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

YouTube suspended my channel for a video with disclosed issue in Grammarly

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 194 posts

Re: YouTube suspended my channel for a video with disclosed issue in Grammarly

#111

Post by HWR_14 »

Ironlikebike wrote: post #23
evilksandr wrote: post #2

1) At the blocking moment I had only 2 videos (just screen records) on my channel which showed the same problem in 2 different Grammarly products 2) these videos were an illustration for my report https://hackerone.com/reports/1282282 , which Grammarly disclosed to the public and does not consider this a problem. 3) these videos were published after Grammarly representatives allowed me to release this information 4)…

My son (a curious juvenile) found his own YouTube account banned in a similar manner for disclosing a security issue in Google wifi products. There was no first or second warning (despite what the Terms of Service say). Google would not give him a justification for the banning other than "terms of service violation". The appeals fell on deaf ears. Now their automated system keeps banning every YouTube account he crea…

> worry that he'll never be able to appeal and a stupid 'mistaken reading of the ToS' on his part as a minor will affect his ability to ever host a YouTube channel or have a premium account subscription.

How can a minor (who cannot sign a contract) be punished (legally) for not adhering to a ToS?

Re: YouTube suspended my channel for a video with disclosed issue in Grammarly

#112

Post by Karunamon »

jcranmer wrote: post #98
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

What would likely pass constitutional muster and get these companies to pay attention is the threat to either revoke Section 230 or modify it so that its protections are conditional rather than absolute.

The constitution has nothing to say on the matter of holding them responsible for the libelous, defamatory, harassing, terrorist, etc. content they fail to moderate away every day.

Re: YouTube suspended my channel for a video with disclosed issue in Grammarly

#113

Post by jjk166 »

evilksandr wrote: post #88
itake wrote: post #85

Youtube does not allow "instructional hacking" videos. This is a TOS / community guidelines [0] violation. This ban has nothing to do with their advertiser. [0] - https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964?hl=en

The video was published after Grammarly representatives identified the case as "The described behavior is a functionality limitation that does not affect the security and privacy of our product", disclosed the case and gave me permission to publish my research results. More details here https://hackerone.com/reports/1282282 . Аlso there in the files you can find the original videos that were published on my channel.

How would google's automated system for detecting hacking instruction videos know that grammarly doesn't consider something hacking and gave you permission to publish? You're posting something that looks like an exploit, and linking to multiple places that strongly resemble instructions for how to exploit a system, one of which is actively advertising "hiring hackers" and absolutely loaded with keywords and phrases that are going to trigger the algorithm.

Re: YouTube suspended my channel for a video with disclosed issue in Grammarly

#114

Post by bcrosby95 »

denton-scratch wrote: post #66
raxxorrax wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

The federal laws, much less the constitution, are the bare minimum in the USA. For example, most states have at least one statute saying companies can't fire employees over some forms of political speech.

So while your statement is true, it is not the discussion-stopper that most people seem to think it is.

Re: YouTube suspended my channel for a video with disclosed issue in Grammarly

#115

Post by Karunamon »

duiker101 wrote: post #37

For those wanting a more honest alternative to Grammarly, LanguageTool[1] is open source and quite good. That said, I am not a power user and my English is just passable, so your mileage may vary. [1] https://languagetool.org

Thanks for the pointer! I've been looking for a Grammarly alternative for ages now.

Their product is both ridiculously overpriced for what you get ($30/month, last I looked, for a spelling/grammar checker along the lines of what MS Word provides), a massive privacy/security violation (you have to send everything you type for the service to do its job; no corporate IT with a pulse would be okay with this), and worst of all, it's buggy as hell. Last time I tried it, it refused to work on HN even though this is a bog standard text field, and I spent a ton of time trying to get it to stop correcting things that didn't need corrected.

Re: YouTube suspended my channel for a video with disclosed issue in Grammarly

#116

Post by staticautomatic »

HWR_14 wrote: post #111
Ironlikebike wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My son (a curious juvenile) found his own YouTube account banned in a similar manner for disclosing a security issue in Google wifi products. There was no first or second warning (despite what the Terms of Service say). Google would not give him a justification for the banning other than "terms of service violation". The appeals fell on deaf ears. Now their automated system keeps banning every YouTube account he crea…

> worry that he'll never be able to appeal and a stupid 'mistaken reading of the ToS' on his part as a minor will affect his ability to ever host a YouTube channel or have a premium account subscription. How can a minor (who cannot sign a contract) be punished (legally) for not adhering to a ToS?

The agreement can be voided.

Re: YouTube suspended my channel for a video with disclosed issue in Grammarly

#117

Post by dfxm12 »

jchw wrote: post #26
smcl wrote: post #21

Earlier 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

Free speech isn’t just something that can be encoded into law, it’s an ideology. A great ideology, imo. That said, with COVID-19 it really became apparent that these platforms have basically become a new public square, putting everyone in an awkward position. You can basically be ousted from the internet by just a couple entities like Facebook or Twitter and have your entire online presence torpedoed. IRL I can just…

It’s hard to argue that companies should be forced to allow things they don’t want on their platforms

Yes, because the concept of free speech has never implied that you're entitled to have other entities hear or repeat your speech nor is there any principle that compels someone else to listen to or repeat what you're saying. If you want that to be the case, that's certainly your prerogative, but that's a different concept from any mainstream definition of free speech I've come across.

Re: YouTube suspended my channel for a video with disclosed issue in Grammarly

#118

Post by jcranmer »

Karunamon wrote: post #112
jcranmer wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

What would likely pass constitutional muster and get these companies to pay attention is the threat to either revoke Section 230 or modify it so that its protections are conditional rather than absolute. The constitution has nothing to say on the matter of holding them responsible for the libelous, defamatory, harassing, terrorist, etc. content they fail to moderate away every day.

The world without §230 offers two possibilities: no moderation (with all the ills that brings), or moderation tuned to have a 0% false negative rate--and as a result a rather high false positive rate. Most likely, social media companies will choose the latter over the former. And given that about half [1] the people who complain about the current state of moderation think it's too heavy-handed, I think they'll be even less thrilled than they are now to have false positive rates skyrocket.

[1] I suspect it's actually a fair bit more than half, given the semi-frequent occurrences of cases like this article that no one really wants to defend.

Re: YouTube suspended my channel for a video with disclosed issue in Grammarly

#119

Post by alisonkisk »

contravariant wrote: post #29
smcl wrote: post #21

Earlier 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

The idea that companies should be allowed to trample all over basic freedoms because they're not the government has to be the most capitalist idea ever.

No post body was provided.

Re: YouTube suspended my channel for a video with disclosed issue in Grammarly

#120

Post by Karunamon »

jcranmer wrote: post #118
Karunamon wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would likely pass constitutional muster and get these companies to pay attention is the threat to either revoke Section 230 or modify it so that its protections are conditional rather than absolute. The constitution has nothing to say on the matter of holding them responsible for the libelous, defamatory, harassing, terrorist, etc. content they fail to moderate away every day.

The world without §230 offers two possibilities: no moderation (with all the ills that brings), or moderation tuned to have a 0% false negative rate--and as a result a rather high false positive rate. Most likely, social media companies will choose the latter over the former. And given that about half [1] the people who complain about the current state of moderation think it's too heavy-handed, I think they'll be eve…

Why would they choose the latter when it's the most expensive option?

Also, outright revocation of 230 is just one option. Companies at Facebook/Twitter/Reddit scale would do nearly anything to keep that protection since moderation at that scale simply is not possible. This gives an inroad to all kinds of regulation.

Alternatively, your second scenario happens, and it likely leads to the destruction of large, centralized social media, and a proliferation of decentralized, hard-to-sue alternatives. This too, is a win.

Post reply on HN