Most active commenters
  • mdanger007(5)
  • supplied_demand(5)
  • jonny_eh(4)
  • fluoridation(4)
  • johnnyanmac(4)
  • (3)
  • lukan(3)
  • kelnos(3)
  • londons_explore(3)

←back to thread

IMG_0001

(walzr.com)
1861 points walz | 105 comments | | HN request time: 0.617s | source | bottom
1. kannonboy ◴[] No.42314852[source]
I love that the view count is included in the minimalist UI. I came across one with zero views, and there's something so intimate and exciting about being the first person to watch an ancient home video (even if it's shaky handycam footage of a horse, narrated in Russian).

As an aside, hats off to Google to being able to serve an 11 year old video with no noticeable delay from what must be the coldest of caches.

replies(7): >>42315729 #>>42316104 #>>42316775 #>>42320216 #>>42320625 #>>42321956 #>>42328568 #
2. hoseja ◴[] No.42315729[source]
I'm really anxious Google will also kill this aspect of Youtube one day.
replies(6): >>42315994 #>>42316132 #>>42316418 #>>42317176 #>>42317267 #>>42322623 #
3. supermatt ◴[] No.42315994[source]
As soon as it gets split off from google and they no longer have the money machine to fund them and have to fight on a level regulatory-monitored ground for ad revenue you can bet your ass it will.
replies(1): >>42316207 #
4. gear54rus ◴[] No.42316104[source]
View count is nice but I'd like to be able to share a video that I got with someone else, I think that would be a great function.
replies(1): >>42316160 #
5. joelkoen ◴[] No.42316132[source]
Anyone aware of public archives of videos like this? These are so cool and I imagine that in the future this would be an incredibly valuable peek into history given how raw it is.
replies(1): >>42317633 #
6. rkagerer ◴[] No.42316160[source]
Clicking the date opens it in YouTube.
replies(1): >>42320603 #
7. Mashimo ◴[] No.42316207{3}[source]
AFAIK youtube is profitable now. It was not for years, but is now.
replies(4): >>42316421 #>>42316896 #>>42317855 #>>42320130 #
8. kristopolous ◴[] No.42316418[source]
Google: if you like it, it's going away.
replies(2): >>42317524 #>>42317883 #
9. eru ◴[] No.42316421{4}[source]
Yes, but it could perhaps be more profitable, if they cut spending on this aspect?
replies(1): >>42316674 #
10. whereismyacc ◴[] No.42316674{5}[source]
For every year that passes, storage becomes cheaper, but the total size of youtube's video repository grows. I wonder what the net effect of all that is in the end. Ever increasing costs? Or maybe it kinda evens out.
replies(2): >>42317201 #>>42318701 #
11. mattlondon ◴[] No.42316775[source]
I felt slightly uneasy myself - the first thing I saw was a mum laying on her bed doing a selfie-video with two small kids (probably between 2 and 4 years old) singing a song to daddy.

That felt like a total invasion of their private lives.

I've had the same videos from my own kids, and while there is nothing embarrassing or shameful about it, it's not something I'd want broadcasted. Maybe it hit a nerve for me as it is so very very similar to my own life right now. Sure yeah they uploaded it to YouTube and it's public but it still felt wrong to watch that.

Kinda ruined my day a bit - feel kinda bad for viewing it.

replies(11): >>42316879 #>>42316894 #>>42317594 #>>42317650 #>>42317802 #>>42318306 #>>42318344 #>>42320584 #>>42323459 #>>42323561 #>>42325456 #
12. arethuza ◴[] No.42316879[source]
Thanks - that's exactly how I felt after watching a view videos - I came away feeling a bit disturbed - largely because the things I watched were very wholesome but also very private.
replies(1): >>42318316 #
13. jnovek ◴[] No.42316894[source]
I think it’s also a reminder that the internet felt so much safer in 2010.

My sister (who is apparently wiser than most of us) has always refused to sharing pictures and videos of her kids on the internet and in 2010 that felt very old-fashioned. Now, because the internet feels so much more dangerous, it’s become a completely normal take.

replies(1): >>42321024 #
14. iamgopal ◴[] No.42316896{4}[source]
What could be cost of total storage of YouTube ? Edit : About billion USD per year.
15. ThrowawayTestr ◴[] No.42317176[source]
You should get YouTube Premium so they can pay for all those servers.
16. ◴[] No.42317201{6}[source]
17. pohuing ◴[] No.42317267[source]
They've already announced deleting videos from unused channels. So it's only a matter of time
replies(1): >>42318754 #
18. supportengineer ◴[] No.42317524{3}[source]
Once you live to a certain age, you realize this is true about everything in your life.
replies(1): >>42320713 #
19. manmal ◴[] No.42317594[source]
I think, back then, many people didn’t realize their videos are going to be available to the whole world. They might have uploaded them just to send a link to relatives, and fumbled or missed the privacy toggle. Lots of very private videos on there.
replies(1): >>42320326 #
20. thesuitonym ◴[] No.42317633{3}[source]
https://archive.org/details/movies?tab=collection
21. mdanger007 ◴[] No.42317650[source]
Ruined your day? Although it is undoubtedly tech voyeurism the fact that these observations occur in every day life and don’t violate people’s privacy I would just like to invite you to get out more.
replies(3): >>42318260 #>>42318297 #>>42318584 #
22. theodric ◴[] No.42317802[source]
First video I got was some happy people (families, by the sound of it) popping off a few rounds at the range with AR-15s. My day has been improved!
23. b3lvedere ◴[] No.42317855{4}[source]
Since when did that stop shareholders to make even more money?
24. seanw265 ◴[] No.42317883{3}[source]
I got charged by Squarespace the other day, and it immediately raised red flags—I've never done business with them before.

Then it clicked: this was for an old domain I’d purchased through Google Domains. I knew Google had sold its domain business to Squarespace, but in the moment, I’d completely forgotten about it.

Oh well.

25. lukan ◴[] No.42318260{3}[source]
"don’t violate people’s privacy"

Did you asked the kids in the videos (who are grownups or teenagers now) if they are ok with random strangers watching their kids life?

Also I would doubt, that most people were aware, that they were uploading the video to the general public.

So there are surely worse things going on, but I also felt uneasy after watching such private videos.

replies(1): >>42320791 #
26. mattlondon ◴[] No.42318297{3}[source]
I don't think it is invading their privacy-with-a-big-P (after all I have no idea who these people are or where the lived etc), it is more just socially it felt inappropriate.

I think if a young family was sat on a park bench doing this and you went and sat on the bench between the mother and the father it would be considered at the least incredibly rude and inappropriate. Even if they are in a public place and you are not technically violating any laws, you'd still be acting in a way that most people would disagree with.

This is what it felt like to me.

replies(3): >>42319749 #>>42319870 #>>42375465 #
27. stronglikedan ◴[] No.42318306[source]
> That felt like a total invasion of their private lives.

Except they literally explicitly uploaded it to YT.

replies(2): >>42318370 #>>42322502 #
28. stronglikedan ◴[] No.42318316{3}[source]
> very private

very explicitly uploaded with the intent that others would see it

replies(6): >>42318489 #>>42318620 #>>42320112 #>>42321406 #>>42321845 #>>42322456 #
29. kevinsync ◴[] No.42318344[source]
That slight unease used to permeate the entire internet (and made it exciting and genuinely thrilling!), and now that you've articulated it out loud it makes me think it's a critical missing part to all those "nostalgia for the old web" thinkpieces people love to write these days. Granted, I was a teenager in the 90's literally growing up into the world as the web grew up around me, so there was slight unease in all aspects of life, but that feeling of the unknown, of not totally being sure what you're going to discover (good or bad) when you surf from link to link, maybe that's really what's missing in the sanitized, commodified 2024 internet.

Or maybe I'm just overthinking it lol

replies(4): >>42318850 #>>42321852 #>>42321880 #>>42322094 #
30. rescripting ◴[] No.42318370{3}[source]
At the time this was probably the one of the most convenient ways to share videos with loved ones. It wouldn't cross your mind that these videos were "public" because no one had the link but you.

I'm sure it never crossed their mind that 15 years later an aggregator would be resurfacing them.

replies(1): >>42319300 #
31. latexr ◴[] No.42318489{4}[source]
We don’t know that. As per the webpage, this could’ve been uploaded directly from the Photos app on an iPhone, by people who didn’t really understand the consequences. Maybe they uploaded it and thought they’d get a private link to share with one specific person. Most people are not tech savvy and don’t fully understand the possible ramifications of their sharing.
replies(3): >>42319677 #>>42319726 #>>42319781 #
32. supplied_demand ◴[] No.42318584{3}[source]
==occur in every day life and don’t violate people’s privacy==

Plenty of things happen in every day life, but are private (sex, break-ups, proposals, Dr. visits, etc.). I also noticed lots of these videos have people in the background. I doubt they were they notified that a video was being taken and uploaded publicly.

==I would just like to invite you to get out more.==

Maybe an alternative is to invite yourself to ask questions about why there are multiple comments with the same sentiment rather than reflexively telling them how to feel/act?

replies(2): >>42320194 #>>42320995 #
33. supplied_demand ◴[] No.42318620{4}[source]
The world was a lot different 15 years ago, both YouTube and iPhones were new and not full understood by the average person. Anyone who has designed a UI knows that not all actions are explicit.
34. eru ◴[] No.42318701{6}[source]
Interestingly, if storage cost decreases geometrically over time, then the total storage cost of storing a video for all eternity is finite.

Though what I was commenting on here wasn't so much the cost of storing a video at all, but storing it in 'warm' enough storage that you can load it really quickly.

35. lelandfe ◴[] No.42318754{3}[source]
https://techcrunch.com/2023/05/18/youtube-will-no-longer-be-...

> Google updated the post to read, “We do not have plans to delete accounts with YouTube videos at this time.”

replies(1): >>42322559 #
36. wholinator2 ◴[] No.42318850{3}[source]
Nah, i agree. I'm a little younger but i distinctly remember adults around me heavily warning about using the internet and especially putting anything about yourself into it. There was a great distrust between people and the internet in the early 2000's, but then kids got ipods that could text and call, and network effects meant that you _had_ to be on Facebook, and slowly over time Facebook and MySpace started to not feel like the danger zone, like it was separate from all those warnings cause it was just you and your friends chatting at 2:00a.m., nobody was gonna bother to look at you. Then the social media empires grew and expanded and it kinda became the entire internet (that people use) started to feel like not the danger zone. You could do anything there, and huge company's would create walled gardens that would hide the worst aspects and let you pretend it was a safe and open place, to their benefit of course. Adults stopped warning, kids became adults, and now to hear a warning about the internet is incredibly rare. We also just think that there's so much shit there, nobody would take the time to notice us, and everyone else is posting their entire lives anyways so why not? Strange times
replies(1): >>42320071 #
37. recursive ◴[] No.42319300{4}[source]
Is there a more convenient way now? Not being sarcastic, but it's still pretty damn convenient.
replies(2): >>42319852 #>>42320598 #
38. dan353hehe ◴[] No.42319677{5}[source]
Yeah I just got a video of an infant taking a bath. I have small kids my self so nothing new, but not something I would want on the internet for everyone to see. And I doubt that the mom, and now the teenager who was the kid, would want broadcast everywhere.
39. steve_adams_86 ◴[] No.42319726{5}[source]
I can imagine people thinking "YouTube" was a video service for You, indicating that you'd be uploading something private for You to share as desired.

It sounds crazy now, but having worked with people a lot to make software that makes sense to them, this... Is not far fetched in the slightest.

40. ◴[] No.42319749{4}[source]
41. dimator ◴[] No.42319781{5}[source]
The fact that many of these have exactly 0 views makes it totally plausible that the uploaders had no idea that this video existed.
42. 85392_school ◴[] No.42319852{5}[source]
These days you can unlist the video.
replies(2): >>42320095 #>>42320589 #
43. hoten ◴[] No.42319870{4}[source]
If I can tweak the metaphor, it's more like sitting on a vantage point within the park and peering at them with binoculars, far enough away that they can't see. It's still ick but definitely intrudes on them far less.
replies(1): >>42320705 #
44. johnisgood ◴[] No.42320071{4}[source]
I wonder if the no warning part is a consequence of too much moderation, so people think everything or most thing is so moderated it no longer warrants a warning?
45. throwawayq3423 ◴[] No.42320095{6}[source]
YOu think people know how to do that? Or even remember their content is there for all to see?
replies(1): >>42375505 #
46. efdee ◴[] No.42320112{4}[source]
More likely: uploaded with the intent that a very limited audience would see it, thinking it would drown in the pool of videos uploaded to YouTube or maybe not even aware that other people could stumble upon it.
47. dnissley ◴[] No.42320130{4}[source]
Can you post your source? Last time I checked (and quickly checking around now) I didn't see any announcement from Google about Youtube being profitable.
48. Dylan16807 ◴[] No.42320194{4}[source]
> multiple comments with the same sentiment

Multiple comments saying it felt creepy or multiple comments saying it ruined their day to any extent? Those aren't the same thing.

replies(1): >>42320449 #
49. giancarlostoro ◴[] No.42320216[source]
I know a video from roughly 11+ years ago where the audio got messed up, not sure how to even begin to report that. Was some niche "inside joke" type of meme. I have to wonder how many videos got re-encoded by YouTube that got screwed up inadvertently.
replies(1): >>42340952 #
50. johnisgood ◴[] No.42320326{3}[source]
I have seen recently uploaded videos (or reels, or "tiktoks") which were intentional... Shit's wild. People now know, yet... They sometimes do the most disgusting shit ever for the attention (likes, views).
51. supplied_demand ◴[] No.42320449{5}[source]
There is literally a comment thanking the person who made the original comment because they felt the exact same way.

==Thanks - that's exactly how I felt after watching a view videos==

The original comment was a long explanation that ended with: ==Kinda ruined my day a bit==

Seems like pretty tame language to get worked up about, I see two qualifiers in merely 6 words.

replies(2): >>42320507 #>>42322408 #
52. Dylan16807 ◴[] No.42320507{6}[source]
Without more clarification, I am unsure about whether feeling the same applies to the day ruining or just the direct reaction.

> Seems like pretty tame language to get worked up about, I see two qualifiers in merely 6 words.

I don't think anyone here is worked up.

53. jonny_eh ◴[] No.42320584[source]
Link? :P
54. jonny_eh ◴[] No.42320589{6}[source]
That was possible then too, but took an extra step. Defaults are important.
55. jonny_eh ◴[] No.42320598{5}[source]
I use Google Photos. Apple Photos would work too. Or any of the messaging apps like WhatsApp, Telegram, etc.
56. jonny_eh ◴[] No.42320603{3}[source]
That's a shame, I like the ephemeral nature of these.
replies(1): >>42322630 #
57. dheera ◴[] No.42320625[source]
I don't think they are being served from Youtube (?)
replies(1): >>42321829 #
58. fluoridation ◴[] No.42320705{5}[source]
No, it's more like someone took a photo of themselves to show to their family, and after they were done with it they left it on a bench in a park (perhaps not realizing that the photo wouldn't magically go away on its own), and a long long time afterwards someone happened to stumble upon it and look at it.
replies(1): >>42321649 #
59. kristopolous ◴[] No.42320713{4}[source]
I'm increasingly thinking of customer product relations in terms of giving treats to your users.

The moat and stickiness concepts are ok, but "candy store" is more fruitful.

Of course what constitutes candy is different for every product and you need to understand your customers to know what "flavors" they want

60. fluoridation ◴[] No.42320791{4}[source]
>Did you asked the kids in the videos (who are grownups or teenagers now) if they are ok with random strangers watching their kids life?

>Also I would doubt, that most people were aware, that they were uploading the video to the general public.

Those sentences are working against each other. You don't need to ask for permission to observe something in public. That's what makes the public sphere public; that there are restrictions and expectations in the private sphere that don't exist in the public sphere. If someone mistakenly believes they're in private when they're not, that's unfortunate for them. It's their responsibility to know where they are, not your responsibility to act according to their expectation. You're not obligated to avert your gaze if someone walks out in public not wearing pants by mistake. Is it polite to do it? Sure. Is it wrong not to do it? No.

replies(1): >>42320953 #
61. lukan ◴[] No.42320953{5}[source]
"Those sentences are working against each other. "

Not when the topic is privacy. This is not someone walking in public, those are videos out of private homes. Just because someone uploaded something, does not mean he had

a) the rights to do so (I saw a clip where a women asked a bit angry, are you making a movie?)

B) was aware what he is doing

(Google and co do have a incentive to mislead people about who will be able to access data)

So it might be technical legal. It if is moral, is up to yourself to decide.

replies(2): >>42321037 #>>42321604 #
62. mdanger007 ◴[] No.42320995{4}[source]
Are we watching the same YouTube clips?
replies(1): >>42321271 #
63. vel0city ◴[] No.42321024{3}[source]
My wife and I have been pretty mindful about what we share on even quasi-public social networks when it relates to our kids. Luckily there's a decent number of platforms/apps out there which make it easy to share with family without making stuff public.

Sadly that doesn't stop family from reposting from those more private platforms to public social media...

replies(1): >>42328780 #
64. fluoridation ◴[] No.42321037{6}[source]
>This is not someone walking in public, those are videos out of private homes.

Yes, it's like someone watching a private video on their phone while on the train. You don't have a right to not have someone looking over your shoulder if you do that. While out in public you have implicit permission to look over someone else's shoulder because that's what "public" means. Public means the absence of privacy.

>a) the rights to do so (I saw a clip where a women asked a bit angry, are you making a movie?)

>B) was aware what he is doing

Both are the problem of whoever took the video and/or uploaded it, not of the person watching it later.

replies(1): >>42321464 #
65. supplied_demand ◴[] No.42321271{5}[source]
I think by definition, we are not watching the same Youtube clips. Isn't that how the app works?
replies(2): >>42321562 #>>42321621 #
66. ivanjermakov ◴[] No.42321406{4}[source]
I wonder what percentage of iPhone users in 2009 knew what "upload to YouTube" means. I doubt that there was a huge alert disclosing that this makes video publicly available.
67. lukan ◴[] No.42321464{7}[source]
Erm, it depends. If you have to go out of your way, to look into my screen, than no, not ok.

But if I have my screen careless in the open, that is on me.

replies(1): >>42323465 #
68. ◴[] No.42321562{6}[source]
69. mdanger007 ◴[] No.42321604{6}[source]
If your issue is the unwitting use of people’s images for corporate profit I think we can agree that especially irksome when it’s children. But does it ruin your day or seeing especially exploitative to see a child at a petting zoo or celebrating their birthday like maybe one in a dozen clip show or is there room for nuance?
70. mdanger007 ◴[] No.42321621{6}[source]
I don’t know if you intentionally take my point out of context, but the man was arguing that it ruined his day because there were such things as sex in these random clips.
replies(1): >>42322365 #
71. mdanger007 ◴[] No.42321649{6}[source]
Yes! This is the nuance I’m looking for. There are issues with corporations exploiting our private lives and data but if one were to find someone’s family photo album left sitting around it doesn’t seem horrible to me to take a look.
72. kahirsch ◴[] No.42321829[source]
There's an iframe with a link to the youtube api. When I watched a video, it was being streamed from a server named rr4---sn-p5qlsny6.googlevideo.com
73. wholinator2 ◴[] No.42321845{4}[source]
In addition to the other replies, I've seen a few videos that we obviously created by very young children playing with a relatives phone. I can't easily imagine an informed adult choosing to send these nonsense random videos to YouTube but i can easily imagine a 5 year old poking around and just following the prompts. Some had 0 views as well so likely no one knows these were uploaded at all
74. BlueTemplar ◴[] No.42321852{3}[source]
Hmmm, YouTube is clearly part of the new web though... and this seems to be very similar to TikTok ?
75. fsflover ◴[] No.42321880{3}[source]
> but that feeling of the unknown, of not totally being sure what you're going to discover (good or bad) when you surf from link to link, maybe that's really what's missing in the sanitized, commodified 2024 internet.

https://wiby.me search engine brings that feelings back.

76. Sateeshm ◴[] No.42321956[source]
The first video I got was of a really cute baby making baby noises. Made me very happy. It had 0 views.
77. mannycalavera42 ◴[] No.42322094{3}[source]
this.

this site felt like browsing the small web - just in video mode for someone like me that got derailed by into all the walled garden hubs of the modern enterprise-web felt refreshing and, yeh, 90' nostalgic

78. supplied_demand ◴[] No.42322365{7}[source]
It's possible you got lost in the comment thread. I said one of those things and the original commentor said the other.

--The original commentor said that it "kinda ruined their day a bit" and felt a little intrusive.

--Then someone responded by saying that is was just things that occur in every day life and doesn't violate anyone's privacy.

--Then I responded to clarify that things which occur in every day life can still be intrusive to privacy i.e. sex, breakups, drug use, etc.

I did not say that people were having sex in these clips, nor did the original commentor.

replies(1): >>42325766 #
79. kelnos ◴[] No.42322408{6}[source]
I suppose the person upthread could have been exaggerating or using hyperbole for effect, but it seems a bit much for something like this to "ruin your day".

Having said that, it also seems like a bit much for that other commenter to find it worth policing their feelings like that.

80. kelnos ◴[] No.42322456{4}[source]
The entire point of this webpage (and the article that inspired it) was to wonder and suggest that many of the people posting these things may not have realized they were posting it publicly, thinking that "Post to YouTube" meant that they were putting it somewhere online where it would be easier to -- privately -- share with specific people they wanted to share it with.

Given the time frame and the newness of the iPhone and that entire model of interacting with media and the internet, I think it's pretty likely that many of those videos were published without the understanding that anyone would be able to view them.

Regardless of my guess on this, you can't assume to know what anyone's intent is, especially someone you don't know who posted something on the internet over a decade ago.

81. kelnos ◴[] No.42322502{3}[source]
Who says it was explicit? They may have done so without understanding the implications.

Your insistence that people did this intentionally, fully understanding what they were doing, is pretty weird. You have no idea why people uploaded these, what their level of technical proficiency was when they did so, or what they understood about the availability of the videos they posted.

Maybe don't claim to read people's minds, and be open to the idea that people do things for a variety of reasons, and often don't consider (or even know that they should consider) the implications of everything they do.

replies(1): >>42375511 #
82. pohuing ◴[] No.42322559{4}[source]
Thanks, finally some good news from them for once
83. BlueTemplar ◴[] No.42322623[source]
It was already partially killed when in 2017 YouTube switched all unlisted videos to private.

Which I now just realize why they did that : a lot of people didn't understand the difference.

Sadly, a lot of other people did understand the difference, and did not expect this kind of switcheroo, and now there's a bunch of effectively dead links covering more than a decade of videos.

84. rkagerer ◴[] No.42322630{4}[source]
I just hope viewers who stumble upon any that seem as though they were not intended to be uploaded respect the privacy of the subjects and use discretion in what they share.
85. fluoridation ◴[] No.42323465{8}[source]
>If you have to go out of your way, to look into my screen, than no, not ok.

Well, I didn't talk about what is OK or not OK. What I said is you don't have a right to not have someone looking over your shoulder. Unless that person is touching you or following you to do it, there's nothing you can do to stop someone who's snooping at your screen in public if they don't want to stop.

86. nkrisc ◴[] No.42323561[source]
Because the truth is it’s likely that most of these were never meant to be public. People will say that it’s the fault of the user and thus there is no guilt attributable to the viewer, but I sincerely doubt most of these users knew they were making it public and may not have if they knew.

While I don’t think intentionally surfacing these videos is wrong in any legal sense of course, I think it’s wrong ethically.

Exploiting someone’s mistake in this manner is not noble.

It’s the same reason we (good folk) look away when someone’s clothing accidentally reveals more than they intended, though it would be within our right to look.

I choose not to view these because I don’t believe it was intended that I should, and without the consent of the creator I chose to err on the side of decency.

replies(3): >>42328083 #>>42328871 #>>42375491 #
87. itisit ◴[] No.42325456[source]
Funny you say that because flipping through a few videos on the site just now, I came across one of a young child (say 2yo) playing nude in the pool. I reported it, of course.
88. shiroiushi ◴[] No.42325766{8}[source]
This comment thread feels like a variation of the Telephone Game.
replies(1): >>42328764 #
89. Shocka1 ◴[] No.42328083{3}[source]
Well said. Although cool in a technical sense, I can't get myself to open the site because of ethical reasons. However, in my younger more ego driven coding days I would have looked at it like a really fun challenge and a chance to show everyone my skills. The ethics of it would have been an afterthought.
90. londons_explore ◴[] No.42328568[source]
> As an aside, hats off to Google to being able to serve an 11 year old video with no noticeable delay from what must be the coldest of caches.

And remember that depending if you visited with an iphone, or an android, or a smart TV, or a Chromecast, they'd be needing to serve the video with different encoding settings/codecs/MPEG profiles. So for the hardly ever watched videos, they either need to keep transcoded copies in 10+ formats, all ready to serve with no latency for years, or be ready to live transcode.

replies(1): >>42328592 #
91. londons_explore ◴[] No.42328592[source]
It really amazes me that they don't simply say that any video that doesn't get at least 1000 views will count towards your google drive storage quota.

Keeping all that private and never watched video ready-to-serve must cost so much, with zero revenue.

replies(1): >>42328663 #
92. throwaway2037 ◴[] No.42328663{3}[source]
I think they will/are using it for AI/ML training. After all, it is data created by a human, so useful in the newly polluted sea of AI generated content.
replies(1): >>42329422 #
93. gosub100 ◴[] No.42328764{9}[source]
There is a plague in here where people examine every statement in attempt to find the strongest evidence that can be used to refute the previous claim. If you don't make your sentences airtight, they will pull out semantic arguments for any type of counterexample. Among the set of replies, there is very little sympathetic comprehension of the essence of what was said. At times it can be maddening.
replies(1): >>42334312 #
94. throwaway2037 ◴[] No.42328780{4}[source]

    > Luckily there's a decent number of platforms/apps out there which make it easy to share with family without making stuff public.
Can you share some examples?
replies(1): >>42329135 #
95. gosub100 ◴[] No.42328871{3}[source]
I think that comparing children to private parts or intimacy is a symptom of the current hysteria about pedophilia. We are so conditioned to wanting to protect children and being terrified of being accused of being a pedo yourself. It's probably how the Salem witch hysteria was. What if it's possible to see children simply as smaller people, and not jump to hysterics upon seeing people in their family? If there was a naked kid in the bathtub or something you could report it (they have AI that can detect this anyway).
replies(1): >>42340787 #
96. vel0city ◴[] No.42329135{5}[source]
The one we ended up settling on was Family Album. It's been a pretty good platform and a lot of our family didn't have a problem getting on it. We've been using it for several years now. Prints purchased through the platform have generally been top notch as well.

https://family-album.com/

I forget the other competitors in this space as its been a few years since we last looked into it.

97. londons_explore ◴[] No.42329422{4}[source]
Doubt data uploaded 10+ years ago has the necessary agreements in place, at least in countries like Europe/UK requiring user consent for processing of private data.

Collecting data for one purpose (video sharing site), but then using it for another (training AI) is very much verboten.

They can probably use the public stuff tho.

replies(1): >>42428906 #
98. shiroiushi ◴[] No.42334312{10}[source]
It's not just here, it's any place where technical people congregate. It's something wrong with technical people, I think. It probably has something to do with why terrorists are frequently engineers.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/11/theres-a-good-reason-wh...

99. nkrisc ◴[] No.42340787{4}[source]
I think that’s a long distance record for leaps in reasoning.
100. codetrotter ◴[] No.42340952[source]
yt-dlp https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp lets you list and download different formats offered by YoTube for videos.

You could try downloading different audio formats and see if any of the available ones contain non-garbled audio.

For example:

  yt-dlp -F "https://youtube.com/watch?v=a28_aXgrgXE"
Output:

  [youtube] Extracting URL: https://youtube.com/watch?v=a28_aXgrgXE
  [youtube] a28_aXgrgXE: Downloading webpage
  [youtube] a28_aXgrgXE: Downloading ios player API JSON
  [youtube] a28_aXgrgXE: Downloading player 62ccfae7
  WARNING: [youtube] a28_aXgrgXE: nsig extraction failed: Some formats may be missing
           n = l9bNLKrDBBdCJtknGqU ; player = https://www.youtube.com/s/player/62ccfae7/player_ias.vflset/en_US/base.js
  WARNING: [youtube] a28_aXgrgXE: nsig extraction failed: Some formats may be missing
           n = Z-MlQqu4ClRjI62sqw_ ; player = https://www.youtube.com/s/player/62ccfae7/player_ias.vflset/en_US/base.js
  [youtube] a28_aXgrgXE: Downloading m3u8 information
  [youtube] a28_aXgrgXE: Downloading MPD manifest
  [info] Available formats for a28_aXgrgXE:
  ID       EXT   RESOLUTION FPS CH │   FILESIZE   TBR PROTO │ VCODEC        VBR ACODEC     ABR ASR MORE INFO
  ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
  sb2      mhtml 48x27        1    │                  mhtml │ images                               storyboard
  sb1      mhtml 33x45        1    │                  mhtml │ images                               storyboard
  sb0      mhtml 67x90        1    │                  mhtml │ images                               storyboard
  233      mp4   audio only        │                  m3u8  │ audio only        unknown            Default
  234      mp4   audio only        │                  m3u8  │ audio only        unknown            Default
  139-dash m4a   audio only        │  427.60KiB   48k dash  │ audio only        mp4a.40.5  48k 22k DASH audio, m4a_dash
  139      m4a   audio only      1 │  427.60KiB   48k https │ audio only        mp4a.40.5  48k 22k low, m4a_dash
  140-dash m4a   audio only        │  853.17KiB   96k dash  │ audio only        mp4a.40.2  96k 44k DASH audio, m4a_dash
  251      webm  audio only        │  851.41KiB   99k dash  │ audio only        opus       99k 48k DASH audio, webm_dash
  140      m4a   audio only      1 │  853.17KiB   95k https │ audio only        mp4a.40.2  95k 44k medium, m4a_dash
  160      mp4   108x144     30    │ ~962.40KiB  108k dash  │ avc1.4d400b  108k video only         DASH video, mp4_dash
  269      mp4   108x144     30    │ ~  1.43MiB  164k m3u8  │ avc1.4D400B  164k video only
  278      webm  108x144     30    │ ~846.56KiB   95k dash  │ vp9           95k video only         DASH video, webm_dash
  133      mp4   180x240     30    │ ~  2.11MiB  242k dash  │ avc1.4d400c  242k video only         DASH video, mp4_dash
  229      mp4   180x240     30    │ ~  2.65MiB  305k m3u8  │ avc1.4D400C  305k video only
  242      webm  180x240     30    │ ~  1.92MiB  220k dash  │ vp9          220k video only         DASH video, webm_dash
  134-dash mp4   270x360     30    │    3.32MiB  459k dash  │ avc1.4d4014  459k video only         DASH video, mp4_dash
  230      mp4   270x360     30    │ ~  5.07MiB  583k m3u8  │ avc1.4D4014  583k video only
  134      mp4   270x360     30    │    3.32MiB  380k https │ avc1.4D4014  380k video only         240p, mp4_dash
  243      webm  270x360     30    │ ~  3.53MiB  406k dash  │ vp9          406k video only         DASH video, webm_dash
  135      mp4   360x480     30    │ ~ 10.05MiB 1155k dash  │ avc1.4d400b 1155k video only         DASH video, mp4_dash
  231      mp4   360x480     30    │ ~ 11.43MiB 1313k m3u8  │ avc1.4D400B 1313k video only
  244      webm  360x480     30    │ ~  6.55MiB  753k dash  │ vp9          753k video only         DASH video, webm_dash
And then download each of the "audio only" entries from the table. In the case of the table for the video I chose:

  yt-dlp -f 233      -o "%(id)s.%(format_id)s.%(ext)s" "https://youtube.com/watch?v=a28_aXgrgXE"
  yt-dlp -f 234      -o "%(id)s.%(format_id)s.%(ext)s" "https://youtube.com/watch?v=a28_aXgrgXE"
  yt-dlp -f 139-dash -o "%(id)s.%(format_id)s.%(ext)s" "https://youtube.com/watch?v=a28_aXgrgXE"
  yt-dlp -f 139      -o "%(id)s.%(format_id)s.%(ext)s" "https://youtube.com/watch?v=a28_aXgrgXE"
  yt-dlp -f 140-dash -o "%(id)s.%(format_id)s.%(ext)s" "https://youtube.com/watch?v=a28_aXgrgXE"
  yt-dlp -f 251      -o "%(id)s.%(format_id)s.%(ext)s" "https://youtube.com/watch?v=a28_aXgrgXE"
  yt-dlp -f 140      -o "%(id)s.%(format_id)s.%(ext)s" "https://youtube.com/watch?v=a28_aXgrgXE"
Here I used the '-f' option to choose each of the 'audio only' formats available for the example video, and then I used the '-o' flag to specify a custom format string for the output files so that the file names include the format id making them unique from each other and corresponding to the entries in the original table.

This gives me files containing each of the audio formats that were available from YouTube.

  -rw-r--r--  1 user user 437246 Oct  9  2013 a28_aXgrgXE.139-dash.m4a
  -rw-r--r--  1 user user 437246 Oct  9  2013 a28_aXgrgXE.139.m4a
  -rw-r--r--  1 user user 713133 Oct  9  2013 a28_aXgrgXE.140-dash.m4a
  -rw-r--r--  1 user user 872935 Oct  9  2013 a28_aXgrgXE.140.m4a
  -rw-r--r--  1 user user 441481 Oct  9  2013 a28_aXgrgXE.233.mp4
  -rw-r--r--  1 user user 881428 Oct  9  2013 a28_aXgrgXE.234.mp4
  -rw-r--r--  1 user user 711273 Jul 22  2019 a28_aXgrgXE.251.webm
The timestamps of the files are set by yt-dlp to correspond to timestamps it got from YouTube.

It might be worth to be careful about downloading alternate format versions of too many videos. I could imagine that downloading alternate formats of too many videos from YouTube could trigger something on their side to make them think you are a bot or something. Of course that's just speculation and I don't know if YouTube actually does that. Hopefully doing it for a single video won't get your IP banned by YouTube.

101. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.42375465{4}[source]
>if a young family was sat on a park bench doing this and you went and sat on the bench between the mother and the father it would be considered at the least incredibly rude and inappropriate.

context is everything in public settings. Was it a tired old man on a cane that clearly needed to sit down? clearly it's rude for the couple to at least not scoot over. is the bench super long? there's probably no real beef as long as you're not directly sitting in their personal space.

In this case, these are clips uploaded over a decade ago for one reason or another. Realistically it's the same case-by-case. In general I don't really feel any guilt per se.

102. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.42375491{3}[source]
a lot of these unethical arguments veer on this idea that creating an account and publishing online content in this early smartphone era was some foreign concept. I don't subscribe that even in 2006 that people were that internet illiterate.

people didn't change, our perception of the internet changed (for better and worse). I still see enough people posting intimate stuff way past my boundaries that I think this is simply how some people are wired. I'd definitely wager that 90% of the people who I'd notify of this in some sort of census would not bother to delete/unlist these videos.

103. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.42375505{7}[source]
I don't think most people care to be honest. Dive into enough small accounts on instagram sharing their entire life story and you start to have a different perception on the ethical quandries.

The quandry is that people feel insignifigant and don't care if a dozen strangers see their posts.

104. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.42375511{4}[source]
> They may have done so without understanding the implications.

this may have even been pre-Google, so yes. You would have needed to create a youtube account, sign its TOS, and then press the corresponding options to upload a video to the internet. I don't think even back then people just auto-uploaded everything on heir phone; YT had pretty strict limits at that time anyway.

105. Mraedis ◴[] No.42428906{5}[source]
But it's under an account, an account that can receive notices about ToS and such. Wouldn't that cover this?