101–110 of 119 posts
Might be moot, but the shutdown email mentions "spam, scam or deceptive practices", not just "reasons". Without any context about the owner of the channel, the reader has no way to know how unfair the shutdown is. I understand from the HN thread that the dev is well known and that the shutdown seems unfair - but it's always hard to share the outrage in this situation. Best of luck to the channel's owner - let's hope…
Don't worry, you can appeal at the GMAFIA robot. Who will instantly deny you.
Just like with Facebook/Instagram, if your account gets taken over and then banned because the hackers used it for spam/scams, there’s no way to get your account back. There’s an “appeal” button where a robot instantly denies your appeal without any opportunity to provide evidence. It’s not a joke. Once you’re locked out, you’re fucked. Meta doesn’t give a shit about its users, that’s the only way this business model…
Heh. Not really. Meta poured tens of billions in the last few years in their VR effort, with almost no results to show. With that money, they could have literally given a few minutes of human customer support to each and every of their users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but it's always hard to share the outrage in this situation I'm not really sure what makes raging about this so hard for you. Current YouTube practice is equivalent to locking up a citizen for "thievery" and "reasons" without providing any evidence of such at any point. And sure, few hundreds years ago this course of action would fly. But today we advanced a bit and demand that our justice is a bit more just. I don…
> Current YouTube practice is equivalent to locking up a citizen for "thievery" and "reasons" without providing any evidence of such at any point. No, it's not even that remotely, and to equate the two shows massive ignorance. This is like a book publisher of its own accord (without the government forcing them to) deciding that they do not want to publish your book anymore. Unless you have an explicit and enforceable…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but it's always hard to share the outrage in this situation I'm not really sure what makes raging about this so hard for you. Current YouTube practice is equivalent to locking up a citizen for "thievery" and "reasons" without providing any evidence of such at any point. And sure, few hundreds years ago this course of action would fly. But today we advanced a bit and demand that our justice is a bit more just. I don…
How does this make sense when zero percent of uploaded youtube videos are owned by the creators? It’s not like they are paintings loaned to an art gallery, where the gallery might have some obligations to preserve, return, etc. From what I understand there’s no liability even if the board of directors decide to shut down Youthbe tomorrow and permanently delete every uploaded video.
Says who and why should citizens of democratic countries listen to them? YouTube is a staple. If you reach this size, there are gonna be some rules. At least there should be.
> From what I understand there’s no liability even if the board of directors decide to shut down Youthbe tomorrow and permanently delete every uploaded video.
They are welcomed to do that. But deciding to refuse service on arbitrary grounds to one client is something they shouldn't be allowed to do. Otherwise why not ban people because they are Jewish or gay or just at random to sow fear? When you offer your services to the public then you shouldn't be allowed to refuse service to any member of the public without a very good and specific reason.
Might be moot, but the shutdown email mentions "spam, scam or deceptive practices", not just "reasons". Without any context about the owner of the channel, the reader has no way to know how unfair the shutdown is. I understand from the HN thread that the dev is well known and that the shutdown seems unfair - but it's always hard to share the outrage in this situation. Best of luck to the channel's owner - let's hope…
> but it's always hard to share the outrage in this situation I'm not really sure what makes raging about this so hard for you. Current YouTube practice is equivalent to locking up a citizen for "thievery" and "reasons" without providing any evidence of such at any point. And sure, few hundreds years ago this course of action would fly. But today we advanced a bit and demand that our justice is a bit more just. I don…
Like you, I used to believe this. Recent events have me re-examining my assumptions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does this make sense when zero percent of uploaded youtube videos are owned by the creators? It’s not like they are paintings loaned to an art gallery, where the gallery might have some obligations to preserve, return, etc. From what I understand there’s no liability even if the board of directors decide to shut down Youthbe tomorrow and permanently delete every uploaded video.
> How does this make sense when zero percent of uploaded youtube videos are owned by the creators? Says who and why should citizens of democratic countries listen to them? YouTube is a staple. If you reach this size, there are gonna be some rules. At least there should be. > From what I understand there’s no liability even if the board of directors decide to shut down Youthbe tomorrow and permanently delete every upl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How does this make sense when zero percent of uploaded youtube videos are owned by the creators? Says who and why should citizens of democratic countries listen to them? YouTube is a staple. If you reach this size, there are gonna be some rules. At least there should be. > From what I understand there’s no liability even if the board of directors decide to shut down Youthbe tomorrow and permanently delete every upl…
But even new legislation, assuming it can be rammed through Congress within your lifetime, can’t retroactively apply to uploaded videos which already were copied in fact…?
a computer can never be held accountable — therefore a computer must never make a management decision
That's a really fascinating, but horrible, point. Every AI decision becomes a way to shirk responsibility, even more than just automated ones (because then its "your" rule). Welcome to the brave new world of AI-decision laundering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But even new legislation, assuming it can be rammed through Congress within your lifetime, can’t retroactively apply to uploaded videos which already were copied in fact…?
I thought the point was about how easily one can feel rage about this not if the situation can realistically be improved in any way.
The prior comment wasn’t posted randomly in some arbitrary location.
It was in response to a specific comment in a specific location.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought the point was about how easily one can feel rage about this not if the situation can realistically be improved in any way.
How does this matter? The prior comment wasn’t posted randomly in some arbitrary location. It was in response to a specific comment in a specific location.
Namely:
> but it's always hard to share the outrage in this situation