At what point is a hypothetical harmful scenario too absurd to care about?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forklift_Driver_Klaus_–_The_...
Yeah, the Austrians are saying that, but here in Germany we say the same about them.
They managed to convince people that Beethoven was Austrian, and Hitler German.
I was born in the wrong country.
Thank you.
Even at high-functioning companies, people don't report or fix glaring problems in documentation and training material. There are quite a lot of not-so-high-functioning companies in the world.
They're both pretty unlikely but at YouTube scale both are real.
15 years later it's much easier to trawl through millions of videos by incrementing and check them automatically for nudity than anyone thought it would be back in the day.
There’s too many IDs to iterate through. Searching for $defatltvideoname for some camera is far more effective for that. Scarily so.
They’re YouTube. At their scale, there’s no such thing as an “edge case.”
But at YouTube scale, the cases need to get weirder and weirder to fall into 'not-yet-handled' territory.
Sometimes all the holes in the cheese still align.
This can be hard to imagine for a problem solver personality. How can people be so helpless?
But it’s basically because people have learned that complaining usually achieves nothing so they don’t even bother.
The reductive logic here is something else
All those "early access" on Patreon.
That may be the best "free" way, but my company puts their training videos up on some training website. The site tracks which videos were watched and sends nag emails when required trainings are late.
So if you're putting up content that your employees are obligated to watch, there are better alternatives than Youtube.
The Google drive could be deprecated at any moment
At this point the advice is moving towards "Don't even have a video if you can't be bothered designing a CPU from scratch to host it on".
Keep a local backup by all means but it's far more likely the local copy will get lost than the google drive copy.
Obviously, if your website is running a complex stack this is fairly infeasible (good luck keeping a complex web-framework secure without vigilance!) But if it's just a static site... and static sites are the fair comparison to google drive.
The issue with google drive and similar products is that they're actively - very actively - maintained. Stuff doesn't just break because it's taken offline, but because there are changes in terms of service, there are automatic deactivations for inactivity, there are plain old incompatible upgrades, etc, etc, etc.
I mean - I totally support people starting with the minimal effort (which is surely some freemium service like google drive), and leaning to live with the limitations - but the risks of a server (whether physical or otherwise) if you're similarly conservative and willing to live within constraints not unlike hosting on drive seem overblown - people talk as if servers burn down all the time, and hackers crack everything, but nothing could be further from the truth - those are exceedingly rare circumstances. And for many things, those risk are just OK. Don't keep your only copy of the data on the box, and don't keep private stuff there, and if lighting really strikes - it's not so bad. And both strategies will need a little TLC once and a while, that's just the way it is.
None of this is stuff the average company needs to deal with when youtube works just fine. I'm sure you can list out all the ways to avoid those listed problems but that just shows how much work and knowledge is needed to pull this off while anyone can use youtube.
You know that this requires some uncommon computer proficiency?
Just because it’s worked for years doesn’t make it so forever.
The trust and reliance on Google for free video hosting seems both foolish and dangerous.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm for a classic take on the subject.
That's also one reason spreadsheets are still so popular:
As an average corporate drone, you can either hack together something quickly over the weekend in Excel that will mostly work. Or you can wait 3+ months for your IT department to fail to deliver.
(And that's the best case scenario.)
I believe management consultants call that "efficiency."
I could see a policy where YouTube made Unlisted videos Private that only had referrers from social media; this would be a welcome compromise to ensure non-guessability of URLs. But I can also see how this could become complicated and political. And companies using YouTube in this way aren't really contributing to YouTube's revenue materially, so there's not much incentive relative to the reputational risk of people guessing Unlisted links.
I shudder to think that healthcare professionals or heavy-machinery operators might be relying on these links to be trained in systems they use, will start to see broken links, will never report them back to the right people at their system providers, will just not get the full training, will make mistakes, and might cause harm as a result.
Security is not the only component of safety, and impacts need to be evaluated holistically.