this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2025
769 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

70995 readers
3379 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

YouTube pulled a popular tutorial video from tech creator Jeff Geerling this week, claiming his guide to installing LibreELEC on a Raspberry Pi 5 violated policies against "harmful content." The video, which showed viewers how to set up their own home media servers, had been live for over a year and racked up more than 500,000 views. YouTube's automated systems flagged the content for allegedly teaching people "how to get unauthorized or free access to audio or audiovisual content."

Geerling says his tutorial covered only legal self-hosting of media people already own -- no piracy tools or copyright workarounds. He said he goes out of his way to avoid mentioning popular piracy software in his videos. It's the second time YouTube has pulled a self-hosting content video from Geerling. Last October, YouTube removed his Jellyfin tutorial, though that decision was quickly reversed after appeal. This time, his appeal was denied.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml 32 points 20 hours ago

Notably, Youtube does not consider exploiting children for profit harmful.

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Maybe stop relying on fucking youtube?

[–] isVeryLoud@lemmy.ca 5 points 9 hours ago

Gotta preach where the choir is.

[–] Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 15 hours ago

Are you suggesting that a guide on how to leave youtube should be elsewhere?

Thats like requiring to pass an exam to get access to the textbook.

[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 9 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

JG can also be found on Floatplane.

[–] propitiouspanda@lemmy.cafe 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)
[–] fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com 1 points 8 hours ago

I'm a fan of PeerTube, but it's.. rough. Discoverability is subpar and many instances are bandwidth constrained. Video streaming is still a bulk-hosting game unfortunately.

[–] nibbler@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

you say in the video that you use this setup to watch YouTube. I love watching YouTube with Kodi as it shows no ads. I guess they don't love that.

I'm not saying that justifies the strike, but it might be connected

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it -3 points 14 hours ago

The problem is that LibreELEC is piracy-adjacent. So you get these bogus take-downs because different people draw the line differently, and fighting a legal battle is 1000x as expensive as the outcome is worth to most people.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] oz1sej@feddit.dk 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The video is up again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hFas54xFtg

But at some point, he shows he's moving some files to LibreELEC, and he has a folder called "Chernobyl" - how can that possibly be legal, if the folder actually contains files with the HBO show of the same name? Just asking because I'm curious 😊

[–] LastYearsIrritant@sopuli.xyz 21 points 1 day ago (3 children)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_(miniseries)

It was released on DVD and Blu-ray, if he purchased the disc and ripped it to his media, and hasn't shared those files with anyone, then it is legal, as an exception to copyright in the US, where Jeff and Google are both based.

Jeff has stated on multiple occasions that he purchases and rips his media, and does not use piracy.

[–] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 1 points 29 minutes ago

Ripping is illegal as well. DVD and BlueRay decoders are highly illegal.

[–] Zenith@lemm.ee 10 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Also like… you can legally just name your file wtf ever you want, I can make a folder full of pics of my dogs and name it “Chernobyl” it’s not illegal to use a word to name a file

[–] oz1sej@feddit.dk 4 points 23 hours ago

Ah - didn't know it had been released on physical media.

[–] Mio@feddit.nu 11 points 1 day ago

You don't know the exact content of the files. He did not show those vidoeclips. I dont know if you can buy that or not. Sure it can be indication but in general you dont know as it varies between video to video if it is possible to buy.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 65 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

“how to get unauthorized or free access to audio or audiovisual content.”

In the future, public domain media will be banned for harming corporate profits.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

In the 1970s/80s, the corporations just taxed blank media - because it was obviously used to pirate their warez.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Pretty sure you also had to pay royalties fees for radio/Internet radio regardless of where or not you played their music.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 points 9 hours ago

And still do for live performance by cover bands.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bridgeenjoyer@sh.itjust.works 52 points 1 day ago

They are so pissed that we dare own anything. Fuck corpos.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 139 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This kind of crap is driving popular creators, like Geerling, to move to other places. YT / Alphabet has lost the plot.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

I tried a couple of other platforms but I keep running into a moderation issue where the other platforms market to the sort of people who would be permanently banned from YouTube.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 48 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Yep. Most of my favorite creators are on Nebula now.

The ones that aren't get watched on SmartTube or in Brave Browser.

[–] brachiosaurus@mander.xyz 2 points 12 hours ago

Nebula

Closed source, centralized and not even free...

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Hypocritical Lemmy.... Preaching (F) OSS and then using Brave.... LoL!

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] glimse@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I love Nebula. I go there to watch Nebula Exclusives but it's not great for browsing or discovering new channels...I found everyone I subscribe to on YouTube first

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I managed to find Extra History via Nebula, and it's one of my new favorite channels...but I've found a lot more favorites from YouTube, definitely.

One thing I do love is finding a new channel I like that has years of backlog.

[–] SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org 27 points 1 day ago

Google should have been broken up years ago.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (3 children)

People are quick to burn Youtube here when its clearly the american copyright reach that causes this.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 3 points 14 hours ago

Youtube (under Google)'s implementation of US copyright considerations is a huge problem above and beyond the abomination that is the copyright law itself.

[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 27 points 1 day ago

YouTube took down the video because of its own policies, not because of copyright law. So we should be blaming YouTube.

I think it's easy to see exactly why if you consider how YouTube treats small content creators. If I post a video and companies claim copyright on it, the video gets demonetized and I might lose my account. I can respond and contest the claim and maybe I can win but I still lost money in the meantime, and perhaps more significantly, the companies that made their copyright claims will never face a consequence for attempting to burn my channel. In other words, if I get things wrong a few times I'll lose my channel and my income source, but if they get things wrong a million times, they face zero consequence.

And you might be inclined to blame the media companies. But again, this is YouTube doing what YouTube wants to do of its own volition, and not something that's required by law. If YouTube valued small-scale content creators and end users, it would create different policies.

[–] Hack3900@lemy.lol 4 points 1 day ago

I think it's both, a dumb system enforced in a somehow dumber way

[–] db2@lemmy.world 96 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Sue YouTube. They won't change meaningfully until forced to.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 79 points 1 day ago (14 children)

Sue for defamation that Youtube are alleging he is promoting criminal activity of piracy.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca 25 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Like google, I'm sure Jeff has a near unlimited supply of money to pay lawyers.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because self hosting is getting cheaper and easier while average internet upload speeds are crazy high for the home user. Of course Google is scared.

[–] Deello@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Cries in single digit upload speeds

[–] Jimmycakes@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

Single digit??? Let me guess spectrum?

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Just use another unit. It's an easy fix.

[–] Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Perhaps this can a driver of sorts for Peertube.

It's a good thing that I can't stand video tutorials or reviews (with the exception of video games).

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›