311–320 of 362 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can the FBI do anything if the culprit is not in the US?
Sort of... sometimes they will lure them to the USA or catch them while they're here if the victim has enough clout. Some here may remember when the FBI arrested Dmitry Sklyarov, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Elcom_Ltd .
They don't work for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can't figure out how to scale proper customer service, there's a simple solution: don't grow too large too fast. I know, blasphemy to the VC crowd.
It's not blasphemy, just elementary economics. Customer service at scale, for many products, turns the product from profitable into a severe loss. It will go out of business no ifs ands or buts. YouTube clearly cannot survive if its customer service costs exceed its advertising revenue. It has absolutely nothing to do with speed of growth, and I don't know why you think it does. Are you saying free user-generated vid…
Either have proper human or machine evaluation and very fast response to complaints about fuckups, or,
let it be an open platform, and only respond to legal requests to remove things, the way the Internet used to work,
...because they clearly cannot handle the alternative without fucking people over repeatedly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Switch to Napster. I did, for this reason, and I'm very happy I did.
How does that help prevent podcasts going Spotify-exclusive and ceasing to be podcasts?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Transact for what? What am I more likely to need bitcoin for than to pay off some script kiddie?
It's a strange thing to condemn an entire concept because you lack imagination. ACH takes days to transfer between bank accounts in the same country. Maybe you want your money to get somewhere faster than that. Maybe you need to take money with you when leaving the country and don't want the border agents to nail you with civil asset forfeiture. Those are off the top of my head. If that's not sufficient, I'm really n…
Your second case is also either no issue, or you now have the issue of how to turn bits into cash in a foreign country, which doesn't seem easier.
I may lack imagination, but I am also not subject to the paranoid delusions that seem to surround this stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does one find ban/review rates for YouTube? Wouldn't this be internal data? Can you provide a link to a public datasource that shows shows outcomes of YouTube's banning/takedown and review processes?
https://transparencyreport.google.com/youtube-policy/removal...
That said there would be some privacy concerns if that data was just floating around out there.
This might not be a popular opinion, but I feel like YouTube is doing their best with a really hard problem. I see a lot of people complaining about things like this, but I also see a lot of people complaining that YouTube/Twitter/etc aren't doing enough to take down false/immoral/illegal content quick enough. [1] It really sucks when a legitimate video is taken down by mistake. But it also really sucks when revenge…
> I feel like most of the time I see posts like this, the situation is resolved favorably and relatively quickly. Sadly the situation is only resolved because the person gets traction on Twitter etc. You shouldn't have to kick and scream and demand action on Twitter to get baseline levels of support from a human.
If the majority of subscriber's vote confirms the content then the channel owner could be given a 2nd chance?
Just an idea off the top of my bald head.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does that help prevent podcasts going Spotify-exclusive and ceasing to be podcasts?
By ceasing to give Spotify the money they're using to buy them out, and declining to allow them to be a central platform monopolist.
As long as it remains useful to preserve the appearance of competition in the streaming audio market, Napster will continue to exist. Enjoy it while it lasts.
This is extortion. Did Google disclose to you the identity of the party who sent the takedown notice. If not, a lawyer might be able to help here. You have a good case against the other party for extortion, and a weak case against Google for assisting them. There's a strong legal incentive here for Google to disclose the name of the other party, if they are being difficult about doing so. DMCA notices can't be anonym…
Doesn't really help when the other party is clearly a child with no money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Customer service at scale, for many products, turns the product from profitable into a severe loss. If that is the case then Google is helpless to stop these attacks from growing out of control. How long before the long tail of YouTube is clipped off?
Well that's another false extreme. That's what algorithmic detection (together with user flagging) and removal at scale is for. That prevents them from growing out of control. The combo of algorithmic detection at scale, combined with small amounts of manual intervention and customer service where most needed, is how YouTube is able to operate.
This article is evidence that the process is breaking down. It's an old maxim in computer security that attacks become more sophisticated over time as knowledge of the system grows and spreads among attackers. That is what we are seeing here. YouTube has built a system which is ultimately unsustainable at this scale. Over time these attacks will continue to escalate until only the very large channels (those they have the resources to support in person) and the very small channels (those beneath the notice of attackers) are left.