shanen's Journal: Is YouTube a criminal enterprise?

[Preserved copy of a comment on another YouTube article:]

Here's a simple trick. Search for some popular show on YouTube, such as "Bill Maher Real Time" and then select the filter for "Upload date". Your results will include lots of pseudo-pirate computer-pwning hits.

These accounts are created constantly on YouTube and this has been going on for many years. A typical account will have lots of videos that are supposed to be the popular shows, but each video just says YouTube blocked the video and promises the suckers that they can get the actual videos by following the links and installing the software to pwn their computers into zombie networks. Generally annoying, but it especially bothers me that a lot of these videos are popular with children, and targeting innocent children strikes me as a higher level of EVIL, even for the monster that the google has become.

There are some obvious countermeasures, but rather than implement any of them, YouTube has chosen to tolerate, perhaps even encourage, this situation for some years. My conclusion is that YouTube believes they are deriving profits from supporting these criminals. (Perhaps they're selling them bandwidth?) I don't think google employees are naive and innocent as the children who are getting victimized, and it would make me a bad person to hope that their own kids click on the links.

Just reading Googled , another history of the google with emphasis on the "Don't be evil" thing. I think that google needs to hire a chief exorcist.

P.S. Actually thought of a another obvious solution approach while reading that book. The punchline is that the new solution actually feeds into legitimate profits for YouTube. ROFLMAO?

Why isn't this on the front page?

[BarbaraHudson]

This certainly fits the original "news for nerds, stuff that matters" motto. Heck, feed it to Trump - he seems to be looking for easy wins in the war on cybercrime.

Re:

[shanen]

Aha! I recognize that handle, but I can't recall whether or not you're a troll, a sock puppet, or just an annoying person of some sort. From the writing style, I'd guess a transpostite.

On the assumption that your question was sincere and not rhetorical or sardonic or whatever, then the answer is that I just put some stuff here for convenient reference. It was part of a dying and typically transient discussion. I rarely submit actual articles to Slashdot's so-called attention these years. It's possible that

Re:

[BarbaraHudson]

Slashdot surpassed Sturgeon's Law looong ago. Then again, so has most of the Internet ... and the contagion seems to be infecting the general population. Now it's just a place to pass some time when I'm bored, or to stay in touch with a few users from the good ole days when I posted under my previous legal name and sex. The only benefit now is to know what sort of false arguments and factoids people will come up with next. You can get more "news for nerds", even about tech, from a quick reading of Reuters o

Batin' again eh?

[fustakrakich]

Public masturbation of 462549

Those fake videos are put up by the industry license holders.

Re: Public masturbation of 1673220

[shanen]

Z^1