16 ms·

Youtube's response regarding one of these videos documenting abuses (emphasis mine): > "we've determined that your video does violate our Community Guidelines

Youtube's response regarding one of these videos documenting abuses (emphasis mine): > "we've determined that your video does violate our Community Guidelines and have upheld our original decision. We appreciate your understanding." Can someone explain to me why corporations, when interacting with customers regarding complaints/appeals, seem to have "don't forget to add insult to injury" as one of their motto more often than not? Does that kind of patronizing tone sound polite to the ears of a PR drone?

snerbles 9y ago
Internal studies probably correlates such language with reduced pushback from users.
- mcguire 9y ago
  The wall of jello defense. Works well.
viridian 9y ago
If I remember correctly, the exact same message was delivered to Jordan Peterson a couple of weeks ago or so, before he sat down with the google memo guy. He was in the middle of a bible lecture series, and Google banned his account, and sent the exact same "we've determined that your video does violate our Community Guidelines and have upheld our original decision. We appreciate your understanding." message. It seems tone deaf especially since in cases such as these there is no understanding to appreciate. Google will not tell you what you did to violate policy, only that they checked to ensure that they found you guilty, and then they snub you further with the HR speak. It's maddening.
- cvsh 9y ago
  The worst part of the information age is arbitration by unreasonable and impenetrable algorithms rather than humans with the capacity to make a judgement call when the rules clearly don't account for the situation at hand. A transparent appeals process staffed by humans who can at least deliver a rationale, including what rule you broke, should be required by law. There's irreparable reputational damage associated with an algorithm libelously labeling something "extremist content" that isn't.
  - viridian 9y ago
    I think the bigger issue is that certain companies have near monopolies in their spaces to start with. For plebs like myself, youtube is really the only viable option I have to distribute video media if I hope to build an audience. The fact that you effectively can't mount an alternative to facebook, youtube, etc due to network effects is the larger disease, and this is one of many symptoms.
    - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
      Agreed. If competition exists, customer service is one of the angles competitors can improve on to try to gain customers. For instance, one of the top reasons I prefer FastMail over Gmail is that real customer service I get.
    - the8472 9y ago
      I think the only solution is a distributed and decentralized web. Distributed hosting of static content is a sorta-solved problem. But curating, linking and discoverability (which require mutating content) is a lot harder due to the trust anchor problem.
      - stephen82 9y ago
        Your suggestion exists and has a name: bitchute. I will paste here what they have for "About" at the end of their main page: BitChute is a peer to peer content sharing platform. Our mission is to put people and free speech first. It is free to join, create and upload your own content to share with others. Feel free to read more about it in their FAQ. I really want to stop using YouTube and use this instead. I hope they make it. https://www.bitchute.com/ https://www.bitchute.com/
        the8472 9y ago
        Webtorrent does not meet the distributed requirement since webrtc needs signalling servers. Plus the discovery component is still hosted on websites subject to the networking effect.
- lanevorockz 9y ago
  Google message to Jordan Peterson was not "Stop making sense, we have an agenda to pass" ?
- autokad 9y ago
  to me, this is further evidence that google needs to be put under regulations.
- chongli 9y ago
  Whenever I see these stories, it reminds me of the phrase "the lights are on but nobody's home." Google gives the impression that nobody actually works there. That the whole thing is just an automated system and that sometimes people fall through the cracks.
- dillweed 9y ago
  It's a strange corporate culture thats for sure
- ryan-allen 9y ago
  His channel was re-instated which... was nice, I guess. I have watched hours upon hours of his videos (I've been a fan long before his PC controversy - I love personality theory and the twist he adds to them). I'm pretty centre left as far as I'm concerned and his videos do not in any way promote anything nasty. He's completely upstanding. I have no idea why they'd ban his channel unless there was a coordinated flagging.
- dublinclontarf 9y ago
  Hoping with the rollout of GDPR this will come to an end.
cabalamat 9y ago
> Does that kind of patronizing tone sound polite to the ears of a PR drone? I don't know, but you're right it is very common, and infuriating. "Your call is important to us. Please hold."
bobdole1234 9y ago
It's because every reason you give people is something they can use to sue you or harass your employees if they don't agree with the wording. If you say nothing, there's nothing to grab on to. It's like online dating, everything you say is something that someone will dislike about you.
OzzyB 9y ago
> We appreciate your understanding. It's their way of saying that they know you won't find their decision popular but they hope you won't pursue it any further.
QAPereo 9y ago
In the past it's the kind of tone that would inspire me to greatly escalate the issue, and I doubt that I'm alone.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tehwebguy 9y ago
The big secret is that YouTube, one of the most important sites in the history of the internet, has had a bunch of people who just don't care. Word is at some point it became a dumping ground for Google employees who transferred in because they wanted an easy job where they could use the amenities of the YouTube offices in San Bruno.
monksy 9y ago
There are 2 uses for that language. 1. It's to add insult to injury while attempting to soften the blow 2. It's an attempt to deny that they have power to do what they did. For the insult to injury: This is a technique that is under the "thinking past the sale". (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/129433801521/thinking-past-the-sale-trump-persuasion-series http://blog.dilbert.com/post/129433801521/thinking-past-the-...) The context prior to the understanding part basically has put you in: "I've done something bad and now I'm being punished." The last phrase "We appreciate your understanding." has later put you in the position of understandnig that: They (plural people) would like for me to understand their decision. In short this you're no longer put in a position where you can really fight back directly with the issue at hand. You're reminded that you are fighting against an organization if you disagree. It's predatory and manipulative. The second part: It's a manipulative attempt to prevent you from attributing ill will against the offending party. They're attempting to "soften the blow" because they appear to be reaching out. On both of these possibilities, the biggest issue with this is it's incredibly manipulative and it's much more insulting when you notice it. The organizations and people who use those statements should be doomed to be constantly rejected in everything they do and want in his passive aggressive stance for the rest of their life. It's an incredibly anti-social behavior. Unfortunately, we don't have social punishments for shitty behaviors like this. Last to note: This is the equivalent of the "apology" "I'm sorry that you feel that way" or "I'm sorry this didn't turn out the way you had hoped."
pjscott 9y ago
> Does that kind of patronizing tone sound polite to the ears of a PR drone? Yes, it does. And they're not entirely wrong. Consider this video in which Uber CEO talks with someone like a real person instead of "respectfully" brushing him off: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW50dnWVfGU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW50dnWVfGU It was a PR disaster. If he'd just ignored what's-his-name as an insignificant peasant, nothing bad would have come of it.
rdtsc 9y ago
I think a passive agressive "fuck you" is an important element because it provides enjoyment and some satisfaction to the corporate drones who you are interacting with. I think allowing low level minions with saddistic tendencies to express that saddism via a kthxbye-but-actually-fu here and there is used to reward them for an otherwise boring and unfulfilling task. In this case it is a bit indirect because it is the developer who wrote the code not necessarily a clerk at the counter or a customer service representative in a call center. Don't remember the incident, I think it was when someone was fired after some public incident at one of the tech conferences (Pycon I believe) where the HR commenting on the firing said something ridiculous like "we reached out to the developer and told them we'd be letting them go". Which I remembered because it sounded like such a massive and rude passive agressive "fuck you"
- throwaway321323 9y ago
  Sounds like everyday life in Japan.
mirimir 9y ago
So I'm wondering whether this HN exposure will be enough for some sensible humans to review these takedowns. I mean, is it embarrassing enough? I recall that Facebook reacted rather quickly after its "AI" took down videos inappropriately.
sharmi 9y ago
All the responses are ascribing a nefarious ulterior motive for that piece of text. It could well be true, as these orgs have enough resources and data to A/B test it to hell. Or, it could be that, long long ago, that phrase actually conveyed sincerity that won customers. Soon, that became the next big customer retention tactic to apply. Next, it became cliché. Now it is just grating on our senses to hear the fake insincerity echoing from these huge organizations all around.
lugg 9y ago
It comes down to the second thing I remember learning in highschool level programming. Always use neutral language in your program text, and don't make jokes. Google does have a habbit of making jokes in their software, chrome crash page comes to mind.. so I don't really find it very surprising to see this kind of message. To be clear it's really only an insult when you don't know why your content was removed. If you know why, and can see their side it makes sense and it wouldn't seem so insulting. But in a case like this, it comes off insulting due to the true situation. Removing the text all together and simply stating the fact would have sent the intended message perfectly. And finally, likely just a developer, not a pr drone.
tripzilch 9y ago
It's somewhat similar to emailing someone a request and signing off with "thanks in advance", implying not just the request but the expectation of honouring it, too.
alexryan 9y ago
I don’t think that Larry and Sergey yet fully grasp the consequences of allowing an echo chamber to form within google. One of the consequences of living in an echo chamber is that we rob ourselves of the feedback that we need to make good decisions. For example, many of us on the left who only listen to those who think like us are blissfully unaware of the severity of the storm that is building on the right and the consequences for the business. Google’s whole future business model seems to be based on getting deeper into our lives, into our homes, into our vehicles and gathering ever more data about us so they can more effectively help others to market to us. Many of us have been completely okay with that in past because we trust Google. They’ve worked hard to earn that trust. But with the public shaming and firing of James Damore, the blacklisting of “non believers”, the demonetizing and deleting of YouTube videos that violate the “Code of Conduct”, etc. the bonds of trust have been shattered. And once trust has been shattered, it is nearly impossible to re-build.

snerbles 9y ago

Internal studies probably correlates such language with reduced pushback from users.

mcguire 9y ago
The wall of jello defense. Works well.

viridian 9y ago

If I remember correctly, the exact same message was delivered to Jordan Peterson a couple of weeks ago or so, before he sat down with the google memo guy. He was in the middle of a bible lecture series, and Google banned his account, and sent the exact same "we've determined that your video does violate our Community Guidelines and have upheld our original decision. We appreciate your understanding." message. It seems tone deaf especially since in cases such as these there is no understanding to appreciate. Google will not tell you what you did to violate policy, only that they checked to ensure that they found you guilty, and then they snub you further with the HR speak. It's maddening.

cvsh 9y ago
The worst part of the information age is arbitration by unreasonable and impenetrable algorithms rather than humans with the capacity to make a judgement call when the rules clearly don't account for the situation at hand. A transparent appeals process staffed by humans who can at least deliver a rationale, including what rule you broke, should be required by law. There's irreparable reputational damage associated with an algorithm libelously labeling something "extremist content" that isn't.
- viridian 9y ago
  I think the bigger issue is that certain companies have near monopolies in their spaces to start with. For plebs like myself, youtube is really the only viable option I have to distribute video media if I hope to build an audience. The fact that you effectively can't mount an alternative to facebook, youtube, etc due to network effects is the larger disease, and this is one of many symptoms.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    Agreed. If competition exists, customer service is one of the angles competitors can improve on to try to gain customers. For instance, one of the top reasons I prefer FastMail over Gmail is that real customer service I get.
  - the8472 9y ago
    I think the only solution is a distributed and decentralized web. Distributed hosting of static content is a sorta-solved problem. But curating, linking and discoverability (which require mutating content) is a lot harder due to the trust anchor problem.
    - stephen82 9y ago
      Your suggestion exists and has a name: bitchute. I will paste here what they have for "About" at the end of their main page: BitChute is a peer to peer content sharing platform. Our mission is to put people and free speech first. It is free to join, create and upload your own content to share with others. Feel free to read more about it in their FAQ. I really want to stop using YouTube and use this instead. I hope they make it. https://www.bitchute.com/ https://www.bitchute.com/
      - the8472 9y ago
        Webtorrent does not meet the distributed requirement since webrtc needs signalling servers. Plus the discovery component is still hosted on websites subject to the networking effect.
lanevorockz 9y ago
Google message to Jordan Peterson was not "Stop making sense, we have an agenda to pass" ?
autokad 9y ago
to me, this is further evidence that google needs to be put under regulations.
chongli 9y ago
Whenever I see these stories, it reminds me of the phrase "the lights are on but nobody's home." Google gives the impression that nobody actually works there. That the whole thing is just an automated system and that sometimes people fall through the cracks.
dillweed 9y ago
It's a strange corporate culture thats for sure
ryan-allen 9y ago
His channel was re-instated which... was nice, I guess. I have watched hours upon hours of his videos (I've been a fan long before his PC controversy - I love personality theory and the twist he adds to them). I'm pretty centre left as far as I'm concerned and his videos do not in any way promote anything nasty. He's completely upstanding. I have no idea why they'd ban his channel unless there was a coordinated flagging.
dublinclontarf 9y ago
Hoping with the rollout of GDPR this will come to an end.

cabalamat 9y ago

> Does that kind of patronizing tone sound polite to the ears of a PR drone? I don't know, but you're right it is very common, and infuriating. "Your call is important to us. Please hold."

bobdole1234 9y ago

It's because every reason you give people is something they can use to sue you or harass your employees if they don't agree with the wording. If you say nothing, there's nothing to grab on to. It's like online dating, everything you say is something that someone will dislike about you.

OzzyB 9y ago

> We appreciate your understanding. It's their way of saying that they know you won't find their decision popular but they hope you won't pursue it any further.

QAPereo 9y ago

In the past it's the kind of tone that would inspire me to greatly escalate the issue, and I doubt that I'm alone.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

tehwebguy 9y ago

The big secret is that YouTube, one of the most important sites in the history of the internet, has had a bunch of people who just don't care. Word is at some point it became a dumping ground for Google employees who transferred in because they wanted an easy job where they could use the amenities of the YouTube offices in San Bruno.

monksy 9y ago

There are 2 uses for that language. 1. It's to add insult to injury while attempting to soften the blow 2. It's an attempt to deny that they have power to do what they did. For the insult to injury: This is a technique that is under the "thinking past the sale". (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/129433801521/thinking-past-the-sale-trump-persuasion-series http://blog.dilbert.com/post/129433801521/thinking-past-the-...) The context prior to the understanding part basically has put you in: "I've done something bad and now I'm being punished." The last phrase "We appreciate your understanding." has later put you in the position of understandnig that: They (plural people) would like for me to understand their decision. In short this you're no longer put in a position where you can really fight back directly with the issue at hand. You're reminded that you are fighting against an organization if you disagree. It's predatory and manipulative. The second part: It's a manipulative attempt to prevent you from attributing ill will against the offending party. They're attempting to "soften the blow" because they appear to be reaching out. On both of these possibilities, the biggest issue with this is it's incredibly manipulative and it's much more insulting when you notice it. The organizations and people who use those statements should be doomed to be constantly rejected in everything they do and want in his passive aggressive stance for the rest of their life. It's an incredibly anti-social behavior. Unfortunately, we don't have social punishments for shitty behaviors like this. Last to note: This is the equivalent of the "apology" "I'm sorry that you feel that way" or "I'm sorry this didn't turn out the way you had hoped."

pjscott 9y ago

> Does that kind of patronizing tone sound polite to the ears of a PR drone? Yes, it does. And they're not entirely wrong. Consider this video in which Uber CEO talks with someone like a real person instead of "respectfully" brushing him off: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW50dnWVfGU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW50dnWVfGU It was a PR disaster. If he'd just ignored what's-his-name as an insignificant peasant, nothing bad would have come of it.

rdtsc 9y ago

I think a passive agressive "fuck you" is an important element because it provides enjoyment and some satisfaction to the corporate drones who you are interacting with. I think allowing low level minions with saddistic tendencies to express that saddism via a kthxbye-but-actually-fu here and there is used to reward them for an otherwise boring and unfulfilling task. In this case it is a bit indirect because it is the developer who wrote the code not necessarily a clerk at the counter or a customer service representative in a call center. Don't remember the incident, I think it was when someone was fired after some public incident at one of the tech conferences (Pycon I believe) where the HR commenting on the firing said something ridiculous like "we reached out to the developer and told them we'd be letting them go". Which I remembered because it sounded like such a massive and rude passive agressive "fuck you"

throwaway321323 9y ago
Sounds like everyday life in Japan.

mirimir 9y ago

So I'm wondering whether this HN exposure will be enough for some sensible humans to review these takedowns. I mean, is it embarrassing enough? I recall that Facebook reacted rather quickly after its "AI" took down videos inappropriately.

sharmi 9y ago

All the responses are ascribing a nefarious ulterior motive for that piece of text. It could well be true, as these orgs have enough resources and data to A/B test it to hell. Or, it could be that, long long ago, that phrase actually conveyed sincerity that won customers. Soon, that became the next big customer retention tactic to apply. Next, it became cliché. Now it is just grating on our senses to hear the fake insincerity echoing from these huge organizations all around.

lugg 9y ago

It comes down to the second thing I remember learning in highschool level programming. Always use neutral language in your program text, and don't make jokes. Google does have a habbit of making jokes in their software, chrome crash page comes to mind.. so I don't really find it very surprising to see this kind of message. To be clear it's really only an insult when you don't know why your content was removed. If you know why, and can see their side it makes sense and it wouldn't seem so insulting. But in a case like this, it comes off insulting due to the true situation. Removing the text all together and simply stating the fact would have sent the intended message perfectly. And finally, likely just a developer, not a pr drone.

tripzilch 9y ago

It's somewhat similar to emailing someone a request and signing off with "thanks in advance", implying not just the request but the expectation of honouring it, too.

alexryan 9y ago

I don’t think that Larry and Sergey yet fully grasp the consequences of allowing an echo chamber to form within google. One of the consequences of living in an echo chamber is that we rob ourselves of the feedback that we need to make good decisions. For example, many of us on the left who only listen to those who think like us are blissfully unaware of the severity of the storm that is building on the right and the consequences for the business. Google’s whole future business model seems to be based on getting deeper into our lives, into our homes, into our vehicles and gathering ever more data about us so they can more effectively help others to market to us. Many of us have been completely okay with that in past because we trust Google. They’ve worked hard to earn that trust. But with the public shaming and firing of James Damore, the blacklisting of “non believers”, the demonetizing and deleting of YouTube videos that violate the “Code of Conduct”, etc. the bonds of trust have been shattered. And once trust has been shattered, it is nearly impossible to re-build.