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

I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next

gamefromscratch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 362 posts

Re: I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next

#41

Post by dathinab »

kemonocode wrote: post #16
gkoberger wrote: post #12

This might not be a popular opinion, but I feel like YouTube is doing their best with a really hard problem. I see a lot of people complaining about things like this, but I also see a lot of people complaining that YouTube/Twitter/etc aren't doing enough to take down false/immoral/illegal content quick enough. [1] It really sucks when a legitimate video is taken down by mistake. But it also really sucks when revenge…

It's only ever resolved favorably if you have enough clout. I understand there simply not being enough manpower on Earth to manually review so many cases, but the balance seems to be so heavily skewed towards automation (which still does a very piss poor job at it) that just feels like there's no human element vetting the final decision at all, and that's the approach which so many people have gripes about, rightfull…

> I understand there simply not being enough manpower on Earth to manually review so many cases

IMHO it's less about man power then how to approach thinks.

Like for example in the given case the video was reviewed by people multiple times. So they could have just "locked" it into being a good video and on put higher bars on further complains.

I mean this video got taken down even through it had been manually reviewed. So not having enough manpower isn't quite the problem.

To problem is more on the line of:

- YouTube doesn't incur much cost on false take downs (both on copyright and community standards). Even false closure of whole google accounts often doesn't cost them much even through it can cause major damages.

- There is no good law to protect small content creators against false copyright claims, false "bad content" claims or discrimination through non advisability in most countries. Sure laws exist in some places but they are mostly in-effective.

Re: I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next

#42

Post by vageli »

prox wrote: post #37
kemonocode wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only ever resolved favorably if you have enough clout. I understand there simply not being enough manpower on Earth to manually review so many cases, but the balance seems to be so heavily skewed towards automation (which still does a very piss poor job at it) that just feels like there's no human element vetting the final decision at all, and that's the approach which so many people have gripes about, rightfull…

Why is there no trust factor established? I mean if you have been posting without any hiccups for many years, you should be protected from trolls like this.

It is common to open accounts and make them appear relatively benign only to pivot to malicious use after some time on the platform. Not to mention the secondary market where people sell aged accounts to bad actors.

Re: I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next

#43

Post by ericflo »

panzagl wrote: post #39

Is there a legitimate, distinct, unique use case for cryptocurrency to weigh against it's use as an enabler for extortion??

It's in the post - the author was able to put the taken-down video back up on lbry.tv, which is a cryptocurrency-based decentralized media platform.

Re: I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next

#45

Post by dathinab »

jimnotgym wrote: post #26
kemonocode wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only ever resolved favorably if you have enough clout. I understand there simply not being enough manpower on Earth to manually review so many cases, but the balance seems to be so heavily skewed towards automation (which still does a very piss poor job at it) that just feels like there's no human element vetting the final decision at all, and that's the approach which so many people have gripes about, rightfull…

> I understand there simply not being enough manpower on Earth to manually review so many cases This has made me wonder, 1) how many people would this really take to review appeals manually? 2) should a publisher be allowed to run a platform that they are unable to curate?

> should a publisher be allowed to run a platform that they are unable to curate?

That one is tricky.

My take on it is if they do content dependent advertisement, user behaviour based recommendations and similar then no. They should not.

If they don't have this I'm not sure.

If are based on content which isn't widely publicly available but mostly 1-to-1 or 1-to-n (with a smallish n), then I would argue they should _not be allowed to curate content_. I mean how absurd would it be if Google would delete a file which is not public visible from Drive because it seems inappropriate (yes, sarcasm). What's next they delete files from your android phone or computer when they are deemed inappropriate?!

Re: I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next

#46

Post by dntbnmpls »

gkoberger wrote: post #12

This might not be a popular opinion, but I feel like YouTube is doing their best with a really hard problem. I see a lot of people complaining about things like this, but I also see a lot of people complaining that YouTube/Twitter/etc aren't doing enough to take down false/immoral/illegal content quick enough. [1] It really sucks when a legitimate video is taken down by mistake. But it also really sucks when revenge…

> YouTube/Twitter/etc aren't doing enough to take down false/immoral/illegal content

This is so sneaky. Why link "false" and "immoral" and "illegal" together? I can agree that social media should take down illegal content, but "false" and "immoral" content should be left up. People who whine about "false" content really mean facts and truths they disagree with. As for immoral, do we really want to play this game? Immoral from which perspective?

> I feel like most of the time I see posts like this, the situation is resolved favorably and relatively quickly.

Only if you are a big youtuber.

Re: I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next

#47

Post by monadic2 »

gkoberger wrote: post #28
monadic2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see a lot of people complaining about things like this, but I also see a lot of people complaining that YouTube/Twitter/etc aren't doing enough to take down false/immoral/illegal content quick enough. Do you have an example? These seem like inherently contradictory values. You can either make a safe platform or one that treats its tenants well. Like many of its products, google has not made it clear which set of…

Sure, here's one I just saw today: https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-conspiracy-wuhan... Here's a bunch more: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/youtube-not-doing-enough-... https://www.npr.org/2018/11/27/671285261/critics-say-youtube... https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/story?id=4889745&p... https://coingeek.com/ripple-calls-out-youtube-for-not-doing-... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-intern…

Fair enough, but note that most of the people quoted are politicians and people who work at think tanks—pretty much the definition of manufactured consent.

Granted I am also worried about kids using youtube but I also don’t expect google to do anything about it—what could they do, manually vet all videos meant for kids? No, quality is not the google way, it’s automation.

My overall point is that google seems to be fine with just doing things there way and pissing off everyone rather than picking a customer base and meeting its needs.

Re: I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next

#48

Post by yabatopia »

jimnotgym wrote: post #26
kemonocode wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only ever resolved favorably if you have enough clout. I understand there simply not being enough manpower on Earth to manually review so many cases, but the balance seems to be so heavily skewed towards automation (which still does a very piss poor job at it) that just feels like there's no human element vetting the final decision at all, and that's the approach which so many people have gripes about, rightfull…

> I understand there simply not being enough manpower on Earth to manually review so many cases This has made me wonder, 1) how many people would this really take to review appeals manually? 2) should a publisher be allowed to run a platform that they are unable to curate?

With a profit of more than 10 billion per quarter, I find it hard to believe that Google can't hire more people to handle cases like this. It's not a manpower problem.

And 2) is a really interesting question. The most obvious answer is if you can't manage (curate) a platform, you shouldn't run one.

Re: I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next

#49

Post by autokad »

gkoberger wrote: post #12

This might not be a popular opinion, but I feel like YouTube is doing their best with a really hard problem. I see a lot of people complaining about things like this, but I also see a lot of people complaining that YouTube/Twitter/etc aren't doing enough to take down false/immoral/illegal content quick enough. [1] It really sucks when a legitimate video is taken down by mistake. But it also really sucks when revenge…

I dont feel sorry for them at all.

> "I also see a lot of people complaining that YouTube/Twitter/etc aren't doing enough to take down false/immoral/illegal content quick enough"

I dont want these companies touching false/immoral take downs. who are they to decide? sorry, I dont want these people in charge of the moral police. illegal stuff, like revenge porn makes sense.

> "YouTube is doing it's best to blend automation (fast but inaccurate) with human curation (more thoughtful but slower), and sometimes it gets it wrong"

I feel like they usually get it wrong, they are closer to being a blind man swinging a chain saw than a surgeon with a knife. HIRE SOME PEOPLE. they have huge margins, it would take very little for these companies to hire some people to review content.

> " feel like most of the time I see posts like this, the situation is resolved favorably and relatively quickly."

Tell that to people who have been shadow banned or demonized. most of the time, there never is resolution, their channel and all the hard work they have put together is ruined forever.

Re: I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next

#50

Post by rjmunro »

kemonocode wrote: post #16
gkoberger wrote: post #12

This might not be a popular opinion, but I feel like YouTube is doing their best with a really hard problem. I see a lot of people complaining about things like this, but I also see a lot of people complaining that YouTube/Twitter/etc aren't doing enough to take down false/immoral/illegal content quick enough. [1] It really sucks when a legitimate video is taken down by mistake. But it also really sucks when revenge…

It's only ever resolved favorably if you have enough clout. I understand there simply not being enough manpower on Earth to manually review so many cases, but the balance seems to be so heavily skewed towards automation (which still does a very piss poor job at it) that just feels like there's no human element vetting the final decision at all, and that's the approach which so many people have gripes about, rightfull…

> automation ... does a very piss poor job at it

I don't think this is true. I expect it gets it right 99.9% of the time, but in this case someone is against a determined blackmailer who can put a lot of effort into exploiting that 0.1%. The automation will win for a while, but then the attacks will evolve.

Post reply on HN