3 ms·

YouTube says: >This account has been terminated due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube's policy against spam, deceptive practices, and misleading cont

by wybiral 10y ago

YouTube says: >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.

logicallee 10y ago
They asked for clarification and did not receive any, and didn't have any violations they knew about. They certainly sound like they don't believe they have any violations and were not doing anything wrong. I will say that the word "ongoing" sounds like they admit they did some specific thing wrong in the past, that they rectified. It doesn't sound like "this came as a total surprise to us." I'm curious why they didn't choose to elaborate on the word "ongoing". Still, there had to be some reason for this action. They're curious what that was. (Or are faking being curious what that was - and they're faking it well; I believe them.)
- pmorici 10y ago
  If their videos are anything like this blog post then they certainly fall into the "deceptive" category. No mystery there.
  - logicallee 10y ago
    What is deceptive about the blog post?
    - pmorici 10y ago
      Everything? They are implying that their some some conspiracy against them.
      - logicallee 10y ago
        There is literally a conspiracy - https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+climate+change+social+media+ban https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+climate+change+social+... by the administration, so... I'm still waiting for the misleading part? I am sure you will agree that there is a conspiracy (two or more people in Trump's administration, conspiring.) You're saying it doesn't affect them, but if the conspiracy doesn't aeffect them then...why did this happen? I guess I just don't see anything misleading about their report. If I had my blog about climate change removed since Trump's administration and was told not to open any new blog, period (despite having thousands of views) I'd come to the obvious conclusion that this was the reason. I would (as they did) ask for clarification. I mean what other reason is there? What did they do wrong exactly - and why wouldn't YouTube clarify in their human-written email on the subject which they quoted in full? I guess I don't understand your perspective at all.
        pmorici 10y ago
        You think that because the administration asked executive agencies to stop all posting to social media under _official_ government accounts that that means YouTube took down a _private_ parties youtube channel run by a private party / individual company not associated with the US government? There is literally ZERO evidence that is true. What you are saying is like saying I saw the president's dog poop on the white house lawn and today I found poop on my lawn. Then concluding it must have been the president's dog that pooped on your lawn. It's nutty false and untrue. You are taking two completely unrelated facts and making a wild unsupported claim which most people would call misleading if not a lie.

by wybiral 10y ago

logicallee 10y ago

They asked for clarification and did not receive any, and didn't have any violations they knew about. They certainly sound like they don't believe they have any violations and were not doing anything wrong. I will say that the word "ongoing" sounds like they admit they did some specific thing wrong in the past, that they rectified. It doesn't sound like "this came as a total surprise to us." I'm curious why they didn't choose to elaborate on the word "ongoing". Still, there had to be some reason for this action. They're curious what that was. (Or are faking being curious what that was - and they're faking it well; I believe them.)

pmorici 10y ago
If their videos are anything like this blog post then they certainly fall into the "deceptive" category. No mystery there.
- logicallee 10y ago
  What is deceptive about the blog post?
  - pmorici 10y ago
    Everything? They are implying that their some some conspiracy against them.
    - logicallee 10y ago
      There is literally a conspiracy - https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+climate+change+social+media+ban https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+climate+change+social+... by the administration, so... I'm still waiting for the misleading part? I am sure you will agree that there is a conspiracy (two or more people in Trump's administration, conspiring.) You're saying it doesn't affect them, but if the conspiracy doesn't aeffect them then...why did this happen? I guess I just don't see anything misleading about their report. If I had my blog about climate change removed since Trump's administration and was told not to open any new blog, period (despite having thousands of views) I'd come to the obvious conclusion that this was the reason. I would (as they did) ask for clarification. I mean what other reason is there? What did they do wrong exactly - and why wouldn't YouTube clarify in their human-written email on the subject which they quoted in full? I guess I don't understand your perspective at all.
      - pmorici 10y ago
        You think that because the administration asked executive agencies to stop all posting to social media under _official_ government accounts that that means YouTube took down a _private_ parties youtube channel run by a private party / individual company not associated with the US government? There is literally ZERO evidence that is true. What you are saying is like saying I saw the president's dog poop on the white house lawn and today I found poop on my lawn. Then concluding it must have been the president's dog that pooped on your lawn. It's nutty false and untrue. You are taking two completely unrelated facts and making a wild unsupported claim which most people would call misleading if not a lie.