Youtube DELETED Jordan Pier's Electronics Repair Channel

[EEVblog]

Youtube have deleted Jordan Pier's (JPdylon) Youtube electronics repair channel.
This is getting ridiculous. Every creator need to be on alternative platforms like Library and Bitchute.
http://www.repairaudio.com/index-old.html
https://www.facebook.com/classicaudiorepairinc/

Subscribe to Dave on:
Library: https://lbry.tv/@eevblog:7
Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/eevblog/
Vimeo: https://vimeo.com/eevblog

[james_s]

It's creepy that they don't provide a clear explanation of why it was deleted and an appeal process to get it back.

[Ed.Kloonk]

It's not creepy nor obscure. It has to do with that user's extra circular ancillary activity detected by Alphabet.

I'm more surprised that people are surprised.

I cannot delve into too much detail here because I'll likely get my arse kicked(again) for dropping truth bombs.

But if you are looking for an explanation for this, please do try and scratch below the surface. 

[james_s]

That doesn't make it sound any less creepy.

[Ed.Kloonk]

That doesn't make it sound any less creepy.

I suppose from your standpoint, it doesn't. However, since at least 2016, some content creators were already suggesting this type of unexplained deletion was occurring. You could call it the thin edge of the wedge.

With that perspective, you should be able to see where I'm coming from.

 

[gooligumelec]

With that perspective, you should be able to see where I'm coming from.

Clear as dense impenetrable mud.  All very mysterious.
And a little worrying - I have a very small channel (https://www.youtube.com/c/gooligumelectronics), haven't done anything with it for ages, but if I wanted to get serious with it again - well, stories like this aren't reassuring.

[Ed.Kloonk]

Clear as dense impenetrable mud.  All very mysterious.
And a little worrying - I have a very small channel (https://www.youtube.com/c/gooligumelectronics), haven't done anything with it for ages, but if I wanted to get serious with it again - well, stories like this aren't reassuring.

It's not mysterious if you've been following.    A particular channel which examines this situation is a youtuber Dave Cullen aka Computing Forever. But of course, the algo is so fantastic  you have never heard of this guy.

[sleemanj]

youtuber Dave Cullen aka Computing Forever. But of course, the algo is so fantastic  you have never heard of this guy.

So I googled "Computing Forever" and I went to the Youtube channel page, and these are, literally, the first words spoken...

"So no doubt there's still plenty of woke movies and tv shows still in the making and the leftest pc progressive agenda is still very prevalent in several major franchises..."

and then I looked and saw he has a 1 hour video titled "The NWO Agenda Revealed".

and that's where I switched off. 

[Ed.Kloonk]

youtuber Dave Cullen aka Computing Forever. But of course, the algo is so fantastic  you have never heard of this guy.

So I googled "Computing Forever" and I went to the Youtube channel page, and these are, literally, the first words spoken...

"So no doubt there's still plenty of woke movies and tv shows still in the making and the leftest pc progressive agenda is still very prevalent in several major franchises..."

and then I looked and saw he has a 1 hour video titled "The NWO Agenda Revealed".

and that's where I switched off.

Yep. That's OK.

I wouldn't expect you to absorb someone's years of work in just five minutes. It's not anything like a robot* dismissing 14 years of Jordan Piers work in an instant and on a electronic whim is not a mistake. There is no robot involved in this. Someone saw something and deleted the channel.

[RoGeorge]

Maybe the AI bot mistook the name of Jordan Pier as Jordan Peterson   

[Ed.Kloonk]

Maybe the AI bot mistook the name of Jordan Pier as Jordan Peterson   

So you think JP should be de-platformed?

[RoGeorge]

Not me, but the dude has many haters because he's messing with various ideologies.

[Ed.Kloonk]

Not me, but the dude has many haters because he's messing with various ideologies.

Over the years, I've seen Jordan Petersen 'mess' with several groups. A couple of times he has felt the wrath of people who know better and he has had the decency to apologize for his ignorance and pulled his head in, as it were. That was fine until he kicked the hornets nest of a certain group of people who are beyond entertaining criticism.

Nobody has come forward with any pinpoint cause for Jordan Pier's account termination. The stance by Dave, in his video, mentioned that this is the new norm and that creators and viewers must accept a migration elsewhere without notice. Bullshit.

The suggestion that youtubers above a arbitrary level of views/videos/whatever should be exempt from instant deletion is preposterous. That's a capitalist mentality. When you amass a heap of stuff only then are you worried that they'll take your stuff.

Youtube, with all it's recent user agreement changes is still a public square. Not a publisher. Whether you invest 10 years or 10 minutes, they have no right to dump your stuff for no reason.

[Fungus]

The suggestion that youtubers above a arbitrary level of views/videos/whatever should be exempt from instant deletion is preposterous.

That wasn't what Dave said.

He said something like, "... should be exempt from instant deletion by robots, there should be a human in the loop".

And I agree.

There should also be a way to appeal the robot's decisions, but there isn't. Your stuff gets deleted? That's it. No appeal, no nothing.

[Ed.Kloonk]

The suggestion that youtubers above a arbitrary level of views/videos/whatever should be exempt from instant deletion is preposterous.

That wasn't what Dave said.

He said something like, "... should be exempt from instant deletion by robots, there should be a human in the loop".



And I agree.

There should also be a way to appeal the robot's decisions, but there isn't. Your stuff gets deleted? That's it. No appeal, no nothing.

@ 4.15

[nctnico]

The suggestion that youtubers above a arbitrary level of views/videos/whatever should be exempt from instant deletion is preposterous.

That wasn't what Dave said.

He said something like, "... should be exempt from instant deletion by robots, there should be a human in the loop".

The problem is that there are likely hundreds of thousands Youtube channels with good content that a group of people will see as relevant. In our view Dave's channel may be huge and massively important but compared to others Dave's channel is just a spec of dust. How is 'the algorithm' going to decide what is what? In the end 'the algorithm' is optimised to maximise Youtube's profit. IMHO Dave is right by strongly suggesting content creators to spread across different platforms.

[SilverSolder]

Youtube is just being turned into an Internet version of what US terrestrial television used to be like.

Hopefully other services will spring up for "enlightened users",  leaving Youtube for the kinds of people that are OK with US terrestrial television...

[HighVoltage]

What if YouTube in the near future will buy alternative platforms like Library and Bitchute and then delete those channels as well.

This is a cleaning of much larger proportions.

[David Hess]

It's creepy that they don't provide a clear explanation of why it was deleted and an appeal process to get it back.

The decision to not provide a clear explanation, even to the user, is deliberate; it prevents or limits any sort of due process making their decision unappealable.  It also makes their policies more vague which gives them more latitude in denying service for ulterior motives.

[SeanB]

One thing I have noticed is a massive increase in the click spam comments, which are annoying to see interspersed with the comments, often within a few minutes of the video being released.

[martinot]

I repost my comment to the video by David here (if it would be censored on YT later, even if I do not think so):

The problem is that YouTube does not generate enough income for Google, and they earn the majority of their income from advertising on their Google Search products and their Android app ecosystem/services. A lot of revenue in advertising are from companies selling new products. Content on social media and YouTube helping people repair and keeping old products alive longer could potentially be a threat to Google´s biggest customers, and as a consequence of that also affects Googles main income (ad revenues from Search and Android app ecosystem). So it could be good sensible thing for Google to sacrifice som content in a loss leading part of their business (YouTube), if it can enhance their turn over in their profit genrating business (Search/Android). 

I think we will se more of this. It is (unfortunately for us) in Google´s business interest.

I am not against capitalism or enterprises (quite the opposite; I am a strong defender of it), but we do have to remember that Googles customers is not us viewers on YouTube (or uses of Google Search or Android). Google´s customers are the advertisers. It is important for everyone to understand that fundamental business model.

We also have to understand that it is us users who has given Google this extremely large power and strong market position. Every time that we watch YouTube we support and enforce Google´s market share of the content distribution (and also social media/advertising connected to it) market. We also have to understand that every time we use Google Search, or use an Android product, we give away our data to Google, and also sell us as targeted consumers to their customers (companies buying advertising, market data, and influence).

I like a lot of Googles many great services (really good in many cases), but their power and stronghold on the market and our society rivals, or exceeds, the power of many countries governments.

Addition; I do not advocate that we should regulate or control Google, but we should have a basic understanding of both their power and their business model.
I also think it is very smart of David and EEVblog to be available on many competing content distribution platforms (the more independent your of Google, the less chance that they will target you). It is also a good thing for the competition and healthiness of the market (even if I today can not see any real threat to Google´s dominance).

[coppice]

Businesses serve their customers in order to serve their shareholders. Content creators are neither YouTube's customers or their shareholders, so they will always be treated with disdain. Its in YouTube's interest to piss off creators as much as they can get away with, to constantly remind them who has all the power. Only a new platform that makes advertisers the customers of the creators, rather than customers of the platform, could create a stable trustworthy platform for creators. Good luck with that. Video hosting is most likely to remain the lottery it is today for anyone trying to run a business with their content.

[langwadt]

It's creepy that they don't provide a clear explanation of why it was deleted and an appeal process to get it back.

The decision to not provide a clear explanation, even to the user, is deliberate; it prevents or limits any sort of due process making their decision unappealable.  It also makes their policies more vague which gives them more latitude in denying service for ulterior motives.

it also makes it harder to game the system

[bdunham7]

The decision to not provide a clear explanation, even to the user, is deliberate; it prevents or limits any sort of due process making their decision unappealable.  It also makes their policies more vague which gives them more latitude in denying service for ulterior motives.

That is a very cynical and paranoid take on things.  It is also entirely correct.   

[SilverSolder]

I repost my comment to the video by David here (if it would be censored on YT later, even if I do not think so):

The problem is that YouTube does not generate enough income for Google, and they earn the majority of their income from advertising on their Google Search products and their Android app ecosystem/services. A lot of revenue in advertising are from companies selling new products. Content on social media and YouTube helping people repair and keeping old products alive longer could potentially be a threat to Google´s biggest customers, and as a consequence of that also affects Googles main income (ad revenues from Search and Android app ecosystem). So it could be good sensible thing for Google to sacrifice som content in a loss leading part of their business (YouTube), if it can enhance their turn over in their profit genrating business (Search/Android). 

I think we will se more of this. It is (unfortunately for us) in Google´s business interest.

I am not against capitalism or enterprises (quite the opposite; I am a strong defender of it), but we do have to remember that Googles customers is not us viewers on YouTube (or uses of Google Search or Android). Google´s customers are the advertisers. It is important for everyone to understand that fundamental business model.

We also have to understand that it is us users who has given Google this extremely large power and strong market position. Every time that we watch YouTube we support and enforce Google´s market share of the content distribution (and also social media/advertising connected to it) market. We also have to understand that every time we use Google Search, or use an Android product, we give away our data to Google, and also sell us as targeted consumers to their customers (companies buying advertising, market data, and influence).

I like a lot of Googles many great services (really good in many cases), but their power and stronghold on the market and our society rivals, or exceeds, the power of many countries governments.

Addition; I do not advocate that we should regulate or control Google, but we should have a basic understanding of both their power and their business model.
I also think it is very smart of David and EEVblog to be available on many competing content distribution platforms (the more independent your of Google, the less chance that they will target you). It is also a good thing for the competition and healthiness of the market (even if I today can not see any real threat to Google´s dominance).

The 'social media plus' (including youtube) corporations are now so big and entrenched...   is there really any way around regulating them by large enough powers (e.g. at the EU level - I'm guessing we are never going to see an American federal agency ever see anything wrong with anything their corporate sponsors do)?

[boffin]

Normally I leap to (incorrect) conclusions, but do we even know that YT deleted it at this point; perhaps?

• He deleted it himself (in a ragequit - this isn't worth the effort kind of reaction)
• He deleted his Gmail acct, and it took the channel with it (by mistake)
• He passed away and his family deleted it
• Someone hacked his account, and the Googles/YT have suspended his account, and hence ?
• Someone with a personal vendetta filed fake copyright claims against him?

Do we have any confirmation that the channel was taken against his will by YT ?

[thm_w]

The problem is that there are likely hundreds of thousands Youtube channels with good content that a group of people will see as relevant. In our view Dave's channel may be huge and massively important but compared to others Dave's channel is just a spec of dust. How is 'the algorithm' going to decide what is what? In the end 'the algorithm' is optimised to maximise Youtube's profit. IMHO Dave is right by strongly suggesting content creators to spread across different platforms.

For reference there are ~30 million channels and ~1 million with more subs than this guy (>10k).

[Razor512]

While it is hard to tell what truly happened, there is lots of evidence to support malicious behavior from their content moderators.

For example, youtube has been on a conservative channel purge recently, and it has been hitting many channels, even non-conservative ones because they expressed a single conservative idea.
Once a channel is internally on their bad list, there will be bad employees who will just approve any and all reports against the videos. For example, if someone doesn't like the youtuber or the video and a thumbs down is not enough, they also want to report the video for no reason, well those reports will be approved. That has been their way of purging those channels. When they target your channel, basically be approving everything, they can rack up a ton of strikes in a few minutes and kill the channel because of it.

This behavior has been going on for years, and is ramping up during this election year as proven by the investigative journalists. https://www.projectveritas.com/watch/

It is also hard to train an AI to detect ways of thinking, thus it will have many false positives. For example, if you are a lawyer/ legal focused channel, but you have a discussion on the 14th amendment of the US constitution, and especially the due process clause, you will find that your channel suddenly cannot be monetized properly, and it is because they link keywords to conservatives.
For example, a common conservative argument against state laws which allow for ex-parte trials, is the due process clause of the US constitution, as you have a right to face your accuser and be able to mount a legal defense. Because of that link, some arguing the due process clause for other reasons, e.g., instead of defending 2A rights, they use it to challenge a privacy or copyright law, they will still get flagged.

[vwestlife]

Do we have any confirmation that the channel was taken against his will by YT ?

Yes. Both Dave and Shango066 showed a screenshot of Jordan's YouTube channel where it said "This account has been terminated due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube's policy against spam, deceptive practices, and misleading content or other Terms of Service violations."

YouTube does have a rule that you are not allowed to post videos whose primary purpose is to direct viewers away from YouTube and onto some other web site. So theoretically if Jordan posted a video which was just an ad telling people to visit the web site for his audio repair business, that would be against the rules. But I don't recall ever seeing such a thing on his channel. I don't even remember him ever mentioning his own business by name or providing any links to his web site. And keep in mind that Dave could also theoretically get in trouble for telling people to go here or to LBRY or BitChute!

[b_force]

I agree that we just don't know yet, but it's just rather strange.

What I do see, and don't understand, is the following.
Maybe someone can give some clarification.
As far as I know, most western countries very clearly state the right for freedom of speech and religion in their constitution.
Especially the countries were Google is based.

Although I don't always agree with certain conspiracy channels, is deleting and censoring these kind of videos/channels not going directly against these rights?
Second to this, is isn't there some kind of YT organization or union were people can find legal support?

[boffin]

Do we have any confirmation that the channel was taken against his will by YT ?

Yes. Both Dave and Shango066 showed a screenshot of Jordan's YouTube channel where it said "This account has been terminated due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube's policy against spam, deceptive practices, and misleading content or other Terms of Service violations."

So which one was it?  Again, how do we know that his account wasn't compromised, and Googley(youtube) just shut it down until it was sorted. We don't, we're jumping to conclusions.

[graybeard]

Hi account just got restored.

[madires]

Any explanation from YouTube?

[Bud]

No explanation from Jordan either.

[bdunham7]

What I do see, and don't understand, is the following.
Maybe someone can give some clarification.
As far as I know, most western countries very clearly state the right for freedom of speech and religion in their constitution.
Especially the countries were Google is based.

Although I don't always agree with certain conspiracy channels, is deleting and censoring these kind of videos/channels not going directly against these rights?
Second to this, is isn't there some kind of YT organization or union were people can find legal support?

The constitution (Bill of Rights) restrains the government from infringing on those rights.  It does not restrict the actions of private individuals or corporation unless there is some additional law or clause that allows it to do so.  Up until the 14th amendment was ratified, it actually only restrained the Federal government as to those rights, although state constitutions had similar provisions.

[SilverSolder]

I agree that we just don't know yet, but it's just rather strange.

What I do see, and don't understand, is the following.
Maybe someone can give some clarification.
As far as I know, most western countries very clearly state the right for freedom of speech and religion in their constitution.
Especially the countries were Google is based.

Although I don't always agree with certain conspiracy channels, is deleting and censoring these kind of videos/channels not going directly against these rights?
Second to this, is isn't there some kind of YT organization or union were people can find legal support?

The rights of large multinational corporations override all local regulations.  That's the part you missed.

[boffin]

The doom and gloom in here is astounding.  What exactly do people expect from YouTube? They have to walk a very delicate tightrope balancing the rights of copyright holders vs those of 'creators'; and need to do it at a scale that has never been seen before.

All of the secondary 'media' outlets that offer less oversight are simply going to get their asses sued out of existence for not having their controls, it's just a matter of time.

Tom Scott actually did a pretty good video on youtube/content ID; explaining that while it's not ideal, there really isn't a much better idea of how to balance it all.

[coppice]

The doom and gloom in here is astounding.  What exactly do people expect from YouTube? They have to walk a very delicate tightrope balancing the rights of copyright holders vs those of 'creators'; and need to do it at a scale that has never been seen before.

All of the secondary 'media' outlets that offer less oversight are simply going to get their asses sued out of existence for not having their controls, it's just a matter of time.

The biggest issue with YouTube seems to be that they lack a way to grey or white list long established reliable channels. People with a long track record of causing no trouble should be given substantial latitude. Even more so, channels that keep getting content blocked for copyright violation, where an appeal normally gets the content back, should be given a great deal of latitude.

Tom Scott actually did a pretty good video on youtube/content ID; explaining that while it's not ideal, there really isn't a much better idea of how to balance it all.

If you follow any musical education channels on YouTube, who are constantly walking a tightrope trying to break down or teach famous works, you'll see things could be a LOT better in some areas. They are endlessly demonitized for what is clearly fair use - e.g. playing a bare riff to teach it - or actually blocked. Many of them just accept demonitization, as most of the money is lost by the time they appeal. Its the content blockers that are really frustrating.

[b_force]

What I do see, and don't understand, is the following.
Maybe someone can give some clarification.
As far as I know, most western countries very clearly state the right for freedom of speech and religion in their constitution.
Especially the countries were Google is based.

Although I don't always agree with certain conspiracy channels, is deleting and censoring these kind of videos/channels not going directly against these rights?
Second to this, is isn't there some kind of YT organization or union were people can find legal support?

The constitution (Bill of Rights) restrains the government from infringing on those rights.  It does not restrict the actions of private individuals or corporation unless there is some additional law or clause that allows it to do so.  Up until the 14th amendment was ratified, it actually only restrained the Federal government as to those rights, although state constitutions had similar provisions.

That absolutely doesn't make any sense to me at all?

Because that basically means that individuals (companies) can just do whatever they want if it comes down to racism, censoring, sexism and what have you?
Or in other words, just restrict you in your basic rights?

I don't know, but that doesn't quite flow with the constitution of many other countries if that's true.
In fact, you will have a serious problem as a company violating these, especially if it comes to freedom of speech, race and religion.

The only way to make an exception is when the company can prove that a certain preference is needed for doing that specific type of work.

[langwadt]

What I do see, and don't understand, is the following.
Maybe someone can give some clarification.
As far as I know, most western countries very clearly state the right for freedom of speech and religion in their constitution.
Especially the countries were Google is based.

Although I don't always agree with certain conspiracy channels, is deleting and censoring these kind of videos/channels not going directly against these rights?
Second to this, is isn't there some kind of YT organization or union were people can find legal support?

The constitution (Bill of Rights) restrains the government from infringing on those rights.  It does not restrict the actions of private individuals or corporation unless there is some additional law or clause that allows it to do so.  Up until the 14th amendment was ratified, it actually only restrained the Federal government as to those rights, although state constitutions had similar provisions.

That absolutely doesn't make any sense to me at all?

Because that basically means that individuals (companies) can just do whatever they want if it comes down to racism, censoring, sexism and what have you?
Or in other words, just restrict you in your basic rights?

I don't know, but that doesn't quite flow with the constitution of many other countries if that's true.
In fact, you will have a serious problem as a company violating these, especially if it comes to freedom of speech, race and religion.

why doesn't it make sense? it says the government can't restrict you, a private company is not the government
so they can censor you all they want. Racism, sexism and few others are different because they are covered by
other laws protecting rights

[boffin]

The biggest issue with YouTube seems to be that they lack a way to grey or white list long established reliable channels. People with a long track record of causing no trouble should be given substantial latitude. Even more so, channels that keep getting content blocked for copyright violation, where an appeal normally gets the content back, should be given a great deal of latitude.

If you follow any musical education channels on YouTube, who are constantly walking a tightrope trying to break down or teach famous works, you'll see things could be a LOT better in some areas. They are endlessly demonitized for what is clearly fair use - e.g. playing a bare riff to teach it - or actually blocked. Many of them just accept demonitization, as most of the money is lost by the time they appeal. Its the content blockers that are really frustrating.

To this I totally agree. YouTube need human oversight on larger channels like eevblog, but I can fully understand why this sort of thing happens to smaller channels.

There's a few music channels I follow, and they're basically screwed, because even if they're doing what is obviously fairuse; they're taken offline immediately.

YouTube are somewhat forced into act-now, deal-with-later approach by their exposure to copyright liability.  Tom Scott has a very good video about You Tube, Content ID and the problems around it all; very worth watching.


YouTube's content ID/copyright systems are much like the famous Winston Churchill quote of "Democracy is the worst form of government - apart from all the others". Everyone would like a better system, except the world doesn't allow for it.

[langwadt]

The biggest issue with YouTube seems to be that they lack a way to grey or white list long established reliable channels. People with a long track record of causing no trouble should be given substantial latitude. Even more so, channels that keep getting content blocked for copyright violation, where an appeal normally gets the content back, should be given a great deal of latitude.

If you follow any musical education channels on YouTube, who are constantly walking a tightrope trying to break down or teach famous works, you'll see things could be a LOT better in some areas. They are endlessly demonitized for what is clearly fair use - e.g. playing a bare riff to teach it - or actually blocked. Many of them just accept demonitization, as most of the money is lost by the time they appeal. Its the content blockers that are really frustrating.

To this I totally agree. YouTube need human oversight on larger channels like eevblog, but I can fully understand why this sort of thing happens to smaller channels.

There's a few music channels I follow, and they're basically screwed, because even if they're doing what is obviously fairuse; they're taken offline immediately.

some artist are on the block list and any video with them is immoderately taken down, other just take over the ad revenue and turn the number
of ads up to eleven

https://youtu.be/F_tkS4dvi8A

much of what he does like his series "what makes this song great" is basically the kind of advertising other companies pay creators to do,
a "tear down" and explanation of why their product is great, but in the case of music they take the ad revenue or outright block the videos

[EEVblog]

The only way to make an exception is when the company can prove that a certain preference is needed for doing that specific type of work.

Or just to match the branding of the company. Take Virgin Airlines for example, their brand is "young and sexy", and they want staff to match. Not young and sexy?, no job for you. All legal.

[EEVblog]

Any explanation from YouTube?

Youtube never ever give a reason, it's one of their trademarks!

[EEVblog]

The biggest issue with YouTube seems to be that they lack a way to grey or white list long established reliable channels. People with a long track record of causing no trouble should be given substantial latitude. Even more so, channels that keep getting content blocked for copyright violation, where an appeal normally gets the content back, should be given a great deal of latitude.

Back in the "old days" you used to get benefits from being a chosen (back then you had to be invited!) monetised priority creator. You got longer video lengths and others tools that the beginners creators didn't. It was something to shoot for.
Now every creator is given everything from day one, and proven long time creators get little to nothing extra at all.
If youtube wanted to turn themselves around in the eyes of creators they begin by instituting protections for established channel.
I mentioned in my video that the CEO should have to sign off on every protected channel termination, and some say that would be too much work. Bullshit. All the channel the bots are trying to kill are the new ones, the spammers, the scammers etc, not established creators. It should be impossible to automatically terminate say a 100k+ channel.
You could still have the existing system were individual videos could get automatically nuked, like if say Jake Paul went beyond usual skitzo in one video. But to nuke an entire channel built up over a decade with no egregious history is just asinine.

[coppice]

Any explanation from YouTube?

Youtube never ever give a reason, it's one of their trademarks!

They probably consider it a legal protection.

[vwestlife]

YouTube also restored CraigTube's channels without any explanation or apology.

[maginnovision]

It's an authoritarian state. If they delete you and bring you back YOU should apologize.  If you're lucky they'll forget about you.

[langwadt]

https://youtu.be/AkaNHe1YM00

[Ed.Kloonk]

The biggest issue with YouTube seems to be that they lack a way to grey or white list long established reliable channels. People with a long track record of causing no trouble should be given substantial latitude. Even more so, channels that keep getting content blocked for copyright violation, where an appeal normally gets the content back, should be given a great deal of latitude.

Back in the "old days" you used to get benefits from being a chosen (back then you had to be invited!) monetised priority creator. You got longer video lengths and others tools that the beginners creators didn't. It was something to shoot for.
Now every creator is given everything from day one, and proven long time creators get little to nothing extra at all.
If youtube wanted to turn themselves around in the eyes of creators they begin by instituting protections for established channel.
I mentioned in my video that the CEO should have to sign off on every protected channel termination, and some say that would be too much work. Bullshit. All the channel the bots are trying to kill are the new ones, the spammers, the scammers etc, not established creators. It should be impossible to automatically terminate say a 100k+ channel.
You could still have the existing system were individual videos could get automatically nuked, like if say Jake Paul went beyond usual skitzo in one video. But to nuke an entire channel built up over a decade with no egregious history is just asinine.

I understand what you're saying. But you have to realize the awkward position that places the person tasked with pushing the delete button. The real problem is a number of youtubers have had innocuous content for years. However, the last four years has suddenly brought a lot of angry ants to the surface. Deliberately nuking them comes with a high legal risk.

Dave, you know what you can and cannot say on Y/T. Just imagine what would happen if you woke up one day and thought "you know what....?"

[NiHaoMike]

The doom and gloom in here is astounding.  What exactly do people expect from YouTube? They have to walk a very delicate tightrope balancing the rights of copyright holders vs those of 'creators'; and need to do it at a scale that has never been seen before.

All of the secondary 'media' outlets that offer less oversight are simply going to get their asses sued out of existence for not having their controls, it's just a matter of time.

Most likely the alternative would be based in a country that could care less about the DMCA.

[boffin]

The doom and gloom in here is astounding.  What exactly do people expect from YouTube? They have to walk a very delicate tightrope balancing the rights of copyright holders vs those of 'creators'; and need to do it at a scale that has never been seen before.

All of the secondary 'media' outlets that offer less oversight are simply going to get their asses sued out of existence for not having their controls, it's just a matter of time.

Most likely the alternative would be based in a country that could care less about the DMCA.

And if a country cared less about the DMCA, the US Govt would simply obtain an order to block the site and/or indict the CEO of the company (even if he were out of the country). Think of what the US did to 'legal online poker', hosted outside of the US.  In the land of the free, it's all blocked

No large media publishing company, who's very income depends on US based views, would want to stop working in the US.

[SilverSolder]

The doom and gloom in here is astounding.  What exactly do people expect from YouTube? They have to walk a very delicate tightrope balancing the rights of copyright holders vs those of 'creators'; and need to do it at a scale that has never been seen before.

All of the secondary 'media' outlets that offer less oversight are simply going to get their asses sued out of existence for not having their controls, it's just a matter of time.

Most likely the alternative would be based in a country that could care less about the DMCA.

And if a country cared less about the DMCA, the US Govt would simply obtain an order to block the site and/or indict the CEO of the company (even if he were out of the country). Think of what the US did to 'legal online poker', hosted outside of the US.  In the land of the free, it's all blocked

No large media publishing company, who's very income depends on US based views, would want to stop working in the US.

The US rules are very simple:  Anything that has even a slight chance of interfering with US corporate profits are automatically a Bad Thing, and will be stamped out.  Other than that, you have extensive freedom to do pretty much what you want.

[MrMobodies]

From 2006 and like Fran Blanche I never came across it.

I did like the Servicing a 1974 Zenith 17" Chromacolor II Color tv 6 videos where he'd spend many hours looking for faults and at the same time trying to conserve and only replace fauly/worn out components. To me it is like mystery in finding the faults and it seems exciting.

[EEVblog]

The biggest issue with YouTube seems to be that they lack a way to grey or white list long established reliable channels. People with a long track record of causing no trouble should be given substantial latitude. Even more so, channels that keep getting content blocked for copyright violation, where an appeal normally gets the content back, should be given a great deal of latitude.

Back in the "old days" you used to get benefits from being a chosen (back then you had to be invited!) monetised priority creator. You got longer video lengths and others tools that the beginners creators didn't. It was something to shoot for.
Now every creator is given everything from day one, and proven long time creators get little to nothing extra at all.
If youtube wanted to turn themselves around in the eyes of creators they begin by instituting protections for established channel.
I mentioned in my video that the CEO should have to sign off on every protected channel termination, and some say that would be too much work. Bullshit. All the channel the bots are trying to kill are the new ones, the spammers, the scammers etc, not established creators. It should be impossible to automatically terminate say a 100k+ channel.
You could still have the existing system were individual videos could get automatically nuked, like if say Jake Paul went beyond usual skitzo in one video. But to nuke an entire channel built up over a decade with no egregious history is just asinine.

I understand what you're saying. But you have to realize the awkward position that places the person tasked with pushing the delete button.

Easy, if it's not illegal under US law then you don't push the delete button. You just have to learn to not giving a flying photon about the blue checkmarks on Twitter.
Youtube have dug their own grave.

[EEVblog]

Dave, you know what you can and cannot say on Y/T. Just imagine what would happen if you woke up one day and thought "you know what....?"

I'd expect them to delete that video. Why should my entire channel get deleted as a result?

[Ed.Kloonk]

Dave, you know what you can and cannot say on Y/T. Just imagine what would happen if you woke up one day and thought "you know what....?"

I'd expect them to delete that video. Why should my entire channel get deleted as a result?

Cos all it takes is a SJW having a bad day* masquerading as a bot with an itchy trigger finger.

Why delete just a video when you have the power to nuke the channel? In our scenario, the creator has indicated a massive change in their world view and a crate's worth of fuck-it attitude. More vids of the same are certain to follow. You'd nip it in the bud.

It's not like a video or a channel is ever deleted:deleted. The word used by y/t should be 'hidden'.

*do SJW's ever have good days? Asking for a friend.

[SilverSolder]

From 2006 and like Fran Blanche I never came across it.

I did like the Servicing a 1974 Zenith 17" Chromacolor II Color tv 6 videos where he'd spend many hours looking for faults and at the same time trying to conserve and only replace fauly/worn out components. To me it is like mystery in finding the faults and it seems exciting.

I agree, fault finding is like detective work...  fascinating to watch a good detective work, learn something every time!

[DrG]

Dave, you know what you can and cannot say on Y/T. Just imagine what would happen if you woke up one day and thought "you know what....?"

I'd expect them to delete that video. Why should my entire channel get deleted as a result?

Look, you're the youtube guy not me, so don't beat on me for this. I spent an hour going through some of the YT terms of service - in some respects a winding and roving cacophony of litigious projective tests.

Up front I want to acknowledge that you immediately replied, in several places, some mitigation practices (back up your content, post to more than one place). You also, if I recall correctly, suggested a policy of human intervention before a channel was snuffed - ostensibly to avoid a faulty AI trigger. All good stuff.

I read about a strike system https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802032 and if they were adhering to that system in your hypothetical example, then I would expect them to only delete that one video and not your channel and to notify you.

But, I also read that there are certainly SINGLE case violations that can result in a channel being removed.https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802168?hl=en&ref_topic=9387060

Now, who decides what "severe abuse is" YT or the user? [rhetorical]

What we don't know is why the channel was removed, why the channel was restored, whether there was an email that the channel was removed, whether the removal decision was appealed. Nobody seems to be saying much about those questions.

If he (the channel owner) was a blueberry muffin that looked like a chihuahua to some bad coding, he may not want to go on the offensive about that (blueberry muffins may not want to bite the hand that feeds them).

If he (the channel owner) was ratted out for something that was simply not true, he may not want to go on the offensive about that either.

If it was an "oops, sorry about that", he may feel the same.

As to all the whining about how bad YT is in this thread (and not by you @EEVblog) why isn't there the infamous "if you don't like it, don't use it" or "if you don't like it, start your own" ? All variations on the, "as long as you live under my roof, you will follow my rules".

I propose that the reason is that YT is the biggest game in town and if you want the $$$ and notoriety and audience, that is where you go. If YT is so bad than they will go the way of many others after they have run their course (e.g., AOL).

So, does the whining help make a better product? Does it at least make the whiner feel good?

[SilverSolder]

[...]
So, does the whining [about Youtube] help make a better product? Does it at least make the whiner feel good?

In my case, the whining is really just reminiscing about the Internet of old, where ads on Youtube was not a "thing" at all!

And yes,  I have cut my usage of Youtube down to almost nothing.   The ads had the effect of tipping the "marginally interesting" videos into the "not worth spending time on" category, I'd literally rather be doing something else.  Now, I primarily watch videos that are linked from some other site, e.g.  EEVblog videos or search engine results -  I rarely go to www.youtube.com directly.

[Ed.Kloonk]

Dave, you know what you can and cannot say on Y/T. Just imagine what would happen if you woke up one day and thought "you know what....?"

I'd expect them to delete that video. Why should my entire channel get deleted as a result?

Look, you're the youtube guy not me, so don't beat on me for this. I spent an hour going through some of the YT terms of service - in some respects a winding and roving cacophony of litigious projective tests.

Up front I want to acknowledge that you immediately replied, in several places, some mitigation practices (back up your content, post to more than one place). You also, if I recall correctly, suggested a policy of human intervention before a channel was snuffed - ostensibly to avoid a faulty AI trigger. All good stuff.

I read about a strike system https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802032 and if they were adhering to that system in your hypothetical example, then I would expect them to only delete that one video and not your channel and to notify you.

But, I also read that there are certainly SINGLE case violations that can result in a channel being removed.https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802168?hl=en&ref_topic=9387060

Now, who decides what "severe abuse is" YT or the user? [rhetorical]

What we don't know is why the channel was removed, why the channel was restored, whether there was an email that the channel was removed, whether the removal decision was appealed. Nobody seems to be saying much about those questions.

If he (the channel owner) was a blueberry muffin that looked like a chihuahua to some bad coding, he may not want to go on the offensive about that (blueberry muffins may not want to bite the hand that feeds them).

If he (the channel owner) was ratted out for something that was simply not true, he may not want to go on the offensive about that either.

If it was an "oops, sorry about that", he may feel the same.

As to all the whining about how bad YT is in this thread (and not by you @EEVblog) why isn't there the infamous "if you don't like it, don't use it" or "if you don't like it, start your own" ? All variations on the, "as long as you live under my roof, you will follow my rules".

I propose that the reason is that YT is the biggest game in town and if you want the $$$ and notoriety and audience, that is where you go. If YT is so bad than they will go the way of many others after they have run their course (e.g., AOL).

So, does the whining help make a better product? Does it at least make the whiner feel good?

Yep. But you're reviewing the current rules and forgetting that some creators 'bought in' when those rules were vastly different or in some cases, quite contrary to what they are now.

[vwestlife]

Back in the "old days" you used to get benefits from being a chosen (back then you had to be invited!) monetised priority creator. You got longer video lengths and others tools that the beginners creators didn't. It was something to shoot for.
Now every creator is given everything from day one, and proven long time creators get little to nothing extra at all.

Back when I applied to become a YouTube Partner in 2011 and was approved (on my second try -- the first time I applied I was rejected!) I did a video showing all the benefits and special features Partners got back then -- virtually all of which are now either given to all monetized creators, or are gone entirely. Even back in 2011 some of the former Partner benefits were by then universal. I should re-upload the video just for the nostalgic value.

These recent cases of channels being deleted for no reason (Jordan Pier, CraigTube) are definitely due to the "machine learning" algorithm FUBARing. I'm almost certain that no human was involved in the process except to reverse the mistake. YouTube has even admitted as such:

https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2020/03/protecting-our-extended-workforce-and.html

"As a result of the new measures we're taking [re: COVID-19], we will temporarily start relying more on technology to help with some of the work normally done by reviewers. This means automated systems will start removing some content without human review, so we can continue to act quickly to remove violative content and protect our ecosystem, while we have workplace protections in place.

As we do this, users and creators may see increased video removals, including some videos that may not violate policies."

[David Hess]

These recent cases of channels being deleted for no reason (Jordan Pier, CraigTube) are definitely due to the "machine learning" algorithm FUBARing. I'm almost certain that no human was involved in the process except to reverse the mistake. YouTube has even admitted as such:

It is such a convenient excuse that I treat it as an admission that they did it deliberately.  Will they make it future policy to have a human review these?  Of course not, therefor it is deliberate.

[DrG]

These recent cases of channels being deleted for no reason (Jordan Pier, CraigTube) are definitely due to the "machine learning" algorithm FUBARing. I'm almost certain that no human was involved in the process except to reverse the mistake. YouTube has even admitted as such:

It is such a convenient excuse that I treat it as an admission that they did it deliberately.  Will they make it future policy to have a human review these?  Of course not, therefor it is deliberate.

You may not be correct, but I would need some mighty fine odds to bet against you.

[David Hess]

It is such a convenient excuse that I treat it as an admission that they did it deliberately.  Will they make it future policy to have a human review these?  Of course not, therefor it is deliberate.

You may not be correct, but I would need some mighty fine odds to bet against you.

Another way to put it is that YouTube has the authority over their algorithm so they also have the responsibility for what it does.  The dog ate your channel is as bad an excuse for them as it is for a student.

[EEVblog]

And if a country cared less about the DMCA, the US Govt would simply obtain an order to block the site and/or indict the CEO of the company (even if he were out of the country).

Rubbish. No company outside the US, and that has servers outside the US, has any legal obligation at all to abide by a US law like DMCA. It is specifically for US companies and/or servers on US soil.

[BravoV]

And if a country cared less about the DMCA, the US Govt would simply obtain an order to block the site and/or indict the CEO of the company (even if he were out of the country).

Rubbish. No company outside the US, and that has servers outside the US, has any legal obligation at all to abide by a US law like DMCA. It is specifically for US companies and/or servers on US soil.

Nope, that is BS Dave, you know it, its just theoretical, in real world especially countries which are member of Five Eyes comprise of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, all belong to Uncle Sam.

Too lazy to google, should be easy to find tons of examples, like US FBI that can grab someone in above countries easily, and just bring them back to US, no one at those countries dare to ask question or challenge, nor judge approval needed at all  . Or should I remind you an Ozzy bloke named Julian Assange ? Or Kim Dotcom (HERE) ? Or US ambassador's wife driving a car ran over a kid in UK and got killed, and she could fly back home at US untouched while escaping UK law , poor Canadians that are enduring retaliation from China which is fair, as their gov. was ordered to act as a thug, to take hostage of Huawei's boss daughter on behalf of again, Uncle Sam, and Canadians to face the consequences alone, and etc.

[EEVblog]

And if a country cared less about the DMCA, the US Govt would simply obtain an order to block the site and/or indict the CEO of the company (even if he were out of the country).

Rubbish. No company outside the US, and that has servers outside the US, has any legal obligation at all to abide by a US law like DMCA. It is specifically for US companies and/or servers on US soil.

Nope, that is BS Dave, you know it, its just theoretical, in real world especially countries which are member of Five Eyes comprise of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, all belong to Uncle Sam.

Too lazy to google, should be easy to find tons of examples, like US FBI that can grab someone in above countries easily, and just bring them back to US, no one at those countries dare to ask question or challenge, nor judge approval needed at all  . Or should I remind you an Ozzy bloke named Julian Assange ? Or Kim Dotcom (HERE) ? Or US ambassador's wife driving a car ran over a kid in UK and got killed, and she could fly back home at US untouched while escaping UK law , poor Canadians that are enduring retaliation from China which is fair, as their gov. was ordered to act as a thug, to take hostage of Huawei's boss daughter on behalf of again, Uncle Sam, and Canadians to face the consequences alone, and etc.

Those cases are pure international politics.
If I have a server in Australia or anywhere else outside the US, I am not legally obligated in any way to comply with any DMCA request, nor is any host provider, and you know it.

[BravoV]

Those cases are pure international politics.
If I have a server in Australia or anywhere else outside the US, I am not legally obligated in any way to comply with any DMCA request, nor is any host provider, and you know it.

You have not read the Kim Dotcom case, are you ? That is purely business dispute, and no politic here, and FBI has no jurisdiction in NZ what so ever, yet, they treated NZ as one of the US state. 

Why there is no massive demonstration in Oz on freeing Julian, at least demand a fair and open trial in Oz, I guess no even single soul at Oz dare to organize that movement, or end up in Guantanamo Bay.

But I understand the width of your POV and paradigm, just live on what you want to believe.

[EEVblog]

Those cases are pure international politics.
If I have a server in Australia or anywhere else outside the US, I am not legally obligated in any way to comply with any DMCA request, nor is any host provider, and you know it.

You have not read the Kim Dotcom case, are you ? That is purely business dispute, and no politic here, and FBI has no jurisdiction in NZ what so ever, yet, they treated NZ as one of the US state. 

I've followed him closely for years and follow him on Twitter, and know all about that case. It's business with enforcement via international politics.

Why there is no massive demonstration in Oz on freeing Julian, at least demand a fair and open trial in Oz, I guess no even single soul at Oz dare to organize that movement, or end up in Guantanamo Bay.
But I understand the width of your POV and paradigm, just live on what you want to believe.

WTF, I'm a huge Julian Assange supporter, and once again know a lot about the case, to the point of making a public video supporting him.

But this has nothing to do with the discussion about the legality of DMCA internationally, and you know it. Don't bait me with politics, and don't assume I don't know what's going on with international politics. Not only will you be wrong, but you'll come-a-gutsa.

[boffin]

And if a country cared less about the DMCA, the US Govt would simply obtain an order to block the site and/or indict the CEO of the company (even if he were out of the country).

Rubbish. No company outside the US, and that has servers outside the US, has any legal obligation at all to abide by a US law like DMCA. It is specifically for US companies and/or servers on US soil.

Tell that to the online poker sites (Poker Stars, Party Poker etc), or RojaDirecta that are fully outside of the United States. All of them had domain names seized, and directors indicted, The companies have to walk a delicate line to ensure they're not blocked in the 'land of the free'.  I believe Aruba(?) has an outstanding $1b seizure against the US for breaking WTO rules by locking out various Aruban gambling sites.

Even an fully off-shore YT equivalent would still want to be in the business of selling advertising to US companies, and hence the delicate balance must be obtained, as the US would obtain injunctions against the advertisers etc etc, or seize monies destined for US based content creators.

[SilverSolder]

And if a country cared less about the DMCA, the US Govt would simply obtain an order to block the site and/or indict the CEO of the company (even if he were out of the country).

Rubbish. No company outside the US, and that has servers outside the US, has any legal obligation at all to abide by a US law like DMCA. It is specifically for US companies and/or servers on US soil.

Tell that to the online poker sites (Poker Stars, Party Poker etc), or RojaDirecta that are fully outside of the United States. All of them had domain names seized, and directors indicted, The companies have to walk a delicate line to ensure they're not blocked in the 'land of the free'.  I believe Aruba(?) has an outstanding $1b seizure against the US for breaking WTO rules by locking out various Aruban gambling sites.

Even an fully off-shore YT equivalent would still want to be in the business of selling advertising to US companies, and hence the delicate balance must be obtained, as the US would obtain injunctions against the advertisers etc etc, or seize monies destined for US based content creators.

Basically what you are saying is that the USA can prevent US citizens and businesses from interacting with whatever other country, business, or individual that they see fit? 

[EEVblog]

And if a country cared less about the DMCA, the US Govt would simply obtain an order to block the site and/or indict the CEO of the company (even if he were out of the country).

Rubbish. No company outside the US, and that has servers outside the US, has any legal obligation at all to abide by a US law like DMCA. It is specifically for US companies and/or servers on US soil.

Tell that to the online poker sites (Poker Stars, Party Poker etc), or RojaDirecta that are fully outside of the United States. All of them had domain names seized, and directors indicted

Indicted by whom? And for what?
Once again, this has nothing to do with DMCA jurisdiction, which legally only applies to companies within the US, and servers and other assets that operate within the US.
There are other ways (often arguably illegal) the US government can go after foreign individuals and organisations, but the DMCA is not one of them.

[boffin]

And if a country cared less about the DMCA, the US Govt would simply obtain an order to block the site and/or indict the CEO of the company (even if he were out of the country).

Rubbish. No company outside the US, and that has servers outside the US, has any legal obligation at all to abide by a US law like DMCA. It is specifically for US companies and/or servers on US soil.

Tell that to the online poker sites (Poker Stars, Party Poker etc), or RojaDirecta that are fully outside of the United States. All of them had domain names seized, and directors indicted

Indicted by whom? And for what?
Once again, this has nothing to do with DMCA jurisdiction, which legally only applies to companies within the US, and servers and other assets that operate within the US.
There are other ways (often arguably illegal) the US government can go after foreign individuals and organisations, but the DMCA is not one of them.

The US will do whatever they need to do in order to try and enforce US laws, even if the company is wholly outside of the USA.

Example RojaDirecta.  Their  .COM name was seized by the US as the root .com servers are housed/administered in the USA. For more details, see the Wiki page for the US's  "Operation in Our Sites" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_In_Our_Sites

Example PokerStars (this isn't copyright, but doing business on the internet).  The US seized the domain name, and indicted (in the US) one of the directors.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PokerStars#Domain_name_seizure

[EEVblog]

And if a country cared less about the DMCA, the US Govt would simply obtain an order to block the site and/or indict the CEO of the company (even if he were out of the country).

Rubbish. No company outside the US, and that has servers outside the US, has any legal obligation at all to abide by a US law like DMCA. It is specifically for US companies and/or servers on US soil.

Tell that to the online poker sites (Poker Stars, Party Poker etc), or RojaDirecta that are fully outside of the United States. All of them had domain names seized, and directors indicted

Indicted by whom? And for what?
Once again, this has nothing to do with DMCA jurisdiction, which legally only applies to companies within the US, and servers and other assets that operate within the US.
There are other ways (often arguably illegal) the US government can go after foreign individuals and organisations, but the DMCA is not one of them.

The US will do whatever they need to do in order to try and enforce US laws, even if the company is wholly outside of the USA.

Example RojaDirecta.  Their  .COM name was seized by the US as the root .com servers are housed/administered in the USA.

There's your problem 
Again, DMCA does NOT apply outside the US.
Show me one case where someone has been prosecuted under the DMCA act when they don't live in the US and do not have any commercial entity or infrastructure within the US.

[David Hess]

Again, DMCA does NOT apply outside the US.
Show me one case where someone has been prosecuted under the DMCA act when they don't live in the US and do not have any commercial entity or infrastructure within the US.

I agree.  I am not sure what is so difficult to understand about that.  Other nations may have equivalent laws but the DMCA only applies within the US.

However many services including YouTube implement their own copyright enforcement system independent of the DMCA which leave content creators with even fewer protections.

[EEVblog]

However many services including YouTube implement their own copyright enforcement system independent of the DMCA which leave content creators with even fewer protections.

I actually understand Youtube's prediciment here when it comes to Copyright and enforcement of it. For the most part I think the system works well enough, the problem is when entire channels get automatically nuked. This should not be allowed to happen, its beyond ridiculous that this is even possible.
I still contend that any channel with over say 100k subs, for want of an arbitrary limit, should require the direct sign off of the Youtube CEO in order to get entirely deleted.
Sure there are over 100,000 channels with over 100k subs, but how many of them would have to be genuinely deleted? Almost every one of these people is a professional Youtuber.