Why would a link to Odysee be considered "dangerous"?

[Nicodemous52]

I see people link to videos and written reviews all the time in their reviews on Steam. But I link to my full written review posted on Odysee (yes, you can upload articles as well as videos there) and Steam decides my review is potentially dangerous and must be hidden.

What's the agenda, Steam? Why are we suppressing alt tech? If that's not the reason, then please go on and explain it to me, because it makes no sense unless you are being shills for Google and the rest of the censorious jerks in the valley.

[Crashed]

引用自 DuplexEagle：

引用自 Crashed：

Except that Odysee deliberately allows a lot of abusive content that YouTube takes down when notified.

Maybe that's because YouTube deliberately removes videos that don't break their community guidelines to fit their own agendas, when Odysee doesn't. They keep video's up that YouTube doesn't, because they aren't taking stuff down for not aligning with their views or hindering their platforms profit when it doesn't even break any guidelines nor is abusive in any way. Because they don't have a monopoly that allows them to abuse that power in the first place.

Nearly half that "wall of text" is taken up by your own comment. If you don't have the attention-span or desire to read and understand my comment that takes only 3.4 minutes to read, your responses to it hold no weight and are valueless.

What did they "deliberately" delete that you think isn't against YouTube TOS?

[Boblin the Goblin]

引用自 Crashed：

引用自 DuplexEagle：

Maybe that's because YouTube deliberately removes videos that don't break their community guidelines to fit their own agendas, when Odysee doesn't. They keep video's up that YouTube doesn't, because they aren't taking stuff down for not aligning with their views or hindering their platforms profit when it doesn't even break any guidelines nor is abusive in any way. Because they don't have a monopoly that allows them to abuse that power in the first place.

Nearly half that "wall of text" is taken up by your own comment. If you don't have the attention-span or desire to read and understand my comment that takes only 3.4 minutes to read, your responses to it hold no weight and are valueless.

What did they "deliberately" delete that you think isn't against YouTube TOS?

Videos exposing scam videos aimed at children on their website.

Videos exposing malicious advertisements that run in their videos.

[Lystent]

引用自 SlowMango：

...Based on that list, they shouldn't allow YouTube links either.

Or stuff from Steam Community, for that matter. You can have moderation, and this stuff will go on anyways; I suspect social media and the likes are just too difficult to achieve the moderation that is asked of them. But also, companies have been skimping on their moderation.

[Crashed]

引用自 SlowMango：

引用自 Crashed：

What did they "deliberately" delete that you think isn't against YouTube TOS?

Videos exposing scam videos aimed at children on their website.

Videos exposing malicious advertisements that run in their videos.

And you know those weren't by accident?

[Boblin the Goblin]

引用自 Crashed：

引用自 SlowMango：

Videos exposing scam videos aimed at children on their website.

Videos exposing malicious advertisements that run in their videos.

And you know those weren't by accident?

Considering they doubled down upon appeal, yes.

[Crashed]

引用自 SlowMango：

引用自 Crashed：

And you know those weren't by accident?

Considering they doubled down upon appeal, yes.

Which may mean it wasn't checked by a human.

[Boblin the Goblin]

引用自 Crashed：

引用自 SlowMango：

Considering they doubled down upon appeal, yes.

Which may mean it wasn't checked by a human.

So why use them as some type of standard for moderating content as shown here;

引用自 Crashed：

引用自 DuplexEagle：

(wall of text)

Except that Odysee deliberately allows a lot of abusive content that YouTube takes down when notified.

[tyl0413]

There no point arguing with google bots, they have all that data yet still choose to completely cripple their AI due to ideology, they're so bad they can't even properly shill their own products despite not defending google hard enough being a bannable offence on their services, problem they ♥♥♥♥ up every other place too, Bitchute comments are full of hundreds [e-mail] usernames using the exact same naming pattern spamming the dumbest ♥♥♥♥, but when you're one of the worlds richest corporations you can just do stuff like that and get away with it.

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

引用自 tyl0413：

There no point arguing with google bots, they have all that data yet still choose to completely cripple their AI due to ideology, they're so bad they can't even properly shill their own products despite not defending google hard enough being a bannable offence on their services, problem they ♥♥♥♥ up every other place too, Bitchute comments are full of hundreds [e-mail] usernames using the exact same naming pattern spamming the dumbest ♥♥♥♥, but when you're one of the worlds richest corporations you can just do stuff like that and get away with it.

Google bots?

Did you know that the software they use to scan posts actually goes REALLY deep when scanning links? It finds everything. So, while posting a link may seem harmless, it may have other things on other parts of the website that are not.

[Lystent]

引用自 C²C^Guyver |NZB|：

...Did you know...

Judging by the remark about "all the data", probably.

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

引用自 Lystent：

引用自 C²C^Guyver |NZB|：

...Did you know...

Judging by the remark about "all the data", probably.

I know from first hand experience. Posting a link that you think is harmless, can easily get your account community banned. It happened to mine.

[Crashed]

引用自 C²C^Guyver |NZB|：

引用自 Lystent：

Judging by the remark about "all the data", probably.

I know from first hand experience. Posting a link that you think is harmless, can easily get your account community banned. It happened to mine.

Should be noted that the owner of said site has been observed curating content that instructs people to do things that are illegal in most if not all of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and possibly some US states, making up a considerable portion of the market share of Steam.

The global parts of Steam Community (site forums, Groups, profiles, etc.) doesn't support geo-blocking, and I doubt a founding member of a New Hampshire "libertarian" cult would implement it on his site either.

[Boblin the Goblin]

引用自 Crashed：

引用自 C²C^Guyver |NZB|：

I know from first hand experience. Posting a link that you think is harmless, can easily get your account community banned. It happened to mine.

Should be noted that the owner of said site has been observed curating content that instructs people to do things that are illegal in most if not all of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and possibly some US states, making up a considerable portion of the market share of Steam.

The global parts of Steam Community (site forums, Groups, profiles, etc.) doesn't support geo-blocking, and I doubt a founding member of a New Hampshire "libertarian" cult would implement it on his site either.

I would love to see the source for this.

[Crashed]

引用自 SlowMango：

引用自 Crashed：

Should be noted that the owner of said site has been observed curating content that instructs people to do things that are illegal in most if not all of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and possibly some US states, making up a considerable portion of the market share of Steam.

The global parts of Steam Community (site forums, Groups, profiles, etc.) doesn't support geo-blocking, and I doubt a founding member of a New Hampshire "libertarian" cult would implement it on his site either.

I would love to see the source for this.

Pretty sure I'd risk a ban for saying more, with moderators citing facilitating real world violence.

[Elucidator]

引用自 Nicodemous52：

Why would a link to Odysee be considered "dangerous"?

I am surprised this question hasn't been answered yet.

No, its not up to Steam. They use CEF, which has Chromium, in other words Chrome (the browser), which uses Google's Safe Browsing,
https://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/safebrowsing/

In other words, they use a list provided by google with sites Google considers safe.
Read more about how this API works here: https://developers.google.com/safe-browsing/v4/

So, why would Google, consider Youtube (owned by Google) safe, and Odysee (a fedarated competitor) not? Because Google of course. Google doesn't want competition.
And why would they allow Daily Motion or something? Because Daily Motion then paid to be recognized safe.
Its that simple.