this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2025
728 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

70995 readers
3675 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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] db2@lemmy.world 94 points 1 day ago (3 children)

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

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 78 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mean maybe if YT said that? The only thing they said is that it's "harmful" somehow. And they won't elaborate anymore than that.

[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If harmful isn't defined in the ToS, then the Merriam Webster definition will likely be construed to mean to be harmful to YouTube's business or to users. Although YouTube has been selective in this enforcement, ie not banning all videos pertaining to martial arts or fighting clips, drug use, or ad block tutorials.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That just answers a question that no one is asking. This is not an issue of defining words, it's an issue of what the words are referring to, exactly.

[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Exactly, I haven't read the ToS to see if it is defined or references anything in there. I usually default to the standard definition of a word unless explicitly stated otherwise. For example, Sony changed the definition of purchase to remove any notion of ownership when buying content on their streaming platform.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

What? LOL no, not "exactly". Again the definition is not in question. The question is what the word is referring to.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

if they haven't defined it, then legally it is meant in the broadest sense, isn't it?

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't know how to be more clear about this. The definition is not in question. It doesn't matter what sense it's being used. What matters is the subject of the harm.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

totally clear. and exactly the subject is the broadest: harmful to anyone or anything

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If that were true there would be no videos and no YouTube.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

of course the eventual enforcement is left to the service provider (google) as it often is how it works. when you can't define something with 100% precision, you leave some room for interpretation. they can then decide what to do on a case by case basis.

[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Just did a cursory search for harm on the YouTube ToS. There is no definition that I saw, but it does say "may cause harm". So my suspicion that anything could be construed to be harmful to YouTube's business is likely correct. Quoted sections of the YouTube ToS containing the word "harm" as of 2025-06-06 17:20 GMT.

Removal of Content By YouTube

If any of your Content (1) is in breach of this Agreement or (2) may cause harm to YouTube, our users, or third parties, we reserve the right to remove or take down some or all of such Content in our discretion. We will notify you with the reason for our action unless we reasonably believe that to do so: (a) would breach the law or the direction of a legal enforcement authority or would otherwise risk legal liability for YouTube or our Affiliates; (b) would compromise an investigation or the integrity or operation of the Service; or (c) would cause harm to any user, other third party, YouTube or our Affiliates. You can learn more about reporting and enforcement, including how to appeal on the Troubleshooting page of our Help Center.

Terminations and Suspensions by YouTube

YouTube reserves the right to suspend or terminate your Google account or your access to all or part of the Service if (a) you materially or repeatedly breach this Agreement; (b) we are required to do so to comply with a legal requirement or a court order; or (c) we reasonably believe that there has been conduct that creates (or could create) liability or harm to any user, other third party, YouTube or our Affiliates.

Notice for Termination or Suspension

We will notify you with the reason for termination or suspension by YouTube unless we reasonably believe that to do so: (a) would violate the law or the direction of a legal enforcement authority; (b) would compromise an investigation; (c) would compromise the integrity, operation or security of the Service; or (d) would cause harm to any user, other third party, YouTube or our Affiliates.

About this Agreement

Changing this Agreement We may change this Agreement, for example, (1) to reflect changes to our Service or how we do business - for example, when we add new products or features or remove old ones, (2) for legal, regulatory, or security reasons, or (3) to prevent abuse or harm.

If we materially change this Agreement, we’ll provide you with reasonable advance notice and the opportunity to review the changes, except (1) when we launch a new product or feature, or (2) in urgent situations, such as preventing ongoing abuse or responding to legal requirements. If you don’t agree to the new terms, you should remove any Content you uploaded and stop using the Service.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There is no definition

Okay, I get it. I'm being trolled. Well played, I guess.

[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

I meant in the ToS, but no, troll not my intentions. I thought I was agreeing with you and just expounding on your point.

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 points 22 hours ago

YouTube didn’t publicly make that claim though, so they haven’t done any defamation.

[–] YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

But being a pushover is not the answer, so...

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 day ago

It absolutely is on an individual level in a system where capital decides who writes the laws and who gets justice. The way you push back is by organizing as a class or at least a group.

[–] entwine413@lemm.ee 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Neither is throwing money away on a lawsuit with no chance of success.

[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 1 points 17 hours ago

I think what you mean to say is that we should be pressuring public officials to try to bust up Google's monopoly on many things. And we are doing that, and it is showing some progress. But there is much more work to be done.