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

151–160 of 194 posts

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

#151

Post by jjk166 »

evilksandr wrote: post #140
jjk166 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Ok, I agree with the keywords (not with content, which Grammarly mentioned as "not affect the security and privacy of our product"). But YT algorithm has been thinking about that 4 months after I published these videos and terminated my account (without any strikes) 2 days after YT terms was changed https://www.youtube.com/t/terms

In the community guidelines, they note:

> We may terminate your channel or account for repeated violations of the Community Guidelines or Terms of Service. We may also terminate your channel or account after a single case of severe abuse, or when the channel is dedicated to a policy violation.

And for their purposes your posts include linked content. You have a channel that only posts videos that the algorithm likely flags as hacking instructions, and you've linked to a site that very likely has been flagged by the algorithm multiple times. The recent change in the YT terms of service likely coincides with a minor patch to YT's moderation algorithm which pushed your videos over the detection threshold.

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

#152

Post by maxltv »

Sosh101 wrote: post #3

I wonder how much money Grammarly have spent with youtube.

That would be irrelevant in this case. Grammarly has no issues with the videos, as the company stated in the official responses on HackerOne.

Grammarly's plagiarism self-check is to help its users avoid accidental or unintentional plagiarism by highlighting text that may need citations. If a user is using countermeasures to mask plagiarism, it's not accidental or unintentional, so Grammarly stays out of it. Grammarly is NOT a plagiarism policy enforcement tool.

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

#153

Post by MereInterest »

cloverich wrote: post #54
jchw wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

(tangent) kind of interesting how it resembles a small town in that way. Its a problem those of us in bigger suburbs or cities wouldn't recognize but, once you get stereotyped in some way -- any way -- it can become difficult or impossbile to escape. As the internet is even bigger than a large city -- its the whole world -- you'd naively think it would be even more proressive. In that sense these little fiefdom's pro…

I'd go one step further. It resembles a company town, not just a small town. You want email? Better go with one of the big providers, because those big providers flag self-hosting as spam. You want video hosting? Better go with youtube, because nothing else will have enough of an audience to make it worthwhile. Find something out about the boss's friend? (Or the Grammarly plagiarism checker?) Good luck walking to the next town, because the boss owns everything in town.

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

#154

Post by MereInterest »

denton-scratch wrote: post #69
paulcole wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is definitely a free speech issue but not in the legal and constitutional sense that you're thinking of. Regardless of the situation you're in, you have the ability to say, "I should have the right to free speech in this situation." Whether this belief will be validated in the reality of the situation is an entirely different matter.

> I should have the right to free speech That's a legitimate opinion. I am of the view that rights are things that are granted by some authority, not something you acquire by simply existing. I envy the USA their constitutional protections on speech. But unless Google has made a grant of free speech rights on their platform, no such rights exist.

> I am of the view that rights are things that are granted by some authority, not something you acquire by simply existing.

That's an interesting view, and not one that is supported by the US Constitution.

> First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This doesn't state that either Congress or the Constitution is granting the freedom of speech, or the right to assemble peacably, but rather states that Congress may not make a law that abridges those rights. The right

> Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Again, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures is something that exists before the Constitution. It isn't something that is granted by the Constitution, but a pre-existing right that may not be violated.

> Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This is the most direct counter-argument, that rights exist outside of the enumerated rights. That some rights are explicitly enumerated may not be used to imply that those are the only rights that exist. If the Constitution and authorities derived from the Constitution were the source of rights, then there couldn't be rights that exist outside of them. But instead, the Constitution states that there exist rights outside of those mentioned, so they must have been pre-existing rights.

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

#155

Post by maxltv »

A Grammarly team member but posting own thoughts to clarify some things.

First, Grammarly has nothing to do with this suspension and does not have any problem with the videos in question, just as mentioned in the official HackerOne response.

Second, this is not a hack or even a flaw. It is an attempt to use Grammarly for a NON-INTENDED purpose, that predictably did not work. Grammarly is not meant for anti-plagiarism policy enforcement. Grammarly aims to help users avoid accidental or unintentional plagiarism by highlighting parts that may need to be cited. So it does not attempt to deal with any plagiarism enforcement countermeasures. If someone is deliberately masking plagiarism with these countermeasures, it's definitely NOT unintentional or accidental and a whole different issue altogether, so Grammarly does not get involved with this, by design. Bypassing the tool that is designed to HELP YOU avoid getting in trouble with accidental plagiarism is not a hack but more like "bypassing" your wifi by putting your own router in a microwave - defeating the purpose rather than defeating security. So Grammarly does not care about these videos (although I think presenting this as a hack or a flaw is a little unfair).

Finally, Youtube's automated (I'm guessing) blocking often does strange things. My account was once blocked for supposedly violating Sony's video game copyright. The video in question was me driving a car on a race track, in real life. It got unblocked within a week or two, though.

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

#157

Post by smcl »

tonguez wrote: post #102
smcl wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What basic freedom are these companies trampling? I dislike them as much as the next person, but it's been clear from the start that they operate their little fiefdoms as they see fit and we should be under no illusions that we have no rights there. If we want to fight for a change to the various laws in various countries, then that is a conversation I would be very willing to have. But let's not pretend that any of…

"What basic freedom are these companies trampling?" Freedom of speech

Honestly this reminds me of a friend who sincerely answered "Because America" when I asked a related question. It didn't really mean anything and it was a naive misunderstanding the situation. In this case you misunderstand your relationship with these companies. Despite what you think about whatever law or amendment ...

    You do not have a right of free speech on Google's platforms.
Yeah it sucks, you could talk about how you think Google are awful and they could kick you off. But also someone could be inciting an uprising against a minority and they can also be kicked off. It all kinda depends on the Terms of Service you agree on with Google. It's complex and annoying and it comes up all the time and has been done to death.

But nonetheless in this case it seems they removed someone who _didn't_ violate TOS, which bodes rather badly for the all of us because it means we are subject to the whims of whoever possesses the banhammer at any given time.

And with that I'm out. I cannot deal with this thread any more.

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

#159

Post by omegalulw »

maxltv wrote: post #155

A Grammarly team member but posting own thoughts to clarify some things. First, Grammarly has nothing to do with this suspension and does not have any problem with the videos in question, just as mentioned in the official HackerOne response. Second, this is not a hack or even a flaw. It is an attempt to use Grammarly for a NON-INTENDED purpose, that predictably did not work. Grammarly is not meant for anti-plagiarism…

I'm assuming plagiarism checks are do ne serverside - do you save any logs/information about plagiarism check results for a user, possibly under a TTL?

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

#160

Post by evilksandr »

maxltv wrote: post #148
megumax wrote: post #15

After Grammarly spent millions of dollars on Google ads, I expect them not to accept valid criticism on Google platforms. But it's unfair to block a guy that talked about a real flaw in Grammarly's plagiarism checker, at least pretend that you allow free speech and take down that video for a random reason specified in your ToS.

First, Grammarly has nothing to do with this suspension or any problem with the videos in question. Second, this is not a flaw or a hack but an unsuccessful attempt to use Grammarly for an UNINTENDED purpose. Grammarly is not meant for anti-plagiarism enforcement. Grammarly aims to help users avoid accidental or unintentional plagiarism by highlighting parts that may need to be cited. So it does not attempt to deal w…

Grammarly has a separate plagiarism checker https://www.grammarly.com/plagiarism-checker which was in my report
Post reply on HN