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

121–130 of 194 posts

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

#121

Post by alisonkisk »

rosmax_1337 wrote: post #50
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…

Have you considered why those places become grim places? Does free speech lead to those ideas? That would be quite a out-there conclusion. Rather, those people can only express themselves on forums like that, they are banned on all the other mediums. If free speech was set as a standard on all mediums, those people would express themselves evenly on facebook, youtube and the chans, rather than being penned into fring…

No post body was provided.

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

#122

Post by paulcole »

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.

yes, had you read/quoted my entire comment you'd realize that your point is exactly equivalent to my point

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

#123

Post by shmde »

titzer wrote: post #99
shmde wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I use UBlock Origin and I have NEVER watched an advert ever as far as I can remember.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa...

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...

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

#124

Post by happytiger »

I swear to goodness sometimes it seems like the search for the decentralized Internet / Web 3.0 tech is being powered primarily by outrage from google and PayPal’s behavior specifically. They are the negative PR royal couple for centralized control gone wrong on the Internet.

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

#125

Post by AnthonyMouse »

denton-scratch wrote: post #100
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

If you're a vegan libertarian who refuses to patronize agricultural conglomerates engaged in factory farming because it's a violation of the non-aggression principle, your argument for them not being in violation of it is that they never agreed to it?

It's not the company's principle, it's the customer's. The company is violating it so the customer is offended and is willing to take their business elsewhere. And to publicly condemn the company over it so others do the same. This is how the free market is supposed to work.

If a company is charging 6000% margins, you don't say "well I guess there's no law against it," you stop patronizing that company. And if you can't, the market is broken.

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

#126

Post by bingohbangoh »

I think Grammarly is a CIA front, or a front for some foreign intelligence.

Founded by three Ukrainians -- none of whom speak English as a first language -- that can read and analyze any text you write and is chock full of security vulnerabilities. Color me skeptical.

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

#127

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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…

Now you're getting into the details of the potential retaliation when that isn't really the point.

If a company is discriminating on the basis of race and government officials tell them to stop, there is no constitutional problem there, even if it comes with an implied threat of enforcement or new legislation, because passing a law against discrimination on the basis of race is not a constitutional violation. The government can directly punish that behavior so there is no problem to indirectly or implicitly punish it.

If a company is allowing protected speech the government doesn't like and government officials tell them to stop, that's different. Because it would be unconstitutional for them to pass a law saying the same thing. And there are many other ways the government can punish a business, e.g. by breaking them up. So the implied threat is, censor or we'll break you up, or mess with Section 230, or some other thing you won't like. It's coercing them to do the thing the government isn't allowed to coerce them to do, under threat of adverse regulation that the same government could withdraw in response to compliance.

What the adverse regulation is doesn't matter. It doesn't even have to be specified. The problem is the direction to do something the government isn't allowed to make them do.

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

#128

Post by denton-scratch »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #125
denton-scratch wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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. If you're a vegan libertarian who refuses to patronize agricultural conglomerates engaged in factory farming because it's a violation of the non-aggression principle, your argument for them not being in violati…

> If you're a vegan libertarian who refuses to patronize agricultural conglomerates engaged in factory farming because it's a violation of the non-aggression principle, your argument for them not being in violation of it is that they never agreed to it?

You make your point well.

However I don't know what this "non-aggression principle" is. That kind of "violation" doesn't seem to be like violating the terms of an agreement; it seems more like "violating my personal space".

I mean, I can set up whatever "principles" I like, and start accusing others of violating them. That's not like violating the terms of a law or agreement. It's a different use of the word "violate".

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

#129

Post by AnthonyMouse »

denton-scratch wrote: post #128
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. If you're a vegan libertarian who refuses to patronize agricultural conglomerates engaged in factory farming because it's a violation of the non-aggression principle, your argument for them not being in violati…

> If you're a vegan libertarian who refuses to patronize agricultural conglomerates engaged in factory farming because it's a violation of the non-aggression principle, your argument for them not being in violation of it is that they never agreed to it? You make your point well. However I don't know what this "non-aggression principle" is. That kind of "violation" doesn't seem to be like violating the terms of an agr…

> However I don't know what this "non-aggression principle" is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Often summarized as "don't hurt people and don't take their stuff."

Kind of used it on purpose because vegans would want to apply it to animals and then there would be a debate about whether it should be etc., when that doesn't really matter here -- the vegan libertarian is perfectly entitled to consider factory farms a violation of the principle and use that to condemn them and refuse to patronize them.

> That kind of "violation" doesn't seem to be like violating the terms of an agreement; it seems more like "violating my personal space".

We're getting caught up on the semantics of the word "violate." Someone could just as easily accuse the company of not supporting free speech and end up in the same place.

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

#130

Post by cortesoft »

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?

Well, the 'punishment' is not letting him use the service, which he wasn't supposed to be able to do anyway as a minor. It isn't like he is going to jail or being forced to pay a fine.

You seem to be arguing that you can't ever prevent minors from using your service, since you can only exclude them via your TOS and you can't enforce a TOS against minors.

This seems very similar to the arguments that "freeman of the land" use to argue that they can do whatever they want since they don't agree to be bound by laws.

Post reply on HN