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

61–70 of 194 posts

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

#61

Post by politician »

Ironlikebike wrote: post #23
evilksandr wrote: post #2

1) At the blocking moment I had only 2 videos (just screen records) on my channel which showed the same problem in 2 different Grammarly products 2) these videos were an illustration for my report https://hackerone.com/reports/1282282 , which Grammarly disclosed to the public and does not consider this a problem. 3) these videos were published after Grammarly representatives allowed me to release this information 4)…

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…

Congratulations on figuring out how to keep your son’s data out of the hands of Google at such a young age. What a blessing that will be!

Many of the folks here have tried Degoogling with less success.

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

#62

Post by jchw »

smcl wrote: post #45
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…

My point is not that "free speech" as a concept is bad (though I do mention in another comment here that it does raise thorny issues). My point is that tying this complaint and "free speech" together is pointless because it directs attention at the wrong thing. It's the difference between saying "$person got kicked off Google in a violation of their free speech" and "$person got kicked off Google for a totally specio…

It's not that I didn't understand the point you were making, I just think it was not really relevant. It would be incorrect to say that they violated the user's first amendment rights. But the comment you responded to says:

> at least pretend that you allow free speech

Which is different than that, and I'd argue most platforms do at least pretend to espouse the ideals of 'free speech' even if that notion has been weaker lately.

> The second one gets at the actual issue - Google have just booted someone even though they didn't apparently violate their TOS. They just arbitrarily did so to appease a paying client.

It is a speech issue, even if not a legal issue, if you can pay Google to shut down random accounts that say things you don't like. The ToS violation is a red herring.

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

#63

Post by fallingknife »

smcl wrote: post #31
contravariant wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that companies should be allowed to trample all over basic freedoms because they're not the government has to be the most capitalist idea ever.

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…

Reddit and Twitter very much touted free speech 10 years ago and didn't have this issue (unless you want looking for it). And Google and FB effectively allowed whatever but didn't talk about it, until 2015 or so.

1. Tout free speech to great success and become a dominant platform

2. Get advertiser and political blowback

3. Ban unpopular speech

4. Now "free speech" platforms only have unpopular content

As a tangent, pre 2010, the best argument I had with conspiracy nuts was "if all this shit you're saying is true, then why is the government / corporations not trying to silence you, like you say they are doing to all the people involved." Can't use that anymore.

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

#64

Post by smcl »

paulcole wrote: post #27
smcl wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've incorrectly invoked "free speech" here, IMO this isn't a free speech issue. It may be a TOS issue and it does sound like Google are being a bit unreasonable but "free speech" isn't really something Google ever promised to permit on their platforms

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.

On the contrary, that is exactly the sense I was thinking of. My point was that considering this in terms of an erosion of your free speech doesn't make sense because there's no expectation of free speech in places like Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc. There is an expectation that as long as you adhere to TOS you'll be allowed to continue to use a platform, however.

I just thought it was a mistake in this case to get into a broader debate about free speech online, what should be allowed, how it needs to account for various countries' conflicting laws, etc. Because that's a huge issue, it's probably not what was intended by the original commenter and we have a much more narrow and clearly defined issue we can focus on (being kicked off despite adhering to TOS).

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

#65

Post by contravariant »

bavell wrote: post #32
contravariant wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that companies should be allowed to trample all over basic freedoms because they're not the government has to be the most capitalist idea ever.

Capitalism is an economic system that works best in a free market without monopolies. I believe the word you're looking for is corporatism, where huge companies have subsumed the role of government (e.g. controlling speech).

The fact that it doesn't work in practice doesn't mean the notion of allowing companies to do whatever they want isn't capitalist.

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

#66

Post by denton-scratch »

raxxorrax wrote: post #25
smcl wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've incorrectly invoked "free speech" here, IMO this isn't a free speech issue. It may be a TOS issue and it does sound like Google are being a bit unreasonable but "free speech" isn't really something Google ever promised to permit on their platforms

Why is that not a free speech issue? It is not a legal issue of course, but removal of critical opinions very much qualifies to be a violation of the principle.

The (US) constitutional protections on speech constrain the actions of US governments; those constraints don't extend to private companies and individuals.

And "principles" are things you can adopt and agree with as you see fit. They are not law. Not everyone takes an absolutist position that "free speech" is a principle we should all be defending to the last ditch.

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

#67

Post by smcl »

fallingknife wrote: post #63
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…

Reddit and Twitter very much touted free speech 10 years ago and didn't have this issue (unless you want looking for it). And Google and FB effectively allowed whatever but didn't talk about it, until 2015 or so. 1. Tout free speech to great success and become a dominant platform 2. Get advertiser and political blowback 3. Ban unpopular speech 4. Now "free speech" platforms only have unpopular content As a tangent, p…

Did that strategy ever work with conspiracy nuts? In my experience that argument was always met with a response that wove an even more elaborate conspiracy. Like the government/corporations/illuminati deliberately allow just enough people to talk about it unless they get too close, or something similar.

Unfortunately I think this strategy is doomed, it relies on people who have rejected reality to use basic common sense. I don't even know if there is a good strategy to calm a conspiracy nut, thankfully I don't really talk to such people.

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

#68

Post by judge2020 »

politician wrote: post #61
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…

Congratulations on figuring out how to keep your son’s data out of the hands of Google at such a young age. What a blessing that will be! Many of the folks here have tried Degoogling with less success.

These bans affect the YouTube Brand account / Channel only, Google accounts haven't been affected by regular YT ToS violations for a while.

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

#69

Post by denton-scratch »

paulcole wrote: post #27
smcl wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've incorrectly invoked "free speech" here, IMO this isn't a free speech issue. It may be a TOS issue and it does sound like Google are being a bit unreasonable but "free speech" isn't really something Google ever promised to permit on their platforms

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.

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

#70

Post by pixl97 »

iqanq wrote: post #39
altdataseller wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read somewhere they are among their top 10 advertisers. So this is not a good look for YouTube. Hope someone from Google chimes in because this is a PR disaster in the making

What do you mean a PR disaster, something people get upset about on Twitter for 3 days and then forget?

Unless Google deletes the articles about the incident from its index (and hey, it's possible), then the internet doesn't forget. Instead it just slowly builds personal and political opposition against them.

Or are you saying we just should be quite and let them do what they want?

Post reply on HN