181–190 of 396 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So ignoring your customers after they've paid you money is something we should just throw into the bin of "that's just business, folks"?
As cliche as it sounds, YouTube creators are not the customer, the advertisers are.
In all, I pay Google north of $1,000 every year.
Whether Google likes it or not, I AM their customer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it just incredibly sad that one of the top 5 companies in our industry has this way of operating? And is it really true that there are not enough engineers and product people reading stories like this and have a bit of that good old "Focus on the user and all else will follow" to make the system more humane?
I'm sure they exist, they are just too busy playing the 'stay out of the bottom 10% of automatic layoffs' game.
The problem is not the content of the video, crypto or not. The problem is not that YT moderates aggressively (it doesn't do enough IMHO) or even how it moderates. The problem is that there is no serious appeals process, and no third party oversight of moderation decisions. This is true for all the big platforms. How do we fix that, IDK, but probably at the government level.
It could be remunerated. Like: pay 100$ to have a human look at your case. You can appeal (and pay) up to 3 times. This would partially solve the scalability problem + provide partial disincentives for scammers and spammers. I would happily pay 100$ to recover my lost Google account. Of course this would in turn create the bad incentive of having Google not create good models. Ideally the law would require to cap pri…
Why are you using legacy centralized web 2.0 platforms ruled by fiat money? Put your video on IPFS, give it an ens.domain, mint an NFT for it. With an eth filecoin bridge it will fund its own censorship-resistance forever. That tech is great and has obsoleted web 2.0. Don't trust Google, self-govern!
Curious.
Why are you using legacy centralized web 2.0 platforms ruled by fiat money? Put your video on IPFS, give it an ens.domain, mint an NFT for it. With an eth filecoin bridge it will fund its own censorship-resistance forever. That tech is great and has obsoleted web 2.0. Don't trust Google, self-govern!
I'm not sure why people are calling this satire. If you want to host a video, make it available through a URI, protect your ownership rights and then make sure it gets hosted for as long as possible, this is a way to do it.
Similarly, an NFT doesn’t prevent everyone from accessing it so you can’t force people to pay for the cost of their access and it doesn’t protect your ownership — that’s done by copyright laws enforced by the government.
The only thing a blockchain is adding is the chance for people who sell blockchains to make money while distracting you from the real problems you’ll need to deal with either way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have the power TODAY to change that. Do it before you lose access. Start with a Google Takeout and get your email out into your own domain as a starting point. Search "self hosting" for more details, even if you have no interest in running your own servers it gives you lots of good ideas to regain more control over your own data.
My main fear about that is not doing it properly and my email stop working as expected. For the nature of my job (press) I send a lot of emails to people who don-t know me, asking for interviews, etc. If my email starts to fall into spam folder, my job would be impossible. Gmail gives me that and I don't have to worry about if this person received the email or not.
There's so much nuance and it's easy to let things lapse, or make a small mistake and silently get all your mail rejected, lose/corrupt a bunch of data, etc.
Why are you using legacy centralized web 2.0 platforms ruled by fiat money? Put your video on IPFS, give it an ens.domain, mint an NFT for it. With an eth filecoin bridge it will fund its own censorship-resistance forever. That tech is great and has obsoleted web 2.0. Don't trust Google, self-govern!
Has anyone attempted to sue Google in small claims? For smaller annoyances like losing access to email and/or having a video removed this seems like it might be an option to increase the cost of improper take-downs? That said, not a lawyer and Google probably has a strong case around being a private platform with sole authority to remove content.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-google-bothered-to-ap_b_2...
The problem is not the content of the video, crypto or not. The problem is not that YT moderates aggressively (it doesn't do enough IMHO) or even how it moderates. The problem is that there is no serious appeals process, and no third party oversight of moderation decisions. This is true for all the big platforms. How do we fix that, IDK, but probably at the government level.