I'd happily support DS, but unfortunately the only effective ways to correct Youtube are lawsuit and boycott. What we really need is an "innocent until proven guilty" creator-friendly alternative with a commitment to a transparency. Complaints, defenses, and arbitration results should all be public. Contested videos should be left up but flagged until arbitration occurs, with links to the complainant's and creator's histories available to indicate how strong or weak their complaint is likely to be. Even just a "won/lost" counter would be enough. Why no wannabe YouTube competitor has taken this business model upon themselves is utterly beyond me. Free speech seems to be working for Twitter-competitor gab.ai.
Might be a better plan to move on to Vimeo or other alternate video websites. Talk of moving a lot of material from YouTube to other sites before it is lost.
YouTube needs more unbiased staff to deal with complaints. Useful idiot SJWs flagging people's accounts is at best harassment. YouTube is more concerned about per minute views than policing peoples likes or dislikes of a video until it becomes a legal liability for them. Case in point one of my clients had a video copywright striked because they used a copyrighted song in under an hour. I in turn put up the entire album that the song came from and spammed it. It stayed up for a good 2 months before the account got a copywright strike. YouTube isn't purposefully targeting anyone. It's just got a mess of a system to work around that penalizes average users over trivial shit. Or automatically gets you suspended because of a SJW reporting brigade triggering an automated response.
YouTube is privately owned. They are not openly government / public. Therefor they can delete whatever they want..
They attempt to maintain the reputation of "free speech" for public relations reasons, not because they have to.
I'm assuming no one can compete with them because it's a lot of capital involved, to start it up..
Many people post on Vimeo instead , and then just share the links; to avoid the YouTube censorship.
Of course you may then get less views.
but honestly you can't trust the view counts on YouTube anyway. It's gamed.
One thing good about YouTube is that if you mirror enough, they have a hard time taking it down or expunging it.
YouTube doesn't have the resources to police anything the way people like you describe. It's reliant on 3rd party reports that 99% create an automated response.
I don't believe this. I am a 9/11 researcher and there is a long history of YouTube and arbitrary censorship. They also do police, not only the counters, but also the upvotes and downvotes. We seen it many times including on videos to do with sociel engineering and cultural conditioning. There is certain info they do not want out and they have ways to bury it. And they will outright delete whole channels.. If something gets strong they will have a purge.. The purge will work through many avenues , not just the deletion of videos and the storm - trooper trolls.
No. Only 3rd party complaints, DMCA's, and people doing blatant shit like sending death threats get people banned. I've seen people delete their own channels and it turn into a tinfoil hat shit show as well. The biggest problem with the 9/11 truth youtubers(despite also being 100% wrong) is that they spent all their time and energy fighting each other. People posting loose change or Alex Jones shit with sock puppets were no different than the left wing SJWs like Steve Shives. It lead to death threats, witch hunts, paranoid rants, and people believing that their copywright strikes were a YouTube conspiracy to silence them. Same bullshit goes on today as everytime a channel gets shut down for blatant copywright abuse they start creating #savesoandso's channel petitions. Especially when it's fringe SJW or conspiracy vloggers. They have no respect for anyone's IP going so far as to rip entire videos on their backup channels then cry government conspiracy when google bans them.
It's 100% true. The 9/11 truth bullshiters were the worst douches to get on youtube. I used to think modern SJWs were bad but they didn't try to send you death threats like the conspiratorial retrards who believed in 9/11 truth did. It's often why they got banned or straight up deleted their own channels once they failed at creating sock puppets to attack detractors or manipulating views with bots.
If you are going to beat youtube you have to offer freedom several degrees beyond youtube. We do need a change in legislation too. Youtube definitely benefits from double standards considering how much they make off of piracy. News, skits, how it's mades, music, vines. Yet despite having a different standard for themselves they are still legally careful, at least a little bit.
What would need to happen is someone to offer a lot more freedom and then by serendipity people get serious with congress asking for more powerful safe harbor laws. I'm really betting on better safe harbor laws. What we need to do is have the alt-right pressure Trump into giving us better laws here because the alt-right are the ones being censored. I think without us making it a defining feature of whether or not we are happy with his presidency things look to be going the other way even with him. He needs to understand this is important to us and that if he wants to punch the media back he needs to make the environment where youtube and twitter's competitors can thrive. I'm not sure it's no his radar. We have to push him. We have to tell him we want new laws that will give alternatives protection.
view the rest of the comments →
oldchangling ago
I'd happily support DS, but unfortunately the only effective ways to correct Youtube are lawsuit and boycott. What we really need is an "innocent until proven guilty" creator-friendly alternative with a commitment to a transparency. Complaints, defenses, and arbitration results should all be public. Contested videos should be left up but flagged until arbitration occurs, with links to the complainant's and creator's histories available to indicate how strong or weak their complaint is likely to be. Even just a "won/lost" counter would be enough. Why no wannabe YouTube competitor has taken this business model upon themselves is utterly beyond me. Free speech seems to be working for Twitter-competitor gab.ai.
Votescam ago
Might be a better plan to move on to Vimeo or other alternate video websites. Talk of moving a lot of material from YouTube to other sites before it is lost.
Cbradio ago
We need Public Trust fed violations, class action lawsuits, too...
antisocialist ago
YouTube needs more unbiased staff to deal with complaints. Useful idiot SJWs flagging people's accounts is at best harassment. YouTube is more concerned about per minute views than policing peoples likes or dislikes of a video until it becomes a legal liability for them. Case in point one of my clients had a video copywright striked because they used a copyrighted song in under an hour. I in turn put up the entire album that the song came from and spammed it. It stayed up for a good 2 months before the account got a copywright strike. YouTube isn't purposefully targeting anyone. It's just got a mess of a system to work around that penalizes average users over trivial shit. Or automatically gets you suspended because of a SJW reporting brigade triggering an automated response.
samhara ago
YouTube is privately owned. They are not openly government / public. Therefor they can delete whatever they want..
They attempt to maintain the reputation of "free speech" for public relations reasons, not because they have to.
I'm assuming no one can compete with them because it's a lot of capital involved, to start it up.. Many people post on Vimeo instead , and then just share the links; to avoid the YouTube censorship.
Of course you may then get less views. but honestly you can't trust the view counts on YouTube anyway. It's gamed.
One thing good about YouTube is that if you mirror enough, they have a hard time taking it down or expunging it.
antisocialist ago
YouTube doesn't have the resources to police anything the way people like you describe. It's reliant on 3rd party reports that 99% create an automated response.
samhara ago
Liar.
samhara ago
I don't believe this. I am a 9/11 researcher and there is a long history of YouTube and arbitrary censorship. They also do police, not only the counters, but also the upvotes and downvotes. We seen it many times including on videos to do with sociel engineering and cultural conditioning. There is certain info they do not want out and they have ways to bury it. And they will outright delete whole channels.. If something gets strong they will have a purge.. The purge will work through many avenues , not just the deletion of videos and the storm - trooper trolls.
antisocialist ago
No. Only 3rd party complaints, DMCA's, and people doing blatant shit like sending death threats get people banned. I've seen people delete their own channels and it turn into a tinfoil hat shit show as well. The biggest problem with the 9/11 truth youtubers(despite also being 100% wrong) is that they spent all their time and energy fighting each other. People posting loose change or Alex Jones shit with sock puppets were no different than the left wing SJWs like Steve Shives. It lead to death threats, witch hunts, paranoid rants, and people believing that their copywright strikes were a YouTube conspiracy to silence them. Same bullshit goes on today as everytime a channel gets shut down for blatant copywright abuse they start creating #savesoandso's channel petitions. Especially when it's fringe SJW or conspiracy vloggers. They have no respect for anyone's IP going so far as to rip entire videos on their backup channels then cry government conspiracy when google bans them.
samhara ago
That's just not true.
antisocialist ago
It's 100% true. The 9/11 truth bullshiters were the worst douches to get on youtube. I used to think modern SJWs were bad but they didn't try to send you death threats like the conspiratorial retrards who believed in 9/11 truth did. It's often why they got banned or straight up deleted their own channels once they failed at creating sock puppets to attack detractors or manipulating views with bots.
TRUTHWARRIOR ago
What does SJW stand for? 🤔 thanks.
bikergang_accountant ago
If you are going to beat youtube you have to offer freedom several degrees beyond youtube. We do need a change in legislation too. Youtube definitely benefits from double standards considering how much they make off of piracy. News, skits, how it's mades, music, vines. Yet despite having a different standard for themselves they are still legally careful, at least a little bit.
What would need to happen is someone to offer a lot more freedom and then by serendipity people get serious with congress asking for more powerful safe harbor laws. I'm really betting on better safe harbor laws. What we need to do is have the alt-right pressure Trump into giving us better laws here because the alt-right are the ones being censored. I think without us making it a defining feature of whether or not we are happy with his presidency things look to be going the other way even with him. He needs to understand this is important to us and that if he wants to punch the media back he needs to make the environment where youtube and twitter's competitors can thrive. I'm not sure it's no his radar. We have to push him. We have to tell him we want new laws that will give alternatives protection.