I don't think anyone is stopping you from putting your hacking video on your own website and letting users download it. That would be censorship. This is merely an aggregator/community that doesn't want to pay to distribute your content. So pay someone else!
Try to make viral anything you want without the cooperation of silicon valley big tech club. Unfortunately, I lack the data but I am sure these companies are covering the biggest part of the mass distribution channels and current personal telecommunications, especially since whatsapp surpassed phone calls and texts.
In the other hand, they built a social image and I wouldn't wonder that the ones out of the most' platform will become the new parias and they will be less trusted and less accessible, harder to find etc.
That is until your web host decides to play by the same game, or is scared into doing so by activist mobs.
Even if you do host your own videos, good luck getting anywhere near the same amount of traffic that you'd get by hosting it on a site like YouTube.
I suppose the next answer would be to host on one's own servers. Well, great. Up until the ISP, domain registrar, or payment processor decides it doesn't like what you're saying and won't even take your money to do so.
I suppose you're alluding to issues like Cloudflare dumping literal Nazis off their service. The same issue still applies with all of those entities. Political party is not a protected class and nobody is guaranteed any internet service until internet service is deemed a human right. Until that time, Nazis are free to preach and prattle on physical town squares instead of virtual ones.
No, I've never heard of that, and just a suggestion, but you should think twice before assuming what someone might be implying, especially if it can any way be insinuated as a defense of "literal Nazis". (versus, what, figurative nazis?)
My point is that it logically follows that people being banned from YouTube is fundamentally the same thing as being banned from another layer of the communication stack, whether it be the web host, the ISP, the telecom, the payment processor, etc.
Hell, why even stop at the technology stack? Maybe apartment complexes shouldn't rent to people with unpopular views. Perhaps grocery stores should refuse to sell food to those who say bad things about the LGBTQ+ community. /s
> Political party is not a protected class and nobody is guaranteed any internet service until internet service is deemed a human right.
Do you see the problem with this? When the internet is the virtual town square and the way to mass communicate, having no protections for free speech by either individuals or groups is a recipe for tyranny. Maybe this doesn't feel concerning to those whose views are currently the popular ones, but with the centralization of the internet and our increasing dependence on it for everything, that's a fascistic situation waiting to develop.
Just as we allow private businesses to have their own rules and practices, while simultaneously forbidding privately-owned cities from violating the US Constitution, there should come a point where the "private business" excuse is no longer valid once a small group of corporations have a stranglehold over the way that everyone communicates.
Hacking is a very broad term with positive meanings in most cases, at least spoken from one programmer to another. It seems too broad to say, hacking videos are not allowed. Hacking together a Node SPA? Is that hacking? No, but it will result in the video immediately being flagged as not eligible for monetization etc. Google's morals and ethics should not be pushed on the entire world's only video platform (realistically speaking). The world needed competitors years ago.
I am not sure why we're having a debate about what "hacking" is when the original article is entitled 'YouTube bans content “showing users how to bypass secure computer systems”'. Making a Node SPA is not bypassing secure computer systems. You are getting mad at Google for something they have neither said nor done.
The point of my original post was to say, no matter what YouTube's guidelines are, they're not censorship any more than NBC not wanting to broadcast some random TV show you just produced. There are other means to get your message out there. Not having access to easy ones doesn't mean you're being oppressed. It just means you have to work harder.
The regulation is getting more and more expensive to be compliant with and soon only the wealthy will be able to afford hosting their own uncensored videos. Governments then will take care of that too.
