Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube suspends Google accounts of Markiplier's viewers for minor emote spam

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 101 posts

Re: YouTube suspends Google accounts of Markiplier's viewers for minor emote spam

#21

Post by chr1 »

I wish lawmakers instead of spending time on misguided cookie banner laws, spent more time on things like this.

Behavior like this is completely unacceptable, it is equivalent to store owner throwing you out because he thought your hair are red.

People whose accounts are being suspended without warning, without explanation, and without a way to appeal, like in this case, should be able to sue the company for a large sum of money, so that company knows that breaching contracts is not a good thing.

The job of government is to help people establish contracts between themselves, and to help keeping the explicit and implicit terms of the contract. The random suspension of account is likely a more serious breach of contract than selling private data to third parties.

Re: YouTube suspends Google accounts of Markiplier's viewers for minor emote spam

#23

Post by sorenjan »

Constant news about Google banning accounts for various mistakes, small or large, reminds me of a certain country's social credit system. When will they start banning people that have any kind of contact with accounts in bad standing? Will they start denying purchases on Google Pay depending on how well behaved the account is?

Re: YouTube suspends Google accounts of Markiplier's viewers for minor emote spam

#24

Post by pixl97 »

sorenjan wrote: post #23

Constant news about Google banning accounts for various mistakes, small or large, reminds me of a certain country's social credit system. When will they start banning people that have any kind of contact with accounts in bad standing? Will they start denying purchases on Google Pay depending on how well behaved the account is?

Companies are authoritarian dictatorships

Re: YouTube suspends Google accounts of Markiplier's viewers for minor emote spam

#25

Post by throwaway2048 »

pixl97 wrote: post #24
sorenjan wrote: post #23

Constant news about Google banning accounts for various mistakes, small or large, reminds me of a certain country's social credit system. When will they start banning people that have any kind of contact with accounts in bad standing? Will they start denying purchases on Google Pay depending on how well behaved the account is?

Companies are authoritarian dictatorships

Which is why its baffling to me that lots of people who are deadly afraid of government tyranny are completely ok with privately owned tyranny (even monopolistic kinds)

Re: YouTube suspends Google accounts of Markiplier's viewers for minor emote spam

#26

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

dannyw wrote: post #18
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #13

The real issue here is that (reportedly) the people who spammed got their GMail accounts shut down. That's outrageous. That's your real-life, not just your online-life. Your GMail account isn't even related at all to your YouTube identity. Remember: if you aren't _at least_ paying for your e-mail service you don't own your own mailbox. When was the last time you made a backup of your GMail account? What contingency p…

We need legislation. Google is too powerful.

Legislation to protect e-mail mailboxes as the same way we do with official postal (snail-)mail services in most countries needs to be handled very carefully, because otherwise we'll end up protecting spammers - the very opposite of the people we want to protect.

I see this story as Google's equivalent of when Valve would ban people from Steam for crude comments they made on the Steam forums, which I understand meant they forfeited their entire game library - or Amazon banning people for reviews.

If there is going to be any law or legislation - it should be to require service companies like Google, Valve and Amazon to treat the customer's "online personality account" (i.e. forum account, "community" account, etc) separately from their "value" account (i.e. whatever that which has _value_, be it their Steam library, their GMail mailbox, etc) - or at the very least, companies must be required to export 100% of the data in an account and providing that to the customer/user in the event they shut down an account (with reasonable constraints, such as the account having existed for at least 3 months and having been in good-standing until this specific incident, etc).

And under no circumstances should anyone lose their software copyright licenses for violating a community ToS - feel free to ban them from the forums, et cetera, but being banned from the Steam forums must not mean they lose the right to play the copy of Half-Life 2 that they paid for.

Re: YouTube suspends Google accounts of Markiplier's viewers for minor emote spam

#27

Post by chr1 »

pixl97 wrote: post #24
sorenjan wrote: post #23

Constant news about Google banning accounts for various mistakes, small or large, reminds me of a certain country's social credit system. When will they start banning people that have any kind of contact with accounts in bad standing? Will they start denying purchases on Google Pay depending on how well behaved the account is?

Companies are authoritarian dictatorships

Which is ok if they are small, have many concurrents, and their field of activity is old enough to have reasonable laws. Unfortunately for google none of this is true for them. And if they don't want more people demanding to break them up, or proposing unreasonable laws for internet, they should be smart enough to not do stupid things like this.

Re: YouTube suspends Google accounts of Markiplier's viewers for minor emote spam

#28

Post by chr1 »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #25
pixl97 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies are authoritarian dictatorships

Which is why its baffling to me that lots of people who are deadly afraid of government tyranny are completely ok with privately owned tyranny (even monopolistic kinds)

Government tyranny is a far greater danger because government can use force in the form of army and police, and when established it effectively owns everything else in the country.

The privately owned tyranny has much less power, and when it becomes bad, government can intervene.

So while no tyranny is ok, government deserves much more attention, because it is the more powerful tool, that needs to be protected much more vigilantly.

Re: YouTube suspends Google accounts of Markiplier's viewers for minor emote spam

#29

Post by alexis_fr »

chr1 wrote: post #21

I wish lawmakers instead of spending time on misguided cookie banner laws, spent more time on things like this. Behavior like this is completely unacceptable, it is equivalent to store owner throwing you out because he thought your hair are red. People whose accounts are being suspended without warning, without explanation, and without a way to appeal, like in this case, should be able to sue the company for a large…

> without explanation

Common misconception. Let’s assume something as bad as a criminal in prison. Well, they still need their emails. Perhaps not in prison but at least for their recovery. Or to access their bank account. Their retirement funds. Their social security. It’s a misconception that there could be a good reason to entirely revoke any account.

Youtube is different. It’s a broadcasting tool.

Post reply on HN