7 ms·

Looks like he did some kind of experiment related to microwaves and bugs. People reported and the channel got taken down. Are people really that sensitive nowa

Looks like he did some kind of experiment related to microwaves and bugs. People reported and the channel got taken down. Are people really that sensitive nowadays? And why they take the whole channel down, just disable the ads if the advertisers are the problem. This channel was really big, so I believe it gets plenty of attention.

DanBC 9y ago
You can't get taken down for a single video, so people were reporting other videos.
ben_jones 9y ago
It's my understanding that when content is taken down or otherwise flagged one of the first consequences is that monetization is removed. So imagine if your code got struck down in code review so they took away your last two week paycheck.
- sweetheart 9y ago
  I don't think he meant _that_ kind of bug, ha!
- masukomi 9y ago
  if my paycheck was as small as what most publishers get from single videos most of the time i wouldn't really care.
  - chillingeffect 9y ago
    Sure, but it's not about what "most publishers" get. It's about Cody staking his livelihood on youtube income. Typical income seems to be about $0.01 per view. His nitroglycerin video is worth almost $12k.
curiousgal 9y ago
Regardless of people's sensitivity, I think the system functioned the way it is supposed to function, enough people report the content, it gets taken down, and apparently this isn't the channel's first strike. The only criticism I see fit is that they should add a manual check of the content if the channel is big enough, that is before it gets automatically taken down.
- agumonkey 9y ago
  Maybe having a gradual response: video flagged, unlist video not the whole account. It seems he had a previous issue, but overall he was more good than bad.
- otakucode 9y ago
  I disagree. Flagging a channel should disable it solely for the overly sensitive dimwitted user that voluntarily selected to view the video in the first place. YouTube is not a broadcast medium. Videos are available by voluntary positive action of the viewer only. Taking a video down, much less a whole channel, doesn't protect the viewer whose sensibilities were aroused. It only serves to forbid others from making the choice of whether or not to view the content themselves.
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    > It only serves to forbid others from making the choice of whether or not to view the content themselves. No, there is certain content that is forbidden by law in some countries, for example Holocaust denial, Nazi propaganda and other racist or otherwise discriminatory content. I do wonder why Youtube and Twitter don't disallow that kind of stuff by default, there's no reason for giving this kind of content any platform even if it's legal by law in the US. Also, fringe stuff like antivaxxers, "freemen/Reichsbürger movements", flat-earthers, chemtrail believers, other conspiracy theories or Russian fake news would be by far smaller if Youtube had decided that this content is not wanted on their platform. Instead Youtube willingly provides a platform for this content and therefore is directly responsible for the resulting problems.
gervase 9y ago
To set some context for those that haven't seen the video in question, he placed a jar of fruit flies into a microwave and turned it on. The flies were NOT harmed due to their size, and he went on to explain exactly why, discuss how microwaves function, EM wavelengths, standing waves, and so on. However, anyone who looked at the title only might believe that he was harming the fruit flies, which is potentially why that video got so many reports.
- phnofive 9y ago
  He extended the experiment by showing that a grasshopper would be affected by the microwave’s wavelength; the bug exploded. This was later replaced with a grape, which is also larger than the fruit flies which would be safe in the same box.
  - PuffinBlue 9y ago
    Got a link to that exploding grasshopper exploding scene?
  - eco 9y ago
    Yeah, it was the grasshopper experiment that did it. The video was unlisted and only shared with his Patreon subscribers but definitely not something he should have done if he wanted to stay on YouTube's good side (something he realized since he redid it with a grape and put that one up instead of the grasshopper). I've been a subscriber of Cody's for years but he can be a bit reckless about things. Particularly about safety (just watch his recent video where he sliced through his finger with a shattered knife blade he slapped against nitroglycerin) but also about doing something like explode a grasshopper without too much forethought about how it'll be received. It's part of his charm but I can see it coming back to bite him again and again. I love the channel though. It's one of my favorites. He never seems to run out of ideas for interesting experiments unlike a lot of other sciency channels.

DanBC 9y ago

You can't get taken down for a single video, so people were reporting other videos.

ben_jones 9y ago

It's my understanding that when content is taken down or otherwise flagged one of the first consequences is that monetization is removed. So imagine if your code got struck down in code review so they took away your last two week paycheck.

sweetheart 9y ago
I don't think he meant _that_ kind of bug, ha!
masukomi 9y ago
if my paycheck was as small as what most publishers get from single videos most of the time i wouldn't really care.
- chillingeffect 9y ago
  Sure, but it's not about what "most publishers" get. It's about Cody staking his livelihood on youtube income. Typical income seems to be about $0.01 per view. His nitroglycerin video is worth almost $12k.

curiousgal 9y ago

Regardless of people's sensitivity, I think the system functioned the way it is supposed to function, enough people report the content, it gets taken down, and apparently this isn't the channel's first strike. The only criticism I see fit is that they should add a manual check of the content if the channel is big enough, that is before it gets automatically taken down.

agumonkey 9y ago
Maybe having a gradual response: video flagged, unlist video not the whole account. It seems he had a previous issue, but overall he was more good than bad.
otakucode 9y ago
I disagree. Flagging a channel should disable it solely for the overly sensitive dimwitted user that voluntarily selected to view the video in the first place. YouTube is not a broadcast medium. Videos are available by voluntary positive action of the viewer only. Taking a video down, much less a whole channel, doesn't protect the viewer whose sensibilities were aroused. It only serves to forbid others from making the choice of whether or not to view the content themselves.
- mschuster91 9y ago
  > It only serves to forbid others from making the choice of whether or not to view the content themselves. No, there is certain content that is forbidden by law in some countries, for example Holocaust denial, Nazi propaganda and other racist or otherwise discriminatory content. I do wonder why Youtube and Twitter don't disallow that kind of stuff by default, there's no reason for giving this kind of content any platform even if it's legal by law in the US. Also, fringe stuff like antivaxxers, "freemen/Reichsbürger movements", flat-earthers, chemtrail believers, other conspiracy theories or Russian fake news would be by far smaller if Youtube had decided that this content is not wanted on their platform. Instead Youtube willingly provides a platform for this content and therefore is directly responsible for the resulting problems.

gervase 9y ago

To set some context for those that haven't seen the video in question, he placed a jar of fruit flies into a microwave and turned it on. The flies were NOT harmed due to their size, and he went on to explain exactly why, discuss how microwaves function, EM wavelengths, standing waves, and so on. However, anyone who looked at the title only might believe that he was harming the fruit flies, which is potentially why that video got so many reports.

phnofive 9y ago
He extended the experiment by showing that a grasshopper would be affected by the microwave’s wavelength; the bug exploded. This was later replaced with a grape, which is also larger than the fruit flies which would be safe in the same box.
- PuffinBlue 9y ago
  Got a link to that exploding grasshopper exploding scene?
- eco 9y ago
  Yeah, it was the grasshopper experiment that did it. The video was unlisted and only shared with his Patreon subscribers but definitely not something he should have done if he wanted to stay on YouTube's good side (something he realized since he redid it with a grape and put that one up instead of the grasshopper). I've been a subscriber of Cody's for years but he can be a bit reckless about things. Particularly about safety (just watch his recent video where he sliced through his finger with a shattered knife blade he slapped against nitroglycerin) but also about doing something like explode a grasshopper without too much forethought about how it'll be received. It's part of his charm but I can see it coming back to bite him again and again. I love the channel though. It's one of my favorites. He never seems to run out of ideas for interesting experiments unlike a lot of other sciency channels.