- cross-posted to:
- selfhost@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- selfhost@lemmy.ml
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 must log in or register to comment.
Sue YouTube. They won’t change meaningfully until forced to.
Sue for defamation that Youtube are alleging he is promoting criminal activity of piracy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What? LOL no, not “exactly”. Again the definition is not in question. The question is what the word is referring to.
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 © 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 © 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; © 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.
if they haven’t defined it, then legally it is meant in the broadest sense, isn’t it?
Like google, I’m sure Jeff has a near unlimited supply of money to pay lawyers.
But being a pushover is not the answer, so…
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.
Neither is throwing money away on a lawsuit with no chance of success.
Notably, Youtube does not consider exploiting children for profit harmful.
I made a very similar joke like this on Reddit, except it was about Waymo, and Reddit issued a warning against my account threatening a permanent ban.
Let them. Trust me, you’ll feel much better
Because there is profit in child exploitation.
“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.
In the 1970s/80s, the corporations just taxed blank media - because it was obviously used to pirate their warez.
70s?
My governmentthe private for-profit corporation tasked by my government to manage copyrights, every year still steals from everyone millions of euro “because that phone can be used to watch pirated content”We pay 7 euro on each smartphone, 7.50 on each USB drive, up to 18 euro on each internal drive (sata or name, but under 160gb is free) and products are castrated with regional firmware because if it’s just a TV then it’s 4 euro tax, but if it allows recording it’s the 5% of MSRP
7.50 on each USB drive
Ouch!
It depends by the size (smaller is less taxed), but the law is old and it’s exempt only if under 1gb
Pretty sure you also had to pay royalties fees for radio/Internet radio regardless of where or not you played their music.
And still do for live performance by cover bands.
Yeah, people who thought Google wasn’t openly strangling the free (as in libre) stuff because they weren’t that evil - these people just have bad memory. In year 2012 it clearly felt that corps, Google and Facebook and MS and Apple and everyone, are on the move to capture it all without a way out. They kinda made the illusion of being softer later.
So the question is - how do we even advertise legal but unpleasant for them things, avoiding their censorship.
The devices are sold together with the operating system (often unchangeable) and packaged applications and means of installing software, right from the markets.
I mean, I have a solution. It’s counterintuitive and seems unconnected, and too direct, but I guarantee you it’ll work.
Forbidding companies to do moderation or refuse to accept content without technical problems, or banned content (CP and such), and similar good justifications. As in - if your service is up, and there’s user content served from it, it shouldn’t be removed without legal substantiation. It doesn’t matter it’s free, that doesn’t mean you can do all you like. You are not a media outlet, you are a platform for many media, that’s how you work in fact, so yes, your actions do constitute censorship if you do moderation. If you can’t afford to keep it free with such rules, then start charging money for hosting, as it normally should have been.
And, of course, this should include public offering status, the prices should be the same for all users.
I mean, if we had this from the beginning, we’d probably still have the Web like in year 2003.
They are so pissed that we dare own anything. Fuck corpos.
Google should have been broken up years ago.
Maybe stop relying on fucking youtube?
Who, Jeff? He made a whole video a while back about how he doesn’t rely on YouTube, and is also on Floatplane. However, he acknowledges that a lot of viewers can’t afford a subscription service, and YT has a massive reach, so he still uploads there, too.
Gotta preach where the choir is.
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
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.
Using the Internet is piracy adjacent, by your hypothesis.
That’s just bullshit.
Not my hypothesis. And it is just bullshit, but if you pay attention, they have made similar runs at taxing and controlling the internet periodically since the 1990s.
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).
I think so. A relatively small subset of the video upload firehose at YouTube who produce rewatchable content is going to require a lot less resources to provide than doing a free-for-all upload-anything video. This might actually be feasible.
Was it YouTube or someone else that reported him? I think YouTube is fully automated so it blocked him and is ignoring appeal because of the previous complaint.
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.
Cries in single digit upload speeds
Just use another unit. It’s an easy fix.
Single digit??? Let me guess spectrum?
I think ripping DVDs is still technically illegal, even though CSS has long since been broken. It is still illegal to circumvent encryption in a copy protection scheme, even if it’s for your own personal use and the encryption scheme has been pwned.
I bet if he didn’t mention that his videos were ripped from DVD, they might have left it up.
Iirc, you are entitled to have/create a backup of your physical media, as long as it is for your personal use.
But if I remember from back in the day, the DMCA doesn’t have any exception for that. This is why CD ripping was legal, while DVD ripping was not. It had nothing to do with fair use or backups, but rather that DVDs have encryption, and CDs do not. Circumventing that encryption for any reason was illegal.
I don’t think it has changed, but it’s been a hot minute since the Cypherpunks all wore DeCSS T-Shirts…
People are quick to burn Youtube here when its clearly the american copyright reach that causes this.
Youtube (under Google)'s implementation of US copyright considerations is a huge problem above and beyond the abomination that is the copyright law itself.
The use of “self-hosting” is a little confusing here. To be clear, he wasn’t self-hosting his video. It was published on YouTube, and the guidelines and procedures in question are Google’s.
Edit: I’m not defending Google’s actions. It’s just that the title gave the impression that a video he had self-hosted was somehow subject to “community guidelines”, which didn’t make sense.
Edit 2: Ten downvotes in less than an hour, on a clarification comment? Wow. I’m disappointed to see that level of targeted negativity here. What rotten behavior. :(
The use of “self-hosting” is a little confusing here.
Not really, no. The video topic was about self-hosting your own media server, so the title is perfectly clear
You’re being downvoted for being factually wrong about the title. It’s not targeted negativity.
Its just confusing to you.
