Youtube DELETED Jordan Pier's Electronics Repair Channel

[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....?"