This seems to be standard practice, for years?
YouTube's ban on “hacking techniques” threatens to shut down infosec YouTube
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20350306 (Jul 2019)
YouTube is taking down educational hacking videos
YouTube suspended my channel for a video with disclosed issue in Grammarly
91–100 of 194 posts
Re: YouTube suspended my channel for a video with disclosed issue in Grammarly
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they recently changed the tos to blacklist all videos regarding hacking and similar stuff
We did quite extensive digging into the ToS and there was nothing explicitly forbidden about what he had done and they refused to point to any rule he had violated in particular. If they've updated it, it must have been in the last 4-5 months.
Thanks for your support! These videos were published 4 months ago, I posted a link to one of them 75 days ago on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29056542 and my channel was suspended on Jan 7.
Re: YouTube suspended my channel for a video with disclosed issue in Grammarly
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you've incorrectly invoked "free speech" here, IMO this isn't a free speech issue. It may be a TOS issue and it does sound like Google are being a bit unreasonable but "free speech" isn't really something Google ever promised to permit on their platforms
Why is that not a free speech issue? It is not a legal issue of course, but removal of critical opinions very much qualifies to be a violation of the principle.
Unregulated monopolies do not have to uphold constitutional rights.
The phone company used to be regulated so even if you were a hated Republican they still had to provide phone service to you if you lived in their service area. Those days are over and monopolies in practice will never be redefined again as "legal monopolies".
Re: YouTube suspended my channel for a video with disclosed issue in Grammarly
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
I absolutely disagree. But we had this debate over and over and over again. It would be great if you could stop rehashing is debate once more. I some twist of irony, this comment is against the HN TOS. So please stop.
How is my comment against the HN TOS?
Given the context of the linked article AND the somewhat off topic debate, he was clearly being humorous. Or trying.
Re: YouTube suspended my channel for a video with disclosed issue in Grammarly
#95I wonder how much money Grammarly have spent with youtube.
Them and that...insurance company. They absolutely bombaaaarded me with ads and I literally never thought of them when I went shopping for car insurance a year back. Money well spent, you annoying turds!
Re: YouTube suspended my channel for a video with disclosed issue in Grammarly
#96Post on other platform. You’ll get more votes purely from the fact that you were censored by Google.
Re: YouTube suspended my channel for a video with disclosed issue in Grammarly
#97I wonder how much money Grammarly have spent with youtube.
Them and that...insurance company. They absolutely bombaaaarded me with ads and I literally never thought of them when I went shopping for car insurance a year back. Money well spent, you annoying turds!
Geniune question. Why don't you use Ad-blocker ? my life on the internet turned around when I started using it around 5-6 years ago.
Re: YouTube suspended my channel for a video with disclosed issue in Grammarly
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's one route - that I also favour - but my favourite idea would be to give everyone access to the tools that FB et al use for moderation. If I don't want to see porn/politics/bots/cussing/sport/K-pop… then I want to be able to choose that, not the platform. They have all this data and the ability to shape the feed, give me that power. No need to stomp on free speech, no need to clumsily moderate. Of course, peopl…
> If I don't want to see porn/politics/bots/cussing/sport/K-pop… then I want to be able to choose that, not the platform. This would certainly be a welcome feature, but it doesn't really solve the problem. Suppose you want to see adult content, politics and cussing but you don't want to see bots. Nobody wants to see bots. Then their broken algorithm calls someone a bot who is not. Well, they're blocked from everyone,…
> The argument has been made that this is actually a First Amendment violation because of the state action: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1363175977531150338
The argument has been made, but not successfully. The thing is, threatening to pass a (flagrantly unconstitutional) law if companies don't do something isn't enough of a direct tie by itself to make someone a state actor. Especially when those countries from time to time ask Congress to pass such a law.
Re: YouTube suspended my channel for a video with disclosed issue in Grammarly
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
Them and that...insurance company. They absolutely bombaaaarded me with ads and I literally never thought of them when I went shopping for car insurance a year back. Money well spent, you annoying turds!
Geniune question. Why don't you use Ad-blocker ? my life on the internet turned around when I started using it around 5-6 years ago.
I do, but YouTube constantly finds a way around it. I've been running Adblock Plus and Ghostery Lite, but YouTube ads have poked their way through again.
Re: YouTube suspended my channel for a video with disclosed issue in Grammarly
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
The (US) constitutional protections on speech constrain the actions of US governments; those constraints don't extend to private companies and individuals. And "principles" are things you can adopt and agree with as you see fit. They are not law. Not everyone takes an absolutist position that "free speech" is a principle we should all be defending to the last ditch.
It's still fair to call this a violation of free speech -- even if the company has no legal obligation not to do it -- and therefore give them shit about it. As a customer. Who can take their business elsewhere. And if the customer can't take their business elsewhere, it appears we have arrived at the underlying problem.
> It's still fair to call this a violation of free speech
You can call it a violation of rock and roll, if you like. Normally, "violate" is something you do the law, or a contract, or an agreement. You can't normally "violate" a principle that you haven't declared your adherence to, just because someone else adheres to it.