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

YouTube suspends Google accounts of Markiplier's viewers for minor emote spam

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 101 posts

Re: YouTube suspends Google accounts of Markiplier's viewers for minor emote spam

#31

Post by cameronbrown »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #26
dannyw wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need legislation. Google is too powerful.

Legislation to protect e-mail mailboxes as the same way we do with official postal (snail-)mail services in most countries needs to be handled very carefully, because otherwise we'll end up protecting spammers - the very opposite of the people we want to protect. I see this story as Google's equivalent of when Valve would ban people from Steam for crude comments they made on the Steam forums, which I understand meant…

Nit: Valve just banned them from forums, not Steam. They already do what you're proposing.

Re: YouTube suspends Google accounts of Markiplier's viewers for minor emote spam

#32

Post by fyp »

chii wrote: post #19
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would also recommend never storing mission-critical stuff only in your email. Losing the contents of your inbox should be the least of your concerns if there’s a chance you might lose access to your account. There are far worse repercussions - e.g. a) how do you update everyone else's record of your email address? b) how many services have you locked yourself out of, or made doing so much more likely?

It makes owning your email address (including the domain name part) crucial. It's time people separated the hosting of email from the interface (the address).

I think most people just don't realize how easy this is and you can even keep using gmail.

Most domain registrars have free email forwarding so you can forward *@domain.com to your gmail. This by itself is already good enough for signing up for things or resetting passwords.

If you also need to send from that domain in gmail there's just a few more steps: https://support.google.com/domains/answer/9437157?hl=en

Re: YouTube suspends Google accounts of Markiplier's viewers for minor emote spam

#33

Post by chr1 »

alexis_fr wrote: post #29
chr1 wrote: post #21

I wish lawmakers instead of spending time on misguided cookie banner laws, spent more time on things like this. Behavior like this is completely unacceptable, it is equivalent to store owner throwing you out because he thought your hair are red. People whose accounts are being suspended without warning, without explanation, and without a way to appeal, like in this case, should be able to sue the company for a large…

> without explanation Common misconception. Let’s assume something as bad as a criminal in prison. Well, they still need their emails. Perhaps not in prison but at least for their recovery. Or to access their bank account. Their retirement funds. Their social security. It’s a misconception that there could be a good reason to entirely revoke any account. Youtube is different. It’s a broadcasting tool.

There can be some special cases when suspending account is justified, e.g. criminal not in prison using the account for criminal activity, someone creating new account and sending spam from it or collecting phishing data. So we do not want to completely prevent companies from banning users who abuse the service and cause financial damage to the company, we want companies to not mistreat the normal users who happened to trigger a bug in some algorithm.

But i was not saying that explanation alone would make suspension ok, i was saying that the lack of explanation is an aggravating circumstance in this case.

Re: YouTube suspends Google accounts of Markiplier's viewers for minor emote spam

#34

Post by anthony_doan »

thinkingemote wrote: post #20

Looks like they are trying to use AI for automation and it's screwed up. Again. And it will and must happen again and again to get better. Actually they call this stressful work and actively explicitly are working towards not getting workers to do this work for their own benefit if you believe HR and the mental health supporters of this policy. I forget the actual term it's something like "Mental Health Ops'. Why sho…

> Looks like they are trying to use AI for automation and it's screwed up. Again. And it will and must happen again and again to get better.

Excuse me? Why can't they get better data?

It seems here they used email spam data to mark chat from stream. Or something similar along the line.

If you ever watch Twitch livestream people spam, it's encourage unless it's a oneman spam.

Twitch system is much better. Even if it's subjective I'd take that over what Youtube currently have right now.

edit:

Also they could validate their model better before rolling it out in production and ruining people lives.

Re: YouTube suspends Google accounts of Markiplier's viewers for minor emote spam

#36

Post by willis936 »

This boils down to trust. We need to trust that our email provider won’t turn off. We need to trust that our ISP won’t shut off our internet. We need to trust that our cell provider won’t shut off our service. We need to trust that our power company won’t shut off our power.

There is simply far too much on the line here to not have protections. The use contract of email providers needs to regulated.

Re: YouTube suspends Google accounts of Markiplier's viewers for minor emote spam

#37

Post by rebuilder »

chr1 wrote: post #28
throwaway2048 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why its baffling to me that lots of people who are deadly afraid of government tyranny are completely ok with privately owned tyranny (even monopolistic kinds)

Government tyranny is a far greater danger because government can use force in the form of army and police, and when established it effectively owns everything else in the country. The privately owned tyranny has much less power, and when it becomes bad, government can intervene. So while no tyranny is ok, government deserves much more attention, because it is the more powerful tool, that needs to be protected much m…

The people who control the people with the guns are the government. In the west, those people are somewhat separate from e.g. private companies, but that's just how we choose to do things, not some intrinsic feature of governments.

Re: YouTube suspends Google accounts of Markiplier's viewers for minor emote spam

#38

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

cameronbrown wrote: post #31
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legislation to protect e-mail mailboxes as the same way we do with official postal (snail-)mail services in most countries needs to be handled very carefully, because otherwise we'll end up protecting spammers - the very opposite of the people we want to protect. I see this story as Google's equivalent of when Valve would ban people from Steam for crude comments they made on the Steam forums, which I understand meant…

Nit: Valve just banned them from forums, not Steam. They already do what you're proposing.

Got a link? I remember reading that people were banned from their Steam accounts entirely without any refunds and they had to resort to CC chargebacks.

Re: YouTube suspends Google accounts of Markiplier's viewers for minor emote spam

#39

Post by m-p-3 »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #13

The real issue here is that (reportedly) the people who spammed got their GMail accounts shut down. That's outrageous. That's your real-life, not just your online-life. Your GMail account isn't even related at all to your YouTube identity. Remember: if you aren't _at least_ paying for your e-mail service you don't own your own mailbox. When was the last time you made a backup of your GMail account? What contingency p…

Google should be able to disable access to a specific service, not shutting down the whole account.

They want to be the identity of the online world, they need the responsibilities that comes with it.

Re: YouTube suspends Google accounts of Markiplier's viewers for minor emote spam

#40

Post by unstrafed »

pixl97 wrote: post #24
sorenjan wrote: post #23

Constant news about Google banning accounts for various mistakes, small or large, reminds me of a certain country's social credit system. When will they start banning people that have any kind of contact with accounts in bad standing? Will they start denying purchases on Google Pay depending on how well behaved the account is?

Companies are authoritarian dictatorships

This is a good model. Companies have two constraints keeping them in line: if they cease making money, they die (in general, at least); and the law can tweak their behavior toward benevolence.
Post reply on HN