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

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

#781

Post by laughinghan » Sat, Sep 26, 2020, 9:50 PM UTC

stickfigure wrote: post #722

eru wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exo…

There's nothing exotic about it, you just need an OLAP rather than OLTP database schema: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLAP_cube

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

#782

Post by jquery » Sun, Sep 27, 2020, 4:37 AM UTC

grawprog wrote: post #558

dperfect wrote: post #529

I'm not a lawyer, and I definitely think the whole copyright system needs reform, but I believe there could be legitimate issues with the legality of publicly posting guitar covers as this person is doing on their channel. I'm not very familiar with the channel, but from the little I've seen, I believe the educational nature (and thereby fair use defense) could be debatable. Even if some of his videos are clearly edu…

Our current copyright laws do nothing hut stagnate human creativity. As much as people like to believe they're creative geniuses, most creations tend to be based on previous creations. Just look at the majority of popular music between 1955-1980 or later. Just about all rock music is either heavily inspired by or directly ripped off of blues. If copyright laws had been what they were today entire genres of music woul…

In Japan, they have a much better culture around copyright, and I would argue it’s why Japan is such a creative powerhouse. In Japan, amateur artists can remix whatever popular characters they want, and make money off it, and it’s seen as a tribute to the original artists, not as “theft”.

Our copyright laws should be largely eliminated. Anything that isn’t basically an exact reproduction should be fair game. It would be good for the creative arts.

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

#783

Post by gogopuppygogo » Sun, Sep 27, 2020, 6:03 AM UTC

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…

They have customer support. Their customer is an advertising company or brand. Hosting video from anyone in the world at up to 8k resolution is expensive. The product is your eyeballs. They revenue share with content creators who bring you eyeballs. They have lots of content creators. They use automation to manage the content at scale so they can be profitable.

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

#784

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Sep 27, 2020, 10:37 AM UTC

Thorentis wrote: post #595

Joeri wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do have support infrastructure for their customers. Youtube content creators are not customers, they’re more akin to contractors (when paid) and volunteers (when not). In fact, google is the customer in this relationship, and they are within their rights to stop buying the product without having to explain why. It is on content creators to diversify their business. If a contractor has only a single customer beca…

Great point. Because people get something out of engaging in business with Google/YouTube/Facebook/etc. they think that they are the customer and that they should be entitled to certain things. They forget that they are the product, and the company is the customer. By using these platforms you are providing them with a source of revenue for free. These companies make money off content that you freely give them. Ad-re…

[deleted]

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

#785

Post by Klinky » Sun, Sep 27, 2020, 8:28 PM UTC

eru wrote: post #773

Klinky wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 G…

Well, at least the honest and effective businesspeople have a chance of going bankrupt when they screw up. And consumers typically can choose a different provider. You are right about constrained markets. Hence everything is conditional on my plea for opening markets. It can be hard to encourage new startups, especially in areas of the world or country with less of an established startup mentality; but it's generally…

I am going to add given that revolving doors and golden parachutes much of the C-level experiences, actual consequence is often something that many of the highest paid people in the world evade with ease. You can drive a company in to the ground and/or sexually harass employees, and still walk off with millions of dollars. At least with public servants, their position can potentially be term limited and subjected to a vote.

Constrained markets are not always or even regularly the fault of regulators. There may just be few options or only one option available, and the cost of entry to the market is extremely high. It's not just a matter of some plucky startup entering the market when the incumbent can bleed money for a a year or two to kill off any competition in that area, then jack up rates. You also have collusion issues, which often occurs in the oil industry and DRAM/flash memory markets, and even in places like pre-made ice markets. A startup may not just have to be better than the immediate competition, they may have to be better than an entire cartel set on destroying them, which is very difficult and anti-consumer. Imagine going up against Microsoft and Intel in the 90s, who literally had billions of dollars at their disposal to turn the market against you, and actively did so.

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

#786

Post by Klinky » Sun, Sep 27, 2020, 8:49 PM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #770

Klinky wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 G…

It's not about honest individuals, nor smart consummers. It's about structures. Trying to fix monopolies with regulators is like trying to fix monarchy with princes. Regulators harden market structures.

Trying to fix monopolies by allowing them to continue to exist results in the monopoly continuing to exist. How is this better? There is nothing in a "free market" that disallows a monopoly existing or continuing to exist forever, buying and extinguishing all competition in its wake. It is essentially the end game, ultimate vertical integration and market dominance. You might say some startup is going to "disrupt" these incumbents, until we reflect on all the cool products bought and extinguished by the FAANGs. Basically you're relying on the monopoly getting lazy and hoping there's enough interest and capital available to do battle, all the while consumers get reamed for who knows how long.

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

#787

Post by eru » Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 4:33 AM UTC

Klinky wrote: post #785

eru wrote: post #773

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, at least the honest and effective businesspeople have a chance of going bankrupt when they screw up. And consumers typically can choose a different provider. You are right about constrained markets. Hence everything is conditional on my plea for opening markets. It can be hard to encourage new startups, especially in areas of the world or country with less of an established startup mentality; but it's generally…

I am going to add given that revolving doors and golden parachutes much of the C-level experiences, actual consequence is often something that many of the highest paid people in the world evade with ease. You can drive a company in to the ground and/or sexually harass employees, and still walk off with millions of dollars. At least with public servants, their position can potentially be term limited and subjected to…

I agree with you that relying on startups alone is not enough.

Hence my heavy emphasis on foreign competition entering local markets; and of cross-industry competition. Like Walmart entering retail banking.

Microsoft and Intel are excellent examples! They were eventually toppled in their dominance, but it took quite a few years.

My argument is essentially that toppling Microsoft and Intel in about a decade is all we can hope for; and that it is enough.

Adding extra regulation mostly just gives the guys with the more expensive lawyers and lobbyists more tools.

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

#788

Post by eru » Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 4:36 AM UTC

Klinky wrote: post #786

dalbasal wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about honest individuals, nor smart consummers. It's about structures. Trying to fix monopolies with regulators is like trying to fix monarchy with princes. Regulators harden market structures.

Trying to fix monopolies by allowing them to continue to exist results in the monopoly continuing to exist. How is this better? There is nothing in a "free market" that disallows a monopoly existing or continuing to exist forever, buying and extinguishing all competition in its wake. It is essentially the end game, ultimate vertical integration and market dominance. You might say some startup is going to "disrupt" th…

Buying upstart competitors ensures that founders and VC are motivated to provide a steady stream of upstart competitors.

Ultimate vertical integration has been tried as a fad on and off. But it did not endure.

None of the FAANGs are all that vertically integrated. Apple doesn't even make their own hardware in-house, do they? (Foxconn makes most of the phones, don't they?)

If the monopolists are reaping excess profits (or having high costs) there's an incentive for new market entrants to come and take a share of those profits.

If the monopolists keep prices low enough that this doesn't happen, then consumers don't have too much to complain about, do they?

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

#789

Post by monocasa » Mon, Sep 28, 2020, 9:17 PM UTC

neotek wrote: post #764

monocasa wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This guy this whole thread is about is getting his channel shutdown "with no recourse." You still get copyright strikes after they restore your content. The whole copyright strike system is in addition to the DMCA, and is part of what was negotiated with the labels (in addition to ContentID). Also, what are you quoting "with no recourse" from?

>The whole copyright strike system is in addition to the DMCA, and is part of what was negotiated with the labels (in addition to ContentID). That's completely false, and all you need do is click the links I provided to see that it is. Copyright strikes are only issued in conjunction with DMCA takedown requests, Content ID does not and cannot cause you to receive strikes, and does not and cannot shut your channel dow…

> That's completely false, and all you need do is click the links I provided to see that it is. Copyright strikes are only issued in conjunction with DMCA takedown requests, Content ID does not and cannot cause you to receive strikes, and does not and cannot shut your channel down.

I never disputed any of that. I'm saying that the copyright strike system used by youtube on takedown requests:

* goes above and beyond what's required by the DMCA.

* is part of what was negotiated by Google and the labels (in addition to ContentID). The labels were concerned about people spamming their content and just uploading faster than they can takedown. This gives them a mechanism to shut down accounts for 'bad actors' who just keep uploading faster than the labels can issue takedowns.

* doesn't always remove strikes even when a counter-claim is filed because of above.

I never brought up ContentID, and my arguments are orthogonal to it's implementation and history.

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

#790

Post by pwg » Tue, Sep 29, 2020, 3:26 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #705

happymellon wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does `del -rf /` do a lot on Windows?

I doubt it, but `del *` should do the same thing on both systems.

Except that on windows, "del" defaults to prompting "are you sure" when one types "del *".