Is the S**t about to hit the you tube fan

[SparkyFX]

The trap of such discussions is to take the loudest or most popular examples of a certain group for the majority. Such people have always existed, but are barely representative in what they convey.

To make statements or predictions about groups you'd really need something like the average of a set of opinions and then compare it to that average of another group - practically impossible and highly questionable - it's opinions after all, they can change in every context and at any time. It's not as if there was a voting in which decisions were documented at a given time.

Anyway, before assuming agendas where no agendas exist, most of the intransparency Fairtube tries to counter is in my opinion rooted in the former haphazard reaction to some impulse, probably caused by people that never discussed or thought of the larger extent of what regulation they want from Social Media for their woes.
It is understandable that a solution that needs to work for everyone is harder to come by when the reason is only a small part of the whole youtube community and there is only very limited self-moderation/-regulation in place, or a legal problem in the first place. I really have a problem with making the platform the stand-in for the job of the police.

[magic]

The trap of such discussions is to take the loudest or most popular examples of a certain group for the majority.

To make statements or predictions about groups you'd really need something like the average of a set of opinions and then compare it to that average of another group

No, because the loudest and most popular are the ones that actually matter while the quiet cattle of "moderates" invariably ends up accepting whatever the radicals want, to avoid rocking the boat. Modern world is run not by voting but by intimidation, "majority matters" is some fantasy of 20th century democrats.

Don't get me wrong, I was raised in Europe so I know this mantra like anyone else. And I have seen it fail over and over again and I'm not burying my head in sand.

[Black Phoenix]

Another rant, best to listen to this with the audio turned off if at work, basically the channel covered model trains, train crashes from films and uploaded a couple of old films. He'd already been pinged for copyright over the train crash videos, but apparently COPPA was the last straw.

Youtube as what Youtube was is no more. This COOPA is one more nail in the coffin. Youtube is on fault here, well Google because they source of money is ads, so they simply keep doing what they have done until they were discovered and prosecuted.

Have a video that instead of showing your face you are a cute animated character? It's for kids, even if you say that the subject of the topic being discussed is not. FTC will, by the settlement periodically, search Youtube for videos with wrong classification (being for kids when not) and impose fines to the creators.

Change your channel for kids only and say goodbye to ad revenue and metrics recommendations (Rating, Commenting, Sharing, Subscribing, Adding to playlist).



Don't change then incur on a fine and in case you use nor appropriate wording or show something that ad providers don't like and lose monetisation of said video. The said lose monetisation can go as simply stating your own freedom of speech, if it goes against anything or anyone, get a flag, 3 flags and your channel is terminated. 

This as the end is a Win Win for Google. not having to share a slice of the ad pie revenue, increasing their own bottom line. Youtube with Youtube Originals and with the starting of putting in the main page main trending media corporation owned channels (ABC, CBS, NBC, etc) is catering to that kind of media, trying to turn Youtube in one more media corporation with that likes. Said giants see their revenue and number of people who sees their channels disappear day by day. Control the information, say what you want people to know, what people are allowed to know.

Heck even I if I see any TV channel is Discovery Channel, History Channel and NatGeo. If I need entertainment, Youtube or any VOD application. News, I simply search the Internet, or read a newspaper online.

Your freedom of expression ends when you express yourself. Go against the big ones, you are shut up. Say something or reveal something sensible about someone powerful, don't worry, Google will happily change the algorithm to make your own opinion disapear from the Internet or the one being accused will pay gladly to that to happen. Ad providers want a safe place where they can do their own promotion without being accused of supporting ideas who goes against the pack (see Adpocalipse on Youtube).

What creators have to do is simply migrate to another platform or create said platform. But then you have the same as the video Dave talked about Bitchute.

[Deodand2014]

Your freedom of expression ends when you express yourself. Go against the big ones, you are shut up. Say something or reveal something sensible about someone powerful, don't worry, Google will happily change the algorithm to make your own opinion disapear from the Internet or the one being accused will pay gladly to that to happen. Ad providers want a safe place where they can do their own promotion without being accused of supporting ideas who goes against the pack (see Adpocalipse on Youtube).

What creators have to do is simply migrate to another platform or create said platform. But then you have the same as the video Dave talked about Bitchute.

True, after YouTube went after the Pro-Marijuana community on YouTube they upped sticks and created their own version of YouTube, 'WeedTube'. But I'm now seeing claims like the following being bandied around



All I have to say is that I have a small channel and I'm probably going to download all the videos on it tomorrow to make sure they don't get lost.

[Black Phoenix]

One more - Youtuber have a channel that is tailored not to kids, posts a video and it's MANUALLY reviewed as kid friendly, even having categorized his channel not for kids and without any video tailored for kids.



Video in question -


See the side bar and recommendations.

Google really wants Youtube to go the way of the Google+, their failed Social Network experiment.

[EEVblog]

But I'm now seeing claims like the following being bandied around

That commercial clause is actually not new, it's been in there a while.
Youtube are stupid, but not stupid enough to go mass deleting channels that aren't commercially viable. It's the kind of thing they sneak in "just in case".

[SparkyFX]

It probably means: once the content on a channel causes Youtube to receive a fine (for whatever reason), they gonna delete the channel. Not: they delete your channel if you are not making profit.

[SparkyFX]

No, because the loudest and most popular are the ones that actually matter while the quiet cattle of "moderates" invariably ends up accepting whatever the radicals want, to avoid rocking the boat. Modern world is run not by voting but by intimidation, "majority matters" is some fantasy of 20th century democrats.

That's interesting, because what i've seen is the radicals burning themselves out by testing how far they can go, getting burned, changing course by 180° every so often, while everyone else just lives their life - not considering themselves cattle btw., not making irreversible mistakes and get along.

[magic]

while everyone else just lives their life

in an increasingly dystopian hellhole desperately trying to neutralize the radicals, and until they find themselves in the way of a crazy with a gun or 100k Twitter followers

[David Hess]

It probably means: once the content on a channel causes Youtube to receive a fine (for whatever reason), they gonna delete the channel. Not: they delete your channel if you are not making profit.

YouTube and Google already delete channels and content to control discourse.  Doing so at the behest of outside agents can be either an excuse or the ultimate expression of power depending on perspective.

[Deodand2014]

Discussion of the new changes on Linus Tech Tips (Discussion starts at 34:28 and runs to 46:42 with a digression to shilling for their store...)



And another discussion on a LEGO builders channel, this one sounds quite scary. I've deleted all the videos I uploaded to YouTube after downloading them first.

[SparkyFX]

YouTube and Google already delete channels and content to control discourse.  Doing so at the behest of outside agents can be either an excuse or the ultimate expression of power depending on perspective.

If you'd offer the general public space to upload videos and then get in trouble for questionable content... would you want to pay for all consequences just because? At some point anyone will take some action on this, especially as the context changed in so far, that the platform is made responsible for the content and cannot roll this over on the uploader alone.

[jetsam]

This is not safe for work or preschool, elementary, jr. high, high school.  College age is debatable with suitable trigger warnings (profanity, blasphemy against YouTube, antidisestablishmentarianism in evidence):
The Nerd³ Show - 23/11/19 - COPPAcabana is at:


    

[David Hess]

YouTube and Google already delete channels and content to control discourse.  Doing so at the behest of outside agents can be either an excuse or the ultimate expression of power depending on perspective.

If you'd offer the general public space to upload videos and then get in trouble for questionable content... would you want to pay for all consequences just because? At some point anyone will take some action on this, especially as the context changed in so far, that the platform is made responsible for the content and cannot roll this over on the uploader alone.

Legally they are not responsible for content that they host whether they curate it or not.  They have gone beyond removing questionable content.  Their remaining content creators now self censor which is still censorship.

[David Hess]

Karl Kasarda of InRange posted about Youtube again:

[EEVblog]

Legally they are not responsible for content that they host whether they curate it or not.

Correct. That's not the reason why Youtube censor/delete most content, it's their own arbitrary in-house terms of service.

[Deodand2014]

Another firearms history channel demonitized. And as a regular watcher I can say that the amount of 'firearms politics' has been kept to the minimum (except where needed to explain particular aspects of a countries history (Britains need for handguns at the start of WWI for example...).

[langwadt]

Another firearms history channel demonitized. And as a regular watcher I can say that the amount of 'firearms politics' has been kept to the minimum (except where needed to explain particular aspects of a countries history (Britains need for handguns at the start of WWI for example...).

I suspect it has to do with their anvil series where Mark repair old firearms

[vwestlife]

And now the channels that are clearly making videos aimed at children are throwing in just enough "adult" key words (like "Dark Web") to fool YouTube's algorithms into thinking that they are not for children and thus can keep earning ad revenue:

[Deodand2014]

Another firearms history channel demonitized. And as a regular watcher I can say that the amount of 'firearms politics' has been kept to the minimum (except where needed to explain particular aspects of a countries history (Britains need for handguns at the start of WWI for example...).

I suspect it has to do with their anvil series where Mark repair old firearms

Turns out it was not those videos that set off YouTubes 'Sensitivity Viewers' (e.g. Censorship Officers), but something else.



As to the appeals process described, I worked for someone who liked to tell people they had made a mistake and then asked them to figure out what they did wrong... Not a very happy workplace.

[mansaxel]

I'm not so sure this isn't actually a back-door effort to stop YouTube from de-platforming channels engaged in propaganda and/or spreading hate.  Social media has become the default method for nefarious actors to spread hate and disinformation for personal or national goals and I would not put it past them to latch onto something like this to push the social media companies to allow them to do there hateful things unimpeded.  Be very useful to certain elements to prevent YT, FB Twitter and the rest from clamping down on them in the coming election.

Can governments force a newspaper to publish letters submitted by neonazi's? 

Trade unions in Europe aren't the mafia's tool of persuasion, they are more of the original idea, i.e. unite against the employer. Also, they  typically don't have the power to force enroll people, and you can have several unions in parallel at the same workplace; it's especially common for salaried employees. (We Europeans are quite confused by the US union situation, which is strange to us.)

I would be very surprised and then some if this was a hate speech enabler vessel. The German unions exist in a context where there still are people around who remember their parents as members or oppressed by NSDAP. Having said that, there are right-wing nuts in Germany too, and they get seats in both Landtage and the Bundestag, while denying their obvious connections to people and ideas even further right.

And, to answer your question: Only in a dictatorship without freedom of the press does the government dictate the lettors to editor column. (there are other things, like corrections of factual errors, that might be mandated, but that is not the same thing.)

The modern dictatorship also is more sophisticated and makes use of smoke and mirrors more than oppression. Of course, when they can get more votes that way, they will oppress and violate international law and conventions and national laws quite openly. Preferably on-camera.

[Deodand2014]

The firearms channel's YouTube issue was resolved, but the how is a little disturbing...

[Deodand2014]

An update on a Movie related channel that tried to focus on works in the public domain.

[EEVblog]

An update on a Movie related channel that tried to focus on works in the public domain.

What on earth is the TLDR; here? I skipped through and didn't really learn anything.
His channel just uploads old movies in full?

[SiliconWizard]

Legally they are not responsible for content that they host whether they curate it or not.

Correct. That's not the reason why Youtube censor/delete most content, it's their own arbitrary in-house terms of service.

At this point, this is essentially what it is. There probably are political motives IMO though (beyond mere economic ones), but those motives are unclear - so yes, from the outside, it just looks arbitrary.

The question of getting those services responsible for the content they host is a hot one though, and it's bound to eventually happen one of these days, at least partially.
They may not be directly responsible (like a traditional media would be), but if they do not take action after *knowing* that some content could be violating some laws/be seen as offensive/..., I guess they could be considered accomplice of some sort? Actually the same thing can happen to an indvidual hosting some dubious content on their website, even when they are not the author of said content and state it clearly.

I for one don't really know how that should be handled. I'm all for complete freedom of expression, but this is not what we currently have, even in countries considered the most "democratic" ones. So in the current state of things, it's a huge mess and I wouldn't want to manage such a hosting service myself. I wouldn't want to have to deal with the schizophrenia: freedom of speech vs. things that are still not allowed to be said, not being responsible while still potentially being able to get into big trouble, having to "please" every kind of users (content creators, viewers, and announcers). Damn. I would go nuts.