</comment><comment><USER153> If the intended systems were "secure", One couldn't bypass it and stream it on youtube :-D.

</comment><comment><USER154> A new YouTube is needed but accomplishing this with any success the same scale as YT would be near impossible.

</comment><comment><USER155> This is like pulling a video on how viruses work (biological viruses, not computer ones)!

</comment><comment><USER156> YouTube has never been anything like a free for all. Why is this suddenly a problem?

</comment><comment><USER157> WTF? Now this is getting weird.

</comment><comment><USER158> [https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964?hl=en](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964?hl=en)

Instructional hacking and phishing: Showing users how to bypass secure computer systems or steal user credentials and personal data.

</comment><comment><USER159> Actions like this push users towards decentralization. Let them dig their grave

</comment><comment><USER160> Is there any evidence of things like Defcon and Blackhat talks being pulled?

</comment><comment><USER161> Well, this is dumb as hell. Basically, YouTube (i.e. Google) is unwilling to close the holes in their security systems, so they hope to keep everyone in the dark about them??? Any sane person would want people to find and report these vulnerabilities so they could be repaired...

</comment><comment> armed-armadillo So who wants to start an open-source effort to make a new video platform?

</comment><comment><USER162> cool so who's got some links to non-youtube videos? i'm trying to learn

</comment><comment><USER163> i suppose a video tutorial on youtube-dl is out of the question then.

</comment><comment><USER164> This is disgusting that youtube would ban computer security videos.

</comment><comment><USER165> Ok, that's enough. I'm adding Youtube to my hosts file.

</comment><comment><USER166> There's a fine line between pentesting education and "how to break into a computer", and it's sad that instructional videos are now being banned due to this policy.

<comment><USER167> Is there a line? I fail to see any difference.

I also don't understand how a video teaching how to make your software more secure is different from a video teaching how to exploit insecure software. For all I know, they are the exact same video.

<comment><USER168> If I create a video that shows "how to hack into Facebook Corporation", that is teaching an illegal act. You do not have authorization to hack Facebook.

If you teach "how to hack your own system, that you own", that's a different thing entirely.

Two different videos.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The question is why? Is this something G decided to do or is it required by a government? If it's the first, it's just G being idiotic. The second would worry me very much.

<comment><USER165> Both are worrying, for different reasons.

</comment></comment><comment><USER169> If they are bypassable, they are not secure...

</comment><comment><USER170> They still have videos to by pass physical locks

</comment><comment><USER171> Ippsec is still up, wonder what the line is

</comment><comment><USER172> We are becoming like China...

</comment><comment><USER173> Rest in peace sweet prince

</comment><comment><USER174> is there a link to the video though?

</comment><comment><USER175> A move that will achieve little other than to damage Google's image further.

There are other prevalent video upload/streaming websites who will not as actively enforce their content restrictions. The impact of YouTube's aggressively purging cybersecurity content will be minimal in a practical sense.

In a philosophical sense, the internet has no intrinsic governing body, and as such content restrictions are placed in the hands of content hosts.

It is when the content hosts are so massive that they are effectively dictating law (not to say that YouTube is forcing a precedent on other hosts, but rather by placing restrictions on such a massive traffic volume) that the "Big Brother" scenario is unsurprisingly brought up.

I think if Google tracked everyone who uploaded and/or watched said content and then transmitted their information to the authorities, this would be Big Brother level. And they may very well do this already, I lack the knowledge on the topic to say.

But content restrictions are theirs to impose. I think most of us will judge them by the execution of the prohibition of said content.

If they successfully keep their filters narrow enough to remove content that is uploaded for the purposes of causing damage/harm to others, I do not think many of us would judge. There are those who speak of freedom of speech, but if I had a list of user credentials for an internet banking website or GMail, I do not think my transmission of them to the masses would be a responsible thing to do, and neither would I think that freedom of speech obstruction would be a valid defence of my actions were I to transmit everybody's user credentials to the masses for anyone to play with.

People are not simply recruited as pentesters or similar straight out of school, they are typically required to have qualifications or at least core competencies and I imagine an attitude appropriate to the sensitive work and material involved.

It's not as simple as many contend. Many are content with videos about murder, child abuse etc. being prohibited. They talk of their content options being dictated, but look at prior mediums. Television never included these things, because it was considered improper and/or illegal to disseminate material instructing or capable of instructing people to commit or get away with committing acts of crime. The internet had no such restrictions because people are the content producers, not studios.

However, the internet has not changed. If you desire freedom of speech, put your own website up as we all did in the beginning, rather than relying on a mainstream host whose legal obligations are proportionate to its mass and its media presence. If you use YouTube, you sacrifice your freedom for convenience and access to traffic volume, just as you would if you were to broadcast on TV or Netflix.

</comment><comment><USER176> First they came for the right-wingers...

</comment><comment><USER177> Regular reminder that Hacker News automatically removes content the community doesn't like. Think about that before complaining on Hacker News about YouTube removing videos.

</comment><comment><USER178> Use. Another. Platform.

It's still not illegal to switch vendors.

</comment><comment><USER179> Fuck you Google.

<comment><USER180> Please don't do this here.

<comment><USER179> Complain? Swear? Or air a grievance without any other input? Wondering what exactly is crossing the line..

<comment><USER180> Sorry for the delay—only saw this now. The problem isn't the profanity, it's that the comment didn't contain any information. Also, we're trying to avoid pure indignation here—it tends to lead to more of the same and that makes for low quality discussion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER181> I'd bet that some employees at Google got their interest and possibly initial exposure to infosec by watching, or reading similar (like Phrack 'zine back in the late 80s). Perhaps they're even doing very important things, like working for Project Zero. It would be interesting to know how many people who work in infosec started "on the dark side." I don't think it would be rare, at all. The few actual whitehats I've met sure didn't start out as white hats, and got their start with info publicly available.

</comment><comment><USER168> I know this might not be a popular opinion.

But showing people how to hack systems... that seems like an OK thing to ban. It's a crime. Teaching people how to commit a crime has always been not OK.

<comment><USER182> I don't know about banning something because it leads to illegal activity, however I do see why they ban some content.

I'm Pro 2a but YouTube was demonetizing, and even removing some, many firearm videos 1-2 years ago and it had everyone in the firearm community in an uproar and the people screaming the most were the uploaders that had videos along the lines of:

"what happens if I shoot a barbie doll with a 50 cal"

"what happens if I shoot a watermelon full of tanerite"

"what happens if I microwave ammunition" (Demolition Ranch has an entire series of these)

"what happens if I microwave a full ak mag" (Demolition Ranch has an entire series of these)

"what happens if I put the wrong caliber ammunition in a firearm" (Demolition Ranch, also I believe King of Everything did this as well he also was in the news for at least two of his videos and had legal action taken against him for making explosives around the same time)

Like, you aren't teaching people how to safely shoot or reviewing firearms, you're doing stupid stuff that is extremely dangerous and absolutely should not be replicated by viewers at home.

Similarly Cody's Lab was losing it last year or the year before when his account was suspended... after he literally rushed through an airport talking to his phone animatedly about making explosives and --- ___blowing himself up_ __\--- in a previously uploaded prank video, and this year he 's been griping about how his videos are being demonetized again... well... yeah... you poured liquid mercury into your mouth and were squirting it through your teeth... and you previously almost blew your finger off when you were whacking home-brew nitro glycerine with a steak knife... and you had the federal agents visit your house in response to when you talked about how to make yellow cake at home and were showing your incredibly poor storage methods for radioactive dust. You aren't being persecuted, Google and/or the authorities are trying to make sure you aren't going to do harm to others or instruct others how to do harm.

I imagine the spirit behind this is more to ban videos like

"hack your girlfriend's phone to install secret tracking apps" <USER2>
"how to hack our neighbors WiFi"

instead of "how to assess vulnerabilities in your network"

<comment><USER55> > _what happens if I microwave a full ak mag_

I seem to recall Mythbusters baking a loaded .44 Magnum in an oven, and that was on corporate broadcast TV.

I can't speak for the average person, but if I find myself curious about the results of something obviously dangerous, I like to look up a video of someone else doing it so I can find out with no risk. I don't find myself wanting to replicate dangerous experiments once I've watched a video.

<comment><USER182> >I seem to recall Mythbusters baking a loaded .44 Magnum in an oven, and that was on corporate broadcast TV.

If this did happen in an episode they likely had firefighters and EMTs on hand, an entire safety crew, ballistic glass and/or a proper bunker, etc.

Demolition Ranch though... he's a veterinarian that had a microwave in his field in Texas with some cinder blocks around the sides. Likely with one other person on hand in case he injured himself.

<comment><USER183> You're probably right. But.. so? Mythbusters has a huge budget and paid a bunch of people to run something safely, vs. dude with a microwave--this does not change one iota what was recorded and broadcast.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What camera apps exist that can blur faces securely? (re: Minneapolis) - <AUTHOR> Are there apps that can take photos and record videos while automatically obscuring faces securely? Blurring if it's possible to make it sufficiently irreversible, blacking out otherwise.<p>see the discussion here for details on which methods are NOT safe:
https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/129683/is-image-blurring-an-unsafe-method-to-obfuscate-information-in-images <comment><USER2> Blurring just leaks information unnecessarily. We should go beyond blurring. In fact we could go beyond blacking out with bounding boxes too; we could use some kind of Mask CNN to segment the boundaries of people's silhouette, and then black those out.

This is what I would imagine it would need to look like:

[video input] -> [frames]

per frame:

[frame] -> run thru a person detection segmentation nn -> output an outline mask for the frame

fill in the outline mask in the frame with eg. black

reconstitute [set of frames] -> [output video]

</comment><comment><USER3> [https://twitter.com/aaronabentheuer/status/12660823704002396...](https://twitter.com/aaronabentheuer/status/1266082370400239622)

</comment><comment><USER4> Why are you looking to blur faces? I'm just wondering what the connection is to Minneapolis.</comment>


Ask HN: LinkedIn bans exceeding comercial search limit on page with Ads - <AUTHOR>

How cute is that ? <comment><AUTHOR> And this is also for the 1st level contacts which I have built over 10+ years now and the 1st level contacts or any level of contacts are user's labour for that matter. No matter what tech LinkedIn may apply, they cannot get our contacts automatically from our heads to their Databases

And LinkedIn aren't you making monies already not just from my contacts but showing up ads on all your pages and monetizing my data already ?

Are you in some deep trouble and storage and database queries have sky rocketted in last few months. It makes sense if you restrict machines and competing sites to use your data (debatable) but why me, the labourer who worked for you.

Give me my data back LinkedIn</comment>


Merry Christmas, HN  - <AUTHOR>

For all the east coast readers out there. <comment><USER2> Merry Christmas to everyone out there!

</comment><comment><USER3> Thanks, bud. You too.

</comment><comment><USER4> Merry Christmas to you too :)

</comment><comment><USER5> Thank you. You too.

</comment><comment><USER6> ppffffffttt

How does this even add to the HN comunity? Flagged. Twice.

I'm going back to Whoville, to hell with Silicon Valley.

</comment><comment><USER7> Happy Festivus!

</comment><comment><USER8> Merry Christmas everyone!

</comment><comment><USER9> Merry Christmas everyone!

</comment><comment><USER10> Merry Christmas, all.

</comment><comment><USER11> Thanks! You too sir!

</comment><comment><USER12> merry christmas HN

</comment><comment><USER13> Hey, you too man.

</comment><comment><USER14> Merry Christmas!

</comment><comment><USER15> Merry Christmas all

</comment><comment><USER16> NO.</comment>


Hacker Toolbox - <AUTHOR>

What are the tools to help you get set and start developing awesome web products? <comment><AUTHOR> # Coding

[https://atom.io/](https://atom.io/) \- A hackable text editor

[http://brackets.io/](http://brackets.io/) \- Lightweight opensource code editor

# Local Server

[http://www.mamp.info/en/](http://www.mamp.info/en/) \- Run dynamic web sites on Apple Macintosh

# Web Design

[http://getbootstrap.com/](http://getbootstrap.com/) \- Robust and solid framework for responsive projects

[http://fontawesome.io/](http://fontawesome.io/) \- Icons out of the box

[https://www.google.com/fonts](https://www.google.com/fonts) \- Hundred of Fonts ready to use

[http://theolabrothers.com/sip/](http://theolabrothers.com/sip/) \- Color picker for developers

# Collaboration

[https://github.com](https://github.com) \- Code review, and code management

[https://trello.com/](https://trello.com/) \- Free web-based project management

[https://www.wunderlist.com/](https://www.wunderlist.com/) \- ToDo list made easy

# Hosting

[http://aws.amazon.com/](http://aws.amazon.com/) \- Rock solid hosting

[http://www.dreamhost.com/](http://www.dreamhost.com/) \- Easy Hosting

# Analytics

[http://www.google.com/analytics/](http://www.google.com/analytics/) \- Detailed statistics for your website

[https://mixpanel.com](https://mixpanel.com) \- Advanced analytics platform

# Mail

[http://mailchimp.com/](http://mailchimp.com/) \- Mailing list done the cool way

# Blog

[https://wordpress.org/](https://wordpress.org/) \- Install your blog in minutes

[https://wordpress.org/plugins/wordpress- seo/](https://wordpress.org/plugins/wordpress-seo/) \- Easy SEO for your blog

# Resources

[http://www.feedthebot.com/](http://www.feedthebot.com/) \- Test and improve website for search engine

[http://stackoverflow.com/](http://stackoverflow.com/) \- Question and answer for your project

[http://growthhackers.com/](http://growthhackers.com/) \- Unlock growth

[http://www.producthunt.com/](http://www.producthunt.com/) \- Ready to ship your product?

# Files

[https://www.wetransfer.com/](https://www.wetransfer.com/) \- Send big or small files from A to B.

[https://www.dropbox.com/](https://www.dropbox.com/) \- Backup, sync and share files

# Focus

[http://www.noisli.com/](http://www.noisli.com/) \- Improve focus and boost productivity with sounds

# Bonus

[http://lightheadsw.com/caffeine/](http://lightheadsw.com/caffeine/) \- Prevent your Mac from automatically going to sleep

[https://justgetflux.com/](https://justgetflux.com/) \- Don't get blinded by your computer screen

</comment><comment><USER2> #Coding

Sublime Text 3 - [http://www.sublimetext.com/3](http://www.sublimetext.com/3) Coda 2 - [http://panic.com/coda/](http://panic.com/coda/) ($99)

#Local Server

Laravel Homestead - [http://laravel.com/docs/4.2/homestead](http://laravel.com/docs/4.2/homestead)

#Hosting

DigitalOcean - [https://www.digitalocean.com/?refcode=4d7fb2079a96](https://www.digitalocean.com/?refcode=4d7fb2079a96) (Use my referral link and get $10 credits)

Collaboration:

Bitbucket: [https://bitbucket.org/](https://bitbucket.org/) (Free private git/mercurial repos) Asana: [https://asana.com/](https://asana.com/) (Task Management) Hipchat: [https://www.hipchat.com/](https://www.hipchat.com/) (Team Chat)

#Mailing list

Madmimi: [https://madmimi.com/short_ref/iMk](https://madmimi.com/short_ref/iMk) (referral link)

<comment><AUTHOR> I will try Madmimi :) how does it compare with Mailchimp?

<comment><USER2> It's pretty good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Oh, what a coincidence! I thought someone posted my project here :) I just made a toolbox last weekend during the rails rumble. It's [http://hackertoolbox.com](http://hackertoolbox.com) (right now it's being judged by judges and other teams so I have to redirect it to railsrumble site). The seed data is from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5235137](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5235137) so all the tools are suggested by HN hackers.

I will add any tools posted here. And of course, you're welcome to post your favorite tools to hackertoolbox.com or/and review them.

Lastly, thanks for asking the question :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Great!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A big ass whiteboard, some pizza, some beer, and some people who are smarter than me.

</comment><comment><USER5> seems related Hackernew Tools of the Trade 2014 [https://github.com/cjbarber/ToolsOfTheTrade](https://github.com/cjbarber/ToolsOfTheTrade)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the link.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> How does Caffeine compare to the NoSleep extension?

<comment><AUTHOR> Didn't know NoSleep extension. I will try it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Um, Dreamhost? No. Nightmare.

<comment><AUTHOR> Really? Never had problems with them. Where do you host?</comment></comment>


Why does the world still need the Mozilla Foundation? - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2015/01/02/why-does-the-world-still-need-the-mozilla-foundation/

<comment><USER2> We need the Mozilla Foundation for it's values, not it's software.

Things like setting up a free SSL CA [0], and lobbying alongside the EFF are what Mozilla should focus on, privacy advocacy isn't something folks would reject.

But I have been playing with Mozilla's Rust, and I think even if FF drops out of the game, Mozilla should certainly focus on making sure this language reaches production-ready status.

[0] [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/certificate- authority-...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/certificate-authority- encrypt-entire-web)

</comment><comment><USER3> Because Google, Apple, and Microsoft decided profit was better than true choice and freedom. Their products are almost malware at this point.</comment>


Apple Park employees reportedly smacking into new headquarters' glass walls - <AUTHOR> https://sf.curbed.com/2018/2/16/17021218/apple-park-employees-glass-walls-hitting <comment><USER2> Can mods please change the submission's link to the original article instead of this blogspam?

[http://time.com/5162419/apple-new-headquarters- glass/](http://time.com/5162419/apple-new-headquarters-glass/)

</comment><comment><USER3> That was an amusing read. True to Apple's "form over function", like how the wireless magic mouse doesn't charge from the edge because that would leave a notch. I suppose with iPhone X, notches are 'in' and we can expect a new mouse.

<comment><USER4> >like how the wireless magic mouse doesn't charge from the edge

That's not at all true. The magic mouse charges from the bottom to discourage people from leaving it plugged in while they're using it which, as most people do with rechargeable mice, kills the battery.

<comment><USER5> Then why is the keyboard different?

<comment><USER4> The keyboard isn't rechargeable. The batteries are and you can remove the batteries and replace them. The mouse's battery is internal and cannot be replaced by the user.

<comment><USER5> The two Magic Keyboard models don't appear to have user-replaceable batteries. I'm typing on one, and I don't see a case opening.

<comment><USER4> Looks like the new ones have updated to an internal battery. Not sure why that's any different than the mouse. I'm just stating what was previously given as the reason for the port being on the bottom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A video would be worth 1,000 articles.

</comment><comment><USER7> Ah good old form over function. Maybe issue all employees helmets.

<comment><USER8> Describes Apple to a tee the last decade or so. I say this as a sad Apple fanboy of about 25 years.

<comment><USER9> Johnny Ive desperately needs an editor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Hey Apple, I think Amazon's recommendation engine might have misplaced this product suggestion. [https://www.amazon.com/Simplicity-Infant-Toddler- children-Cu...](https://www.amazon.com/Simplicity-Infant-Toddler-children- Cushion/dp/B00RYGIV6S/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1519073209&sr=8-8&keywords=baby+head+protector&dpID=51trtc%252BS7YL&preST=_SX342_QL70_&dpSrc=srch)</comment>


Ask HN: Any bad experiences going through YC Program? - <AUTHOR> The previous thread was this - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1807979 - quite a while ago.
Just curious to know since I have never heard any bad experiences from anyone about going through YC. I am sure there are quite a few hiccups as the program grew - just like any startup. Even better would be if it had comments on what was done to address them.
Personally, I have gone to their interview once and their office hours for international founders - both were pretty incredible. It is crazy how much clarity you can get just by going through one office hour. <comment><USER2> I've heard from a few sources that they didn't feel that YC was as good for B2B SaaS as it was for other types of businesses. It seems like their attention is more focused on B2C and if you are B2B it better have some sort of innovation on the businesses model or customer acquisition (think Zenefits). All up this doesn't seem to be something I could be critical of them for. Of course you want to work with people who have an unfair advantage and of all the advantages to have, a user acquisition advantage may be the highest leverage.

My company is B2B SaaS and will be applying despite this caution that other's have raised. While we're always iterating & investigating to find distribution channels for our marketing & product, I wouldn't say we've found anything truly innovative. Just grinding on execution.

</comment><comment><USER3> I remember reading one story about getting kicked out of YC [1] before it started.

1\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2208155](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2208155)

</comment><comment><USER4> I wonder how much companies are going to, if it really occured to them, badmouth YC ... on the YC forums. Even if they had a bad experience, they can still use the network.</comment>