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

They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

721–730 of 795 posts

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#721

Post by [deleted] »

busterarm wrote: post #719
q3k wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google tried with GAE, which is much closer to the Borg model (“I don't care about VMs, just run this code somewhere for me, and make it scale, make it automatically have access to a database”), but the world wasn't ready for it. The world wants VMs and virtual networks and firewalls and clickable web interfaces and to run big legacy enterprise apps that MUST NEVER DIE and to fuck around with Terraform and to SSH ont…

The world wants those things because they have vendor products they need to run and can't just write the software for every tool they'll ever need. We're all just living in the real world. What to Google looks like non-terrible abstractions looks like Kool Aid elsewhere.

[deleted]

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#722

Post by stickfigure »

eru wrote: post #630
laughinghan wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that would be much better than a confirmation dialog that makes you wait 10 seconds before you can click OK. It's often only after clicking around and seeing the resulting changes that it sinks in that a mistake was made, and they reach for Undo. And that would add just as much friction to the happy path.

It can be much better than the confirmation dialog, because it's meant to be implemented in such a way that you can get on with the rest of your work while the undo-countdown is ticking. From personal experience with gmail's fake undo, in terms of things sinking in, it works almost as well as regular undo for me; and not like a confirmation dialog (which doesn't work at all). So there's less friction, there's no extr…

Gmail is a pretty specific case - email is fundamentally asynchronous and "delay send" for something that's already scheduled is straightforward.

Imagine trying to apply this undo to a bulk add/remove labels operation. Once you've committed the transaction, there is no simple 'undo'. It's possible to build a system capable of undo, sure, but you're talking about a lot of upfront work and complexity. Plus a fairly exotic database schema.

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#723

Post by rnet85 »

tartoran wrote: post #585
jennyyang wrote: post #566

The fact that Google/Youtube has zero support infrastructure should be evidence that they are a monopoly and engaging in monopolistic activity. If Google/Youtube were NOT a monopoly, they would have invested significant amount of money in customer support. However, there is zero. The only reason they get away with this is because they have a monopoly. They are saving hundreds of millions in support costs by not deliv…

I think so too. If they were not a monopoly they'd have content creators fleeing the platform for how they handle these type of situations but for many youtube provides a decent source of income. Content creators respected their part of the bargain and worked hard to build their channels and Google benefitted quite well. But they're not only not equal, one zero power and the other one has all of it.

Flee to other platforms and get their videos taken down too. It’s so ridiculous to see the majority of the comments here not to understand the simple reality that other platforms also have to adhere to these copyright laws.

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#724

Post by tga_d »

tikiman163 wrote: post #717
jennyyang wrote: post #566

The fact that Google/Youtube has zero support infrastructure should be evidence that they are a monopoly and engaging in monopolistic activity. If Google/Youtube were NOT a monopoly, they would have invested significant amount of money in customer support. However, there is zero. The only reason they get away with this is because they have a monopoly. They are saving hundreds of millions in support costs by not deliv…

Anti-trust laws (and the concepts that are based upon) do not apply to free services, and portions of YouTube that do collect subscription fees do have a full support structure. Your assertion that Google has a monopoly in this market is wrong for several reasons. The first is that there is no market for Googke/YouTube to control. Ad revenue which covers less than their overhead makes them a non-profit and YouTube in…

>Anti-trust laws (and the concepts that are based upon) do not apply to free services

Do you have a source for this? I feel like Microsoft would have liked to have known that, back when they lost an antitrust case around a freely provided web browser.

>Ad revenue which covers less than their overhead makes them a non-profit

That's not what "non-profit" means.

>nobody makes money in the free media hosting and distribution product domain.

Nobody has been profitable, but that doesn't mean nobody is trying or nobody could if the market weren't anti-competitive. There is also plenty of case-law in the US establishing that just because an anti-competitive scheme wasn't profitable doesn't make it legal. Hell, a lot of anti-competitive activity works specifically because it's not profitable in the short term.

>YouTube wouldn't even have a system that automatically takes down channels except that laws were written that required them to do so.

But not in the manner that they do. The point being made wasn't that their management of takedown notices is itself anti-competitive behavior, it's that the fact they don't have to change it to something more reasonable is evidence that they don't have any competition, which is indicative of a monopoly in the space.

>they only acquired it for the good will providing a free service generates for them

Again, source. I know YT is unlikely to be profitable right now, but I seriously doubt the purchase was a good-will gesture rather than a strategic long-term investment. I don't think there were a lot of people whose opinion of Google went up as a result of the purchase.

>r......d

Really? Was that necessary to make your point?

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#725

Post by rnet85 »

tikiman163 wrote: post #717
jennyyang wrote: post #566

The fact that Google/Youtube has zero support infrastructure should be evidence that they are a monopoly and engaging in monopolistic activity. If Google/Youtube were NOT a monopoly, they would have invested significant amount of money in customer support. However, there is zero. The only reason they get away with this is because they have a monopoly. They are saving hundreds of millions in support costs by not deliv…

Anti-trust laws (and the concepts that are based upon) do not apply to free services, and portions of YouTube that do collect subscription fees do have a full support structure. Your assertion that Google has a monopoly in this market is wrong for several reasons. The first is that there is no market for Googke/YouTube to control. Ad revenue which covers less than their overhead makes them a non-profit and YouTube in…

sad to see this get downvoted because it does not go along with the youtube bashing sentiment, the amount of people who think other video platforms will not have copyright claim problems is ridiculously high.

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#727

Post by ddingus »

jjoonathan wrote: post #703
ddingus wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard to know. I read it as, "huh?" or "what?" or even maybe, "who are you kidding?" and for all of those determining offense level comes with context. In this context, the person replying clearly sees it as a bullet and puts some detail on why out there. Frankly, that kind of thing is as offensive as we all might think it is. Almost any offensive thing is. Context matters.

Yep, that's how I intended it, effectively the same as "What?" with the implied offense level being no larger or smaller than the offense inherent in expressing surprise at someone else's opinion. That level is not zero, but it falls well within the bounds of civil discourse, especially given the lack of elaboration in the original position and the fact that I invested seventeen times its length on explaining my own…

I myself will use ?!? For curious surprise. Has never offended anyone.

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#728

Post by Klinky »

eru wrote: post #636
Klinky wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need regulation with teeth, that is reviewed and updated dynamically with the marketplace it is regulating to ensure fair competition AND consumer benefit. Right now we have regulations that heavily lag current realities and weak regulatory bodies that can be corrupted or lack power to effect change. The alternative you mentioned of no regulation can't exist, because someone is always regulating the market, if no…

> The alternative you mentioned of no regulation can't exist, because someone is always regulating the market, if not the .gov, then whoever has the biggest clout within the marketplace gets to play regulator and gatekeeper often to the detriment of the competition and consumers. Yes, exactly. I am suggesting that competition and low barriers to entry to ensure that it's _customers_ that are regulating the markets, w…

I want to add that consumers are weak and voting with your wallet is often not possible in a constrained market, plus many consumers are stupid or "not rational" and make poor choices and are easily swayed by marketing.

Obviously we don't want to remove all avenues for self determination, but I don't think adhoc regulation or relying on consumers to reign in global corporations who now have market caps greater than GDPs of large countries is an effective option.

Finding good civil servants is difficult, but so is finding honest and effective businessmen who genuinely have consumer interest in mind.

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#729

Post by tga_d »

rnet85 wrote: post #725
tikiman163 wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-trust laws (and the concepts that are based upon) do not apply to free services, and portions of YouTube that do collect subscription fees do have a full support structure. Your assertion that Google has a monopoly in this market is wrong for several reasons. The first is that there is no market for Googke/YouTube to control. Ad revenue which covers less than their overhead makes them a non-profit and YouTube in…

sad to see this get downvoted because it does not go along with the youtube bashing sentiment, the amount of people who think other video platforms will not have copyright claim problems is ridiculously high.

As I point out in my other comment, that comment doesn't seem especially well reasoned or sourced, but I for one wouldn't have downvoted if not for the language. I could have agreed 100% with what they were saying and I would still have downvoted, because there's no reason to let disparaging and ableist language stay visible, regardless of the point being made. Make your own version if you feel strongly about it.

In any case, I don't think anyone is saying other video platforms wouldn't have copyright claims, they're saying that in a more competitive space, the mechanisms for handling those claims would be better. E.g., they might actually tell the creator in the linked video what the violation actually is.

Re: They're deleting my channel, but they don't know why? [video]

#730

Post by Barrin92 »

raxxorrax wrote: post #638
Barrin92 wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do you want a video platform that deletes stuff? Or one that doesn't? If I have to choose between a platform that let's anti-Semitism run rampart and Youtube I'll pick Youtube. However the actual solution is a platform that that develops enough tools and hires enough human moderators to thwart blatant racism or hateful content while not accidentally kicking creators off the platform. This is mostly a question of eff…

As someone whose skull would get measured again, please don't use tangential topics to justify censorship. It isn't anti-semitism that will get censored, it will be directed towards any form of dissident. Jews or minorities were never suppressed because there was too much freedom of speech or too much free media. If the internet gets censored in the name of anti-semitism it would certainly not decrease animosity. Fur…

>it will be directed towards any form of dissident.

no it won't, this is just the typical American freakout. I'm German, here anti-semitism and hate speech are not only not propagated by private platforms (which is not censorship by the way), but banned (which is censorship). Our right wing party is diminished and unlike the US, we're not governed by complete lunatics.

There is no automatic mechanism by which stopping hate-speech somehow stops 'any form of dissent' in a democratic state of law and I'm tired of hearing the same argument again and again without any evidence for it. The US is alone among all democratic nations on this planet in their tolerance of bigotry. The UK, the oldest democracy on this planet, does not tolerate any of it either.

Post reply on HN