HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

The best talks and videos of Hacker News.

Hacker News Comments on
They're Deleting My Channel - But They Don't Even Know Why!!?!

Gareth Evans Extras · Youtube · 1210 HN points · 0 HN comments
HN Theater has aggregated all Hacker News stories and comments that mention Gareth Evans Extras's video "They're Deleting My Channel - But They Don't Even Know Why!!?!".
Youtube Summary
I need your help! This may be my last ever YouTube video... Please share it to raise awareness. Thank you!

Follow me on my socials for updates.


00:00 Intro
00:56 Overview of my situation
03:10 How YouTube copyright system is flawed
05:36 How YouTube neglects it's creators
07:22 Questions for YouTube that require answers
07:40 Overview othe the main issues & others
09:24 Questions for everyone watching
10:00 How you can help raise awareness
10:36 A final message for all my followers
HN Theater Rankings
  • Ranked #13 all time · view

Hacker News Stories and Comments

All the comments and stories posted to Hacker News that reference this video.
Sep 23, 2020 · 223 points, 1 comments · submitted by amitheonlyone
Is there anybody here that can give an insider's view on this case?

I'm aware of the problems of scaling support to a huge scale, and contexts where the communication of the termination causes is an issue in itself (e.g. to protect a certain business logic).

However, in cases like this it seems an intentional decision to be hostile - specifically, by hiding the reasons. Is this truly intentional on Google's side?

Comments moved to
Sep 23, 2020 · 987 points, 761 comments · submitted by notRobot
I'm not a lawyer, and I definitely think the whole copyright system needs reform, but I believe there could be legitimate issues with the legality of publicly posting guitar covers as this person is doing on their channel.

I'm not very familiar with the channel, but from the little I've seen, I believe the educational nature (and thereby fair use defense) could be debatable. Even if some of his videos are clearly educational, it seems that some videos are just covers of popular songs. And even if he's not using published sheet music to play the songs, he may still be required to have mechanical licenses, and possibly also sync licenses.

Most published music has three licenses that could be relevant here: the mechanical license (covering the combination of notes, rhythms, and/or lyrics that make the song distinct and "recognizable"), the sync license (using the song along with images/video), and a master license (covering a specific recording of the song). From my limited experience (and confirmed here [1]), it appears that many of these videos probably require at least a mechanical license to be performed publicly on the channel.

That being said, I absolutely agree with the sentiment that YouTube's handling of these issues is extremely problematic. They really need to start treating content creators with more respect and assume innocence until proven otherwise. There also needs to be more transparency into the process (and claims) so creators aren't left in the dark, along with improved ways to respond to erroneous claims.


according to Tom Scott's very informative summary of all things youtube and copyright [1] there are seemingly reasonable alternatives to suddenly shutting down a whole channel - it seems like we're not getting the whole story as to why those were rejected or aren't being considered in this case?


Remember YouTube and its staff will never make decisions on the validity of copyright claims. They put their safe harbor position at risk if they do so. Instead they consider every copyright claim as valid unless legal proceedings tell them otherwise.
> They put their safe harbor position at risk if they do so.

Only if they don't comply with a DMCA takedown notice, which allows the supposed violator to claim responsibility. That is, whoever posted the video can say to Youtube "This video doesn't infringe on anyone's copyright, let them sue me if they disagree" and Youtube would be in the clear according to the DMCA.

From what we can see in this case, Youtube didn't receive a DMCA takedown notice, since they didn't make it available for the channel owner. Youtube has other internal processes (like Content ID[1]) to detect and remove copyright content, it looks like one of these processes is what triggered the copyright strikes.


In the video the guy running the channel states the claims were applied manually and this forms part of his complaint - Google’s automated content ID system will provide time stamps so you can look at what it is flagging, while with the manual claim there is no way to know exactly what is being claimed.
> They really need to start treating content creators with more respect and assume innocence until proven otherwise.

Doesn't DMCA and similar law strongly bias them in the opposite direction of having to assume guilt?

In any case, transparency seems like a good idea from the point of view of the outside world.

This is a common pattern where law/regulations meet monopoly power:

There is a Byzantine bureaucracy that no one understands. The monopoly blames the regulator. The regulator (if they speak at all) blame the monopoly.

It's the same way with banks. Any strange and irrational bureaucracy they throw at you is claimed to be legally mandated. This is kind of true, but disengenious.

Alas, yes. That's a big part of why I suggest that regulation, if we want any at all, should focus on lowing the barriers to entry and shy away from mandating specific behaviour.

The latter can be gamed by the people who can afford the good lawyers, and makes entry for newcomers even harder.

Your comparison to finance is apt. It's one of the worst examples of regulatory capture. And many people have very dangerous ideas, eg that deposit insurance is a good idea.

You need regulation with teeth, that is reviewed and updated dynamically with the marketplace it is regulating to ensure fair competition AND consumer benefit.

Right now we have regulations that heavily lag current realities and weak regulatory bodies that can be corrupted or lack power to effect change.

The alternative you mentioned of no regulation can't exist, because someone is always regulating the market, if not the .gov, then whoever has the biggest clout within the marketplace gets to play regulator and gatekeeper often to the detriment of the competition and consumers.

> The alternative you mentioned of no regulation can't exist, because someone is always regulating the market, if not the .gov, then whoever has the biggest clout within the marketplace gets to play regulator and gatekeeper often to the detriment of the competition and consumers.

Yes, exactly. I am suggesting that competition and low barriers to entry to ensure that it's _customers_ that are regulating the markets, whenever possible.

> You need regulation with teeth, that is reviewed and updated dynamically with the marketplace it is regulating to ensure fair competition AND consumer benefit.

I agree that regulation needs to have teeth. My favourite example of a jurisdiction with light regulation but lots of teeth is my adopted home of Singapore.

By and large, our government here leaves the economy alone, but when they implement some regulation, they do so properly and enforce it.

> Right now we have regulations that heavily lag current realities and weak regulatory bodies that can be corrupted or lack power to effect change.

Honest and competent civil servants are the rarest and most precious of resources. Arrange matters to economise on their time and energy.

An interesting example of that principle is in bankruptcy law. There are generally two ways to deal with a business can't pay:

(1) Cut a deal with the creditors

(2) Liquidate the business and pay off the creditors as much as possible according to the fine print signed

If the business in question is a going concern, (2) is a losing proposition, but its very possibility tends to encourage everyone involved to work out a deal under case (1). (And even if you sell off the business to the highest bidder in case (2), the new owner can opt to continue running essentially the same organisation, if that makes sense.)

In a sane legal system, the judiciary might be involved briefly for option (2), if current management is unwilling. But most of the time, all participants can just agree that negotiations failed, and proceed with orderly liquidation.

Now in eg the US that beautiful simplicity is marred by a third option, where a judge gets involved big time. Judges are (hopefully) almost the prototype of a highly trained, honest, competent civil servant.

Alas, the very existence of this third option, blunts the previously sharp incentives on everyone to get a deal done under case (1).

To come back to your point: it's also pretty obvious that there's many more opportunities for corruption and graft for the court appointed manager in the third case, than the simple auction of all assets in the second case.

I want to add that consumers are weak and voting with your wallet is often not possible in a constrained market, plus many consumers are stupid or "not rational" and make poor choices and are easily swayed by marketing.

Obviously we don't want to remove all avenues for self determination, but I don't think adhoc regulation or relying on consumers to reign in global corporations who now have market caps greater than GDPs of large countries is an effective option.

Finding good civil servants is difficult, but so is finding honest and effective businessmen who genuinely have consumer interest in mind.

It's not about honest individuals, nor smart consummers. It's about structures.

Trying to fix monopolies with regulators is like trying to fix monarchy with princes.

Regulators harden market structures.

Trying to fix monopolies by allowing them to continue to exist results in the monopoly continuing to exist. How is this better? There is nothing in a "free market" that disallows a monopoly existing or continuing to exist forever, buying and extinguishing all competition in its wake. It is essentially the end game, ultimate vertical integration and market dominance. You might say some startup is going to "disrupt" these incumbents, until we reflect on all the cool products bought and extinguished by the FAANGs. Basically you're relying on the monopoly getting lazy and hoping there's enough interest and capital available to do battle, all the while consumers get reamed for who knows how long.
Buying upstart competitors ensures that founders and VC are motivated to provide a steady stream of upstart competitors.

Ultimate vertical integration has been tried as a fad on and off. But it did not endure.

None of the FAANGs are all that vertically integrated. Apple doesn't even make their own hardware in-house, do they? (Foxconn makes most of the phones, don't they?)

If the monopolists are reaping excess profits (or having high costs) there's an incentive for new market entrants to come and take a share of those profits.

If the monopolists keep prices low enough that this doesn't happen, then consumers don't have too much to complain about, do they?

Well, at least the honest and effective businesspeople have a chance of going bankrupt when they screw up. And consumers typically can choose a different provider.

You are right about constrained markets. Hence everything is conditional on my plea for opening markets. It can be hard to encourage new startups, especially in areas of the world or country with less of an established startup mentality; but it's generally much easier to encourage foreign companies to come, and to encourage companies from other industries to branch out.

For the latter, see eg when Walmart tried to do retail banking in the US. (Obviously, the established US banks used the regulation-happy American authorities to thwart that desire.) For more happy endings, see the kinds of industries Amazon is getting involved in.

I am going to add given that revolving doors and golden parachutes much of the C-level experiences, actual consequence is often something that many of the highest paid people in the world evade with ease. You can drive a company in to the ground and/or sexually harass employees, and still walk off with millions of dollars. At least with public servants, their position can potentially be term limited and subjected to a vote.

Constrained markets are not always or even regularly the fault of regulators. There may just be few options or only one option available, and the cost of entry to the market is extremely high. It's not just a matter of some plucky startup entering the market when the incumbent can bleed money for a a year or two to kill off any competition in that area, then jack up rates. You also have collusion issues, which often occurs in the oil industry and DRAM/flash memory markets, and even in places like pre-made ice markets. A startup may not just have to be better than the immediate competition, they may have to be better than an entire cartel set on destroying them, which is very difficult and anti-consumer. Imagine going up against Microsoft and Intel in the 90s, who literally had billions of dollars at their disposal to turn the market against you, and actively did so.

I agree with you that relying on startups alone is not enough.

Hence my heavy emphasis on foreign competition entering local markets; and of cross-industry competition. Like Walmart entering retail banking.

Microsoft and Intel are excellent examples! They were eventually toppled in their dominance, but it took quite a few years.

My argument is essentially that toppling Microsoft and Intel in about a decade is all we can hope for; and that it is enough.

Adding extra regulation mostly just gives the guys with the more expensive lawyers and lobbyists more tools.

Financial regulators have teeth.

That's besides the point though. Large banks and regulators are, effectively, a single entity.

> but I believe there could be legitimate issues with the legality of publicly posting guitar covers as this person is doing on their channel.

In a legal sense, it is illegal unless they've paid the compulsory licensing fees.

That said, Youtube was once a place to find new stars who did covers, and many of them got famous. And now people who got famous like KHS do covers without any kind of issue.

I just see it as the music industry locking the door behind the people who've already made it.

Exactly, and YouTube, now an incumbent has the incentive to shut down the path they themselves used to become the monopoly.
I am not from US, and I imagine you are, but it doesn't seem right that I cannot teach people to play instruments by playing a song.
You also would need the sync license for creating a video which includes the music.
Our current copyright laws do nothing hut stagnate human creativity. As much as people like to believe they're creative geniuses, most creations tend to be based on previous creations.

Just look at the majority of popular music between 1955-1980 or later. Just about all rock music is either heavily inspired by or directly ripped off of blues. If copyright laws had been what they were today entire genres of music wouldn't exist.

Same goes for Hollywood, tons of movies are just wholesale ripoffs of older ones or 'heavily inspired by them'.

And i'm sure people on HN are likely familiar with such things as the 7 main literary archetypes and whatnot that apply to most human story telling in general.

The best kind of human creativity comes from building on what came before. Sure, we need a system to ensure creators are paid and have control of their creations, but our current system goes so far overboard it limits overall human creativity.

Profit should not come over the benefit of society and humanity, especially when there's room for both. I doubt anyone was really losing any significant amount of money by this channel existing, but somebody was gaining through its existence.

In Japan, they have a much better culture around copyright, and I would argue it’s why Japan is such a creative powerhouse. In Japan, amateur artists can remix whatever popular characters they want, and make money off it, and it’s seen as a tribute to the original artists, not as “theft”.

Our copyright laws should be largely eliminated. Anything that isn’t basically an exact reproduction should be fair game. It would be good for the creative arts.

Disney's Grimm's based stuff is just about older now than Grimms' Fairy Tales were when Disney made those films.
Yet try and make any reference to the Disney version in your own production and see how fast the C&D's show up.

On that note, check out the Popeye version of the Aladdin and the magic lamp story. If you've ever read the original, you may notice the Disney version doesn't resemble it much, what the Disney version does resemble though a fair bit is the 1930's Popeye version of the story...which is actually quite good.

Actually, just check out any of those original Max and Fleischer Popeye cartoons...they're all pretty great.

> I run a YouTube channel that is over 10 years old, has over 770,000 subscribers, almost 600 public videos, 120,000,000 views

When writing software involved in managing a live, public, massively multi-user system, the traditional unix-style commands that are immediate, often silent, and capable of damaging effects become a really easy way to shoot yourself in the foot. Worse, some commands might let you accidentally shoot everyone's foot on a typo. The traditional example is accidentally typing something like "rm -f * .bak" (note the extra space after the star).

For a good discussion of this type of problem, I highly recommend Bryan Cantrill's talk[1] about the time an operator accidentally rebooted an entire datacenter with a single miss-typed command.

The general solution to this is building sanity checks into the software. The user just asked to reformat 500 hosts, but almost all previous uses olf the 'reformat' command affected less than 10 hosts. Maybe we should ask for verification from an actual human if they really intended to run this unusually destructive command.

Why doesn't YouTube have this kind of sanity check in their automated takedown/strike/channel-deletion tools? Google wrote automation that can decide to delete a channel with a long history and many successful videos. Why doesn't that automation have basic sanity checks that ask for operator input when asked to do an unusually destructive action like deleting a 10 year old channel with a huge history?


Good luck checking in code that will increase the human burden and reduce automation. Imagine how many TPS reports you would have to fill out to get permission to make a system page a human more often at “Google scale”.

When the metrics finally hit the dashboards sounds like it would be career limiting.

“But we prevented pdkl95’s channel from being deleted!” is definitely going to be a solid defense for why you hobbled their infallible AI from ruthlessly executing its system oversight responsibility.

And yet they've created a widespread perception that YouTube mistreats it's creators, and we see stories like this all the time now. Surely someone at Google is capable of taking the long view. And if the culture at Google prevents that then Google is broken.
Every time a person come close the have a long time view, they get senior enough to leave the company or the product team. All companies have a tendency to lost bearing of its mission and focus on the wellbeing of the company owners or executives.
Youtube runs the way it runs because they don't care if a bunch of creators get hosed. All they care about is keeping the copyright wolves at bay.
Under DCMA, on receiving a valid counter notification they are free to put the content back on the site, remove the strike from the content uploader and let the courts handle the matter between the two parties.

It’s only if Google “ignore” valid dmca takedown notifications they are at risk of losing their safe harbour exceptions. How they handle the counter notifications can be pretty hit and miss. (but tbf, most of the time it’s because the person filing the counter notification didn’t fill it out exactly how Google’s bots like) I’ve seen cases where YT just automatically removed the strike from the account and restored the video on receipt of the counter notice. I’ve seen cases where they have locked the account even though the person filing the DMCA notifications has publicly admitted to taking down the video because it was critical of the work and the video only contained small pieces of the original content (exactly what you would expect to be covered under the criticism and comment portions of fair use exception).

I don't know, but I've read that the counter here is that YouTube's system isn't actually DCMA - they are pursuing copyright over and above that system, and therefore the "protections" in DCMA don't apply - you broke a Google policy, not a law, and therefore you have no recourse.
There is "copyright take down requests" which are DMCA takedowns and gives the uploader strikes against their account and there is Googles own copyright system (Content ID) which Google would rather have right holders use (as they don't have to issue strikes to the users) that allow the claimant leave the video up but get the analyics from the video, claim the ad revunue from the video, mute the video (in cases where its an audio claim) or remove the video.

When you get a claim on the latter system (Content ID) you don't get a strike on your account but if you appeal the claim its (normally) upto the claimant to decide if your appeal is valid or not (sometimes YT does step in an say "yeah its fair use, have your ad rev back" but that is not the norm).

These takedowns are actual DMCA takedown requests. (even TeamYouTube are telling him to issue (valid) counter notifications to these claims -

They're not afraid of DMCA, but big money pulling out if they're insufficiently aggressive about claims...
Which is why they have Content ID. Big money can use the system to claim the ad rev / remove the content (without giving the user a strike) then putting the onus on the uploader of the video to then take the fight to the claimant for breaching their rights.
They have ways to detect the "unusual". If I fill a form really fast, or something is weird in the state of my browser I get prompted to select crosswalks, road-signs or hydrants. It will be great if they would apply them on their algorithms too, when an "unusual" result occurs.
I'm now imagining a newly emergent dark pattern, where when you try to delete some expensive cloud resource, but before it'll stop charging you you get into one of those insane recaptcha loops that keeps saying "Click on all the Lovecraftian Gods that drive you insane just by looking at them!" or "type the text" where the displayed text is all in Druidic runes or something...
Sounds like the Land of Azure.
This is actually a pretty effective control. I almost deleted the wrong storage account in Azure the the other day.

We do not generally allow deletions of stateful resources to be done via automation after being bitten, and use the Azure lock mechanism.

We are now also changing our naming standards from “component-environment” to “environment-component”. In this example I almost deleted “app-prd-sa” instead of “app-dev-sa”. Much harder to do when you lead the name with “production”.

Anybody have “safer” naming conventions in use out there that I should be aware of? Didn’t find much authoritative out there via search; naming things is hard.

Reminds me of when s3 went down in 2017, and took a chunk of the internet with it (to include their own status dashboard) due to someone entering a command wrong.

Other than websites and maybe some web-ish apps not too much else would be affected by S3 outage, a DNS outage would affect more of the Internet vs the web.
Websites and web-ish apps are not a chunk of the internet? Also there are tons of non-web-ish apps that depend on S3.
i work on multiple projects that are 100% data crunching with content stored on S3 and accessed solely by ec2 instances. there is no UI or public access. yet if S3 went down, we'd be up a certain creek without a certain self-propelling device and a big whole in the boat without a bucket (physically and in the cloud)
All of Google was gone from my country due to bungled router configuration for half a day some time ago. Now that was fun to watch. Everything from to all their backend APIs for android, to all their web properties, went poof.
Yikes. Time to use a few different providers?
There's actually quite a few enterprise client of S3. Lots in finance, too.
Maybe "the internet" was a bit too generic. But it destroyed a lot of tech worker productivity for the day at least.

Slack, GitHub, GitLab, BitBucket, Docker, etc all had issues.

I was just coming to see if someone mentioned this! I work for AWS, and it's both surprising and heartening to see how often I see this anecdote get repeated, and many times by us to our own customers. We had teams looking for weeks at all of our other services for other instances of this.

It was a good operational lesson and one I'm happy to see shared still. If a command will let you perform a self-inflicted wound like that without checks, then it's time to review that command. Err on the side of caution and bias towards minimizing blast radius even if it means sacrificing some speed. "Move fast and break things" may be true at times, but not when the "*" character is ever involved. =)

Yeah its an interesting one. I tend to think of it in the context of, well you screwed up and deleted the wrong instance, but at least it wasn't that bad.

I also think about the response to it. Sure it sucked that it happened, and someone was probably feeling really bad about it. But it was a learning opportunity as well. Not just for them, or AWS, but for everyone in tech. Put those safety nets in place.

It is my personal opinion that you don't need "*" character ever there are other alternatives available always. And if avoiding that character makes it far safer I'm all for it.

rm -rf /+(?)

If anyone not understanding the joke, + character matches 1 or more instances, and (?) matches any one character. And / is start of entire filesystem. rm is remove. -rf (recursive, never ask verification). So it removes every file that you have rights to remove.

You can also do same thing accidentally by proxy. When my first computing teacher asked entire class to write anything to terminal to show that you had to write specific commands and computers don't understand normal language. Then she told to press enter. I asked her if she was sure. She asked why. I said that I wrote "format c:" . I have never seen teacher walk so fast in a classroom. I think that was last time she used that line in the classroom.

Because building it won’t get you a promotion at google.
That's what we called 'promotion oriented programming'.
Yeah. If the channel owner has spent so much effort it would be fair to expect actual human to spend literally a minute to verify it is legit removal case.
Because that would be sprints not spent making more money for Alphabet shareholders
But that’s not true though. Creators create content and make money with ads. No creators = no ad platform.
The number of creators harmed is less than the number of other creators, new creators and other factors. Loss of 0.00001% of the content on YT is, literally, no big deal. You, me, all other creators just don't matter.

That is BigG just don't give a f---.

Not sure your logic holds.

If Google is so big that 0.00001% loss of revenue doesn't register for them, they are surely big enough to spare 0.00001% of total engineering time to fix that loss?

In fact, I hear that as a common complaint that when working as an engineer at Google most of the time you are just making some system fractions of a percent more efficient.

Just to be sure, I am not saying that either your premise or the statement you are inferring is wrong. No opinion on that. I'm just saying that your premises don't lead to the conclusion. (But your conclusion might be right for other reasons.)

I'm saying that a loss of content does NOT create a loss of revenue.
OK, then it makes sense.
Weigh the cost of false positive against false negative. In the current landscape YT has little incentive to change.
and if you start implementing these sanity checks, they better be everywhere. Operators will start to rely on them and might become careless - they believe the system will catch any egregious typo. The one spot where the sanity check isn’t implemented will become more vulnerable.
How could some sanity checks be worse than NO sanity checks at all? In the YouTube case, I mean. This is happening ALL the time.
Many of the cases we hear about don't seem to be mistakes, including this one. Sometimes nobody can figure out any possible reason for a ban and sometimes it gets reinstated (that's the undo feature in action). But often there are obvious copyright issues or offensive material and the channel owner only goes clutching at fair use or freedom of speech after the ship has sailed.
For the same reason human babysitters of autonomous vehicles don't succeed in preventing pedestrians from getting run over.
Right, but a human babysitter is better than NO babysitter.
That's the same mentality of people stating because one form of pollution reduction or green energy generation isn't solving the problem that it's not worth attempting to do what you can when you can where you can. Those small moves are what gets the thing moving.
An inconsistently applied sanity check creates a false sense of security. Like how a safety barrier that isn't strong enough to take someone's weight might be worse than no barrier.
Right, I understand the concept. What I'm saying is that a safety barrier that sometimes doesn't work is better than rails that always guide you off a cliff; which is currently the YouTube model.
Yeah, some people recommend something like

    alias rm=‘rm -i’
Unfortunately, as soon as you’re on another computer or at someone else’s shell, you’ll be more comfortable thinking less about rm-ing things and the sanity check won’t be there.
The better recommendation is to alias rm -i to del:

    alias del='rm -i'
And then get in the habit of using 'del' unless you really want a no-confirmation delete.

Then when you are on another computer or at someone else's shell you get:

    del: command not found
Instead of having a bunch of files silently deleted.
This strategy will fail pretty badly if you're on someone else's computer using Windows or DOS, where 'del' is the delete command.
Does `del -rf /` do a lot on Windows?
I doubt it, but `del *` should do the same thing on both systems.
Except that on windows, "del" defaults to prompting "are you sure" when one types "del *".
Another trick is to run

    touch —- -i 
In important directories. Then rm -rf * expands to rm -rf .... -i ... and you get the “are you sure” prompt.
Where is Bryan anyway he's been unusually quiet and I know he lurks on HN.

bcantrill where art thou

Have you heard about Oxide Computer Company?
Because writing good software is haaaarddd. /s
Two days ago I restored a customer's data from backup because they typed "ALL" and hit OK on a dialog that said "This will change ALL of your things, type ALL to confirm". This dialog only pops up if N > 100, and normally makes you type the number (ALL is a special case). I just do not know how to make this more idiotproof short of making them fax in the request.

No matter what you think is sane, some insane person will prove you wrong. In this case, tiredness + ESL = bad reading comprehension. It's going to happen.

It sounds like you found the solution, you just made it really cumbersome: undo.

All confirmation dialogs should be replaced with undo. The happy path has lower friction, and in case of a mistake they'll heave a huge sigh of relief. When possible, it's better in all cases for all users, whether novices or power users.

And many things that at first blush seem like undo isn't possible, are actually easy to make undoable with a simple tweak: deleting data? Don't actually delete it until 24 hours later. Sending an email? Wait 10 seconds to actually send it, similar to Gmail's Undo Send.

Unless you're actually trying to do a huge synthetic operation where info would choke, e.g. creating an archive while removing existing files.

That one is still possible to undo, just slower and more expensive...

Then there are fun ones like Windows update holding 20 GB of insufficient undo, mechanical or hardware failures induced by extra load, and how to decide where an operation ends.

Implementing soft-delete is much easier than "soft-update", which is what this would have been.
Yeah, unfortunately in some cases if you didn't plan for it from the beginning it's not easy to tack on later.

In my opinion, it's usually worth it though. You only hear from the folks asking you to restore things from backup—you won't hear from the folks who experience unnecessary friction and tell their friends or coworkers "it's okay, it works, it's kind of annoying to use though, I can't put my finger on anything specific".

You could still wait 10 seconds, and have a 'fake' undo button that aborts. (You can even put up a progress bar to pretend you are doing work during those 10 seconds.)

That's purely a UI element and is completely independent of how the actual destructive operation is implemented in the backend nor how hard it would be to reverse.

I don't think that would be much better than a confirmation dialog that makes you wait 10 seconds before you can click OK. It's often only after clicking around and seeing the resulting changes that it sinks in that a mistake was made, and they reach for Undo. And that would add just as much friction to the happy path.
It can be much better than the confirmation dialog, because it's meant to be implemented in such a way that you can get on with the rest of your work while the undo-countdown is ticking.

From personal experience with gmail's fake undo, in terms of things sinking in, it works almost as well as regular undo for me; and not like a confirmation dialog (which doesn't work at all).

So there's less friction, there's no extra click you need to make after ten seconds. And, also from personal experience, the force-delayed confirmation dialog I've used (I think in Chrome and Firefox for certain actions), don't seem to lead me to thinking at all. At least not any better than a regular confirmation dialog.

But in any case, all these are empirical questions, and it would be interesting to run a little user study with the different options, instead of endless speculation.

Gmail is a pretty specific case - email is fundamentally asynchronous and "delay send" for something that's already scheduled is straightforward.

Imagine trying to apply this undo to a bulk add/remove labels operation. Once you've committed the transaction, there is no simple 'undo'. It's possible to build a system capable of undo, sure, but you're talking about a lot of upfront work and complexity. Plus a fairly exotic database schema.

There's nothing exotic about it, you just need an OLAP rather than OLTP database schema:
I don't see the problem?

I would imagine you would stick all your UI actions in something like a log, and then only apply that log to your actual data with a delay?

But not sure whether you call that 'a lot of upfront work and complexity'?

Perhaps I'm a bit blind, because I come from a part of the programming world that's very keen on persistent datastructures, where undos are trivial to implement. (

Unfortunately human error can never be completely eliminated. However, I'm not really talking about this type of problem. In my previous [1], the operator understood how the tool worked; they simply made a mistake when typing the command, and the tool without warning accepted the command to reboot the entire datacenter. Particularly telling are these comments: (sic)

    Operator-1: I ewas rebooting an rb
    Operator-1: forgot to put -n
    Operator-5: [...] i've almost done what Operatolr-1
                just did a *number* of times.
That isn't a user understanding problem; it's a dangerous tool that doesn't fail safely. In your case, at least you detected the unusually destructive action and asked for verification. Youtube isn't even attempting simple sanity checks like your "N > 100" test.

> normally makes you type the number

> I just do not know how to make this more idiotproof

Requiring explicit typing of the number or an explicit phrase like "Yes, I want to delete everything." are can help a lot.

If possible, another good approach is to explicitly show the full list of proposed changes. Phrases like "This will change ALL of ..." might have multiple interpretations (ALL what? All of the the things in my entire account? All of the things in the current/last project/group? All of the things I think (perhaps incorrectly) were referenced in this action?). If someone is expecting to change only a few records, a confirmation popup that asks "Do you want to make these changes:" followed by a huge list has a large size/presence that should conflict with their expectations. "I only wanted to change a few things - wtf is this huge list?"

Require a different user's authentication or admin code to approve an "ALL" transaction.
Yes, it works.

But when the sample is large enough, it still happens once in a while. In 2004, a CSB investigation showed that an entire chemical plant exploded after the interlock was bypassed by the supervisor password [0][1].

> The explosion occurred when maintenance personnel entered a password to override computer safeguards, allowing premature opening of the sterilizer door. This caused an explosive mixture of ethylene oxide (EO) to be evacuated to the open-flame catalytic oxidizer by the chamber ventilation system. The oxidizer is used to remove EO in compliance with California air quality regulations. When the EO reached the oxidizer it ignited and the flame quickly traveled back through the ducting to the sterilizer where approximately fifty pounds of EO ignited and exploded.

Apparently the supervisor who owned the password didn't receive any training on the nature of the process and the dangers of bypassing the interlock...



Why would you ever ever have the ability do this "allowing premature opening of the sterilizer door".

Ironic it was air quality regulations - that did for them.

There needs to be something in case the implementation forgot something. These are dangerous of course, but they can also save the day when something unexpected happens.
This is a physical chemical plant not a website - if you do need to do something like that you do it manually.
While there might be emergency conditions that would make this cumbersome, in general that sorry of two person control makes sense. That's why the military uses it for especially dangerous actions or conditions. (Weapons loading on the sub i served on, for example).
Printing a list of the fist 100 or so affected files is useful to give a real wake up call and a chanse to double check.
The bigger question I have, why did you not delete the data when asked to?

I understand idiot users, but what about users who actually want to delete it?

GP mentioned restoring from backups. You generally don’t delete from backups outside of the normal cycling policy, because otherwise they’re not backups.
Don't allow the user type "all", but another guy (admin) to verify such commands.
Reverse survivorship bias...
An old office mate had been a systems programmer back in the days of mainframes. He once put a local-site patch into the mainframe boot code where the question about wiping and restoring the on-line storage required operators to type in, correctly capitalized and punctuated, the precise string: "Yes, I really do want to spend the entirety of my shift hanging tapes."

.... and someone still did it. The struggle is real.

In electrical engineering, the saying is "Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool."

Also, in computer folklore, there are numerous stories of how non-technical users purposefully destroy foolproof mechanisms by brute-force, e.g. cut the slot on a DDR3 socket to insert a DDR2 RAM module and fry everything... And I wonder whether "don't use brute-force, if you have difficulty getting it in, it means you are doing it wrong" should be taught as the first rule when working with hardware. Unfortunately, to add the confusion, we also have connectors that can be surprisingly hard to connect and disconnect even under normal circumstances...

In my environment the adage is "when you say foolproof you mean fooldetecting".
I think this is a good analogy for software. To the typical user, some software is easy and sensical, while other is obtuse and requires significant jiggering just to do the thing it was ostensibly designed to do.
There is a difference, however. The connectors that require a lot of force for insertion and removal have some true advantages, they are usually the simplest, cheapest and generally reliable components. Almost nothing can go wrong with a simple wire terminal, it's just a piece of rectangular or round metal. Although it can be difficult to disconnect for servicing, but you're only expected to do that once per year. On the other hand, "easy" connectors are designed in a way that, instead of requiring the mating force necessary for a good contact , it's provided by the connector mechanism itself, and as a result, they're often more complex, expensive, or fragile, such as a USB connector or a ZIF socket.

A software analogy for an "easy" connector would be, "fancy software with good user experience often has a lot of complexity hidden behind of scene, and can be fragile". But I'm not sure what would be the analogy for a cheap connector. Perhaps, a shell script?

Yes, a shell script, but for the sake of the discussion, you must imagine that to the average user, invoking a shell script is “the same” as navigating through a few settings menus and clicking some checkboxes they don’t understand: that is to say, when the UX is sufficiently lacking, users often enter “well I don’t really know what I’m doing just push through” mode.
Atleast in this instance some blame lies with computer hardware designers. Make things simple, no one puts a three the wrong way.
> And I wonder whether "don't use brute-force, if you have difficulty getting it in, it means you are doing it wrong" should be taught as the first rule when working with hardware. Unfortunately, to add the confusion, we also have connectors that can be surprisingly hard to connect and disconnect even under normal circumstances...

And everyone has likely experienced in their lives plenty of appliances, self-assembly kits and other objects where some components required application of force to put together, because there's resistance coming from the feature that prevents the object from coming apart together. My rule of thumb is now that if the force seems to be veering into "could break surrounding structure" levels, or if the thing starts making unexpected sounds, then I'm doing it wrong.

... and then I have to put a CPU on a motherboard and the correct way absolutely does involve close-to-breaking forces and squeaky sounds.

It sucks that Google doesn't offer better support, but are they really to blame here? Isn't the root of the issue IP and copyright laws and this very nebulous notion of "fair use" that seems extremely easy for IP owners to dispute and win?

I see people in this comment section posting alternatives to Youtube but I really wonder if, should they become equally as successful, they could end up behaving any different.

When you get thousands of videos uploaded at any given moment and probably a huge amount of DMCA takedown requests what choice do you reasonably have? If there's one thing Google doesn't want is to be sued by the copyright owners, so they always take the defensive stance of taking the content down until proven innocent, which seems cynically reasonable to me.

That guy makes song covers. He claims it's non-profit, he claims it's fair use. The IP owner disagrees, issues a takedown. At this point Google either takes the content down, or starts a lengthy and risky legal battle on behalf of third party content that they do not control. I can't really blame them for not bothering.

BTW, IANAL and all that but I'm not entirely convinced that his "non-profit fair-use" defense would even hold up in court. Surely he monetizes his videos on top of asking for donations and putting ads on his website. Given his number of subscribers he probably makes a significant amount of money from these videos.

To be clear, I think ethically what he does is perfectly fine, but as we all know IP laws have very little to do with ethics. Focusing on big bad google is a bit simplistic here IMO.

> When you get thousands of videos uploaded at any given moment and probably a huge amount of DMCA takedown requests what choice do you reasonably have?

Legally following the DMCA process. The DMCA process allows a response and does not demand channel deletion. Also the DMCA complaints are supposed to be forwarded.

> That guy makes song covers. He claims it's non-profit, he claims it's fair use. The IP owner disagrees, issues a takedown.

Automated takedown software issues the takedown because it's crappy software that can't tell a cover from infringement. Covers are not new, they are very well protected and very common. This isn't some kind of new internet thing, covers date back to like the dawn of radio.

> I'm not entirely convinced that his "non-profit fair-use" defense would even hold up in court

That he makes money from the cover isn't infringement, anymore than other covers are infringement when they were sold on physical CDs.

> Focusing on big bad google is a bit simplistic here IMO.

Yet other services are capable of handling the DMCA process correctly. Instead Google didn't even forward the DMCA notices, list the specific infringements or give him the legally required ability to respond.

Google is choosing to not follow DMCA and instead just delete channels because it's more cost effective. That's it - this is about a few dollars of profit margin that they're destroying someone else's business they've spent a decade building. So yeah, they're the big bad in this situation.

>That he makes money from the cover isn't infringement, anymore than other covers are infringement when they were sold on physical CDs.

The law is clear that both are valid infringement and subject to DMCA takedown, unless the songs have been licensed.

Not saying a like it, but there is a long list of cases upholding it.

Edit for sources:

> It sucks that Google doesn't offer better support, but are they really to blame here?

Can't we blame them for shitty support at least? For not providing any explanation at all? For not having an appeal process? For always taking side of the IP Owner? For deleting the channel instead of some other mechanism? For not actually fighting for reasonable IP laws for this kind of video?

I don't know why people come out to defend the shitty actions of a Fortune 50 company and explain why the underdog had it coming.

Because some people are tribal, and root for the underdog.

Other people are impartial, and do not consider the relative size of parties when figuring out who's in the wrong.

So you are also agree YouTube is doing the right thing here? That their actions are just and correct?
>Can't we blame them for shitty support at least? For not providing any explanation at all? For not having an appeal process?

By all means, that's a well known problem with Google, way beyond Youtube. The way they treat content creators and smaller customers is frankly disrespectful. That being said I still think that while they could handle these matters better, in this case I suspect that the end result would effectively be the same.

>For always taking side of the IP Owner? For deleting the channel instead of some other mechanism? For not actually fighting for reasonable IP laws for this kind of video?

No, that part is not something I'd necessarily blame them for. You're asking them to go through a world of trouble for content that's not even theirs. When you create a Youtube account you're not entitled to Google's legal team. You're not a partner in this relationship, you're arguably not even a customer unless you buy ads.

>I don't know why people come out to defend the shitty actions of a Fortune 50 company and explain why the underdog had it coming.

The relative size of these entities is frankly irrelevant in this case. I could spend all day bashing Google for various things (and do on occasions, as my comment history shows) but in this case I'm not sure that the guy uploading unlicensed song covers while claiming fair use and getting copyright struck to death is really the best showcase of Google's abusive practices.

> BTW, IANAL and all that but I'm not entirely convinced that his "non-profit fair-use" defense would even hold up in court. Surely he monetizes his videos on top of asking for donations and putting ads on his website. Given his number of subscribers he probably makes a significant amount of money from these videos.

Also not a lawyer (and I think that Google sucks for not disclosing what is allegedly being infringed and what is allegedly infringing), but I suspect this is not a slam-dunk case of fair use.

Running through the 4-factor test (, it really feels like a fair-use claim would hinge on how transformative the work is:

1. The fact that he's monetizing it at all (even if not in a quid-pro-quo exchange of content for money) I suspect undermines the "non-profit" argument, even if the purpose is educational.

2. Music is pretty clearly in the "imaginative or highly creative" bucket.

3. He states that he "uses no more of the original subject matter than is necessary". Which implies that he might be using more than just a little (or even all of it). But that kinda seems to contradict what he says elsewhere in the video, which that he "doesn't use any resources or materials which are distributed or sold at a premium" and "every thing I've ever created has been 100% self-generated".

4. The website ( he mentions in the video has guitar tabs and (broken) links to Youtube videos which share names of popular artists and their songs. Without seeing the videos, I would infer that his lessons teach how to play popular commercial songs, which do have an established market for licenses he is avoiding.

It's hard to judge because we can't see the videos... but it kinda looks like this falls firmly under "not fair use" unless he's writing music that is only very loosely inspired by the songs it is named after.

Covers need a license. This is established in copyright law. There is no fair use defense for this. It makes no difference that a person is playing covers for educational or non-profit purposes. Doing cover songs for free still requires a license.

A person needs a mechanical license for audio distribution, whether it be physical or digital, and a synchronization license if there is video distribution. Most established streaming sites already have a synchronization license that covers (pun intended) covers, whereas the site will divert ad revenue. However, it is up to the performer to make sure a synchronization license is available from the site for all the songs they will be covering. Some publishers or copyright holders refuse to issue synchronization licenses as there isn't an obligation and there isn't a fixed rate, each license is negotiated separately.

The current mechanical rate is $0.091 for songs five minutes or less and $0.0175 per minute or fraction thereof for songs over five minutes. This rate is set by the Copyright Royalty Board, part of the Library of Congress, and for United States territories only.

> What choice do you reasonably have ?

They are the ones providing the tools and also set a number of rules (following the law mostly) to use it. Are you arguing that they can’t improve their tools to add even surface validation, or go deeper and force the filling party to provide enough information for the claims to be reviewable by a human (the receiving party)?

Would the copyright owner sue Youtube for forcing them in the interface to provide evidence of the claims ?

Yeah, I think it's pretty obvious Google is completely to blame here. Rather than say "Your channel will be deleted for unexplained copyright infringement" they could say "Videos X, Y, and Z contain copyrighted material at timestamps X', Y', and Z'. This material has been claimed, you may dispute it, because this is your first infringement we will allow you to correct the issue, etc."

As the video points out, in order to make a copyright claim the claimant must specifically state the content that is infringing. Thus, Google knows what material is (allegedly) infringing and has the information to provide to the user. Also as stated in the video Google is not required by law to delete the YouTube channel. They've taken that upon themselves.

To review, Google is being unnecessarily vague about what material is involved and unnecessarily harsh about punishing someone for an unexplained infringement.

The copyright system is, no doubt, messed up - but clearly Google is completely at fault for their lazy and Kafkaesque actions here.

> Rather than say "Your channel will be deleted for unexplained copyright infringement" they could say "Videos X, Y, and Z contain copyrighted material at timestamps X', Y', and Z'. This material has been claimed, you may dispute it, because this is your first infringement we will allow you to correct the issue, etc."

Other than the timestamps that IS what happened here. The creator knows the exact videos that were flagged, and the creator had the option to dispute it - which they did, and the channel was never actually deleted as a result. It's still up:

The situation is now that the claimants can either drop the copyright claims or sue him (this is stated in the video at timestamp 2:40). Neither of which involves YouTube, and YouTube isn't going to delete the channel unless the claims remain. That is, if the claimant opts to sue the creator.

As for timestamps, not all takedown notices must include such information. Notably DMCA takedown requests do not, and Google cannot require more than the law does on those. If Google failed to forward the notice along, or refuses to, that'd be something to be upset about. But we don't have evidence that they didn't, only that the data from that claim was not manually entered into a database to be shown in a pretty UI. But given the channel in question, it seems likely that it's just the entire video in violation.

You're trying to say that Google should be generous to people using their service to commit criminal offences?

You can disagree with the law, but it's pretty clear he's breaking it.

> 506. Criminal offenses6

> (a) Criminal Infringement.—

> (1) In general.—Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed—

> (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

Yes Google should be generous to people breaking the law. There are many laws and they are complicated and often inscrutable and sometimes unfair. Breaking a law is something everyone does frequently, often without realizing it, so being generous and lenient with law breakers, especially those who have been valuable contributors, seems reasonable.

The allegation is that five of his videos had infringing content. Five out of six hundred. Being generous and letting him fix, remove, or contest the allegation prior to deleting the channel strikes me as a much better course than to just tell him "Your channel is being deleted for copyright infringement but we won't tell you where it happened."

> but clearly Google is completely at fault for their lazy and Kafkaesque actions here

It strikes me that Google has created a system which is ripe for abuse, much like the Amazon bribery case we heard about recently. Since the system is entirely opaque, and because there is apparently no oversight, the Google content reviewer would have very little risk of being caught with a bribe.

The whole thing is play for media uproar. Gareth Evans has channel based on playing & covering songs. Courts have always held that this is textbook copyright infringement.

Gareth Evans videos all have the songs and artist name in the title.

Whoever filed the takedown was lazy in that they didn't include the description because the entire video is infringing.

Edit for sources:

The thing is, this is not only a YouTube channel, it's a small business. Google is literally shutting down a small business without any proof. You could think that it's somewhat illegal to do, but apparently it's not.
That "small business" is what tips this copyright violation from a simple civil matter into a criminal offence.

506. Criminal offenses


(a) Criminal Infringement.—

(1) In general.—Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed—

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

Can it be both a small business and "non-commercial in nature"? Because that's at the crux of his fair use claim I think.
Fair use doesn’t require the usage to be non-commercial, otherwise news sites wouldn’t exist as they are today.

It’s one of the aspect that the usage is evaluated on, but not a requirement.

He has Patreon, PayPal donate links, and (I can imagine) ad-revenue from YouTube. The content is offered for free otherwise.
That's the bit that doesn't ring true to me, his "non-commercial" claim. I'm not at all suggesting that he deserves the treatment he's getting, but it doesn't seem like he's being entirely straightforward here. Can anyone who knows the law weigh in on whether I'm missing something about the distinction between 'commercial' and 'monetized via advertising'?
Fair use does not apply to cover songs, independent of profit.
My sense from listening to him talk is that he believes that not profiting from the videos directly, on YouTube, means that he's in the clear. I fear that this is not exactly how the law works, but I'm also not a lawyer.
>he believes that not profiting from the videos directly, on YouTube

I don't see where he says that. He says he's never profited from selling other people's material. I think he considers putting up content for free with ads to not be selling content.

You are probably being more precise about what he said than I was, but I think the two claims are roughly isomorphic, and also roughly equally incorrect. If I use someone's song in my advertisement I didn't "profit from selling their material," but it's still a commercial use and they will succeed if they sue me or take down my ad.
Yes if we used copyrightable music on the TTRPG shows I play in for musical cues - we would need a licence.

Which is a pity as it would be nice to be able to use music cues to set the mood and enhance the experience.

Id have loved to used a clip from Bettye Swann's "then you can tell me goodbye" at the end of our recent Expanse one shot.

You could think that it's somewhat illegal to do, but apparently it's not.

What specifically is illegal about this? If it's not and you think this should be illegal, how would you write the law that would make this illegal?

The channel is the retail space and the landlord just kicked them out. I think this content producer should get a lawyer.
Landlords and tenants have contracts, and there are rules about what and how these are enforceable.
So does copyright law, and it sounds like the creator received 5 DMCA notices. So yes getting a lawyer would still be the correct course of action.
Youtube works in its own little court, they're not real DMCA notices. Otherwise companies wouldn't be allowed to blanket claim random stuff with no repercussions.
Sorry that I didn't read much. But above comment section there are directly contradicting comments. One person says he may have received 5 DMCA notices and another person says it is not true. I have seen similar very contradictory things in other social medias too. How is this possible? How to quickly find who is lying without spending too much investigating?
I'm not sure anyone is lying here, so much as being misled by the conventional wisdom that YouTube has no incentive to straighten out. "DMCA" is a well-known buzzword, and the shallow understanding is that copyright infringement claims that get content taken down are all under the DMCA umbrella. The deeper understanding is that most of the big content hosts like YouTube have frontline systems that exist outside the DMCA procedure and its associated legal requirements, but YouTube is happy for the DMCA to take the blame for anything that is handled poorly by their own system. Disputes through that system can be escalated to real DMCA takedown notices.
It is very obvious this is not Content-ID, which is what the big content hosts use for broad protection. It's a manual claim.
Content-ID is something else entirely - an automated preemptive system. But last I checked, it looked like formal DMCA procedures weren't the only manual complaint alternative.
How do you know these aren't real DMCA notices? From the video it's a manual claim, which means it's not Content-ID. The email he received from the support agent also specifically states that they responded to a "complete and valid takedown notice." It also doesn't have the required information that YouTube's manual non-contentid system requires. And, finally, the creator issued a counter claim (stated at 2:40) and states the claimant's course of actions are now to either drop the claim or sue him.

All signs therefore point to this being a DMCA notice. If you have evidence to the contrary please provide it.

Note that you can definitely get a "manually detected" non-DMCA Content ID claim on a video[0] - but the screenshot he shows at 3:43 is in fact a DMCA claim since it says "This video is contributing to a copyright stroke on your channel".

0:30 he says "without any evidence at all". A DMCA notice should have "identifying infringing material clearly and specifically". Even though it sounds like a real DMCA notice, it still sounds like YT isn't facilitating it correctly. At 3:55 he mentions not being able to get this information. Seconds later he mentions YT doesn't mediate disputes. So what's going on here? Through their strike system and communicating to both parties, are they not mediating this? It looks more like a DMCA against YT, in which they immediately roll over, allow the company to file false DMCAs with no repercussion, and tell the content creator "kick rocks"
YT never mediates DMCA complaints. That's not their role or responsibility, nor something they can even do at all. DMCA requires the sites receiving them to immediately role over and comply. Which is the system that should be getting the ire and calls for changes.

And the video itself is identified. He does have that information.

He hasn't received any DMCA notices, Youtube don't do those - since DMCA gives creators fair use rights and have punishments for fradulent reports.

Youtube has its own "extra jurisdictional" copyright system.

They do. But you can still submit an actual, legally-valid DMCA that can be used to take someone to court if they submit a counter-notice.

> Youtube don't do those

YouTube can't just "opt out" of the law. YouTube absolutely responds to DMCA notices, and per the video he issued counter-claims already - that's a core part of responding to DMCA.

And you don't have to go through youtube's webtools to submit one, either (which of course you don't - the law doesn't require that). You can mail, fax, or email the DMCA takedown notice:

> YouTube absolutely responds to DMCA notices,

Sure, but these aren't proper DMCA claims. As kristofferR pointed out there are other extra jurisdictional mechanisms that Google employ to make your life difficult as a creator.

And then, which laws apply? US, UK, EU, Russian, Indian....

Now sure, it's a private platform and they can shut you down any time. I recognise there ain't no free speech on private platforms.

But if they've been making a tidy sum of lots of ad money due to your apparent infringement (and much, much more than you the creator) along the way then I'm sure we might see a well funded case against this practice, maybe not in the US, but other jurisdictions that still recognise the limits and powers of private companies and the right not to be fucked over by them.

It's not entirely clear what type of process actually lead YouTube to terminate this channel, so we can't know either.

> there are other extra jurisdictional mechanisms that Google employ to make your life difficult as a creator.

That's not quite true. The DMCA is a very strict mechanism. You get a notice, you take down the content, and if the uploader isn't happy with that, they have to sue the claimant.

Of course, Youtubes process is streamlined for its own interests and the interests of big corporate copyright hoarders. But it's not designed to bully creators.

The problem isn't really the process in itself, it's how Google applies it and the fact that Youtube doesn't seem to care that much for its creators.

When Github was sent a DMCA for the PopcornTime repo, PopcornTime was able to submit a counter DMCA which allowed the repo to be reinstated. Then, if the repo was really in violation, it had to be proven in court by the original claimant. Youtube doesn't allow creators to file a counter DMCA.
The same thing happened here. The creator issued a counter claim, and his channel is currently still up and unaffected

Youtube does allow DMCA counter claims because they legally have to. Youtube has absolutely no wiggle room with DMCA. No amount of complaining to them can ever change that, either. You have to get the laws changed.

Here and elsewhere in this thread, you're exaggerating the power of the DMCA over YouTube. The only consequence to YouTube if they fail to follow along with the DMCA takedown notice/counter-notice procedure is that they lose safe harbor protection against being held liable for their users copyright infringement. In a case where YouTube is overzealously removing content that is not actually infringing, they really aren't at much risk of that somehow leading to them being sued for infringement. And you can bet that their Terms of Service adequately indemnify them against any torts their users might come after them for related to such behavior.
> they lose safe harbor protection against being held liable for their users copyright infringement. In a case where YouTube is overzealously removing content that is not actually infringing,

Do you understand that the content in the submission is infringing? And not just to the civil level but to the criminal level? And so YouTube losing safe harbor would be huge.

> And so YouTube losing safe harbor would be huge.

No, it wouldn't, because YouTube is actually removing the content. So they're not going to get sued for infringement, and other parts of the DMCA still protect them even when they operate outside the bounds of the takedown notice procedure.

This is kinda missing the point: to appease Viacom and the other media companies when Google took over years ago, they set up a parallel but separate system for processing copyright claims that is in addition the DMCA.

A creator can have up to three strikes, with them disappearing over the course of time if they don't get more strikes. Contested copyright strikes may be elevated to DMCA requests if YouTube finds in favor of the creator, but it's not required.

If you run out of those strikes, your channel is immediately shut down. It's possible (especially with a large backlog of videos) to exceed this strike count before you can use their tools to argue against the strikes. When this happens, your account is shut down, and a "grace" timer is enabled to allow you to try and challenge the copyright strikes (one at a time). If that grace period passes and you're still out of strikes (don't dare to take a vacation), the only remaining choice is to appeal to the public.

No DMCA claims necessary.

Then this is a case of a tenant agreeing to onerous terms before setting up shop in a retail space, terms which allow the landlord to kick the tenant out at their whim, with no legal recourse.

I can't believe this needs to be said literally every time one of these types of articles gets posted on HN: if you build your business on top of someone else's platform, and have no contracts in place to protect your interests, your business's existence is completely at the whim of the platform owners.

I wish we lived in a world where the Googles of the internet had sane, transparent, easily-appealable processes for these sorts of things. But we don't, and absent government regulation, we probably aren't going to. People need to take these sorts of risks into account when deciding how to run their businesses, and have contingency plans.

It's interesting to note that in the landlord/tenant analogy, most jurisdictions have laws in place that prevent tenants from agreeing to such unbalanced, predatory contracts, and give tenants rights even in the absence of any agreement at all. Perhaps we do need something like that on the internet, for some things.

> Then this is a case of a tenant agreeing to onerous terms before setting up shop in a retail space

One small caveat - the small business owner had no choice in the matter when they moved in 10 years ago. There was only one mall people would actually visit across the entire world. And that mall has a clickwrap agreement for all their rentals, one which includes a clause that says "and we can change this agreement at will and without notice."

20 years ago my student tv station had online videos, including live stuff.

You use a platform, that’s on you. It’s never been cheaper or easier to run a website, make videos, and host them.

10 years ago it was probably less like a "small business" and more like a lemonade stand, so neither youtube nor the creator really cared about having a strong agreement or understanding in place.
Imo, government regulations is basically admitting defeat and trying desperately to mitigate a little harm while locking in a lot of it.

A regulator tends to lock the status quo into place, it's almost always incumbent friendly... like banking, casinos, tobacco, etc. Remember that Philip Morris benefits greatly from tobacco regulation.

What "good" would be is wrenching video out of YouTube's Kafkaesque hands.

Have we given up on decentralisation?

Another thing coming to mind is some kind of trade union for creators
It's not possible to build a business without participating on platforms.

Even the web is a platform now. You won't do well running a website if Google Search and Chrome don't favour it. Depending on how you plan to get your initial customers, you may hit a sizeable roadblock if Google Ads or Facebook Ads decide that they don't want to run your ads.

Windows and MacOS are also platforms.

Even pretty big companies depend upon platforms. Take the example of Epic getting booted from Apple's app store. Facebook have not been able to get Apple to approve Facebook Gaming.

If you want to start an ecommerce business, are you meant to build your own rather than using Amazon & Shopify?

It doesn't make sense to not participate on platforms. What does make sense is to consider what it means for your business. In certain extreme cases like YouTube or Apple's app store, it seems like some degree of regulation may be necessary to prevent the platforms from abusing their position.

I've seen this on Twitter, Reddit and now HN, so I assume there will be enough buzz for Google to do something. I expect his channel to be undeleted, then a Twitter apology, then to repeat this all over again with another channel with sufficient clout in 5-6 months.

It's a complete shitshow.

Here's the other way to look at it, videos like this are becoming fairly rare comparatively, maybe 2-3 a year. They definitely used to be more common before. Considering the millions or creators you have, and even with the fact that only a small number of them would make a video like this and blow up, it still is surprising that it's happening so infrequently.

The thing is, for all we know, 99.99% of cases could be handled properly, and we wouldn't have a clue. We only get to see it when it goes wrong, and someone complains. But again, such complains at the very least have been decreasing, while Youtube itself is ever growing, so it looks like at least something is improving in here.

Is there a source you could point me on how this is happening infrequently over the years ? I am curious to see the progression.
The only thing you can say is that the number of videos that get traction is decreasing. You don't know how many are shut down.
Meanwhile, all the smaller channels/businesses without that clout that get suddenly and automatically shut down die a quiet death.
Well, on the other hand, at least there’s a review process now.
It's a shame that there's likely hundreds if not thousands of similar cases that didn't hit the internet quite like OP did. I think you must be crazy to have your income be only as a youtuber. It's like mountain climbing with no ropes, you can reach these tall peaks but any moment a foothold can break and you lose it all.

> It’s important that creators always have detailed knowledge about who is claiming content in their videos, where it appears, and what they can do to resolve the claim. That’s why all new manual claims will require copyright owners to provide timestamps to indicate exactly where their copyrighted content appears in videos they claim, and we’ve updated our editing tools to make it easier to automatically release a claim.

Is it a bug with Youtube or do they not follow this policy (consistently)?

> all new manual claims

It must not be a manual complaint. That's some nice PR-Legalese.

Video explicitly shows it's a manual complaint.
To quibble a bit, the video shows that YouTube's control panel tells users that a claim was "manual" and doesn't detail what "manual" means, or provide the DMCA notice (which is a written document, fwiw) that was filed, if one was.

I barely trust the information in the logging functions that I write, and those don't have legal consequences attached to providing extra detail.

There's a difference. If someone manually claims a video through YT's content-ID system, they have to provide timestamps (this is enforced by Google).

If someone just sends a regular DMCA notice, they're only required (by law) to provide the URL, and Google has no choice but to take down everything at that URL, until/unless they receive a counter-claim from the poster.

The content-ID stuff is a convenience outside the law, if content owners (who have access to it) choose to use it. Anyone can file a DMCA notice, and Google has to respond in a particular way in order to be compliant with the law, and cannot impose extra requirements (like timestamps) before acting on the DMCA claim.

The law also requires that the DMCA notice describes what copyright is being infringed on. [1]

You can’t just go “this video infringes on my copyright, but I’m not going to tell you which copyright”. That isn’t a valid DMCA notice at all.

[1] § (512(c)(3)(A)(i-vi))

They don't care, and they don't follow that policy.

Even if that is "just a technical issue", no one cared enough to spend resources to fix their underlying system to reflect that policy.

DMCA notices are not issued by YouTube. I think you're confusing this with Content-ID, which is youtube's auto-algorithm thingy. That's not what happened here, though, per the video.
OP is talking is quoting a support article about manual claims, and how google require these manual claims must include a timestamp and description.

Something that is notably missing from the strikes shown in the video.

GP is saying that their system shouldn’t let copyright claimants just ignore Google’s policy. Which is clearly what’s happened here. Which just further demonstrates Google’s contempt for its creators.

Those are manual claims via YouTube's non-DMCA system. YouTube still has to respect DMCA claims and YouTube cannot impose requirements on DMCA notices. If it's a valid legal DMCA complaint, YouTube must comply. Google's policy is irrelevant here as it's not law.

The point of confusion here is that there's multiple ways to issue a copyright strike on YouTube. If this is via YouTube's internal mechanisms, then yeah this is bullshit. But if it's not and is instead a DMCA notice, and the evidence suggests it is a DMCA notice, then YouTube has no authority over the matter.

The video explains that these are DMCA notices but the problem is how YouTube is handling them.
DMCA notices must include:

> (ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site. [1]

Now a timestamp isn’t required in a DMCA notice, but a description of the copyrighted work being infringed upon (i.e. a description of what has been stolen, not just a link to the supposed stolen article) is required to make it a valid notice.

In the video, the creator shows an email and YouTube page where Google claims that they haven’t been given a description of the copyrighted work being infringed upon.

If that’s true, then the DMCA notice given to YouTube is invalid, and once again YouTube demonstrates how little it cares about creators.


The creator should have requested the notice be forwarded to them for further inspection. We don't have the notice, we just know the details of it were not entered into YouTube's UI.

But given the channel in question, the notice & details are really not a mystery? If you cover a song, and get a copyright strike, is it not fairly obvious what the strike is about?

> The creator should have requested the notice be forwarded to them for further inspection.

How can they request that? Also, it's Youtube's stated policy that all copyright strikes must include the details. Also also, the creator did request the details of the strikes and Youtube didn't provide any.

> If you cover a song, and get a copyright strike, is it not fairly obvious what the strike is about?

No, it's not. There are numerous instances where companies would issue blanket copyright strikes even for content those companies don't have a copyright to [1]. There are instances where there are copyright strikes for silence and for bird noises [2]. Copyright strikes are anything but obvious, even for cover songs.


[2] and

Not sure why you're getting downvoted so heavily.

I think you're right: they don't give a shit whether they follow their own rules or now. What is this guitarist going to do? Sue them?

Disclaimer: I have extensive knowledge about YouTube Content ID (CID) and DMCA notices, but I'm not a lawyer. This isn't legal advice.

He received a DMCA takedown, which is different from a copyright claim. Copyright claiming is a system made by YouTube for copyright owners to easily monetize/monitor reuse of their content instead of having to take down the content. It also allows splitting revenue in cases where one party owns copyright in specific territories. When you put content in CID, it will automatically claim videos and provide timestamps to the uploader. Sometimes CID fails to claim a video, and the copyright owner can then manually claim a video. There was a time where copyright owners didn't have to provide timestamps when they manually claimed a video. Nowadays, all manual claims need to provide a timestamp. Only highly trusted companies have access to CID, and getting a claim doesn't result in termination of your account.

The DMCA is a law that makes it easier to remove copyright content from the internet. It also makes it so that a service provider isn't responsible for the content they host. It is basically a legal action to take down content you own from the internet without having to start a lawsuit.

It works like this: when a copyright owner sends a DMCA takedown, the service provider needs to take down the content. If the uploader disagrees, they can send a counter notification. Unless the copyright owner that filed the takedown files a lawsuit within 14 days, the service provider needs to reinstate the content. You can be sued for damages in case of an incorrect DMCA takedown.

If YouTube would reject a DMCA, it would make YouTube responsible.

> He received a DMCA takedown

Do you have a source for this? I can't find evidence that this is a DMCA notice. Those are fairly straightforward to appeal on youtube which means the next step is court. I don't think this guy got actual DMCA notices.

3:47 in the video
> the service provider needs to reinstate the content

I believe this is may reinstate the content, I don't think they're obligated too. Also not a lawyer.

Reading the DMCA (512(g)[1]) it seems a little more nuanced than that.

The DMCA provides wide protection to the service provider against liability for taking down stuff due to a DMCA notice (e.g. contractual SLA with customers mean nothing). However that protection disappears if the correct counter claim steps are followed, at which point the service provider becomes liable for not providing a service.

Of course with YouTube, they almost certainly have broad T&Cs that let them delete/disable your content for any reason at anytime (it’s not like creators are paying for hosting). So YouTube never had any liability to be protected from.

The net result, YouTube can do whatever they want with your content, and you have little to no recourse.


If this is related to a DMCA notification, shouldn't YouTube removing the (alleged) video that violates the law, and not delete the whole channel?

I guess that's how Google's index works, they remove indexed results, but not the whole index.

I'm not sure if it's a legal requirement, but YouTube has the rule that once a channel gets 3 DMCA takedowns (without counter notification) within 90 days, it will suspend the channel. Such a warning is usually referred to as a copyright strike (not to be confused with a copyright claim or a community guidelines strike).

One difference between the Google index and YouTube is that links in the Google index can be service providers like YouTube, while the owner of a YouTube channel is always the one responsible for the content.

Something notable that happened here is that instead of bundling the 5 videos in 1 DMCA takedown resulting in 1 strike, the party sent 5 separate DMCA takedowns causing 5 strikes.

This is pure Kafka: prosecuted for unknown crimes, indicted by an unknown accuser, and lost in the system.

Proud times!

As it happens, I just found, hidden in a crevice of my desk, a somewhat yellowed half-sized fragment of a page, which, telling from the letters, could well have originated from Kafkas very own typewriter. Apparently, it's a fragment of an unfinished dramolet, which I will here present in it's original German form, due to its potential historical value. (I just translated the personae and the stage directions.)

Warden of the Alphabet: Der Herr, wir hätten da etwas gegen Sie vorliegen…

Y (in despair): Um Himmels Willen! Was wird wird gegen mich vorgebracht?

WotA: Es ist eine Eingabe gemacht worden, daß Sie wiederholt, in gröblichster Form gegen das Urheberrecht verstoßen haben.

Y: Das kann nicht sein. Wer bringt so etwas gegen mich vor? Wie? Warum?

WotA: Das kann ich Ihnen leider nicht sagen.

Y: Das müssen Sie! Was habe ich verbrochen?

WotA: Ich kann es Ihnen wirklich nicht sagen. Sehen Sie (shows a slightly crumpled piece of paper with a single line of machine writing): Das ist in der Eingabe nicht angegeben.

Y: Also kann ich gehen?

WotA: Keineswegs, der Herr! Sehen Sie, da, da ist auch der Stempel "Notorisch". Das wird üblicherweise strengstens bestraft.

Y (dejected): Wann ist die Verhandlung?

WotA: Also, Verhandlung haben wir hier noch keine gesehen. Der Tag der Bestrafung wird noch bekannt gegeben. Auf Pardon sollten Sie sich allerdings keine Hoffnung machen. Machen Sie es sich bis dahin bequem, der Herr. Da muß doch ein Einsehen sein…

Youtube has had a scam video ad up for 3 days now advertising fallguys for mobile where it's just a page that forces you to install other apps. It was blatant and I reported it but YouTube can't be bothered to dispatch a human to look at it.

I've seen more promoted Livestream scams in the last 6 months promising crypto giveaways than ever. They're equally blatant and impersonating tesla, spaceX and even Steve Wozniak.

If Google can't be bothered to properly pay humans to moderate this they shouldn't be entitled to the billions in profit that comes from it.

Edit: there you have it, 345k views and it's still up:

Youtube isn't going to listen to you, Devolver on the other end might and Youtube might listen to THEM.

That's the same thing with copyright scams and counterfeits on Kickstarter and co, Kickstarter doesn't give a flying "fork" about user reports until Disney or Sony send their lawyers.

I also remember that blatant Youtube live bitcoin scam just after the Playstation 5 reveal which Youtube let run despite perhaps thousands of user reports. Youtube could not NOT know this scam was happening.

I'm not that familiar with copyright law.

Is he legally allowed to make a guitar cover of any song he wants to and distribute it?

It's also not clear if there were ads on the videos. Would that play a role?

In the United States you need to have generally 2 licenses. One is for the audio and another is to show you playing the song.

This may be different though if the work the creator is showing is considered transformative enough to be considered a new work altogether. It could be considered educational in nature instead of violating the copyright.

I'm curious about this as well. How does that work with books too? Like can I read a book on Youtube and make money with that even if the book is copyrighted?
(In the US) Reading a book aloud is considered a performance and the book's copyright protects it. You could read it aloud (and make money with it) only so long as your activity is covered by fair use doctrine. If you want a more YouTube-relatable analogy, the passages from the book would need to be treated like the original content in a reaction video.
No, because reading the book aloud for free on YouTube would obviate the need for people to purchase the book (or otherwise acquire a purchased copy of it). In this case, learning how to play a song on guitar doesn't obviate the need to hear the original artist's recording of it.

It's an argument over the doctrine of fair use, which has four parts:

1. What's the purpose of the use? Is it for educational purposes, or commercial purposes? (These aren't mutually exclusive, which is a confounder)

2. What's claimed to be copyrighted/creative in the original work? Is the creativity in question merely the phrasing of facts, or are there aspects of the original author's own creativity (for music, this one is probably irrelevant; it's obviously a largely creative endeavor, though I guess there probably exist certain hypothetical pieces of music for which it's harder to say)

3. How much of the work has been used? This is tricky; he probably teaches how to play entire songs, but the guitar part of any given song is a small piece of the overall work (and he probably uses very little, if any, of the copyrighted recording)

4. What's the impact on the value of the original work? In this case it's clear that there is essentially no negative impact – if anything, if you're learning to play a song, you're more likely to purchase or otherwise consume the original recording. This is also usually the most important factor in deciding fair use (from what I understand; I am not a legal professional, I just remember this from a paper I wrote in college for some course or other).

(edit: formatting)

But that none of that matters, because YouTube will still block or demonetize your videos even when you were clearly covered by fair use.
Also note that the musical composition is itself a copyrighted work, not just the recording. So that is a better case against #3, but still doesn't change #4 (unless the songwriter are themselves offering a competing educational mechanism for learning the song... which could be the case, who knows!)
As far as I know, covers aren't fair use.

Thousands (millions?) of people post covers on YouTube with no issue, but sometimes people get unlucky. I don't think monetization makes a difference in the eyes of the law (maybe it would for proving damages? I'm not a lawyer.)

What's unusual is that he said he got 5 copyright strikes without telling him why. I've gotten a copyright notice on a video before and I got an email and I think it even shows on the video where the violation is. (I'm not 100% sure, it was a long time ago.)

Looking at his other videos this seems like a clear cut case of copyright infringement, if he's not obtaining mechanical licenses. I don't understand why anyone is up in arms about this.
It's a sync license that he would need (for videos). Unfortunately these are a lot harder and more expensive to obtain than mechanical licenses.
> I don't understand why anyone is up in arms about this.

Because copyright is controversial.

I think people are (rightfully) mad that YouTube is applying the rules so haphazardly. There are millions of similar videos on that aren't resulting in the creator getting their channel taken away.

But you're right that the guy is probably in the wrong. Part of the issue too is how opaque YouTube is about this kind of thing. It would be cool to see them build better appeals systems or at least treat their creators a little better than they treat copyright trolls (which may or may not be who gave him the strikes in the first place.)

Covers might not be fair use, but teaching is.

Music instruction channels on YouTube know that this may technically be true but simply does not matter. Rick Beato's channel has several rants about this, and here's one of them:

Apparently you can have YouTube videos blocked or demonetized for even mentioning the name of a song from some very famous artists who have very active legal teams.

Sounds like it's a factor but not necessarily a deciding one. Also, the phrase used is "nonprofit educational purposes" so if he's got ads enabled he may be out of luck.
"Nonprofit" only appears in a non-normative portion of the statute, alongside other factors that might work in the plaintiff's favor here. Of course, Google's "shoot first and don't allow questions later" approach makes that pretty meaningless.
He posts both pure covers as well as lessons. Does he mention in the video that it was his educational videos that were the reason for this?
AIUI the point is that they're being indiscriminate by taking down the whole channel, including potentially both fair-use and non-fair-use items (and even original content).
I mean that sucks, but even without looking into the TOS this seems like the obvious result of any rule that involves multiple "strikes."
In a previous video on his original channel he talks about the first strike which was made against on of his tutorials by a company who published their tabs a few years AFTER he posted the video.
This is true, but won't help very much either. According to Google Support [1], they don't decide what is or is not fair use, leaving it up to the courts. This means the default position is that nothing is fair use unless the content creator is willing to go through the expensive process of proving it.

Funny enough, they cite a case where a content creator (h3h3 productions) was able to prove fair use in court as an example of the system working. If you look into that case though you'll see that the claimant was only an individual musician and not a big studio, and even then the legal fees were hundreds of thousands of dollars.


> they don't decide what is or is not fair use, leaving it up to the courts. This means the default position is that nothing is fair use unless the content creator is willing to go through the expensive process of proving it.

Well.. that doesn't sound right? That sounds like Google's decided it will treat the accused as guilty unless/until they defend and prove their innocence? Could it not equally decide all claims against them are bullshit unless/until the claimant sues and proves their damages?

Given that the rights holders are litigious and the ones with the money, if I were Google I'd also be taking the content down rather than being a sitting duck waiting to get sued whenever a random user clicks the dispute button on their strike notification.

Of course, taking all other videos down and disallowing to open another channel ever, those are not measures which should be used until both parties agree that this has been settled or one of the two supplies a court document. But I don't think it's entirely unreasonable (debatable, sure; unreasonable... not sure) to make the video(s) in question invisible to everyone except the owner, copyright holder, and youtube employees until they agree it's settled or the court settled it for them.

The thing is, Google has nothing to fear here. The DMCA -- as much as we generally think it's a poorly-thought-out law -- already handles this. There's no need for Google to do anything beyond handling DMCA notices in accordance with the law, but they've decided -- likely because it's better for business -- to cater to the needs of large rights holders at the expense of individuals.

As long as they handle DMCA notices as they're supposed to, they're not at all liable for the content posted on their platform (copyright-wise). But it's easier for them to provide a guilty-until-proven-innocent fast-track for their larger, trusted, monied rights holders.

> DMCA [...] already handles this. [...] no need [to do] anything beyond handling DMCA notices [...] As long as they handle DMCA notices ...

Alright alright, I get the message, they need to just "handle" DMCA notices. But doesn't "handling" them include taking the content down? Because that was what I was saying.


> [online service providers must] promptly block access to alleged infringing material (or remove such material from their systems) when they receive notification of an infringement claim from a copyright holder or the copyright holder's agent

Taking the material down seems to be within the scope of what you're saying is "all they have to do".

So based on that, citing from your comment now (not Wikipedia):

> it's easier for them to provide a guilty-until-proven-innocent fast-track

Is that not exactly what DMCA is, given the above?

> Google has nothing to fear here

Viacom still sued Google 10 years ago and dragged them through three court rulings before Google agreed to settle [1]. It didn't matter that early rulings favored YouTube on the matter of DMCA compliance, the content owners will find a way to hurt you and lock you in court. After Google settled the case, they created Content ID and Viacom stopped attacking them.

It frustrates that everyone seems to miss the cause whenever this kind of stuff comes up. Does anyone actually think Google likes being pushed around by copyright holders? Does it make any sense to you for Google to want to create this insanely complex system if all they have to do is handle DMCA notices like they did before Content ID? The content owners have always pushed for something beyond DMCA. YouTube complies because there is something to fear.


It's a shame they caved and settled. If anyone has deep enough pockets to fight something like that, you'd think it's Google, even 10 years ago.
WOW, initially i thought this was some average joe's channel where bots can run rampage(even this is wrong)..

770,000 subscribers 120 million views 600 videos

all gone in 4 days!!!!! keep rocking youtube!!!

Google is now a monopoly with Search, Youtube and probably gmail be right?!

This really isn't a surprise and has been happening to lots of fringe creators and lesser known channels with as many subscribers for years.

It was only a matter of time before it happened to other high profile creators.

Yeah, my point is that the problem is so real that even high profile creators are left to bite dust..
72k subscribers, not 770k. Doubtful that this is a full time thing, but definitely a serious endeavor.
> Google is now a monopoly with Search, Youtube and probably gmail be right?!

Not quite.

Search -- I use an assortment of non-google engines, but mostly

Youtube -- Not quite a monopoly, but contains almost all of the mindshare.

Gmail -- There's plenty of other email services. I use protonmail.

More than 25,000 YouTubers now publish to the LBRY protocol, with more coming over every day, for reasons just like this. The total reach of these creators is more than 400,000,000 people.

We're just rolling out our mainstream video product explicitly designed to compete with YouTube @

To learn more about the protocol itself, check out

No offense but I'm not interested in dealing with crypto to post and watch short tutorial videos.
You refuse to use https and only visit sites that still support http-only viewing?
You refuse to use eyeballs for viewing?
I believe that your parent post was referring to crypto-currency, not cryptography in general.
Many people didn't want to send email in the 1990s either.

A blockchain is the only technology that allows a simultaneously decentralized and coherent view of what exists on a network along with local control over identity.

I think blockchain sucks in many ways and is a big hassle. We try to hide it as much as possible. It's still the right solution to this problem.

Interesting concept. I've been hoping and wishing for something, anything, to come along and replace Youtube with a freedom-of-speech oriented platform.

But in the FAQ there's this: "LBRY.COM / LBRY.TV allows content to be flagged as inappropriate. Should any content be flagged as illegal, unlawful, harassing, harmful, offensive or various other reasons, LBRY.COM / LBRY.TV shall remove it from the site without delay."

So how do you actually remove stuff if it's so well distributed, encrypted packets, no central authority, no censorship? Seems contradictory.

Or maybe I'm just not understanding how it works and LBRY.TV only represents one implementation of a broader standard that is platformless?

It can be hidden from our official apps (but turned off by commenting out a single line in the UI code[0]). That content is still accessible via the LBRY sdk[1], and it is not possible for the company to remove it from the network.



It can be hidden from our official apps (but turned off by commenting out a single line in the UI code[0]). That content is still accessible via the LBRY sdk[1], and it is not possible for the company to remove it from the network.



What if the content is actually really criminal? Child exploitation and the like.
It would be blocked by all LBRY INC apps. Someone would have to build an app to view it either in a country where it is not illegal, or they'd be breaking the law.
Keep up the good work lbry!
I was kinda interested until I hit the "100 LBC to get started", and realized it was a blockchain/cryptocurrency thing.
I vaguely remember this kind of tech being discussed a few years ago. It seemed legit at the time, though I have no idea if this particular implementation is.
It's a necessary "evil" for small fish brokering payments to hedge against oppressive regimes that control the banking system.
There is no other method to allow local control over publishing identity combined with a coherent view of a decentralized network.
Alternative Video Sites :

CryoLogic for animators and animation fans - we are fully funded by fans and members vote on features and direction!
Heads up, grammar error on your landing page:

We have an large

Should be:

We have a large

There isn't a fair use defense to playing cover songs. Moving to an alternative site isn't going to help. This person still needs licenses to distribute even if he is doing covers for free.
What's the audience like on those? I assume pretty small compared to YouTube.
And you can be part of the solution! Isn't this nice?
being part of the solution doesn't pay the bills
Does it have to? Can we not have content made by whoever feels like it, like many of the articles popular on HN are not for profit, none of the (often insightful) comments are, the plethora of games and tools people create and share for free, etc.?

For professional videos, until there is a law that specifies that a monopoly (currently Google YouTube does seem like the only place where money making is possible) has to follow certain rules, they can throw you out for virtually any reason and it's not a secure way of making a living. So maybe it should be, but it currently isn't, and we can't currently force them to be.

Other platforms may not significantly help one to pay bills, I'm just wondering if that might not be okay given the sheer number of people who seem to have fun doing this. If not, we should make new laws.

> Can we not have content made by whoever feels like it

Sure! We can definitely have charity content. Most of the content out there is.

Somebody's paying for most of the content most people want to watch, though.

You mean paying bandwidth-wise? Because if you want bittorrent... we can do bittorrent. Bandwidth doesn't need to cost anything and can be made to prefer intra-ISP traffic quite easily. Better for everyone.
I mean paying for its existence; most of the content people consume is paid-for content whether by advertising (in one form or another) or direct support via Patreon and similar. And the reasons for this are ones I know firsthand; I am a video producer as well as a software developer. I could not afford to do the former without being the latter. Building a

A reasonable-quality single-camera A/V rig that a video producer would actually want to work with is comfortably in the middle four digits. Three cameras, low five. That money must come from somewhere, as must the rationalization for the time in a world as productized and generally fucked as ours, and "that's OK, art and media can just be done by wildly wealthy dilettantes in their spare time" is a shitty world.

I like to imagine what the trade names of the future are going to be. When you meet someone on the Mars colony whose last name is Tuber and that bit of Snapple (best stuff off earth!) Cap wisdom perks up in your brain: "why, their great-grandpappy must have been one of the YouTube personalities on the first ship!"

I think it was prompted by seeing the name "Hodler" once and thinking it sounded like the cryptocurrency equivalent of Wainwright or Cooper.

You can post to YouTube and also another platform, then on Patreon/Twitter/Facebook/etc always link the other platform instead of YouTube. That way you would still be discoverable on YouTube, but hopefully get some amount of traffic funneled over to the other platform in case YouTube kicks you off.
Neither does being de-platformed.
LBRY is viable for creators and the videos cannot be taken down permanently :
Doesn't host this video?
After the initial setup, it doesn't cost much to post your videos on all platforms
Paying the bills by being part of the problem is a personal decision
For Bitchute you can directly compare the views of videos by Styxhexenhammer666, who seems to be most watched content creator on Bitchute. Numbers seem to be roughly 12 to 1 in favor of YouTube.

Still, we need people to start contributing to alternative platforms. The YouTube monopoly only benefits Google.

Getting taken down on YouTube means you have an audience of zero.

So, bigger than that.

You're technically correct, but that's not really relevant. 0 < 1 < 780,000 for sure, but that's also the difference between making a living and not.

YouTube, like it or not, is the engine that drives many people's content business (the creators), and if the engine is denied to them, there really isn't a realistic alternative.

You either overthrow The King, or you depend on his largesse and submit to his whims.

"We don't care. We don't have to. We're Google."

What does "overthrow the king" look like when the alternatives are uploading your videos to other sites and getting a handful of views?

It's like the alternative really is "depend on his largesse and submit to his whims beacuse you can't overthrow the king because he is too powerful".

Like it or not YouTube is in an extremely solid position that is unlikely to be shifted by anyone at this point.

What does "overthrow the king" look like

I often hear the “host your own content” but I don’t feel like there is an equally vocal “make it discoverable, too” crowd. That is until I discovered the indieweb.

The indieweb’s usage of microformats and features like “webmentions” that can be crawled ad hoc, enabling decentralized, federated discovery (example: is the web that-IMO-we should have gotten. Not one dominated by corporatized, professionalized platforms

> What does "overthrow the king" look like when the alternatives are uploading your videos to other sites and getting a handful of views?

Twitch somehow seems to do a pretty good job of competing with YouTube.

If you move and only get a handful of views, do you really have a channel? If you can't take your viewers somewhere else, do you actually have viewers or are you simply one of the interchangeable nobodies that YouTube uses to keep YouTube viewers engaged?

I'm reminded of the "influencer" who couldn't sell 10 t-shirts to her "thousands" of viewers.

The video discovery is the part that really hurts creators there. Youtube is a bunch of stuff nobody cares about attached to that landing page that advertises videos and which billions (I think? hundreds of millions at least) of people pass through every day.

There are great ways to host video for free on the internet these days so if you want to preserve some video or link it in somewhere (I've seen vimeo used as a hosting platform for tutorial videos on sites) then you have much better option than YouTube - but if your business is the videos then you either need to survive on YT or else get big enough to splinter. Given how Dlive (pwediepie) and Nebula (technical vlog folks) haven't taken off that well I'm guessing you'll need a lot more behind you to go indy - those subscriptions (hit the bell icon!) and the feed are the feature YT sells.

Maybe someone could build nice recommendations from multiple sources without hosting the videos?
You mean like ThePirateBay does?
If you know how, or are a serious youtuber and have the money to pay for IT people, setup a PeerTube instance. There are scripts that will copy your YouTube or Vimeo library to a PeerTube instance:

Have you found any web streaming sites that use web rtc? I haven't seen anything since mixer was shutdown, it seems like everything uses RTMP.
Also looking for something like this. I've considered just setting up my own Jitsi server on the cloud but haven't had a chance yet. Doesn't really work well for streaming to the public either.
Queue the responses of how people don't or won't use it because it's too small, but they will complain YouTube has a monopoly.

I don't know what you guys expect to happen if you just keep using YouTube... Do you expect some benevolent spirit to fly down on a fairy chariot and "break up YouTube"?

Y'all just want to complain but do nothing else.

Unfortunately none of them pay like YouTube!
They pay better than YouTube if you also post to Youtube.
Um, how does that happen when YouTube arbitrarily close your account?
Thats why most youtubers moved to patreon for their money.
Most haven’t
wmeredith for enterprise
We started using them recently after they bought our previous enterprise video provider, Ooyala. BC is a terribly shoddy product, and customer service is very lacking.
So, of those sites, I had only heard of dailymotion. The others I had never visited before, so they will have no history on me, and will get clean recommendations. Upon going to each one, here's what I got: - Shows 6 videos on the front page above the fold. 3 are appear to be strongly political, and 1 is pushing a far right conspiracy. NEXT. - Front page appears to be entirely far right propaganda and conspiracy theories. Lots of race baiting. NEXT - Front page appears to indicate this is a streaming site ala Mostly game videos on front page, along with 3 race riot videos. Due to titles about "no-go zones", I assume they are all going to be far right propaganda. - Half of the videos on the front page are not in English. Not a bad thing, but surprising to me. The rest of the videos seem to be focusing on bitcoin scams, bill gates vaccines, and videos calling the corona-virus a left wing conspiracy.

Based on what I have seen, I now assume most of these sites are for people banned from Youtube for spouting far-right propaganda. Would not recommend any of them, and will likely not be back.

Yeah, this is part of YouTube's moat. Twitter as well.

Of the people who get kicked off of those platforms, a significant number will be socially obnoxious. They of course have "freedom of speech but not freedom of reach", and our legal structure has decided that the big platforms get to enjoy being both a platform and a publisher, simultaneously.

So when a competitor comes along, the natural way to differentiate is to say "we won't ban you unless you break the law". So the socially obnoxious flood to the new plaform, and pretty quickly, you've got a core user base of people who like that, and a few people who are merely willing to tolerate it on principle.

I don't think this was originally strategic, more a matter of not wanting socially obnoxious voices on the platform, because advertisers don't care for that sort of thing. But it so obviously contributes to the continued dominance of the big platforms that there's no chance they haven't noticed.

>So when a competitor comes along, the natural way to differentiate is to say "we won't ban you unless you break the law".

We are "Social Media X but with no moderation" is a braindead business strategy. I'm failing to find a source, but moot (this founder of the anything goes social website), once said of all the 4chan clones, the ones that never lasted were the ones that were started by people who decided to make their own 4chan clone after being banned from the site. Naturally people discovered those clones were filled with insufferable asshats and died off.

Naturally when you look at these video sites, very few of them actually offer the number one thing I would expect from a YouTube clone - revenue sharing. So not only are they not competitive with YouTube, but for a large group of people kicked off of YouTube, they aren't even substitutes.

I think the problem is that of the people removed from YouTube, the vast majority are going to be removed for unsavory or misleading content, so any alternative anti-censorship sites are dominated by those people. You have the same problem with Reddit vs something like Voat.

It would be cool if these sites were able to mirror all of the youtube content as well, so you get all of youtube plus the content that people are posting to the decentralized or anti-censorship platform. Probably illegal but that's kind of the point.

As far as I can remember, Voat has always courted the alt-right segment. The fact that they became a haven for extremist content wasn't an accident.
I hope those alternatives had less neo-nazi stuff :(
I think you're completely missing the point.
vaccinator appears to be worst then CNN... ideally it would worst then Fox too
A heads up/warning that you linked to "i" as in, which appears to be a scam website.
i can't edit my comment because HN won't let me... so many rules on this site, almost like kids designed it
That's unfortunate as "ibry" would at least be more pronounceable than "lbry". Trying to challenge YouTube with a very user-unfriendly name is an endeavour that's doomed to fail.
ainar-g Although they seem to market themselves more towards the indie filmmaker market.
They have live streaming available now, which is more of a Twitch thing than even a Youtube thing, though YT does offer it.
Live streaming is more in line with the twitch brand, but youtube's implementation is significantly better, at least on the client side. There's no live rewinding on twitch, or pausing for a minute and then catching back up at 1.25x or 1.5x
It's true that you can't pause a stream on Twitch, but Twitch allows you to save clips that are functionally equivalent to rewinding, which isn't available on YouTube. Twitch's UX&I is also much better suited to streaming than YouTube (bigger chat, multiple viewing sizes/configurations, no video suggestions).
I could go through the awkward process of making a clip every time I miss something and want to rewind a few seconds, but once I do that now I've missed even more of the broadcast and there's no way to catch up. Twitch only works comfortably for completely live viewing, watching finished VODs, or watching ongoing VODS with half an hour delay minimum.

Clips are a neat feature but they're a sharing feature, not a "help me watch" feature.

Yes - why don't more people use Vimeo? I know that they have limits on uploads, especially on the free tier, but it's worth paying for because at least they know you're a customer and not a product.

For $900 a year you get 7 TB of video and unlimited live streaming. Yes, YouTube is cheaper (free) and brings a large audience. So you have to balance paying for something that's certain or being at the whim of the market maker.

> why don't more people use Vimeo?

I believe it's because YouTube is as much a content-discovery platform as a content-delivery platform. If you only use Vimeo, very few people will discover your videos.

I don't know why more people don't upload to both, though.

> whim of the market maker

As I understand it, Vimeo are also far from perfect in this regard.

An interesting anecdote: the recent Michael Moore film, Planet of the Humans, was made freely available on YouTube, but was taken down after a copyright complaint. They moved the video to Vimeo, where it remains. (I can't comment on the legitimacy of the copyright complaint, and this is not an endorsement of the film.)

Imagine if you showed up to a self-storage facility one day and find a different lock on your unit. You go to the manager and ask what the hell is going on.

> Oh, you? Yeah, your unit was full of stolen goods, so we seized it and changed the lock.

> There was nothing stolen in there! What about a bunch of banged up furniture and old cans of paint made you think it was stolen?

(the manager stares blankly)

> Well?!


> Can I at least take back my stuff that you didn't mistake for being stolen?

> We burned it all and sunk the ashes in the Mariana Trench. There is no recourse. As far as we're concerned, you don't exist. Have a nice day!

> Gee, thanks... ᵃˢˢʰᵒˡᵉ


If we ever come up with a digital bill of rights, one of the amendments should include being given a grace period to retrieve all of the data that you stored with a service in case they decide to terminate your account. It's absurd that you can store your data with a service one day, and in the next it's all gone because reasons.

Replace "lock" with digital key and "manager" with "automated email" and this starts to sound like 2027.

Kafka, at least, got to talk to a person. OTOH, we get to enjoy our Kafkaesque distopia without having to physically go to some office.

Sounds similar to how Paypal users routinely had their assets frozen. There was even a website about it, I think it was
you say 'frozen" but I think you mean "stolen". When someone offers to forward money to me in exchange for a small fee, we sign a contract, then they keep all the money that's at best fraud but in reality theft.

Now all I need to do is hire a US legal firm to sue paypal and get my money. Even if it was $100,000 it still wouldn't be worth it. Paypal know this.

At least they chose the heaviest & most metalish place to dispose of the ashes.
I miss that show!
I smell the irony
"The data protection law establishes that you have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated means, if the decision produces legal effects concerning you or significantly affects you in a similar way."

One of the clauses of the GDPR gives EU residents the right to appeal certain automated decisions that might affect them.

> you have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated means

Sounds like traffic lights are illegal in the EU.

How does that follow? Traffic lights aren't the subject of copyright claims.
Well no, because its a general regulation which can be overridden by other more specific laws. But besides that, I think that the scope of the regulation probably doesn't encompass traffic lights (no personal data involved). But I didn't look it up :D
I'm sorry I didn't see your comment earlier, or I would have linked to yours from mine

While I was researching some substantiation for my comment, I noticed that Wikipedia has a citation saying "Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making Does Not Exist in the General Data Protection Regulation" ( ) -- any idea if the footnote is outdated, or perhaps the actual statute is more nuanced than one might think?

Actually, I would modify that comparison.

More like, imagine if you show up to your storage one day and the lock is changed. You talk to the manager and he says, "you can no longer have access to your items because you have broken one of the rules in our 5,000 page terms of service".

"Which rule did I break?", you ask.

He answers, "you can no longer have access to your items because you have broken one of the rules in our 5,000 page terms of service."

You appeal multiple times and receive the exact same answer with a blank stare from the manager until he says: "you can no longer have access to your items because you have broken one of the rules in our 5,000 page terms of service, this decision is final and no further communication from you will be reviewed."

Then he just sits and stares at you blankly like you don't exist, no matter what you say.

This is also exactly how Amazon handles shutting down sellers as well.

I’m switching to T-Mobile as soon as the next phone is released because something in AT&T’s CRM is broken in such a way that they don’t remember how many times I’ve called them to fix an autopay that’s been broken since I reported my old card lost a year and a half ago. Every person I get on the phone treats me like a child who can’t fill out a support form. So they fill it out for me and no payments are ever done. This is the same card I used to manually pay in their support system, which works. If I pretend not to know when the last time was I contacted them, they can’t tell me. Escalate a ticket, no answer.

I’m afraid that whatever is broken will stop the phone number transfer from succeeding.

What are the "items" in this analogy?
Could be your video content, or your emails, or whatever you have stored on servers, or in the case of Amazon, any merchandise you may be seeking through fba.
Facebook does the same with ads customers if they think one of their ominous rules has been broken repeatedly. If the algorithm decides so, you can lose the ability to ever run an ad again by logging in from the wrong IP number.

Only a law that prohibits or at least severely limits automated handling of customer complaints would help against these practices.

> Only a law that prohibits or at least severely limits automated handling of customer complaints would help against these practices.

I only recently learned that GDPR actually includes such a thing: although a footnote later appears to say "no, it does not" so I guess we leave that fight to lawyers

There is further commentary elsewhere in this thread:

Well, no.

Imagine you stored all your stuff in a storage unit you didn't pay for, where the owner can show people round your stuff, but the owner surreptitiously takes photographs of people and what they are interested in. They then sell those photos to random people who then turn up at your house, your work, on the street, at your gym, in your supermarket and down the pub to try and sell you shit they know you're interested in. These people also sell those photos to a few hundred other such organisations.

Someone claims you stole their stuff, the owner of the building can't be arsed to investigate and tells you to gtfo.

That's the actual comparison.

Who would defend the guy borrowing the space? No-one. But then, if people found out their photos were being sold, they'd also be up in arms!

That's the reality, but somehow that's become the norm on the internet.

Youtube is just so beyond broken at this point. I wish everyone could move somewhere else, but it's a catch 22. They're so cemented as the standard
It does indeed feel like they supplanted regular television in some sense, and is catering to "the establishment" more and more each year.

Before the focus felt like it was more on exposing people to new up-and-comers, or random viral stuff. The viral stuff is still there, but so algorithmically driven, and catering to the lowest common denominator that it just feels off.

I have no clue how to find new channels with interesting concepts anymore.

I've been starting to watch things on nebula. There's a lot less content than youtube, but what's there is top notch.
As soon as they have the 4k Relaxation Channel (on youtube) content I am there. One monitor is always dedicated to it and I currently pay Google so that I don't get work inappropriate ads playing. It would save me money.
Nice. I think they have a way to make recommendations, I'll try and figure out how and send that one in for you.
If you need discovery.

But that’s not an excuse for every use case. For example a corporate training video with the URL emailed to every participant.

Why YouTube? Because everyone else does it. And nobody even began to think about looking at the possibility that there might be alternatives.

I suspect that demonetization or blocking isn't an issue for corporate training videos. YouTube probably works fine for them.
For educational material like the video in question why don’t the big streaming players like Netflix or Amazon Prime pick it up?

They could buy one of the online course sites. I’d pay a small subscription as a Netflix “add-on” to get what ever I wanted to learn without ads.

YouTube is irc of video distribution.
Good god, I'd hate to see what the Discord or Slack of video distribution would be, then.
> Youtube is just so beyond broken at this point.

It's not entirely fair to blame YouTube exclusively for the complicated mess that is copyright laws. In fact most of this video & thread are misdirected blame.

Per the video it sounds like he received 5 DMCA copyright strikes to which he issues counter-claims. That's not youtube's system and youtube is bound to follow the laws outlined by the DMCA. YouTube didn't issue the copyright strike, so why would YouTube know what was or wasn't at issue?

So yes the system is broken, but moving somewhere else doesn't fix it. The new system will still have this exact same set of circumstances happen because that new system will still be governed by DMCA & US copyright law (in this instance being US-based).

The only part of this that has anything to do with YouTube itself or being in YouTube's control is the channel being deleted. But that policy is clear - 3 copyright strikes and the channel is deleted. Too harsh? Maybe. Ambiguous or unclear? No. And if the channel does what it should as a business & lawyers up to respond to the DMCA notices & issue counter-claims, if those counters are successful then the channel remains at 0 strikes and isn't deleted. But there the part that's shit is DMCA. Want to fix that part? Stop blaming YouTube for it and go try to get the law reformed. YouTube isn't going to be your lawyer. Nor will Vimeo. Nor will any video hosting service.

What about the part in the video where he showed YouTube's policy which says the claimant must provide information about the material that is under violation, but he shows YT's email to him which says they do not have this information? Isn't that solely YT's responsibility to uphold its own policy?
> Per the video it sounds like he received 5 DMCA copyright strikes to which he issues counter-claims.

Actually, I believe YouTube uses a mechanism which is explicitly not-DMCA for its copyright claims.

Under the DMCA, a user has the right of counterclaim, where the user says "your claim is wrong, here's why, see you in court", and the service provider has to reinstate the claimed material (unless it actually goes to court). I don't believe YouTube's ToS gives the user that provision.

Per the video the creator did issue a counter claim, this is stated at timestamp 2:40. He then also states the course of action to follow is either they drop the claim or sue him - this is exactly the DMCA system. As far as I know YouTube's mechanisms do not end in a courtroom.
Sure but if it's a real DMCA claim won't Google be obligated to reinstate the content?

There's a summary but it links to a more detailed PDF.

If it is a "real" DMCA claim, then according to this Google must put the content back up within 10 to 14 business days. If it's Google's house rules then they don't, but that would mean it's not a real DMCA claim.

Now I understand Google reserves the right to ban you for anything at any time, like all providers. But that would be a secondary action in addition to this.

It doesn’t seem like they are obligated to reinstate the content
Since the current thread of discussion is operating under the assumption that it's a false claim, under DMCA, and a counterclaim has been correctly filed, the US Copyright Office summary certainly seems to say otherwise. What is your reading of their statement?

"If the subscriber serves a counter notification complying with statutory requirements, including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification, then unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber, the service provider must put the material back up within 10-14 business days after receiving the counter notification."

The content is still up. His channel isn't currently deleted:

If his counter claims are successful there's no reason to believe the channel will be deleted, either.

Important clarification, thanks. But we'll see if that holds up if "deleting" becomes past tense.

This story probably got enough reach now that something will happen, as usual.

This is just the general trend with things running on Google owned services. I don't think I've ever had to deal with a more customer/user hostile company. I've had an Android app get payments blocked and had to deal with repeated back-and-forth resending of the same documents over and over before they unblocked it. I never did get an answer on why any of that was necessary or why it was impossible to ever speak to anyone about the details related to the issue.

It's bad enough they just wholesale kill services that people love and rely on. The whole "the algorithm has decided to kill your account with no explanation" risk makes it feel like we're already dealing with a dystopian reality in some respects.

I wouldn't touch GCP with a barge pole for these reasons.
Or their free email.

If you use them, ask yourself, if they locked you out, what data would you lose? And how many accounts at other services are going to give you grief because you can't reply from that address now?

I have been hosting my own email using mailinabox. The tool is so painless I suggest more people should use it. The only ongoing maintenance I have had to manage is rebooting it to apply updates. The whole thing is backed up with a built in backup tool that rsyncs the data to my home server.

The only downside is you lose that automatic email filtering thing gmail does.

> mailinabox

How bad is life without that filter?

Its not really then end of the world. It just means I need to unsubscribe from newsletters manually rather than letting google dump them in the trash automatically. I would like to see server side email filtering though since my thunderbird filters are useless when my desktop is off and I check with my phone.

I think I largely have a herd immunity from spam since no one sends spam that will automatically be filtered by what 99.99% of users use.

Yeah this is an interesting side effect: I just use the recommended defaults in spamassassin with my self-hosted mail server and it does a much better job than gmail of properly sorting mail between inbox and spam folders.
ehh, no thanks, not quite keen on emails being sent into the spambox.
Mailinabox configures everything in the way gmail likes. Unless you start your vps on a tainted IP address it should be no problem. I send to gmail and outlook emails fine.
Depends on your hosting provider with Outlook still right? I run a mail server on Linode and I had thought that Microsoft was still blocking all their IPs.
I'm using vultr for my vps and it has been fine.
> I have been hosting my own email using mailinabox.

How does it compare to ISPmail:


mailinabox seems to be a 'magic script' of sorts, which ones can read through, but it seems to wave a wand and things should Just Work. ISPmail appears to be more of a set of instructions of what to run manually to reach the end goal.

How hard is it to understand what mailinabox does after running the script?

Mailinabox is very much automatic. You run an install script and it asks you for a hostname and domain and thats about it. It also manages updating, backups, certificates all for you.

I don't really know how it works but I have been running it for 2 years and it has been fine. The hardest thing was updating to the new ubuntu LTS which involved making sure my backups were safe, wiping the vps and then restoring the backup on a fresh ubuntu install.

Because the software is strict on using only a fresh ubuntu install with nothing else on it, it all just works because you have the same config as everyone else.

I was using G Suite on a personal domain, and woke up one morning to discover that google refused to let me IMAP into my account any more. The error message pointed me at a browser verification page which I did multiple times, to no avail, so I moved to a different email provider.

Thanks for the final push, Google. I've been meaning to move for years.

Well thanks to using rclone and gmvault (even though it is dead project it still keeps backing up my email) I am hoping it would be very minimal data loss.

I also use borg back up every day on my backups so that I keep data for a fairly long time.

And I have setup a schedule to do Google Takeout every 90 days.

But I would guess less than 1% of people do what I do to ensure they could handle losing access to their Google account.

If someone can't run their own mail system, what do you recommend? Are there better options?
I've enjoyed using Proton Mail
Same. I have been using it for a year now (I know, I'm a Late Adopter) and it's been completely smooth. No complaints.
If you have a domain name you can forward *@yourdomain.tld to a free mail service and mark the mail service as an authorized sender.

I have a Gmail inbox that sends and receives from dozens of addresses on 4 different domains.

If Google locked me out, I could just update the forwarding rule on my domain to go to a different email.

Thank you SO MUCH. I'll do this.
I managed to get myself temporarily locked out of a 10+ year old gmail account 2 months ago. I managed to get it back easily (finding my old phone sim and resetting).

But it was a traumatic experience. I signed up for Fastmail that day and did a complete download of all data. I'm still in the migration phase (which is a pain), but I'm aiming to go completely gmail free for the rest of my life.


Eh, Microsoft at least has a good track record of not killing services. Product quality is sometomes poor. Support is not.
Free email is fine. Just make sure to own your own domain and MX records. Worst case you switch to somewhere else and keep on mailing.
I use my own domain, but now I'm scared I'll miss a payment instead.
I prepay for three years, but it's not like they'll just suspend your account with no warning, they know how important email is.
prepaying doesn't really solve the problem, it merely delays it. you need to set a reminder or something.
It automatically renews, it's not like I need to be reminded, but they email you anyway.
Is it actually possible to own as opposed to renting?
Not if using the regular popular DNS and want a domain name because you are just paying some entity for the right to include you on a list of addresses and nothing more. However you can own IPs and you can run your own DNS. Though you might have a hard time getting your IP routed to if you dont let it be managed by some ISP.
IP addresses are rented too, e.g.:

Are there free email providers that let you bring your own domain?
I'm using a custom domain and a paid email provider.

My rational is to align my interests with the company running the infrastructure for a fundamental component of my digital life.

Free email is fine most of the time. Until it's not. I want to limit my "until it's not" exposure.

Another option is to control the domain. That is what I recommend for any account that is used to make money in any way. In the event you have a dispute with your email host, you can simply change the domain MX records. You may lose a few hours or a couple days of email, but your name doesn't disappear out of thin air.
What happens if you have a dispute with your registrar?
That can happen for sure. You should do as little business with your registrar as possible. No hosting, just a domain and a couple DNS records.

Your registrar is unlikely to do any automated patrolling and algorithmically stop doing business with you. Registrars don't have the profit margins to police every domain they own and the tech parse every type of content to decide you should be delisted.

If they do decide that you are too distasteful to do business with, it will likely be a person, responding to a complaint of some kind. That is a significantly lower risk than an automated google sweep or say getting your email turned off because your YouTube channel was tagged by a bot.

Just make sure you don’t forget to renew the domain.
And that your registrar is secure. GoDaddy had a lot of issues with social engineering a few years ago.
Agreed. Own your domain and store your email content locally (or at least have backups locally if you love the provider's web interface).
Yep, I blacklisted them as well and exclusively use Azure. It’s great and I know Microsoft makes its revenue on people like me, rather than on ad networks.
> I wouldn't touch GCP with a barge pole for these reasons.

It all depends on how big you are. If you have a sizable account there will be actual people you assigned to your account and that you can call, on top of the normal ticketing system that you already have access to.

It is the same on AWS. Although AWS is on top of the game, followed by Azure.

> actual people you assigned to your account and that you can call

This doesn't help when Google decide to sunset one or more of the services that you're relying on, forcing you to migrate elsewhere or re-design

This is my default stance too, and the advice I give to everyone that asks. If you're no big fish enough or you don't have contacts, you can have a serious problem.

I remember some years ago Adsense cancelled the (largest news aggregator in Spain) account, and they had to resort to contacts inside Google to get it back again.

This was even before it got ridiculous, when there was some chance to get a human.

In the past 10 years I've seen enough instances of people screwed on Adsense, Youtube and other services.

So it's clear for me, too much risk to rely on google services, even more if money is on the line.

Big contracts too, surprisingly. We had a dedicated team of Google engineers supporting us, and we still ran into this !@#$%. Many, they could facilitate. Some, they could not.
I’ve seen this type of behaviour before. To be completely honest, I have associated the release of new Google initiatives with headlines that say they are shutting down 12-24 months later.
I worry for all the youtube channels I enjoy who have gone all in and made it their full time job. If anything were to happen they'd be done. There's no realistic alternative.
Exactly this reason I avoided firebase at all costs. There is quite a few services now that I wouldnt have minded paying google considerable sums of money for, if it weren't for their long history of this kind of nonsense.

Its reached the point now this is just expected behaviour, and I feel sorry for anyone that has invested considerable effort into any of googles platforms.

It's mostly because:

A.) They don't know why, algorithms did it.

B.) They can't be bothered looking into it, because you aren't spending enough money.

C.) Their systems have now classified you as a scammer and you are now irredemable.

D.) They don't want to leak any details that help scammers learn how to get around automated anti-fraud/abuse systems.

edit to add:

E.) The reason might be something utterly embarrassing about some really dumb internal snafu.

> C.) Their systems have now classified you as a scammer and you are now irredemable.

The mistakes Google's automated systems and reviewers make can cause lasting damage, even if your app or channel is reinstated after public outcry.

One of my browser extensions was removed for absurd reasons from the Chrome Web Store, and they've reversed their decision after things were made public [1][2]. While the extension was reinstated, since then it appears to be artificially pushed down in search results, and it no longer appears in the top three results when searching for the extension name [1], despite being in the second and third place for almost a year before the takedown and repeated update rejections were issued.




The way people get around this apparent "shadowban" behavior is by creating a separate legal entity of some form to be the publisher of each app or extension or channel or whatever. It seems that once you are shadowbanned, you are shadowbanned forever. This of course increases the cost of publishing your project, but this is a monopoly we're dealing with and so we have no recourse.
I've been reading some Kafka this month. Issues like this article are the 21st century realisation of his pessimism.

The Castle, and The Trial particularly.

I wonder if there's anyone writing Kafkaesque fiction about the modern world. I'm sure it could be Googlified. Any ideas anyone?

Let me also add a counter-point to my own point:

Google is subject to an absolute metric crapton of abuse. With a revenue stream that massive and warchest that huge, they are a constant target for scammers the world over. It's a total warzone out there, not just in terms of cybersecurity but also in terms of fraud and abuse. If you think Nigerian prince scams are bad, just put some serious (nefarious) brainpower behind that and huge botnets, clickfarms, payment fraud, stolen credit cards, identity fraud, the whole mess. There are literally tens of thousands of criminals out there trying to cash out in big and small ways every single second of every day. With little to no global prosecution of cybercrimes, Google has no recourse but to clam up when they sense a threat. So they are kind of within their rights to be so aggressively defensive.

The catch is the scale of this problem is so massive it absolutely must be automated. Responses have to be lightning quick to respond to scams at the speed of light. Risk analysis constantly charts the potential for lost revenue vs associating with fraud risks.

But counter-point to my own counter-point. That's really no excuse for being so unresponsive to actual users. Scaling to a billion users worldwide, everything a moonshot--this mindset underlies all of their failings. The thinking within Google is too focused on scaling up and Larry's mantra of "focus on the user and all else will follow" is complete doublethink, because Google fails at this so, so horribly.

But counter-point to my own counter-point. That's really no excuse for being so unresponsive to actual users. Scaling to a billion users worldwide, everything a moonshot--this mindset underlies all of their failings.

This is exactly right! Google has taken all the benefits of scale and made many billions of dollars in the process. At the same time, they’ve externalized all of the social costs onto their users. Hard problems like moderation, customer support, anti-fraud have been automated in an opaque fashion that leaves users with little or no recourse when things go wrong.

Surprinsingly I got in contact with a human in Youtube to look into my blocked channel, after no avail I finally asked him to delete my account, but he refused. Why keeping it blocked forever? Seems like a blackmail scheme.
Let's be much, much more specific about the counter-point to your counter-point. We have concrete, hard evidence they aren't doing enough to protect their users: they're massively, enormously profitable.

If they were struggling to stay afloat under the weight of that metric crapton of abuse, then maybe I would take that excuse seriously. But they aren't. Every dollar they line their pockets with while allowing their users to be abused is a dollar exploited.

That sounds like a problem that is ordinarily dealt with by having human beings, who don't operate on a script, on the other end of the line. You can't automate everything, google.
What makes Google unique here? I can think of many other companies who have similar scale or even larger incentives for abuse but never seem to fail to engage to the same degree as Google does.
Nothing other than Google is obsesed with automating things with half baked machine learning solutions and thinking they don't need a service desk with humans.

Other companies automate a lot but its way easier to get to a person. Twitter, Facebook, Amazon - they will all get back to you in under 48 hours and actually undo what the machines have done.

Well, maybe not Twitter? I've used their hidden platform team contact form about 4 times and I've never heard a response from them.

I say hidden because there's a hard to find page that lists all of the contact forms, except the platform contact form isn't on there. You just kinda of... have to know it exists somehow.

I had a spare account hijacked and banned, recovery took about a day from memory using their contact form. This was sometime last year.
How many other companies operate at the scale of Google and are not accused of the exact same problems?

Do you have any examples?

The main difference is traditional large companies aren't nearly as valuable or profitable because they employ a increasing number of support and customer service staff.

The only reason Google is as profitable as it is is because it's happy to automatically delete people's livelihoods programmatically for free.

Google has a net income (aka profits) of $34b/yr and Youtube revenues ($16 bil) are about 12% of google's total revenues ($135 bil). If they sunk 12% of their net income (one year of net income growth) into hiring customer support and allocated 12% to youtube, that would be $490mil. Or around 5,000 account reps (avg cost of $100k/yr). At 1800 hrs/yr, that's around 9 mil man-hours they could put towards decent youtube creator relationship support.

My understanding is that there around 30mil youtube channels. Let's say that 10% of those are regular uploaders and maybe 10% of that, it's a major part of their lives. So that's around 300,000 creators. Of those perhaps 30,000 make a living from it.

Most issues that come up can probably be resolved via their current automated systems. If those creators have an average of 1 issue that needs human intervention every year, that's 300,000 cases. Which means apx 30 man-hours per case. If 10 issues that require human intervention, that's still 3 man-hours per case.

The conclusion is that Google can easily afford to provide human customer support to creators on YouTube. They simply refuse to do so in order to make more money or for philosophical reasons. Most likely, they view creators as essentially disposable and don't care if they ruin them or not. "Scale" has little to do with it.

I do have my personal email in a Google Apps, but have a @gmail account for other stuff. I decided to try to set up a family account for my kid. After testing it I decided at this point it's still not needed so I deleted the account.

Next day I received a notification Google was terminating my account with the message "It looks like it was being used in a way that violated Google's policies." Had to appeal the decision and they restored it, no explanation given.

Google customer support is awful. I decided to move my professional email from Google Apps. I don't feel comfortable using a company that can decide to lock your out from your personal stuff without warning and a proper explanation.

YouTube's Copyright System Isn't Broken. The World's Is.

Possibly, but the Google copyright system is a large part of the world's copyright system... and more broken then the actual legal one.
Both are broken.
I think if you watch OPs video you would agree that in this case YouTubes systems is also broken.

It’s kind of ridiculous that YouTube accept claims against an entire video without _any_ evidence, or even a description of what copyrighted material is being infringed on.

Instead it seems that YouTube will simply let someone claim that a video has copyrighted content without explanation (and in violation of the DMCA), and delete creators based on that.

Americans have setup the DMCA law in a way that content must be taken off without evidence (with widespread support on HN no less), so this one really isn't on YouTube.
If you read the DMCA you would know that at a minimum a DMCA notice needs to describe the copyrighted work being infringed upon (i.e. explain what has been stolen).

You can’t just go and claim that a video or other content infringes on a copyright somewhere. You must state which copyright is being infringed upon.

> (ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site. [1]


This is not atypical for YouTube. I had a full on paid gsuite account and when they lost my channel there was “nothing we can do”. I had the video backed up, but lost all the links, views, and subscribers.
Thanks for sharing that. Did anything happen to the remainder of your Gsuite?
No, the rest was fine. My channel was all original music that I own the rights to. No clue why.
Thank you!
Ok, rant time. I used Google Drive to back up photos for several years, but after moving to somewhere with a different currency I naturally wanted to avoid those extortionate fines banks charge for multiplying two numbers together.

I tried to use their web site. No option to change currency. Then I tried contacting support. What a shitshow that was:

- They claimed it was trivial, but the web site just wouldn't cooperate. "You can't change your country because one or more Google services you're using does not allow you to change your country." Google Support were never able to tell me which service that was.

- They suggested and I tried the usual restart, reboot, reinstall, clean cookies, try different browsers, login from an incognito window, etc. etc.

- Then they asked me to delete all registered payment options and finally to cancel my Drive subscription, after which point of course I lost access to my files and I was no longer able to pay to reinstate access.

After several months of support assuring me that they had "our specialist team working on this" not a single thing happened.

Thankfully I had a big enough hard drive to store all the photos, so I just found another service (which has been rock solid ever since) and made a mental note to move off of Google ASAP.

Creators that spend years and thousands of hours building on a platform deserve better representation. I am guessing that because he is mounting a protest, his case will get extra consideration and probably won't get deleted. This seems like the norm now with all the social and cloud platforms - people facing issues have to take complaints public to get any response.
I agree, but in this particular case things aren't as cut and dry as they might seem. The guy claims that his videos fall under Fair Use, but we're missing a lot of details here to be sure of that.

Generally you're not allowed to just publish cover songs without getting the copyright owner's permission first.

Here's what a copyright lawyer says:

Note that the YT Music Policies have been removed, so what he calls "outdated information" is actually relevant again.

Thanks for that, but the referenced article is nearly 10 years old, the legal landscape has changed several times since, specifically in regard to Youtube automated content ID practices - in my experience if I upload a song over a video, ad revenue will usually just get diverted to the song author/label, rather than it getting taken down. It is in this context that his channel and videos have been up and 'fine' on Youtube for years with no problem, then suddenly... (I wonder if this has to do with Google moving music from Google Play Music to "Youtube Music" which is a new separate app and interface from the normal Youtube, see )
> Thanks for that, but the referenced article is nearly 10 years old, the legal landscape has changed several times since

Sync license requirements haven't changed and YT has nothing to with that. You're mixing up several things here and that might be where a lot of the confusion comes from.

The songs you've uploaded might have been covered (pardon the pun) by YT's Music Policies, which consists of a list of songs that YT has license agreements for. In such cases, ad revenue handling, etc. is done automatically and you don't require a license.

In other cases, however, it's solely under the discretion of the copyright owner to just grant you the license for free (i.e. they don't care), or demanding the content to be taken down, because a sync license would be thousands of dollars if not more.

This is independent from any content ID practices, which usually only apply to master recordings (e.g. original songs or bootlegs). Copyright law is a complex (and IMHO messed up) topic, but we just don't have enough information here.

As someone who has been responsible for large cloud budgets, I wonder if Google is aware that their "support strategy" toward both content creators/contractors and customers across the entire brand has completely ruled out GCP for me.

GCP might have great support. They may not have automated bots suspending accounts. They might actually follow the DMCA counterclaim process instead of some weird process on top of it.

I'll never know: I restrict Google products to casual, throw-away contexts. I've imagined myself trying to explain to my boss or a client "They won't respond" or "They say they can't provide any information." Just typing that freaks me out.

Anyway, if you want to be a huge corporation living under one brand umbrella, you've got to take the good with the bad. Google is for entertainment stuff and toys to me.

Ex-GCP here. Unless you shell out at least $15,000 / mo [1] for a Technical Account Manager (TAM) you are a nobody to Google Cloud. Hence all the bots suspending accounts and scripted processes. If you are a small business, bite the bullet and use AWS.


AWS isn't a bullet to bite
I suppose he refers to the fact that GCP may be cheaper, therefore AWS may be less desirable on the strictly economical side.
Only if you forget to factor potential support problems into your economic analysis. What would your systems being down for a week because Google capriciously shut you down cost you?
The "bullet" in this analogy is AWS's notoriously high cost.
But which runs on most renewable energy?
The cheapest provider in existence runs on renewables (Hetzner Online). There isn't too much of a difference, especially for EU datacenters as they have a high excess of renewables and the energy market works in a way where you pay for renewables but just as everyone else you'll be using the base capacity generating dirty sources.
Notorious in what way?

The price charts are all publicly available. Anyone can check for themselves what the costs are.

True, but due to the large extent of the services provided/required, it's very hard to know the unexpected costs, even if one has experience.

For example, one will hardly think of the cost of the disk speed (IOPS, in AWS), before moving to AWS. Then, they will suddenly have to deal with it (note that IOPS will be mostly opportunity costs, in case one doesn't choose provisioned IOPS of larger capacity).

Notorious doesn't mean "secret" or "hidden", as you seem to imply here. It means "well-known, usually for negative reasons".

AWS prices are well-known, and not for being low.

Now, the benefit of AWS may well be worth the high cost - that's a separate question.

And yet nobody can predict what anything will actually cost. If you make your prices complicated enough, transparency doesn't mean much.

AWS is run like a gigantic social experiment in "how half-assed and crusty can we make it and still have people pay?"

The reason we put up with them is because A. they're the new IBM, nobody gets fired for choosing AWS, B. you can reliably reach a human who will at least give you a straight answer when you start to suspect that the AI-powered auto-scaling is actually marketing fluff sprayed over a double/halve cron job that runs at the top of the hour.

^ My impression as well, after spending nearly $200K of my clients' money on AWS. I use GCP for my own work (+ a bunch of on-prem hardware) FWIW, but "the new IBM" phenomenon and "half assedness" is very real and palpable in the case of AWS.
Off-topic, but this might be a good opportunity to address this:

Do people find "?" as being aggressive? I think questions generally, tend to be aggressive (which is why deflecting back at your opponent is common in online arguments), and I'm having a hard time seeing how a question mark does more than just attempt to annoy the other person.

I'm curious what others think, I may be too sensitive.

Well it usually has been when I've personally used it.

There is the disdain of not explaining exactly what you are questioning with the implicit assumption you are questioning everything said. It's pretty much a stand-in for "WTF are you on about? I don't even know how to ask a sensible question about what you said." when I've used it.

In this case though? It's a single statement so maybe a bit abrupt but I read it as a request for clarification. A fairly strong statement was made (essentially "don't use this company") with no backup or explanation. So an equal lack of effort was made proportionally in response.

> Do people find "?" as being aggressive?

I'm on the younger side for HN. In my social circles replying to something with either just '?' or just a leading '?' is pretty aggressive and rude.

Hard to know.

I read it as, "huh?" or "what?" or even maybe, "who are you kidding?" and for all of those determining offense level comes with context.

In this context, the person replying clearly sees it as a bullet and puts some detail on why out there.

Frankly, that kind of thing is as offensive as we all might think it is. Almost any offensive thing is.

Context matters.

Yep, that's how I intended it, effectively the same as "What?" with the implied offense level being no larger or smaller than the offense inherent in expressing surprise at someone else's opinion. That level is not zero, but it falls well within the bounds of civil discourse, especially given the lack of elaboration in the original position and the fact that I invested seventeen times its length on explaining my own -- only to not receive a followup from the original poster.
I myself will use ?!? For curious surprise. Has never offended anyone.
Yeah, next time I'll just type out the question. However, given that it's starting to look like OP ghosted the conversation, I'm increasingly comfortable with the originally-unintended rude undertones of "?"
I got distracted and had intended a longer post.

If it were me, I would continue your preferred mode of expression.

Offence works in strange ways.

Truth is, we are all as offended as we think we are.

And the reasons for it vary widely, with some well established ones seeing broad, but rarely complete consensus too.


There is no way to know what may be offensive beyond a few well trodden examples.

Second order implication?

Offence is gamed easily, and I submit regularly as a tactic more than a meaningful, or sincere sentiment.

Having worked through that in my life, I quit apologizing and put more effort into understanding others and helping others understand me.

Starts with, "I did not intend to offend"

And carries on with whatever the primary context is, not the meta context.

Where others insist on the meta, I simply cannot help them and either the convo settles back to its original intent and value or it does not.

All I can do is leave the door wide open to continue and express my stated intent and that I am the authority on it.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

I cannot tell you how many conversations I have recovered to good ends doing that.

My 0.02

This is great for AWS compared to GCP, but what about Azure? If anyone was "the new IBM" I would have expected it to be Microsoft (but I agree, it's not).
>B. you can reliably reach a human who will at least give you a straight answer when you start to suspect that the AI-powered auto-scaling is actually marketing fluff sprayed over a double/halve cron job that runs at the top of the hour.

You say this as if it's an afterthought as opposed to an incredibly important and massive advantage AWS has over GCP.

It's one of two reasons I use a service that I otherwise despise. It's not just important, it's an overriding factor.
> minimum $15000/month

> Minimum 12 month contract

> One TAM unit provides on average one business day’s worth of effort per week

Just to have an ear on deck about Google's issues?

It sounds like the platform is bad enough that we're in the ballpark of Bald Tony the TAM coming in with a bat and saying "nice place ya got here in this rough neighborhood... pity if something bad happened to it!"

We have a TAM, but it doesn't buy us much. They use their TAMs as a sales lever to get you to use all of the vendor-lock in features. They'll help you architect your platform so that it won't run anywhere else and charge you for the privilege. You can keep telling them all you want about how you operate multi-cloud and how you won't budge on that and they'll just keep trying to run higher up your flag pole.

For actual issues needing real support, like when anything breaks, they're useless.

That matches my experience actually having worked on the GCP support team. The TAMs just deferred anything technical to the support team... unnecessarily escalating things and being pushy even though we were already investigating the support request with highest priority.
We have a TAM as well and they've not show any value. In fact, every issue we've had we've had to escalate through non traditional means (IE personal relationships). Google absolutely does not care.

We've ultimately decided that we're moving out of Google strictly to AZURE / AWS, and ironically enough Oracle.

The job title “account manager” says it all. That is a 100% sales role. So don’t expect deep technical expertise. Any assistance rendered will be to grow the vendor footprint.
I had just this scenario yesterday where Google ran out of capacity of NVMe-based N1 hosts in a zone. I was forced to upgrade a large number of nodes to N2 hosts, which cost more (despite their claims about them being cheaper -- the sustained use discounts are lower) and are still in Beta.

I just wanted info before I started about whether we should expect to be able to even build those hosts that day and they wouldn't give us _anything_. We're not exactly a small company and the amount we're spending with them is large.

Their answer was basically either reserve capacity or screw you. I had to relay that to my CTO.

AWS does that as well, you think hardware is infinite? You will run out of instances type in any cloud provider, nothing new.
The problem in that story wasn't them being oversubscribed; it was their communication.
GCP seems like its run like a hobby project. Scary af
It's because unlike AWS and Azure, they don't actually use it.
That explains everything. Only sell what you yourself would find useful.
But what about the Scarface rule: "Never get high on your own supply"?
Good advice if you're selling sketchy street drugs. Not good advice if you're a software/services provider.
The term is dogfooding
Give me some of that sweet loadbalancer action. Its been like a week, i'm starting to lose it.
Google tried with GAE, which is much closer to the Borg model (“I don't care about VMs, just run this code somewhere for me, and make it scale, make it automatically have access to a database”), but the world wasn't ready for it.

The world wants VMs and virtual networks and firewalls and clickable web interfaces and to run big legacy enterprise apps that MUST NEVER DIE and to fuck around with Terraform and to SSH onto boxes. This sucks, though, and Google SREs know better than to use such terrible abstractions unless forced to. The internal software development ecosystem is eons ahead of anything you can get with any cloud provider, but that sort of alien technology doesn't sell.

Kubernetes/GKE is a good compromise between something that Google sells but Google also wants to use. That, and some of the GCP versions of internal tools (Spanner, BigTable, BigQuery, ...).

The world wants those things because they have vendor products they need to run and can't just write the software for every tool they'll ever need.

We're all just living in the real world. What to Google looks like non-terrible abstractions looks like Kool Aid elsewhere.

Sure, but that leads to the unfortunate situation where what Google sells and what Google uses are quite different, and effectively you don't get as much dogfooding as you'd want. And that's just an unfortunate situation to which there doesn't seem to be any easy solution.
Thats actually it, and thereby it is a hobby project, that Google could close at any time..
I'm an independent consultant and have also been involved in large public and hybrid cloud budget decisions between the 3 big players. GCP will never get my backing as long as Youtube continues on it's current path. That is purely from a Google/Alphabet ethics point of view. Don't get me wrong, the other two players are not certainly not perfect either, but they're a farcry better than GCP in my opinion.
What reasons do you give your clients for preferring AWS/Azure?
Yeah, Amazon aren't exactly good guys either - there's too much to mention really, they're at least as bad as Alphabet.

Alphabet doesn't to my knowledge use poverty wages combined with prison like surveillance and massive union busting to prevent employees to be treated as thrash.

If you're choosing cloud service providers on the basis of corporate ethics, Azure is your best choice at the moment.

The optimists would say that's a testament to how much Msft's behavior has improved over the past 30 years; the pessimists would say its an indictment of just how bad Amzn and Goog really are.


AWS or Azure will always trump GCP in my mind because Amazon and Microsoft have shown over the years they care about their customers on most fronts.

The company I work for is currently waiting for a reply from google related to an increase in quotas for google sign-in.

The feature has not worked for more than 8 months now, customers complaining and all. We have done everything on our hands (all documentation sent, demo app showing the feature, video explaining all usages, etc..) and it's as good as shouting to the abyss.

We were recently evaluating alternative cloud providers (our main one is AWS) and we discarded GCP because of this.

I'm curious - what quota for Google Sign-In have to do with GCP ?
Reading this, I realised I'm also harbouring a negative bias of GCP, (which I've never used) based on my poor experience of Google Adwords.
GCP has some nice data and ML tooling I'd like to try but the potential risk just isn't worth it. Inefficiencies and extra costs that are constant I can adjust, budget for and deal with.
I think the important thing is to have a mitigation strategy. Google was very smart in how they commoditized cloud offerings by inventing Kubernetes. You can explode your manifests into GCP, you can explode your manifests into AWS, and it mostly works the same. Obviously you can really screw yourself by not having offsite backups (backup your GCP database into AWS, or vice-versa), or by using their proprietary stuff (Cloud Spanner, AWS Aurora). But if you're careful, you're in control, and the cloud provider is just a commodity that you pick based on price and nothing else. As an application developer, that's a great place to be.

(Similarly, I use Gmail for my e-mail, but I control the MX records. So if I get kicked off for whatever reason, I can be back up and running in no time.)

YouTube creators, however, do not have this luxury. People watch YouTube videos because they happened to be on YouTube and YouTube suggested the video, not because the end user was looking for your videos specifically. Social networks and video sharing sites are appealing to creators because there is the chance that The Algorithm (I hate that term) will award them with eyeballs that they can then sell to advertisers for very little effort. That is something you can't just migrate off of, because there are no competitors. You might convince your Patreon supporters to follow you, but even that is uncertain. I have watched many streamers move off of Twitch because they got a better deal from a competitor, only to watch their viewership drop to nothing until they were able to move back to Twitch. If one of these video sharing sites shuts you down, your career is over. Google kills your GCP account, you can still be a software engineer.

So my TL;DR is that cloud computing is very different from being an independent creator. Computers are a dime a dozen, and it doesn't matter which ones you use. But video sharing platforms give you a free audience, and that is something that is very hard to build yourself.

> Similarly, I use Gmail for my e-mail, but I control the MX records. So if I get kicked off for whatever reason, I can be back up and running in no time.

I do the same, and also back up my email regularly with getmail so that it will be easy to transfer, either if Google arbitrarily locks my account, or if they just shut down Gmail for good.

I wish there was a good solution to similarly back up Google Photos -- only partial metadata is exposed via the API.

Insightful, thanks.
Perhaps the mitigation strategy for youtubers is to find something like RSS for video?

"Like this video, subscribe, and don't forget to add this channel to your video-RSS feed. Link in the description below." ?

Edit: Looks like this functionality already exists:

Looks like Vimeo does too:

Non-technical users want easy solutions, and they need to be invested enough in your content to pass whatever barrier you put there. Projects like Floatplane[1] only capture a tiny segment of your audience.

Personally, I'd try a simple app that OAuths from YouTube/Google accounts and collects an email, so you control content announcements, even in case YouTube fails. It also has the advantage of being independent from other social media platforms.


Youtube and GCP are not the same, I mean you woudn't use AWS because your shop on Amazon could be shutdown without warnings?
I was involved a bidding war between GCP and AWS where each was offering a healthy six figures in free credits to move our business to their cloud. GCP was offering nearly 3x as many but ultimately I didn’t want to move to a service where there was a chance offerings were going to get the axe with no warning. Their reputation has indeed hurt them — at least in one instance.
I was part of a focus group a year ago. The general consensus was Google might be great, but everyone felt better about using AWS for real world projects. MS Azure was a close second.

Ironic how Google has squandered their goodwill.

Not to heap it on with anecdotes here, but I am also part of this group. I was working with the platform team as part of a marketing tech org that sees half the us pop in monthly visits. We were deciding between signing a long term deal with AWS or GCP. We wanted to use k8s at the time too and even realized that GCP was far superior in this space versus ECS / EKS. However support, and product lifespan was the deciding factors.

Similar factors in deciding between Office 365 or GSuite. Different products, same Google story.

It's every manager's worst nightmare to be on the other side of Google's legendary wall of silence.
Same in my last role.
What services got the axe with no warning?

It seems like for all of the Google ex-products I can think of, they gave advance notice of at least a year.

A year is an eternity for a start up. But it is a really short time to a large company with complex integrations, a massive book of work and budgets being trimmed every week.
Exactly. A year is a blink of an eye for an established company.
They are talking about the fear of their account being terminated without warning.

Turns out the fear is not unfounded see a confession by an ex GCP Googler:

Google has a history of either cutting products (even successful ones) with poor offerings of migration (i.e. this from 2 days ago: where they aren't even allowing bulk export of accounts), or cancelling your entire google account for issues in a single product with only automated systems there to respond to you (i.e.
A year isn't much for a non-startup business. Google has also increased prices in the past (maps, kubernetes) while AWS has afaik never increased prices on anything.
The notice of complete retirement is good, it's the notice of deprecation that is poor.

We can't reliably tell whether a product will be supported for the next N years. It feels non-deterministic.

I've worked at a couple "mid-sized" financial companies (i.e., not "tech" companies, but with a healthy need for various computer products and services) throughout my career where migration plans from one technology or provider to another were measured in years, and would sometimes get extended to the order of decades for larger migrations (e.g. moving core business functionality off a legacy mainframe system). A year or two notice that you'll need to migrate something important is really not feasible for a lot of businesses who would otherwise be very interested in outsourcing to a cloud provider.
I mean AWS does the same thing - mine crypto using credits to speedrun getting your account terminated. The only difference with GCP is that they have a reputation for this.
Crypto mining on a free trial is just unethical.
This is a question philosophers have struggled with for millennia.
for(;;); is unethical.
Regular credits as well. I'm speaking more about when an attacker mines monero on a compromised server, and I wasn't talking about products being axed (but I now realize the OP was).
They likely meant how google axes whole products like aws with no recourse for customers. Amazon probably would not do that to a product like aws in a million years.
A fair percentage of companies exploring my SaaS company as potential clients are doing so because Google doesn't provide any support / insight for practically any issue they may have.
I work for a company which helps huge enterprises move to the cloud, and we found a lot of places opting for Azure because their experience with GCP support was really bad. These are people paying for the top tier of support too.
As someone working for one of its competitor, I'm glad that waking up at night and solving a customer's problem (and/or our problem) is helping in a tangible way.
If we are lucky, someone from Google/Youtube with some connections can get this fixed after seeing this.
I agree with you and it makes me even more mad that it's only the people lucky enough to get some spotlight that ever get helped. I would be the guy who nobody ever knew about that got crushed like a bug.
I am not suggesting in any way that it doesn't happen, but I do take some solace in that I have never read a story where this kind of thing wasn't ultimately resolved, whether it made a beeline straight to the mothership via an insider on HN or simply endured the protracted process of the official support channels. I'd like to know more about how often undeserved "crushed bugs" are happening.
You realize that if you've heard of the story, that means it went viral, which means it's one of the few lucky ones which get resolved by a human. You don't hear about any that don't get resolved, because the ones that don't get resolved are they ones that didn't go viral. That's the whole reason why it's so ugly and injust.
yeah maybe for this particular channel. This problem occurs again and again and is not new. YouTube and Google obviously don't scale in management & support
That would be the best outcome for the guy who made the videos, but the best outcome for the rest of us would be that content creators become (more) wary of YouTube and move to other platforms, or at least mirror their content on them. That would give us more choice and give YouTube some proper competition that might push them to do better by their users.
Digital sharecroppers keep running into problems with YouTube, but the alternatives are barely better. That is, not as heavy-handed, but much worse in other ways.
I don't see any posters pointing to how broken DMCA is too.

This could be fixed tomorrow if the law had significant penalties for copy fraud in cases of fair use.

Give the reporters 5 strikes too... If you cry wolf 5 times on things that are proven fair use or spurious or without proof you are banned for X days from submitting claims (at a minimum).

We need to support alternative platforms and projects for reasons like this.

NewPipe is one of my recently discovered favourites. It pretty much scrapes Youtube and strips the horrid ads. You don't get any of the recommendation rubbish either and is far better from a privacy and data tracking point of view. FOSS for Android devices.

That's a drag. That with the ramping up on ads is making YouTube harder to watch. Too bad because I think we can all list some amazing channels.

Slurping all 214 of his videos right now in case I want to improve my journeyman guitar skills in the future.

Interesting, no ads when you watch them that way. Imagining a browser extension that you kick off when in YouTube: it pulls down the video and opens it in a new browser window sans ads....

I wonder if you can script youtube-dl into doing something like this. as coayer said, ublock-origin will remove ads but this way you'll never lose your watch history to DMCA nonsense.

Maybe scrape your watch history nightly and take a delta of what you haven't downloaded yet.

Ublock origin blocks YouTube ads, so you don't need to imagine!
I have tried not to use uBlock because I understand that this is ad supported content, but Youtube is just killing me with the ads now. I don't think I'll be able to hold out. Literally every 5 minutes they break in with two commercials. It's worse than broadcast TV.
YouTube Premium is $10/month and I know I use YouTube enough to justify the cost.

For everything else, there's PiHole

Do you know how content creators are compensated when Premium users watch their channels?
According to LTT (one of the WAN shows), they’re compensated better than people who watch ads
That's cool.

(Safari broke that extension though.)

why are you using safari? genuine question
I always forget YouTube has ads until someone else shows me a video on their device and I'm like "Why do we have deal with 2 minutes of insurance sales for a 30 second video of two dogs playing?"
When creators opt for the easy-mode discoverability and pre-built audiences on YouTube, they're also opting for the severe limitations on their freedom to produce the content they want to that Google has every right to dictate.

The solution here isn't to appeal to Google to change their ways, it's for more creators to pick competing platforms or go the self-hosted/decentralized route. I think it's still an option for higher effort content, using YouTube as more of a teaser platform to drive viewers to their actual website. It will definitely result in significantly slower growth and less eyeballs, but with the ability to still make money off platforms like Patreon (which most YouTubers say is their primary source of income these days anyway), the trade off of being in complete control of your own content seems like it should be worth it.

Thinking about it, I suppose it's possible that more creators actually are doing this and I just haven't seen them because they're harder to find.

That's my stance as well. I'm usually all for bashing Google and other GAFAs, but here the service they offer is pretty incredible and I can't imagine any serious competition managing to offer the same features with the same conditions.

They're hosting petabytes upon petabytes of videos, transcoded to work anywhere, forever, for free. And you can even get a share of the ad revenue. I can't imagine how I would even begin to develop a competing website, I'd be drowned in hosting fees before I even make a dent in Youtube's user share.

Since Gareth didn't say he has licenses for the covers he creates and posts, then it seems clear he is breaking the law. Reporting a specific cover song video as a DMCA violation probably includes enough specificity to be a legal reporting without having to add, "the song from the whole video is under copyright".

> Thousands of times a month, someone posts a cover song on YouTube. And whether the video is a live band performance or a toddler singing from her high chair, most of those cover songs are posted without permission from the song’s copyright holder—meaning they’re infringing someone’s copyright.

> To avoid problems, you can obtain licenses that allow you to post the music and an accompanying video. [1]


Youtubers should unionize.
Youtubers aren't employees, though - they're independent businesses (if they actually make money from it) that use YT as their platform.

The possibility of getting shut down for arbitrary reasons is part of the entrepreneurial risk.

Further, an alternative is to form trade groups.
It's not easy, but I think if they did get a critical mass, they could make a difference esp. if they are willing to collectively harm revenue (stop publishing and remove existing videos)
It quickly stops being a mystery when he admits he uses other people's copyright material but "no more of the original subject matter than is necessary". That right after dishonestly asserting "every aspect of every video that I produce is generated by myself". If you aren't exploiting someone else's work, then don't use it! Even if it really is fair use, that just means he would win a lawsuit, not that every publisher is obliged to publish it.

Professional content creators for TV, movies, advertising, etc. don't have these problems because they make sure they don't use anybody else's content without a license! Youtubers don't bother because they're little fish and can get away with it and justify everything to themselves as fair use even if it's not.

Is teaching how to play the intro to Hey Jude on an acoustic guitar exploiting someone else's work? It's not like he's uploading the white album to YouTube.
If that lesson was broadcast on TV, the music would have been licensed, not "publish and pray". If he was really just teaching how to play the guitar, and not taking advantage of the fame of someone else's work that they paid to make popular, then he could have used a free unknown song or one he wrote himself.
Gareth Evans has taught me how to play the first part of Rylynn (by Andy McKee) [1, 2]. As a fellow guitar enthusiast, human being and programmer this hits me on a personal level. That particular experience/tutorial has a lot of meaning to me and taught me a thing or two about the world and myself outside of playing guitar.

I'd like to give this beast a name. How would you guys call it? I am currently thinking of "algorithmic censorship".

[1] The song:

[2] The tutorial (part 1):

This also blew on reddit

Music channels are the hardest to survive copyright strikes even if you do nothing wrong and he's done well for years. Gareth, you're the reason I can play guitar so well and I'm so sad that some of the highest quality free lessons are dealing with this.
Here is my pet theory.

Most of YouTube's content moderation work is performed by an AI that was given the power to delete videos and channels, without informing anyone, including the human part of YT support, of its artificial nature, instead passing it off as some kind of "content oversight council" or something along those lines, and having someone occasionally write communications on its behalf.

It would explain the absolutely massive discrepancy between the public and the content moderators: there are often highly morally questionable videos and channels that are still up to this day, while relatively minor offenders are often struck down with no option of recourse for seemingly no reason.

If every creator were personally responsible for their contents, this wouldn't be a problem. As it stands, YouTube is in the gray area of perhaps being a platform (akin to USPS) but too often taking on the appearance of a publisher (akin to Penguin Random House). Thus complaints are directed at YouTube, and not the creator. And since YouTube cannot possibly look into what every creator is doing, they're incentivized to simply delete the accused, despite of the long-standing democratic priciple of the presumption of innocence. (Which is backed by the phrase “Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.”)
This story has two aspects: ethical and legal. As for the former, it's debatable, depending on which side you are on. As for the legal aspect, it's very simple:

So they can do these covers perfectly legally, as long as they pay the fees, that's all.

Imagine how much of this happens with content creators without we being aware of it. Google is too powerful, they really need competition. They will never fix this without real competition.
Part of the recent set of issues maybe that Youtube laid off about half of their contractor moderation staff with the covid shutdown. So the process is more automated and more about matching a pattern rather than someone weighing all the issues.

Apparently from Youtube's perspective it's working about as well. It seems though that there are more outliers where any human thinks "well that looks fine", but the algos see a pattern that matches someone spammy, hateful, piratey or whatever they screen for.

Is there anybody here who can give an insider's view on this case?

I'm aware of the problems of scaling support to a huge scale, and contexts where the communication of the termination causes is an issue in itself (e.g. to protect internal business logic).

However, in cases like this, being hostile seems an intentional decision - specifically, by hiding the reasons. Is this truly intentional on Google's side?

The question seems odd to me. How could the letter he received, its tone, and everything else in this case be unintentional?
I'm trying to play devil's advocate, in order to better understand the real-world dynamics of support at large scale.

Every once in a while, some insider pops in discussions like this, and says "you don't know support at large scale etc.etc.".

Therefore, with both sides of the story at hand, a productive assessment could be done.

To clarify, I do think Google has a just "f*ck them all" approach to support; for example, there could be paid support plans for people who made a large investment. But I need to hear the devil :-)

Youtube has to choose between accepting the onerous terms of the three major record labels (sony, universal and warner) who control a majority of human musical output from the last 100 years, or get sued to high heaven for distributing music without a license...

Why should three private companies have a government protected, international, monopoly on our collective human music culture?

Obviously, they shouldn’t...

It seems to me they might be speaking past each other?

1. He's trying to figure out which video infringed on what work.

2. YouTube is refusing by saying they don't know which part of which video infringed on other work.

Not sure who's miscommunicating or what the reason is, but based on what he says, it seems this is what's happening. Anyone know if this sounds accurate?

> He's trying to figure out which video infringed on what work.

He knows which videos strikes were issued on. He doesn't know what he did wrong. Like he says in the video, he isn't provided with any timestamps or details about what has entails those strikes and the channel deletion

>He doesn't know what he did wrong

I think it is obvious, he was playing a copyrighted song, as he does in nearly all of his videos.

Yeah you're right. It's confusing to me because he seems to claim different things at different points in the video. At one point he says he doesn't know specifically which part of which video is claimed to infringe on what, whereas in so many other parts he says Google doesn't have any details whatsoever, or (like in 4:48) he suggests Google is lying when it seems like he's actually conflating Google's mentions of details of the infringing work with the infringed work.
This is like Rick Beato's channel he is constantly fighting false claims. Even some that are from actual record labels when Rick literally plays a few notes of a famous song, a cover not the actual band.

You need not use somebody other's work at all to get into trouble. Composing your own song, producing it and publishing it via YT is enough. (2018, now resolved)

So I ventured into indie music production during lockdown and here's the thing -- covers are a notoriously vague area when it comes to copyright and licensing. It is easy and cheap ($10-15) to get a cover license. You are required to give out royalties. Most covers published on YouTube just end up losing monetization.

But, and here is where it gets weird, what defines cover is extremely limiting. For covers, the song must follow the exact general tone and pattern of the original. Anything else is considered derivative work and an infringement, even if the license was bought. So if a guitarist adds a simple vocal explaining how he played it -- it is not a cover. It's infringement.

Also, under DMCA, covers are not fair use. I also expect lesser music companies letting YouTube videos slide as we now have YT Music and these covers directly compete with the original. So they might just not be comfortable with getting your money, they also don't want a cover beating the original in playlists and charts.

There's a universe where Google - wanting to use their monopoly on video hosting and search for the forces of good and support the small content creators that drive their business - tells copyright trolls to pound sand and ignores claims made in bad faith.
It's very upsetting to hear this. I've been planning a YouTube channel that discusses layman's philosophy - specifically How to be a A Happy Camper ;) and it's depressing to know that in 2020, the basic support system won't be there.
If your exclusive goal is to make money, you might consider peertube, lbry, bitchute or an alternative site. You don't have to use YouTube.
The migration off of Youtube is slowly gaining momentum. It will only take music industry shills and trolls taking down a couple more of these sites for a mass migration.

What’s the alternative content site? Vimeo? Twitch? Instagram/Tiktok? Something else?

A lot of youtube-banned content creators such as Soph and Infowars have moved over to Bitchute.
If you want, you could re-tweet at the CEO of YouTube:
If you are not paying to google, you are not the customer. So no wonder there is no "customer" support for you, because you are not the customer.
What are the best alternatives to YouTube, if any? And if there aren't any, why is there so little competition in this industry?
> why is there so little competition in this industry?

How would you monetize it?

Same way that Youtube does, with advertising!
(I'm going to assume you're serious)

You'd need to operate at a loss for years and streaming video is not cheap.

Streaming HD video is expensive, that's why similar services like Twitch are owned by Amazon or have some alternative way of providing the same service like Peertube.
I think platforms like PluralSight could swoop in here and take away some market share from YouTube if they wanted to.
As an aside, I found it very refreshing to see a youtube video like this that wasn't full of jump cuts.
I wonder when creators will start suing people who make vexatious claims against their content.
The channel got 5 DMCA strikes, that is why btw. Title is somewhat disingenuous.
Google support


That’s the joke.

Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Content creators should diversify & upload their videos to vimeo or other platforms in addition to youtube. As a result these alternative platforms would grow & may become significant enough to compete with youtube.
If you find these issues disturbing, help elicit change:
GCP is not a platform, it's a toy.

Google's products and services should be avoided by any and all corporate entities. If your business relies upon products or services in order to run, then stay the hell away from Google's Cloud Platform.

Toys are for babies. Big-boys need tools.

I think most GCP customers would vehemently disagree with you on this.
When Google arbitrarily locks their developer account, discontinues a service, or places features behind a paywall, those customers will vacillate.
Youtube is a garbage platform. Wish there was a more open alternative.
The real question (not my own):

Why hasn't youtube built any tooling for creators?

Not a single editing tool, let alone a whole suite. You're expected to show up with your already polished in Adobe mp4.

They could own a huge chunk of that market, yet seemingly willingly choose not to.

YouTube does have editing tooling for creators, at least it did the last time I uploaded something.
On mobile?
Who could build a serious competitor to YouTube that people might actually flock to en masse? Which is what you'd need. The problem with existing alternatives is that they're not able to attract enough creators or publishers.
1. Get a lawyer 2. Contact the
Decentralized video platforms FTW!
Probably time to seek another monetization strategy. The person behind Piano in 21 Days has been incredibly successful doing this:

Is this actually an online course about selling online courses?
Yes, but as I understand it, he only launched this after he found success with his piano course. I've been listening to his podcast for a few months - it's pretty legit, even though I know this website seems a little too "Internet marketing".
Standard Get Rich Quick™ formula. They all churn out the same thing. Buy my book, my course, my whatever. It'll make you rich.
My understanding is that he spent years ramping up his piano course, and only recently started selling his "courses course". I'm in the process of launching my own technical courses, and if I feel like I come up with a great process for it, I'll sell that information as well. (And probably receive a similar criticism)
Pity. That would be valuable information but it's in a market for lemons. It doesn't help that his site looks precisely like all those Get Rich Quick™ sites.

* Same extraordinary number to lead you in

* Massive cost crossed out with FREE on top of it

* No preview till you put in your email

* Some rando endorsements at the bottom from people claiming to also have gotten rich quick both of whom are also selling Get Rich Quick™ stories.

I've listened to his podcast for a while, and it's great, with a credible story and actionable information from those who have found success with their own courses (real courses as opposed to "course courses"). Quite a disconnect from the look and feel of this website (I shared it because I knew it was his canonical URL, and to be honest, I hadn't actually seen it)
Its online courses about selling online courses all the way down
His podcast is actually pretty good and seems like legit, and doesn't have as much "marketing reek" as the site I linked. I'm not affiliated with him, but I've gotten a lot of good information from his podcast. (I'm gearing up to put my own course offerings out there)
Wait, it's not 2008 anymore, this is still a thing?

.. of course it is. Ugh.

Yes, that was a thing twelve years ago, and apparently it's still a thing today. There was, back then, a nexus of the 'top tier' creators in San Diego. If you were attractive, they'd even mislead you into believing that you're "in the club" with them, in order to get you to buy more of their "inner circle" product.

Silver lining, I'm now hypersensitive to marketing formatting and layout, and can detect samples of it without having to read the words.

I definitely get the same feeling about his site. I've followed him for a while, and his podcast actually feels quite credible and is actually quite value filled. My understand is that he spent years ramping up his piano course to a successful level, and is now selling that knowledge as well.

Ultimately I'm trying to gleam information from other successful course creators as I work on my own technical offerings. At the end of the day, it seems a better approach than hoping Youtube doesn't shut you down and continues to throw you scraps from their advertising revenue.

"has been incredibly successful doing this:" is not accurate. That's more of a hobby and doesn't bring in that much $$. You'll notice everything I offer there is essentially free.

Piano In 21 Days, on the other hand, has been incredibly successful :)


A guy who sold "millions" in piano courses and now is trying to sell how to "make millions" on online courses... sounds a little bit suspicious.
I've never read "The Four Hour Work Week" but I always figured that if it was honest, all it would say is "1) write a book about how to only work four hours a week. 2) convince people to buy it. 3) On average, spend four hours a week on this."
The actual punchline of Four Hour Work Week is that Tim Ferris is a workaholic hustler who never stops grinding.

Probably still worth reading? I got some good ideas and perspectives out of it, back in the day.

Just uh, sip the Kool-Aid, don't chug it.

I can definitely get that - his podcast is actually pretty legit and value filled. He could totally be lying about his numbers, but after listening to his story, it seems like it took him a few years to ramp up his piano course sales.
Thanks for listening to the podcast!
copy right system is broken, so is the patent system.
JUUST on the way to re-learn some guitar skills. So this is my desperate effort to get some of his tutorials to me... (from his youtube channel playlists)… Sad.

I also downloaded the related free tabs from his website

$ pip install youtube-dl $ cat downloadlist.txt

$ for f in $(cat downloadlist.txt); do echo $f; done

YouTube built their fame on the backs of small indy content providers, whilst eventually monetising them and taking the Lion's share of the ad revenue after their acquisition by Google.

These days the real money comes from the corporate nipple, the 5-10 million+ subscriber base - CocaCola, Kanye, Madonna etc with millions, or hundreds of millions of views punting shit. They want us to watch that bland corporate bollocks, rather than sub 1M creators with actual useful content who's only crime is to try to control the attractiveness of their channels by reducing the number of ads or their timing. Especially ads that interrupt things like the flow of an educational video when the presenter says "and at this point we.....[AD ROLL]"...attention is then lost.

Often I see glib comments such as "never rely on another platform for your income", but YT encouraged content providers hoping to grow them, and thus grow revenue for YT themselves. No other platform implicitly "promised" this sort of income.

Now a good number of sub 1M YT'ers have ducked out of the new oppressive ad-roll thing, though not completely shutting down ads, but controlling ads on their own terms to make their videos at least less user hostile due to the injection of ads every 5 mins (this "feature"[0] seems to be the new thing, and back dating this rule to your older content, whether you asked, or not). Many of these folks are pretty YT savvy also know that if they don't run some amount of ads then they're leeching off of YT, and that's a fair enough thing, there's a bit of give and take, I don't expect something for nothing.

A good number of sub 1M YT'ers have now diversified and set up Patreon accounts (YMMV) so at least there's some protection should YT decide you don't fit their profile any more and have to move elsewhere.

Now about moving to Vimeo etc + running a patreon, in the video below, Louis Rossmann says he's even tapped out the "affordable" paid service with Vimeo, and the next step up on Vimeo for him is some kind of "Enterprise (ask for pricing)", so we all know what that means.

Apropos the YT'er who's clearly having a distressing time, if YT can't and won't provide evidence of what they've apparently violated copyright-wise, then that sounds like an organisation that no longer cares about the creators that helped build their platform. And I also wonder why the complainants aren't taking out law suits against Google/YT to recover some or all of that revenue that Google pocketed due to "infringing" we all know why, Google could sustain the defence of more lawsuits than there are atoms in the universe due to their size. The world has become very lopsided.

And I really don't know what the answer is when these large corporate behemoths dominate our lives. Well I do but that's another discussion.


I work for LBRY inc, and am happy to answer any questions people have.
I have never heard of lbry before, but I went to your site and was positively surprised. I looked into same gaming content and found what I was looking for. Playback was smooth and high quality.

For my question I wonder how it compares to the other services that deadalus mentioned?

Nice. Checkout$/gaming for more curated gaming content. Odysee is another (more centralized) frontend built on top of the LBRY protocol.

Here is a good link comparing other sites

I found your site a few weeks ago after some creators I like kept mentioning they were posting there as well. I really like your site and keep up the good work! I use it instead of youtube whenever possible.
We detached this subthread from
Do you share the list of illegal or banned videos on Odysee or
How do you ban videos?

What happens when a video is flagged for mistagged content?

Search for the word “Jews” in your site.
profit motive brings out the worst in people
Neo gasping for air, unplugging the plug from his neck, looking around... Where am I? This can't be the real world, the old world is the real world...
I see you've rediscovered the publisher vs. platform dichotomy! Those of us who believe in free speech understand that people will say things we don't like, and further understand that the sacrifice of ignoring content we dislike is worth it for the greater principle.

I know this is difficult when people are saying things you believe to be untrue, but thus far nobody has come up with an alternative that doesn't result in censorship or end up having an unrealistically high moderation cost.

The most mind boggling thing about your reply is the sentence "I know this is difficult when people are saying things you believe to be untrue"

That's not what is happening here. That's not what the issue is. Hate speech doesn't boil down to "things I don't believe to be true."

Typing "Jews" into these platforms and getting hate speech back isn't an issue of "oh dear, here are some untruths." It's hate and designed to create more hate. Which is why many platforms and many countries have a special category for it.

You can disagree with that philosophically, fine. But you might try not being so flippant about it. Especially when the example here, anti-Semitism, is associated with the death of millions of people's loved ones.

Define "hate speech". You never do, you merely assert that there is such a thing, that we know what it is, that it is legitimate, that it can be and probably that it should be legislated and enforced. I'm asking a serious question because we're witnessing the suppression of discussion that some groups don't like. It's an empty phrase. And in the absence of meaning, guess who decides what to classify as hate speech and thus which groups have a voice and which don't? Thrasymachus in Plato's "Republic" has an answer: the powerful.

Since we're on the subject, anti-Semitism is one of those accusations that is used liberally to attack anyone that organizations like the ADL don't like. For example, if you compare the treatment of Palestinians by the Israelis to apartheid, if you criticize Judaism in a way that resembles what Catholics are subjected to on a regular basis, or some tendency in Jewish culture, then suddenly you're an anti-Semite. Anti-Semitism is a hatred of Jewish ethnicity, a hatred of a person who is Jewish because of his ethnicity. It is not a critical stance toward questions of culture, religion, or politics. But the legitimate definition of the term has been expanded by political hucksters into what Norman Finkelstein (whose parents are survivors) calls the Holocaust industry, where a grave crime is exploited to silence criticism and bully people into silence on matters that have nothing to do with anti-Semitism. So we have a textbook example of how "hate speech" is deployed to silence political opposition and stifle debate. There are, of course, other examples.

Mind you, I do not include things like libel and calls for violence in hate speech. Those kinds of things are already legislated and penalized as they should be. Too many things, like pornography, have been falsely defended by appealing to "free speech". What I'm talking about is the use of this insidious term by powerful groups to silence those they don't like, and then pretending like that's not what's happening. It is that simple.

I will be as flippant as I want because I had ancestors die in the Holodomor which was larger scale the Holocaust and was implemented by Jewish nationals from Russia. It is not hateful to defend yourself from people that hate you. It doesn't matter what you think of them, it matters what they think of you.
If your platform has become a host for hateful extremist content, you have a problem you need to fix. Shrugging your shoulders and calling it free speech is a lazy non-answer -- it's only going to get worse if it's left unchecked.
I've never heard this type of speech at a bar when I asked why somebody wasn't shown the door. I guess they didn't have a greater principle.

One core value that a platform could have is common decency, which is not the same as censorship, but it is given up even easier than what your argument calls free speech.

Terrible metaphor.

How do you suggest making a platform which allows good content while disallowing bad? Also, how do you expect to be able to define these things? Remember: every person you pay to moderate has to be able to discern good from bad in as little time as possible. Even less time than that.

Ironic argument to post on such a heavily moderated forum. Also kind of beside the point with regards to a site that seems to be intentionally designed as a safe harbor for venomous trash. Not quite the same thing as throwing up your hands over moderation being hard.
The trick with this forum (and IMO the only trick that really works) is narrow-bandwidth community.

I have no idea how to apply this to a content hosting paradigm though. Not without spending a couple million dollars on bots who inevitably make mistakes.

Common decency means do not question any historical or present narrative that is outside the comfort zone of even one person
If a bar started kicking people out for what they say, then it would be a shitty bar, and not one I would like to visit.
Next time you're in a bar try explaining to the bouncer that they should be killed, violently, right now.

I suspect you'll find out that whatever free speech rights your local jurisdiction grants you don't allow you to stay in the bar.

A bar is private property that just so happens have the doors open for potential customers, whilst some things on the internet are public access, nobody is forcing you to go to any specific website if you don't want to, but at a privately owned bar you might not like someone chanting about politics or whatever the case may be, and this is established laws for platforms vs publishers in the USA. This is why a lot of people have issues with Google editorializing search results (check out Project Veritas on the matter) because they reach out into editor territory and out of just being a platform.

Since somebody downvoted without providing references to their refutes here's an actual case about freedom of speech online which is the main one by the looks of it in regards to suppressing speech online:

The burden of defamation is on the person not the website if anything, however, if someone posts anonymously who do you sue? The best a platform can do is delete their account. I've successfully had defamatory / false content about myself deleted from a platform in the past.

No, none of this applies to privately owned web sites. If anything, forcing them to act like utilities impinges on the speech of the platform owners. The Ben Shapiros of the world have desperately been trying to spin a different narrative though and they will jump through endless hoops and contradictions to do it. This is all just moderated-vs-unmoderated newsgroups/mailing lists/web sites all over again. There’s room for both. Nobody has a constitutional right to force YouTube or anyone else to host their content, or to have those companies shield them from criticism.

If someone wants to argue that YouTube should be declared a public utility that is required to host everyone’s content no matter what, that’s totally understandable and they should make that argument instead. Otherwise they’re just asking for the government to mandate that YouTube, etc. are safe spaces where everything is permitted and no one is allowed to judge other people for what they say, including the company paying for the servers. Which is so totally counter to what those very same people seem to think about everything else that I’m surprised the hypocrisy and inconsistency doesn’t create a singularity or something. But here we are, in 2020, and AM-talk-radio types are demanding the government mandate safe spaces for them on privately owned platforms where they are shielded from consequences.

That’s because one bouncer can see everyone in the bar. I have heard this type of speech in regards to nations, aka a much larger scale.
You're not impinging on the free speech of people when you push them off your platform, they are free to carry on spouting their repugnant shit if they want, it's just that they have to build their own site, or even just try talking to people on the street about it.

What you are doing when you allow racism or xenophobia on your site is helping them promote it. There's a difference, and the fact that you have chosen to stand with those people doesn't put you in the free speech group, it puts you in the "I am a racist" group.

I consider myself fairly racist (recent development, ask me if you want to hear my point of view -- I'm sure you don't because you are morally superior and don't need to hear me out, right?) and to be honest, the #1 thing that sways people to my point of view is censorship on private platforms. In real life, I can calmly explain how intelligence is highly heritable, and usually I'll get a sort of "yeah, but we can't treat that as political reality" response. But when I say "I can't even mention that intelligence is highly heritable on Hacker News without getting banned", people are actually sympathetic!


> In the context of current concerns about replication in psychological science, we describe 10 findings from behavioral genetic research that have robustly replicated. These are ‘big’ findings, both in terms of effect size and potential impact on psychological science, such as linearly increasing heritability of intelligence from infancy (20%) through adulthood (60%). Four of our top-10 findings involve the environment, discoveries that could only have been found using genetically sensitive research designs. We also consider reasons specific to behavioral genetics that might explain why these findings replicate

That's the classic "us vs them"/"if you're not with us you're against us" argument, and it's really the cause of the recent increase in divisiveness that is slowly destroying society.
Not really. Choosing to help promote hate speech isn't a neutral position, it's an active one.
Free speech absolutism is destructive. Facebook is an example of this. Climate change denialism is another. Holocaust denial is another.
> Free speech absolutism is destructive.

OK, cool. So who gets to decide what speech is allowed? What do the parameters look like? What level of "consensus" gets to establish facts? What happens if there's consensus and someone discovers some new compelling counter-argument or evidence to the contrary for something?

You'll find that even in places like Canada where there are hate speech laws, the restrictions are limited to speech that poses a credible threat or incitement to violence, in context. None of the things you've mentioned are illegal to talk about, just like flat eartherism or any other pseudoscientific concept.

Again, you can find it as distasteful as you like; but there's a clean and simple solution to the problem, which is a button with an X on it, at the top of your window. Consider clicking it?

> So who gets to decide what speech is allowed?

Do you want to make that decision before or after a hate crime happens?

Interesting how a simple complaint of "this video platform is promoting Nazis" is immediately escalated to "But it's not illegal speech!"
> Who gets to decide what speech is allowed?

In the public square? The courts. On a platform? That platform's owners decide. In fact, they have a moral obligation to monitor the speech they allow, because they're helping promulgate it.

What's so insane about this is that it's the Internet... you can literally just go spend an afternoon and create a new forum using some off the shelf forum software and a hosting service.

Platform owners making a decision to allow hate speech are letting hate speakers use an audience that the platform owner painstakingly helped build. That's just either idiocy, or being complicit.

>What's so insane about this is that it's the Internet... you can literally just go spend an afternoon and create a new forum using some off the shelf forum software and a hosting service.

Depending on which phase the moon is in, you'll hear defenders of hate speech alternate between saying (1) we shouldn't allow any efforts at moderating speech on platforms because it will make no difference,because people can just move to new platforms or create new platforms, or (2) mainstream platforms are de-facto public utilities and it's literal legal free speech that is infringed if they engage in moderation.

I don't know how that contradiction is supposed to be reconciled, or what motivates the adoption of these conflicting views, but I suspect that (1) is motivated by a desire to prevent major platforms from engaging in any moderation because they support the speech that would be moderated and (2) is that arguments about "free speech" need to get around the private platform issue.

Your opinion is wrong, here is your ticket to the New Mexico Reeducation Camp #26. Sorry, I don't want to hear your counter-argument, off you go now.
I've never understood people's conflation of "I do not like your speech" with "censorship." A bookstore refusing to carry books by certain authors is in no way censorship, for instance (the books still exist, just not in that bookstore), yet when we bring things into the digital realm for some reason people seem to lose the distinction.

Let me put it this way. Nothing is stopping hateful people from creating their own video hosting platform and hosting their drivel. Hence, free speech. But nothing in the entirety of free speech, whether the legal notions or the philosophical notions, requires platforms to give that speech a place to live. The whole "marketplace of ideas" concept fundamentally works by having the community at large reject hateful speech.

Free speech does not mean each instance of speech needs to be weighed and evaluated equally by the community.

From a far more practical perspective, allowing this sort of thing onto your platform spells death for any content-platform startup. Seeing this sort of thing is going to immediately (a) drive sensible content consumers -- your actual users -- away from the platform, and (b) draw other hate speech creators to you like flies to shit. If that's what the platform wants to do, then nothing in the world is stopping them, but they will never gain mainstream success.

The problem with your analogy is how you define bookstore. If there were dozens of Youtube "bookstores" in every major city this wouldn't be an issue but functionally speaking every city or town or hamlet has the same 2 or 3 bookstores to choose from and they're all awful at supporting freedom of speech.
Every era has its things it considers beyond decency to discuss. Most people agree with them, and even if they don't, they know to keep quiet.

Those who agree with the norms of 2020 also think many of the norms of past times were awful. Homosexuality was considered beyond decency not long ago. Race mixing, premarital sex as well. The list can be made very long.

So what are the chances that mainstream decency right now has found the perfect set of correct values, that never needs to be challenged?

> Nothing is stopping hateful people from creating their own video hosting platform and hosting their drivel.

Cloudflare and domain registrar bans, payment processor bans and deplatforming, etc. would beg to differ.

There is nothing unreasonable about choosing alternatives for any of those.
Sorry, are you telling people to simply "start their own payment processor"? Do you realize what kind of an ask that is?
You're not entitled to Square or Visa or Paypal or Mastercard payments. If you're reduced to cryptocurrency and cash, it is what is is. Profiting from your speech in one specific way over another is not enshrined in some code of human rights.
What if you get a letter from the bank telling you to withdraw all your money and cough up the value of the mortgage in a week or be evicted?
Anyone who would sign a contract that would give a bank that level of free reign over the terms of your mortgage is a pretty big fool.
Pretty much all personal bank accounts have a unilateral termination clause. I would be surprised to see a mortgage where the bank can't totally wreck you if they feel like it.

Anyhow, you still need a bank account to get paid. If you can only work jobs that pay you in cash and don't need any access to bank accounts or the Internet themselves, that rules out 99% of businesses that could employ you.

That is about changing an agreement. The bank can fire you as a customer, pursuant to the existing agreement, usually without specifying a reason. This has happened in the past.
Of course they can fire you. They cannot force you to pay up your full mortgage tomorrow or be evicted.
I think "ability to make a payment online" should be in the same category as utilities. Someone having to go cash-only is just as bad as if the power and telephone companies refuse to sell you service. It kind of is a "basic needs" problem.
CloudFlare doesn't have many alternatives. There's VanwaNet,, and I think that's it.

Should you start your own DDoS protection service too?

These people would cut the power lines to people they disagree with, so of course they will say yes. They see no separation between infrastructure and end user.
You can still do it, you don't need to use cloudflare, you don't need to use that registrar.

You don't even need to use the Internet, paint it on a sign and walk around the street with it on a pole.

You're not having your free speech impeded by any of this, because refusing to carry someone elses speech isn't censorship, it's just that when you say things that are repulsive to people they won't want to help promote it.

If you want free speech go to your door, walk outside, start taking. You got your free speech. Everything else is a bonus.

Payment processor bans are a legitimate free speech problem, in my opinion. Well, in the US.
You do need to use CloudFlare, or your site will get DDoSed into oblivion.
So set up your own "racism allowed" alternative to Cloudflare. At some point, yes, you're going to be basically reduced to shouting at people in the street because mst people think what you're saying is repugnant, but that's (mostly) up to them. It's not their duty to host your stuff.
What if my "racism allowed" alternative to CloudFlare gets depeered by, say, AT&T?
> If you want free speech go to your door, walk outside, start taking. You got your free speech. Everything else is a bonus.

This argument is reductio ad absurdum, except executed against an argument you support. De-platforming online is in opposition to free speech, and the fact you can walk out your front door with a sign does not mitigate the loss of equal power behind your speech that others enjoy by using Internet services. You standing on the street with a sign is in no way equivalent in character or reach to writing what your sign says on Twitter. So here we are, the Internet is a thing, it exists, and so do digital platforms. Free and open access to web platforms is a core philosophical requirement to ensure freedom of speech, and de-platforming people damages that.

It's okay to be opposed to freedom of speech, it's okay to be opposed to the open web, but don't act as if you are not while advocating de-platforming as being an acceptable behavior.

Well, here's the thing: their actual opposition is not truly to _free speech_ per se, it's to particular ideas that they want to quash. Whether or not there's a legitimate reason to dissuade people from thinking about those ideas is a different question.
It's not always about dissuading people from thinking about those ideas, it is about me not wanting to hear them.
Then run some blocking software locally on your own devices. If that's not enough, then it's obvious your concern is more about preventing everyone else from hearing opinions you don't approve of.
Good in theory, but I don't know of any software that can block just racist content from a website effectively.
> the fact you can walk out your front door with a sign does not mitigate the loss of equal power behind your speech that others enjoy by using Internet services. You standing on the street with a sign is in no way equivalent in character or reach to writing what your sign says on Twitter

Maybe the answer is obvious to you, but it is not to me: why should these things be equivalent? Why should you be entitled to twitter's channel for your views that twitter does not want to host?

If Twitter is making the decision on its own -- that is, it's not coerced by the state, and if you are still capable of getting your information online by some other means, then Twitter is making its own free speech decision to curate its own website like you would your own site or your own store. Free and accessible doesn't and shouldn't mean that you get to hold the platform for ransom with your content. That is, Twitter shouldn't be chained to indefinitely dedicating hosting specifically for any one kind of unpopular content.

Your definition for the "open web" sounds to me like, honestly, very severe state control of private enterprise. You, a member of the open web, not being permitted to choose what content belongs on your own website just defeats the purpose of any kind of experiment of free expression online. A government telling you that you must always carry this or that particular view is totally antithetical to the First Amendment that establishes the Freedom of Speech.

Getting kicked out of the bowling club for sharing highly offensive statements has not prevented you from sharing those statements. Losing your job over them has not prevented you from sharing those statements. Being banned from twitter has not prevented you from sharing those statements. I really do mean to be absolute about this -- your freedom of speech would not have been impeded _at all_, no matter how many hosts or bans or jobs you go through.

If you're reduced to screaming your opinions from a street corner in order to have anyone hear them, and you're still being ignored by people, well you've still got 100% of your freedom of speech -- it's just that the speech isn't resonating and the government isn't some despotic, Orwellian regime that would force audiences to listen to those views.

> Maybe the answer is obvious to you, but it is not to me: why should these things be equivalent? Why should you be entitled to twitter's channel for your views that twitter does not want to host?

I don't think there is an obvious answer here. We're in the realm of philosophy. My response to the grandparent was less about my own advocacy for freedom of speech (although that is clearly my position/bias) and more about their statements being disingenuous.

What my own personal opinion is as to the answer to your questions is pretty simple though. Twitter, like other social media "publishers", enjoys special legal status under the law via [0]Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act. As such, they themselves do not have freedom of speech, they must not interfere with the content of the creators who use their platform. Interfering with that content (in theory) loses them that special legal status and opens them up to liability for the content they do choose to retain/host. So our legislation is pretty clear on the matter, Twitter does not have the right to censor you simply because they're a private business while also maintaining liability immunity as a common carrier.

> If Twitter is making the decision on its own -- that is, it's not coerced by the state, and if you are still capable of getting your information online by some other means, then Twitter is making its own free speech decision to curate its own website like you would your own site or your own store.

See above. "Publishing platforms" don't have free speech rights as long as they choose to operate as common carriers to maintain liability immunity, which Twitter does. That's setting aside the separate argumentation point which is that corporations are not people and corporate personhood is a sham, and therefore corporations themselves do not fundamentally have freedom of speech.

> Your definition for the "open web" sounds to me like, honestly, very severe state control of private enterprise.

Please elaborate. I can't imagine how you would come to that conclusion from what I wrote.

> A government telling you

"You." Civil Rights are individual rights, not collective rights. Compelled speech is obviously not philosophically aligned with freedom of speech. But it seems you are using a collective "you", strongly implying the impositions that come from corporate personhood as a legal concept to be more tangible than they are even in current law.

> Getting kicked out of the bowling club for sharing highly offensive statements has not prevented you from sharing those statements. Losing your job over them has not prevented you from sharing those statements. Being banned from twitter has not prevented you from sharing those statements. I really do mean to be absolute about this -- your freedom of speech not impeded _at all_. If you're reduced to screaming your opinions from a street corner in order to have anyone hear them, and you're still being ignored by people, well you've still got 100% of your freedom of speech -- it's just that the speech isn't resonating and the government isn't some despotic regime out of 1984 that would force audiences to listen to those views.

I'm less absolutist here. Your argument has merit, and yet it misses the point. The bowling club kicking you out is not the same thing as being banned from Twitter. The bowling club is not a publishing platform which exclusively exists for broadcasting speech to people who choose to follow you. Twitter is. People who are highly offended by your statements on Twitter have many modes of recourse in order to not be accosted by your statements such as not following you, blocking you, or otherwise using available technical means to ignore you. The bowling club, however has no such filtering mechanism, nor is it's sole purpose for existence to provide a platform for individuals to broadly publish their speech, it exists for people to bowl and your highly offensive speech reasonably detracts from its purpose for existence.

Platforms are different from other forms of private entities, and they are treated differently under the law as such. Trying to conflate the two is not reasonable, nor is it reasonable to take an absolutist position based in a conflation. Also, it's just plain wrong to say that "your freedom of speech not impededed _at all_." if you've been banned from a broadcasting platform. That's an obvious impediment, which shouldn't need further explanation.


> So our legislation is pretty clear on the matter, Twitter does not have the right to censor you simply because they're a private business while also maintaining liability immunity as a common carrier.

There's a line between removing content and creating/editing content, especially when it's attributed to someone else. When you, publisher, start modifying others' content, it's reasonable that you become liable for the result. If you choose not to publish certain authors, for any reason goes against your acceptable use policies, I don't see an issue. It's off-topic comments on a forum. Political comments on a cooking blog. Etc. You have pretty wide latitude to define what is acceptable on your publishing platform, and that definition shouldn't have to be fixed throughout time.

> "Publishing platforms" don't have free speech rights as long as they choose to operate as common carriers

Twitter is not a common carrier. Social media is not a public utility. They are publishers.

Always fun to see how the authoritarian left turn into free market capitalists when it's convenient.
Losing my job over them definitely dissuades me from sharing them in the future. This impedes my freedom of speech.

If you're saying that you're not physically prevented from saying whatever you'd like, but with that being the limit, it seems like just about any infringement becomes acceptable.

> Being put to death by the government has not prevented you from sharing those statements.

> Losing my job over them definitely dissuades me from sharing them in the future. This impedes my freedom of speech.

Losing my friends over calling them assholes definitely dissuades me from doing so in the future. This impedes my freedom of speech.

See how nonsensical that is? Just because something makes you less likely to speak your mind doesn't mean it's impeding your freedoms. You have the freedoms to call your friends assholes. They have the freedom not to associate with you anymore (this is called freedom of association, and is part of freedom of speech). That freedom of association is the same freedom your employer is exercising when you make a racist joke and then fire you. You had the freedom to make the joke, they had the freedom not to associate with you after you did. No ones freedoms were limited.

Does freedom of association give my employer the right to fire me because I'm black? Is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unconstitutional?
Is there a point to any of these ridiculous questions? Do you remember what the argument was about?

Are you implying that black people choose to be black like someone saying racist, firable things at work chooses to say those things?

Yes, it's about when freedom of speech trumps freedom of association.

If the freedom of association is inviolable, why can't I put up a sign outside my store saying "NO BLACKS"?

If it's about someone making statements at work, would you accept if a business owner said that they'll fire you if you're Jewish, but let you work there as long as they don't know about it?

Why are you advocating for a world where you’re never held to account for your misdeeds (so long as you can link them to some form of speech)? Why do you believe everyone should be required to tolerate you for being vile to others?
No. I'm specifically calling out that the government is not impeding. Other private actors are sharing bad things you did and exercising their Freedom of Association to disassociate from you. They shouldn't be forced to carry you around. That's it. It's the free market deciding.

All speech has consequences. You, the free speech enthusiast, not being prepared to pay those consequences is not cause for a government bailout or arrests of website hosts.

If all speech has consequences, and there's nothing wrong with putting consequences to speech, what's wrong with the government doing so?
Well you can't reasonably opt-in or opt-out of a government, and you can't do much to change it if your saying you want a change lands you in jail for criminal speech. You can't freely associate to spread your message or convince others. If on the other hand, the government protects your speech from its own intervention, and you have a popular view that is unwelcome on some website like twitter, you're still able to freely associate with other sympathetic people, build an audience, and discuss your views elsewhere. The consequence in one scenario is jail and in the other is having to use or build Gab.
But is there anything morally wrong with it? Does it inhibit freedom of speech to execute people for criticizing the government? If so, how?
> No. I'm specifically calling out that the government is not impeding.

Ah, you are making the same claim (and thus mistake) as another commenter in another thread I responded to. Freedom of speech is not just a law, it is also a social more. It's basis is first in philosophy, and then in law stemming from that. Just because the government has not violated your First Amendment civil rights, does not mean your freedom of speech has not been violated in some other way.

> A bookstore refusing to carry books by certain authors is in no way censorship

so i have to make my own bookstore just to sell that book? I'd say that's pretty close to censorship. Even tho the constitution doesn't stop private censorship (only gov't censorship), it isn't a good outcome imo.

Yes, if that's what it takes.

Flip it around: Imagine you have a tattoo. You're publishing the one tattoo therefore "free speech" means you have to publish all the tattoos? Should you be obliged to allow a big "Kick whites out of America" tattoo next to whatever tattoo you have chosen to wear?

Promoting a specific kind of speech is not equivalent to not acting on speech.

Leaving a piece of speech alone and simply doing nothing to it doesn't count as promoting it. That's exactly what section 230 in the USC means.

The bookstore has speech rights too. Deciding to not carry racist books is making a statement.

If you ran a bookstore, wouldn't you defend your right to purchase the stock you think will make your store most successful?

If you can't find even one existing bookstore to carry your book, perhaps your views or ideas are so toxic that you should rethink them.

Either way: still not censorship.

Do you know what censorship means? It’s quite literally the textbook definition (explicitly blocking books because of the ideas in them) so I’m curious what you think censorship is.

Would you also say if I were to ask you to leave my house because I got tired of listening to you, I'd be infringing on your free speech rights? Is that different than me removing your book from my store?
Censorship is censorship. I’m not sure why you’re prattling on about free speech rights.
The difference is that you would be forced to hear the speech in the house, but you are not forced to read/buy the book from the bookstore.

Removing it from the bookstore prevents those who wants the book from getting it. Having it in the bookstore doesn't force those who don't want it from reading it!

It does, however, force bookstore owners to carry any and every book. Which is a ridiculous proposition.

Instead, you can choose to not support that bookstore owner by shopping somewhere else and rewarding the bookstore owner that -does- carry it. Bookstore owners are not the government, they're free to do all sorts of things and you're free to be a patron or not.

> force bookstore owners to carry any and every book. Which is a ridiculous proposition

it is ridiculous when there's physical constraints, but for digital goods, such as youtube, there's almost no physical constraints.

Noone is saying the bookstore must promote or give prominence to all books equally. But preventing the books from existing by virtue of their platform size is wrong.

There's a difference between the legal American right to free speech, and the global ethical principle of free speech. One can only have their right breached by the government, but one can be censored by anyone who has the power to read their incoming/outgoing communications and modify or remove parts.

There's a difference between your home, which is a privately owned private space, and a mall, which is a privately owned public space. Youtube is more like a mall or a newspaper conglomerate than your house. For it to have a bias when censoring content can be objectionable in the same way that a big media conglomerate with a bias can be objectionable.

> There's a difference between the legal American right to free speech, and the global ethical principle of free speech.

So if I ask you to leave my house because I don't want to listen to you any more, am I violating the global ethical principle of free speech?

You had replied to a comment about censorship with a rhetorical question about free speech rights. The first paragraph in my answer was in response to this conflation: censorship by a private company is still censorship, rights aren't relevant.

The second paragraph of my response is more relevant here. Your house is not open to the general public except for me, it does not contain political discourse from billions of people, it's not owned by a company with a market cap close to a trillion dollars, and it has a plethora of viable alternatives.

If I was a political candidate and you asked me to leave your debate venue, I don't know whether you'd be right, but it would certainly be more controversial than if you asked me to leave your house.

Or perhaps the society I live in is so toxic that my sane ideas can't reach out.

To spell it out, your reasoning assumes that the prevailing consensus in any society is good.

Is this not "the market" simply deciding not to support something? Is that not one of tenets of free-market capitalism?

In the market of video providers, none of them are interested in hosting a particular viewpoint, then the creators of the video either have to put up with that or go make their own.

If you own a bookstore, you should be able to curate its content at your leisure, which includes but is not limited to removing content that you find objectionable. I don't see how this is a bad outcome, because the alternative -- being forced to carry books on your shelves that you have no power to remove sounds like a much worse outcome.

I, a terrible author, am not entitled to your bookstore's audience.

> bookstore refusing to carry books by certain authors is in no way censorship

It’s fucking textbook definition of censorship.

Are you conflating “government censorship” with censorship?

What do you think the alternative is? You want the government to mandate that every book store carries all books? Book stores have a right to curate their selection as they see fit in exactly the same way that authors have a right to write what they see fit.
It’s censorship, I didn’t make any judgments about when censorship should be allowed/encouraged. It’s just the literal definition of censorship and you’re being defensive because you think it’s a bad thing.
Gab looks like it's doing well, being the largest mastodon node with lots of non technical users.

That's about as 'mainstream' as you can get in the fediverse.

It's absolutely hilarious they switched to mastodon, given the nature of the overall mastodon culture.
Do you want a video platform that deletes stuff? Or one that doesn't? Choice A leads to the problem this thread is discussing. Choice B leads to the problem you're describing.

Personally I would prefer a choice C, a platform that deletes stuff I don't like and nothing else, but I don't think that's on offer. The closest thing available is platforms that delete stuff that offends their target demographic, as determined by a conference room full of SV middle-management types, i.e. youtube, which we already have and which isn't all that great.

I'm not trying to snark you, I don't like the content on lbry either. But sometimes it seems like HN's consensus opinion is that censorship is terrible, and also that censorship-resistant platforms are terrible.

Is it too much to ask for a platform in 2020 to not serve nazi propaganda? Specially after we spent a lot of blood to get rid of it in the first place when we left it unchecked.
>Do you want a video platform that deletes stuff? Or one that doesn't?

If I have to choose between a platform that let's anti-Semitism run rampart and Youtube I'll pick Youtube.

However the actual solution is a platform that that develops enough tools and hires enough human moderators to thwart blatant racism or hateful content while not accidentally kicking creators off the platform. This is mostly a question of effort and resources, and requires not outsourcing the entire process to a shoddy half-working automated system.

As someone whose skull would get measured again, please don't use tangential topics to justify censorship. It isn't anti-semitism that will get censored, it will be directed towards any form of dissident. Jews or minorities were never suppressed because there was too much freedom of speech or too much free media.

If the internet gets censored in the name of anti-semitism it would certainly not decrease animosity. Furthermore the blind crackdown on "disinformation" only increased reach of right leaning parties. The result should be observable since there is now enough empirical evidence. Trying the same strategy over and over might not be too prudent.

For some people a trimmed garden might be preferable and that is completely fine. But I don't think that is true for everyone. And there are enough alternatives, you can just watch TV or select another channel.

Stop your paternalism by pretending everyone gets influence because some YouTube videos don't fit your taste.

>it will be directed towards any form of dissident.

no it won't, this is just the typical American freakout. I'm German, here anti-semitism and hate speech are not only not propagated by private platforms (which is not censorship by the way), but banned (which is censorship). Our right wing party is diminished and unlike the US, we're not governed by complete lunatics.

There is no automatic mechanism by which stopping hate-speech somehow stops 'any form of dissent' in a democratic state of law and I'm tired of hearing the same argument again and again without any evidence for it. The US is alone among all democratic nations on this planet in their tolerance of bigotry. The UK, the oldest democracy on this planet, does not tolerate any of it either.

I am German too and we have a clear national trauma regarding these issues that should be plain to see and it should not serve as a template for policing speech on an international network.

I don't know if you remember, but we managed to actually create a second dictatorship after WW2 and also gave far left agitators a partial fault for collapsing Weimar. Not that the assassinations that came for their leadership wasn't cowardly and their opposition completely reactionary.

The US also stands out as being actually pretty solid on democracy and a main factor we can enjoy it today too.

And yes, the right got much stronger as criticism on immigration for example was declared to be nationalistic, while left leaning groups were actively mixing up refugees and immigrants to serve business interests. Of course the result is predictable.

You aren't allowed to call anyone a Nazi in Germany, that can have legal repercussions. It often has not because there is a cultural understanding. I think that fact would be a big surprise to many people advocating speech policies like they are implemented in Germany. And don't tell me there aren't staunch crackdowns on demonstrations if they stand in the way of interests. There is enough stuff to do and with more freedom of speech, we would prosper even more.

> Our right wing party is diminished

That should actually have been the argument 10 years ago.

Google tries its best to obfuscate YouTube's independent profitability (believed to be obfuscated because it's not actually profitable) but a few years back Bloomberg reported on an insider source that YouTube barely breaks even. Human moderators at the scale of YouTube is, quite frankly, a pipe dream. Automation is the only viable solution at the scale of YouTube.
You don't have to choose. There are anti-Semitic books in libraries, yet libraries are not overrun with them. The problem here is not that lbry endorses or embraces bigots, it's that the non-censoring platforms are new/wonky/unpopular enough that no one uses them except people who are banned elsewhere.
Libraries do not algoritmically promote antisemitic content.
Library content is strongly curated. You don't self-publish to a library, so in the sense that anti-semitic works exist in libraries, they do so because of historical relevance.

If you're a guy who advocates the supremacy of the white race on lbry, I challenge you to make it into a library

I have been spending the last year listening to audiobooks illegally posted to youtube. It is obvious (to me) that youtube is deliberately not removing this sort of content in a timely matter because it actually serves them well. Users like it, and audible is apparently not really persuing YouTube for what they allow to happen. I even get audible ads while listening to audiobooks stolen from audible and uploaded to some (probably hacked) youtube account. How weird is that? And then, there are numberous stories of people with legit content that are being removed or demonetized. Have a non-WHO opinion on covid? Bang, you're gone. Have a pirated audiobook online with 100k views, nah, no problem! I wonder how long it will take until youtube is held liable for copyright infringments. They are obviously playing a two-sided game.
Charliebrownau Recommended Alt tech List - 24/Sept/2020 ======================================================

* Fakebook >> Minds + Mumblit * Twatter >> Gab * Youtube >> Bitchute + UGETube ( ) * Streaming >> JoshwhoTV + Entropy

* Google E-Mail >> Tutanota + Protonmail * Google & DDG Search >> swisscows/SearX/Qwant * Google Maps >> OpenStreetMap

* Podcast hosting >> Spreaker * Medium >> Publish0x * Skype/video chat >> Jitsi Meet * Whatsapp/fb/etc >> Session /Matrix / /Self hosted XMPP * Discord >> Mumble or SIP or Matrix

* Reddit >> + Voat * Wiki >> infogalactic * Free image site >> or imgtc or tineye * >> @GetTogether * Instagram >>

* Streaming chat/superchat >> Entropy * Xsplit >> OBS * Pateron >> Subscribestar + * Spreadshirt + teespring >> redbubble / zazzle censor

* MS Win 8/8.1/10 >> Linux OS (PC) * MS Office >> Libreoffice * MacOSX >> Elementary OS (PC)

* Android >> Lineage OS * Playstore/fdroid >> Aptoide/Apkpure * Alt Mobile Phone >> Pinephone * Alt Laptop >> Pinebook or Raspi

* VPN (home PC) >> Mullvad VPN * DNS (home PC) >> DNS.Watch * Domain >> Epik & Unstoppable Domains * Hosting >> Vultr VPS * Maillist/mailchimp >> Mailcow Mailing list

* view Youtube anon+Privacy - * View twatter anon+privacy -

#free-speech #alt-tech #censorship #opensource #2030

No one will get proper customer support or ablity to have freedom of speech on mainstream platforms such as - Censorship, Fakebook, Twatter etc

You can either keep up with the constant changing standards with zero real human support so you can get corporate hush money

or use crowd funding/donation model and use free speech alt tech platforms such as - Bitchute + Dlive + entropy + Gab + minds

1. Either use censorship with lots of views with corporate ad money


2. or freedom of speech, donation/crowd funding with lower viewship

Choose Freedom of speech

or corpration hush money

At least 5 other times I've seen these stories reach the HN first page have all been resolved within 24 hours. Then everyone complains that even though they fixed this specific case, imagine all the other people whose channels aren't fixed! Even when the system works, everyone will still complain.
But will you pay for a service where this won't happen?
Youtube is broken in weird ways man!
soviet behavior
No, the reason is probably just as stupid as it sounds, they don't want to investigate the claims so it's easier to close the channel and keep the music publishers happy.
I agree but you would think the world leading company in AI would be smart enough to detect bans that deserve further investigation such as in this case: a channel with more than 770k subscribers, no content with nudity or violence whatsoever in 10 years, no controversies in the comments or downvotes, no automatic detection of copyright violation in 10 years etc. There aren't that many channels with these characteristics and google certainly has the money to investigate manually the very few channels that reach this threshold and they certainly have the AI to detect even more heuristics to avoid false positives like this one.

They are just so arrogant and know that they will never get in trouble with the law that they just won't even spend a dime or a second thought on these issues no matter how life ruining they can be. Pretty sad.

What happened to hacker news?
What do you mean?
We've been seeing this kind of shitshow from the big tech companies for years on HN. It's really the only way for people whose livelihoods are at stake to get a modicum of support, so I certainly upvote them, and have been for years (mostly under my former alt).
The fact that Google/Youtube has zero support infrastructure should be evidence that they are a monopoly and engaging in monopolistic activity.

If Google/Youtube were NOT a monopoly, they would have invested significant amount of money in customer support. However, there is zero. The only reason they get away with this is because they have a monopoly. They are saving hundreds of millions in support costs by not delivering any support. Unlike more overt monopolistic actions like raising prices, etc, what they do instead of increase their profits by taking away functionality that their customers should be receiving.

The fact you can get all your work taken away because of fraud, and have no recourse is unacceptable. Yet there really is no viable alternative. I hope content creators band together and form a class action lawsuit against Google and break up their monopoly. It's disgusting.

They do have support infrastructure for their customers. Youtube content creators are not customers, they’re more akin to contractors (when paid) and volunteers (when not). In fact, google is the customer in this relationship, and they are within their rights to stop buying the product without having to explain why.

It is on content creators to diversify their business. If a contractor has only a single customer because that customer is the most profitable, would you pity them when they are fired by that customer? Or would you call them bad at business for failing to diversify?

Great point. Because people get something out of engaging in business with Google/YouTube/Facebook/etc. they think that they are the customer and that they should be entitled to certain things. They forget that they are the product, and the company is the customer. By using these platforms you are providing them with a source of revenue for free. These companies make money off content that you freely give them.

Ad-revenue you receive doesn't even make you a contractor. It's basically like working for free and then being tossed something at the end for your efforts. There is no legal agreement or obligation to continue paying you.

It is amazing what the Internet has turned out to be. A place where big tech companies can profit off the work of others, while convincing them that they are the beneficiaries.

You could just... do everything yourself. It worked 20 years ago, it worked 10 years ago, and it works today (arguably even better thanks to the sheer number of people online).

I bet if enough people did just that, Google et al would suddenly have the resources for proper support.

> By using these platforms you are providing them with a source of revenue for free.

Not for nothing - platform usage costs money. It's for the average per-user cost of building and running the platform.

> It is amazing what the Internet has turned out to be. A place where big tech companies can profit off the work of others, while convincing them that they are the beneficiaries.

I disagree. I think that people have convinced themselves that they are customers of YouTube.

There is a lot of projection on things like YouTube and Facebook, then people get mad because it actually isn't that after all.

I agree with regards to projection, but I also believe that the companies are helping quite a bit. It feels more like love scammers. Yes, there's the victim telling themselves the scammer loves them and just has some financial troubles they need help with, but there's also the scammer doing everything in their power to make their victim believe that.
> they are within their rights to stop buying the product without having to explain why.

This might be right if they were a mom and pop store with 5 others within a couple of blocks. There is no viable alternative to Youtube so they don't get to make these calls.

You said don't, did you mean shouldn't? Because seems to me like they do get to.
They will get smashed for this eventually
The are betting on that "eventually" being many many miles down the road. They will fix some of the issues/cases (ad hoc) for the vocal minority, they will pretend they didn't see for the silent majority that suffers from the same side effects.

As a parent stated, the content creators are NOT the clients. Client is the one who pays you money. So advertisers need to be kept happy. If this guy goes down, the guitar makers will advertise on the next guy/lady in line. And the (true) client (advertiser) will be happy.

One of the reason that Google is making crazy money is that they cut plenty of corners in support. And it serves THEM (YT) right to do so.

This video has less than 100k views. "Charlie bit my finger" has 876 Million views.

In work I use the phrase "it is not a Problem until it becomes one".

One content creator (or a thousand) complaining is NOT a problem for YT. A Problem is if YT drops from 100M views per day (or whatever that number is) to 20M views per day.

If you ask me, YouTube is having it good. And if this content creator goes down, his followers will jump on the next guitar player teacher person.

Apologies if my comment seems to cold. I believe it reflects the mentality of YT.

Your comment is cold but it's also bang on point. Ethically how they act is inexcusable however. I hope many years is actually a few months in reality.
> They do have support infrastructure for their customers. Youtube content creators are not customers, they’re more akin to contractors (when paid) and volunteers (when not).

In a sense, they are Google's products.

I beg to differ: content creators use the service provided by youtube to offer their content for consumption and receive payment via a ad service.

Youtube does not order contractors but offers a service for production and consumption of content- so they have customers creating content and others just consuming- both being customers of their service.

Isn't monopsony also handled by antitrust rules?
I feel like this is the problem. The content creators and users don’t matter as they aren’t the customers.
It is on content creators to diversify their business. If a contractor has only a single customer ...

Yes, this is the monopoly part of the argument. There are no real and practical alternatives for content creators, it seems.

I did see a non YouTube video link on HN recently...
The definition of monopoly isn't the absence of alternatives, it's the absence of significant alternatives, and the fact that monopoly distorts the surrounding ecosystem.

Killing small businesses definitely counts as a market distortion. Good luck arguing it doesn't.

And there is no competitive service, because YT is an audience provider, and not specifically a video hosting provider.

In fact these problems would go away if YT offered a paid tier - with proper support - for content providers.

But YT and Google are averse to treating anyone else as an equal partner, so that's never going to happen.

> Yes, this is the monopoly part of the argument.

If there is a single customer, it is not a monopoly, but a monopsony:


I can just picture a gaggle of google employees jumping out of their seats: "They used the wrong word for it! Their argument is invalid!".
> I can just picture a gaggle of google employees jumping out of their seats: "They used the wrong word for it! Their argument is invalid!".

Would the "average" Google employees really care about this? I would rather imagine that only executive level employees of Google could be happy about this. And these people play much deeper political games than caring about a wrong word.

> The fact that Google/Youtube has zero support infrastructure should be evidence that they are a monopoly and engaging in monopolistic activity.

I'm not sure one has anything to do with the other.

100% it does. it means they have no incentive to justify their actions to the market
No, you can have a business model with no customer support without a monopoly. The potential lost sales are just part of the equation.
i see what you're saying. yelp is a testament to your point. maybe it can be priced in even if its not a monopoly
If they weren't a monopoly then they wouldn't be able to get away with fraudulent activity like deleting someone's Google account or accepting false DMCA claims with no recourse or not paying out Ad Sense revenue because they flagged your account (without explaining why).
The accepting false DMCA claims is something that the DMCA system sort of requires them to do. However they have in the past sued people who have issued false DMCA claims.
> The accepting false DMCA claims is something that the DMCA system sort of requires them to do.

No, the DMCA allows for counter claiming and it not being an issue. Google's policies go beyond what's required for the DMCA, and stem from the early several billion dollar copyright lawsuit they settled out of court with the major labels fairly early on. It's an extralegal system negotiated between Google and the labels.

> However they have in the past sued people who have issued false DMCA claims.

Can you give an example of someone they've sued for making false claims?

This requires very minimal effort to find.

It's not the copyright claims that they had a problem with (or else they'd go after any of the other false copyright claims), it's using their platform for extortion. The "I'm going to file false copyright claims unless you pay me" thing.
>No, the DMCA allows for counter claiming and it not being an issue. Google's policies go beyond what's required for the DMCA, and stem from the early several billion dollar copyright lawsuit they settled out of court with the major labels fairly early on. It's an extralegal system negotiated between Google and the labels.

You're conflating two different things, perhaps intentionally.

Content ID, which is the additional system you're referring to, does not and cannot cause an account to be closed[1]. If content in your video is flagged by Content ID, all that happens is that the advertising revenue from your video is directed to the purported copyright holder, or the video is removed from YouTube. You do not receive any strikes and your channel is not limited in any way.


Copyright strikes[2] are a completely different kettle of fish, and Google is bound by the DMCA to immediately and without question remove the allegedly infringing content. In fact, they are expressly forbidden by law to perform any sort of investigation before making the content unavailable or they risk losing immunity under the safe harbour provisions.

And far from accepting DMCA claims "with no recourse" as you suggest, they openly publish a variety of training materials to teach users exactly how to file a counter-claim[3], and they routinely accept those counter-claims and restore the content.



>Can you give an example of someone they've sued for making false claims?

Christopher Brady.

This guy this whole thread is about is getting his channel shutdown "with no recourse." You still get copyright strikes after they restore your content.

The whole copyright strike system is in addition to the DMCA, and is part of what was negotiated with the labels (in addition to ContentID).

Also, what are you quoting "with no recourse" from?

>The whole copyright strike system is in addition to the DMCA, and is part of what was negotiated with the labels (in addition to ContentID).

That's completely false, and all you need do is click the links I provided to see that it is. Copyright strikes are only issued in conjunction with DMCA takedown requests, Content ID does not and cannot cause you to receive strikes, and does not and cannot shut your channel down.

>Also, what are you quoting "with no recourse" from?

From a parent comment at the start of this thread, which I've only now realised wasn't made by you, so please ignore the phrase "as you suggest" and focus on the substantive portions of my comment that address the inaccuracies in your claim.

> That's completely false, and all you need do is click the links I provided to see that it is. Copyright strikes are only issued in conjunction with DMCA takedown requests, Content ID does not and cannot cause you to receive strikes, and does not and cannot shut your channel down.

I never disputed any of that. I'm saying that the copyright strike system used by youtube on takedown requests:

* goes above and beyond what's required by the DMCA.

* is part of what was negotiated by Google and the labels (in addition to ContentID). The labels were concerned about people spamming their content and just uploading faster than they can takedown. This gives them a mechanism to shut down accounts for 'bad actors' who just keep uploading faster than the labels can issue takedowns.

* doesn't always remove strikes even when a counter-claim is filed because of above.

I never brought up ContentID, and my arguments are orthogonal to it's implementation and history.

Google has a support infra structure, but it's only for big and/or paying customers. If you don't pay Google anything, you are not a customer. You are either a supplier, delivering content, or a user, consuming (free) content.
why then is it that suppliers and users shouldn't expect support?
Why should they? You're using a free (and honestly, amazing) service, and you agreed to the terms and conditions. Don't like it - don't use it.
>"Don't like it - don't use it."

Applies equally to heroin. When are we legalising it?

He also said 'free'
So if I hand out free drugs I won't be sent to jail?
They have customer support. Their customer is an advertising company or brand. Hosting video from anyone in the world at up to 8k resolution is expensive. The product is your eyeballs. They revenue share with content creators who bring you eyeballs. They have lots of content creators. They use automation to manage the content at scale so they can be profitable.
> Unlike more overt monopolistic actions like raising prices, etc, what they do instead of increase their profits

Now thats a keen insight and not a warning of a monopoly I was aware of. You're dead right.

There has got to be a better word than Monopoly for companies like Google or YouTube. The barrier to enter the market is relatively low and there is almost no inherent lock-in to the platform. Everyone could stop using Google and YouTube today and switch to another platform. However, creators won’t because of the viewers and viewers won’t because of the creators.

People could stop using Google today but most don’t, because Google is just so much better than everyone else as searching.

Should Google/YouTube be regulated because people dislike what the company is doing, but just not enough to actually stop using their products.

Why get so far with the proof? Looking at market share is far easier.

Great point, though. They are saving millions - in order to provide actual customer support they would have to hire a lot of people from all around the world.

I wonder - but I'm sceptical - if a competitor internet giant will come to the fore that offers similar services that google and youtube does, but whose USP would be better support, less aggressive copyright enforcement (it HAS to have copyright enforcement else they'll be torn apart in court).
> The fact you can get all your work taken away because of fraud, and have no recourse is unacceptable.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Google/YT TOS saying that by uploading materials user gives away its rights to these (or at least some rights)?

There is an extortionate component to the ToS, yes.
Creators are not customers for youtube. They are bountiful, free resource.
Yeah well, keep electing republicans and nothing will ever change.

You think republicans and people like trump are anti-monopoly? Lol.

Anti-trust laws (and the concepts that are based upon) do not apply to free services, and portions of YouTube that do collect subscription fees do have a full support structure.

Your assertion that Google has a monopoly in this market is wrong for several reasons. The first is that there is no market for Googke/YouTube to control. Ad revenue which covers less than their overhead makes them a non-profit and YouTube in particular is closer to meeting the requirements for being classified as a government protected service than an anti-trust concern.

Second,nobody makes money in the free media hosting and distribution product domain. This is well known and is a large part of why they have virtually no competition.

Third, YouTube wouldn't even have a system that automatically takes down channels except that laws were written that required them to do so.

Google doesn't make money from YouTube, and they only acquired it for the good will providing a free service generates for them. Recently the head of YouTube has been making weird even retarded decisions, but it's still a free service that operates in an application domain that basically can't make money by definition.

sad to see this get downvoted because it does not go along with the youtube bashing sentiment, the amount of people who think other video platforms will not have copyright claim problems is ridiculously high.
As I point out in my other comment, that comment doesn't seem especially well reasoned or sourced, but I for one wouldn't have downvoted if not for the language. I could have agreed 100% with what they were saying and I would still have downvoted, because there's no reason to let disparaging and ableist language stay visible, regardless of the point being made. Make your own version if you feel strongly about it.

In any case, I don't think anyone is saying other video platforms wouldn't have copyright claims, they're saying that in a more competitive space, the mechanisms for handling those claims would be better. E.g., they might actually tell the creator in the linked video what the violation actually is.

>Anti-trust laws (and the concepts that are based upon) do not apply to free services

Do you have a source for this? I feel like Microsoft would have liked to have known that, back when they lost an antitrust case around a freely provided web browser.

>Ad revenue which covers less than their overhead makes them a non-profit

That's not what "non-profit" means.

>nobody makes money in the free media hosting and distribution product domain.

Nobody has been profitable, but that doesn't mean nobody is trying or nobody could if the market weren't anti-competitive. There is also plenty of case-law in the US establishing that just because an anti-competitive scheme wasn't profitable doesn't make it legal. Hell, a lot of anti-competitive activity works specifically because it's not profitable in the short term.

>YouTube wouldn't even have a system that automatically takes down channels except that laws were written that required them to do so.

But not in the manner that they do. The point being made wasn't that their management of takedown notices is itself anti-competitive behavior, it's that the fact they don't have to change it to something more reasonable is evidence that they don't have any competition, which is indicative of a monopoly in the space.

>they only acquired it for the good will providing a free service generates for them

Again, source. I know YT is unlikely to be profitable right now, but I seriously doubt the purchase was a good-will gesture rather than a strategic long-term investment. I don't think there were a lot of people whose opinion of Google went up as a result of the purchase.


Really? Was that necessary to make your point?

I think so too. If they were not a monopoly they'd have content creators fleeing the platform for how they handle these type of situations but for many youtube provides a decent source of income. Content creators respected their part of the bargain and worked hard to build their channels and Google benefitted quite well. But they're not only not equal, one zero power and the other one has all of it.
Flee to other platforms and get their videos taken down too. It’s so ridiculous to see the majority of the comments here not to understand the simple reality that other platforms also have to adhere to these copyright laws.
As shown in the video, YouTube is either lying (something a competitor could provide better service on) or is not actually complying with the DMCA which requires a specific description of the content that is being claimed under copyright.
There have been attempts to fight the Youtube/Google platform, Patreon in a way is fighting against the Youtube ad revenue as a channels main source of income, so channels can survive on their own. Linus tech tips is creating their own video platform called Float-plane aiming to also do the same.
I've seen another channel do this too, Corridor Digital. They're creating their own video platform, though it seems to be more so to get away from the traditional Hollywood model, but I guess that also has the benefit of not being beholden to the whims of YouTube.

I wonder what the internet would look like if everyone did something like this rather than having all their content hosted on a central platform. What would the internet look like if video hosting platforms were as popular and as easy to set up / maintain as a blog platform like WordPress?

Won't this approach eventually lead to what happened with blogging?

10-15 years ago we all had our own wordpress/static/ghost blogs hosted on our own domains, and then Blogger, Medium and Substack entered the space with the added benefits of discoverability and a very significant chunk of the self-hosted blogs moved to those platforms.

I feel that with YouTube we just skipped that initial self-hosted step and immediately went to the centralized platforms (Google Video, Vimeo and eventually YouTube)

This idea is intriguing: what if it's the other way around?

I mean, before the Internet, how many people used to read vs watch TV? Video was meant to win. If video demands centralization for technical reasons, centralization wins too.

In the same way, blogs can't compete with video for ads.

There used to be self-hosted video content on the web as well. It’s just that it isn’t very memorable due to the technical limitations of the time before YouTube and other platforms took it over.
Even today, self-hosting video is very far from trivial, and requires a lot of bandwidth and traffic if you aren't just sharing your videos with a couple of friends, that's not something I'd want to do on a small VPS.
i have a problem with floatplane. its in canada and therefore isnt as strong with free speech protections. My bet is they would buckle more quicker than youtube would. Also, its not peer to peer.
>Also, its not peer to peer.

This is a benefit for most users, I'd imagine.

A music educator/vloger Adam Neely has been promoting two more platforms: Skillshare ( and Nebula (, they seem like a good idea for educational and creative content but nowhere near YT omnipresence. A bunch of popular youtubers are present there though.
HN Theater is an independent project and is not operated by Y Combinator or any of the video hosting platforms linked to on this site.
~ yaj@
;laksdfhjdhksalkfj more things ~ Privacy Policy ~
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.