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)?