7 ms·

The comments here are more interesting than the article itself. Looks like the real issue was a UX snafu on YouTube's part that support had trouble resolving fo

The comments here are more interesting than the article itself. Looks like the real issue was a UX snafu on YouTube's part that support had trouble resolving for too long. Let's hope YouTube does better in the future. However, if you read the comments here, they paint a sinister portrait of YouTube that has nothing to do with Blender's issue. Some examples: - ads are required for big channels (false) - demonetization of content creators (unrelated) - anti-trust based on search or social networking (unrelated) - SketchUp is blocking YouTube videos (false) We might as well change Hacker News from an article based format to a topic based format if everyone is just going to bring in their unrelated and false pet peeves to every discussion.

jobigoud 8y ago
This is because this issue with Blender is just a cherry on top of a multitude of issues with YouTube that have crop up for the past few years. So the thread is about the impact of YouTube algorithms. I have myself found it pretty hard to publish videos without ads on YouTube, even though I have a minuscule channel. Their Content ID system is triggered for almost any background music I throw at it, including Royalty Free or CC-BY music. The insidious part is that the videos are not taken down, they just put ads on top of it while you try to refute the claim, even if you tick the "I do not want ads to appear" box. The problem in this instance is anyone can upload a piece of audio and claim copyright on it, and video are then automatically flagged. There is an interesting support thread about paid-for, Royalty-free classical music, that shows how outrageous the system is: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/iMlPyMqNhq8 https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/iMlPy...
- boernard 8y ago
  the 'interesting support thread' is more than 8 years old...
  - jobigoud 8y ago
    And yet the problem remains. There are topics about fake claimants, false positives and wrongly blocked videos all over the place.
sammorrowdrums 8y ago
Blender were asked to sign a monetization agreement. https://torrentfreak.com/youtubes-piracy-filter-blocks-mit-courses-blender-videos-and-more-180618/ https://torrentfreak.com/youtubes-piracy-filter-blocks-mit-c... "Update 2: Blender’s Ton Roosendaal notes that YouTube wants the organization to sign a monetization agreement."
- ariwilson 8y ago
  TFA has updates after this and this update turned out to be misinterpretation.
  - kop316 8y ago
    I am not seeing this update you are referring to, it looks like it stops after Update 2.
    - ariwilson 8y ago
      Not your article, the original article: "Last night the Youtube Support team contacted Francesco Siddi by phone. As we understand it now it’s a mix of coincidences, bad UIs, wrong error messages, ignorant support desk staff and our non-standard decision to not monetize a popular Youtube channel."
      - kop316 8y ago
        I see it now (sorry the comment was confusing to me). To your original comment, Yes, in this case it was a "UX snafu". In the future, how many of those will actually be fixed? Will YouTube look at other instances for smaller ones where there won't be a social media backlash? Or will it be business as usual until YouTube gets enough bas PR again to manually fix it again and still nothing gets fixed? The reason that the comments in Hacker News are what they are is because of much deeper issues between YouTube and content creators. YouTube and Google have had many customer support issues in the past, it seems that YouTube has burned a lot of good will with a lot of content creators, and the only way to truly get to them is via "social media shaming".
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
michaelt 8y ago
ads are required for big channels (false) [...] everyone is just going to bring in their unrelated and false pet peeves to every discussion. The article [1] has this direct quote from Youtube support: I’ve received an update from our experts stating that you need to enable ads for your video. Once you enable, your video will be available in the USA. That's a direct quote from Youtube support about Blender's issue. I feel your claim that this is a pet peeve that has nothing to do with Blender's issue is unfair. [1] https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blender-videos-worldwide/ https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blende...
- ariwilson 8y ago
  That quote was incorrect. See their later updates. I agree support was misinformed, this is a real issue with YouTube.
  - michaelt 8y ago
    I don't see an update saying the quote is incorrect, or that the problem has been resolved - the only update I see on the article says their videos "have been blocked worldwide without explanation" Are you looking at a different article to me?
    - ariwilson 8y ago
      "Last night the Youtube Support team contacted Francesco Siddi by phone. As we understand it now it’s a mix of coincidences, bad UIs, wrong error messages, ignorant support desk staff and our non-standard decision to not monetize a popular Youtube channel."
      - aeorgnoieang 8y ago
        > As we understand it now it’s ... and our non-standard decision to not monetize a popular Youtube channel. You still seem to be wrong. Or am I missing something else?
tjoff 8y ago
Well, (I believe) the article that you read is not the article that was posted. The HN post is about the PeerTube test (and previous posts), at a time where the facts about this case was not available to anyone.
aeorgnoieang 8y ago
It's pretty common to discuss topics other than those specifically mentioned in a linked item on Hacker News. What do you mean by "change Hacker News from an article based format to a topic based format"? What actual change would be necessary? People have, pretty much forever, commented on lots of things of varying degrees of relatedness on everything submitted to HN.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ballenf 8y ago
People might be upset because it's emotionally painful to watch a property that was once a middle finger to "the man" become wholly co-opted. And to see channel after channel with interesting and unique content get disappeared due to misalignment with establishment priorities. The cases which may not apply here, like requiring ads, are real issues that don't get the visibility that the victims deserve. So when a high visibility incident like this happens, people highlight the plight of those past (and current) victims even if not wholly applicable to this case. Maybe you're right that using this platform to highlight the host of well-documented problems with the platform is "off-topic", but it's understandable and logical when you understand the bigger picture and community here. That and the number of coincidental "mistakes" in this story requires serious suspension of disbelief. One wonders whether any of those mistakes would have been caught had the channel been lower profile.
- zymhan 8y ago
  Why are people upset when a service that is run by a for-profit entity decides to change how it runs? No one is entitled to make money off of YouTube channels, even if you made a lot of money last week. YouTube can change the rules whenever they want. If you don't like how they change it, support a different service instead. Continuing to patronize it as they implement changes you disagree with, and then kvetching online won't help. GP's point that discussions frequently get derailed is spot on. Why even read the comments if you're just going to get a bunch of unrelated opinions on the topic.
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    > Why are people upset when a service that is run by a for-profit entity decides to change how it runs? I don't know, maybe because it leads to destruction of valuable content, regardless of whether it is legally ok. The notion that just because something is legal, it can't be upsetting is absurd. What about if the government decided to use eminent domain to acquire your land? It would be legal, but probably still upsetting.
    - lrvick 8y ago
notroot 8y ago
@ariwilson you work at google. since we're on the topic of truth and the actions of your corporate sponsor. but again i get it, you got some stock and you gotta protect that bottom line. "We might as well change Hacker News from an article based format to a [corporate sponsor] based format if everyone is just going to . . . [support their company in] every discussion."
kakarot 8y ago
Demonetization of content creators and anti-trust are related if your intention is to protest the platform.
mplserin 8y ago
I agree @ariwilson, I don't know what needs to be done about this lack of critical thinking. Most discussions here and across the 'net' are filled with unintelligible chatter, so it's no wonder that people use this conversation to spread every misconception they've ever heard about YouTube. The post is about an YouTube UX issue that caused Blender to choose another video platform, that YT didn't disallow the content as some people believe. Wouldn't it help if Discussion boards had a logician magician who moderates posts? Someone who's sole purpose is to point out logical fallacies- like whether a post adds value to the conversation. Is it objective or opinionated? Is the post related to the discussion? If not, does the post expand upon the discussion in a way that's relevant or did the writer lack critical thinking? How? My post is slightly off-topic considering the original, however, I'm relating to user @ariwilson about this discussion's lack of critical thinking and deductive reasoning, which is related. I'm adding to the discussion similar to ariwilson but not adding new examples since ariwilson covered that. I'm not just complaining that people are "Stoopid and shouldn't be allowed to post of they're not helping everyone so we should ban them"! hehe- because that would be my ignorant opinion based on personal belief void of fact checking or research. Plus, banning people, places or things is never a good idea! Banning speech and freedom of thought are definitely terrible ideas! ;) It's late a here and I'm rambling, sorry. But, you get the idea...a mod mage with a symbol map depicting the fallacys within each post in an easy-to-understand way. Wouldn't it be nice?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

jobigoud 8y ago

This is because this issue with Blender is just a cherry on top of a multitude of issues with YouTube that have crop up for the past few years. So the thread is about the impact of YouTube algorithms. I have myself found it pretty hard to publish videos without ads on YouTube, even though I have a minuscule channel. Their Content ID system is triggered for almost any background music I throw at it, including Royalty Free or CC-BY music. The insidious part is that the videos are not taken down, they just put ads on top of it while you try to refute the claim, even if you tick the "I do not want ads to appear" box. The problem in this instance is anyone can upload a piece of audio and claim copyright on it, and video are then automatically flagged. There is an interesting support thread about paid-for, Royalty-free classical music, that shows how outrageous the system is: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/iMlPyMqNhq8 https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/iMlPy...

boernard 8y ago
the 'interesting support thread' is more than 8 years old...
- jobigoud 8y ago
  And yet the problem remains. There are topics about fake claimants, false positives and wrongly blocked videos all over the place.

sammorrowdrums 8y ago

Blender were asked to sign a monetization agreement. https://torrentfreak.com/youtubes-piracy-filter-blocks-mit-courses-blender-videos-and-more-180618/ https://torrentfreak.com/youtubes-piracy-filter-blocks-mit-c... "Update 2: Blender’s Ton Roosendaal notes that YouTube wants the organization to sign a monetization agreement."

ariwilson 8y ago
TFA has updates after this and this update turned out to be misinterpretation.
- kop316 8y ago
  I am not seeing this update you are referring to, it looks like it stops after Update 2.
  - ariwilson 8y ago
    Not your article, the original article: "Last night the Youtube Support team contacted Francesco Siddi by phone. As we understand it now it’s a mix of coincidences, bad UIs, wrong error messages, ignorant support desk staff and our non-standard decision to not monetize a popular Youtube channel."
    - kop316 8y ago
      I see it now (sorry the comment was confusing to me). To your original comment, Yes, in this case it was a "UX snafu". In the future, how many of those will actually be fixed? Will YouTube look at other instances for smaller ones where there won't be a social media backlash? Or will it be business as usual until YouTube gets enough bas PR again to manually fix it again and still nothing gets fixed? The reason that the comments in Hacker News are what they are is because of much deeper issues between YouTube and content creators. YouTube and Google have had many customer support issues in the past, it seems that YouTube has burned a lot of good will with a lot of content creators, and the only way to truly get to them is via "social media shaming".

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

michaelt 8y ago

ads are required for big channels (false) [...] everyone is just going to bring in their unrelated and false pet peeves to every discussion. The article [1] has this direct quote from Youtube support: I’ve received an update from our experts stating that you need to enable ads for your video. Once you enable, your video will be available in the USA. That's a direct quote from Youtube support about Blender's issue. I feel your claim that this is a pet peeve that has nothing to do with Blender's issue is unfair. [1] https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blender-videos-worldwide/ https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blende...

ariwilson 8y ago
That quote was incorrect. See their later updates. I agree support was misinformed, this is a real issue with YouTube.
- michaelt 8y ago
  I don't see an update saying the quote is incorrect, or that the problem has been resolved - the only update I see on the article says their videos "have been blocked worldwide without explanation" Are you looking at a different article to me?
  - ariwilson 8y ago
    "Last night the Youtube Support team contacted Francesco Siddi by phone. As we understand it now it’s a mix of coincidences, bad UIs, wrong error messages, ignorant support desk staff and our non-standard decision to not monetize a popular Youtube channel."
    - aeorgnoieang 8y ago
      > As we understand it now it’s ... and our non-standard decision to not monetize a popular Youtube channel. You still seem to be wrong. Or am I missing something else?

tjoff 8y ago

Well, (I believe) the article that you read is not the article that was posted. The HN post is about the PeerTube test (and previous posts), at a time where the facts about this case was not available to anyone.

aeorgnoieang 8y ago

It's pretty common to discuss topics other than those specifically mentioned in a linked item on Hacker News. What do you mean by "change Hacker News from an article based format to a topic based format"? What actual change would be necessary? People have, pretty much forever, commented on lots of things of varying degrees of relatedness on everything submitted to HN.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ballenf 8y ago

People might be upset because it's emotionally painful to watch a property that was once a middle finger to "the man" become wholly co-opted. And to see channel after channel with interesting and unique content get disappeared due to misalignment with establishment priorities. The cases which may not apply here, like requiring ads, are real issues that don't get the visibility that the victims deserve. So when a high visibility incident like this happens, people highlight the plight of those past (and current) victims even if not wholly applicable to this case. Maybe you're right that using this platform to highlight the host of well-documented problems with the platform is "off-topic", but it's understandable and logical when you understand the bigger picture and community here. That and the number of coincidental "mistakes" in this story requires serious suspension of disbelief. One wonders whether any of those mistakes would have been caught had the channel been lower profile.

zymhan 8y ago
Why are people upset when a service that is run by a for-profit entity decides to change how it runs? No one is entitled to make money off of YouTube channels, even if you made a lot of money last week. YouTube can change the rules whenever they want. If you don't like how they change it, support a different service instead. Continuing to patronize it as they implement changes you disagree with, and then kvetching online won't help. GP's point that discussions frequently get derailed is spot on. Why even read the comments if you're just going to get a bunch of unrelated opinions on the topic.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  > Why are people upset when a service that is run by a for-profit entity decides to change how it runs? I don't know, maybe because it leads to destruction of valuable content, regardless of whether it is legally ok. The notion that just because something is legal, it can't be upsetting is absurd. What about if the government decided to use eminent domain to acquire your land? It would be legal, but probably still upsetting.
  - lrvick 8y ago

notroot 8y ago

@ariwilson you work at google. since we're on the topic of truth and the actions of your corporate sponsor. but again i get it, you got some stock and you gotta protect that bottom line. "We might as well change Hacker News from an article based format to a [corporate sponsor] based format if everyone is just going to . . . [support their company in] every discussion."

kakarot 8y ago

Demonetization of content creators and anti-trust are related if your intention is to protest the platform.

mplserin 8y ago

I agree @ariwilson, I don't know what needs to be done about this lack of critical thinking. Most discussions here and across the 'net' are filled with unintelligible chatter, so it's no wonder that people use this conversation to spread every misconception they've ever heard about YouTube. The post is about an YouTube UX issue that caused Blender to choose another video platform, that YT didn't disallow the content as some people believe. Wouldn't it help if Discussion boards had a logician magician who moderates posts? Someone who's sole purpose is to point out logical fallacies- like whether a post adds value to the conversation. Is it objective or opinionated? Is the post related to the discussion? If not, does the post expand upon the discussion in a way that's relevant or did the writer lack critical thinking? How? My post is slightly off-topic considering the original, however, I'm relating to user @ariwilson about this discussion's lack of critical thinking and deductive reasoning, which is related. I'm adding to the discussion similar to ariwilson but not adding new examples since ariwilson covered that. I'm not just complaining that people are "Stoopid and shouldn't be allowed to post of they're not helping everyone so we should ban them"! hehe- because that would be my ignorant opinion based on personal belief void of fact checking or research. Plus, banning people, places or things is never a good idea! Banning speech and freedom of thought are definitely terrible ideas! ;) It's late a here and I'm rambling, sorry. But, you get the idea...a mod mage with a symbol map depicting the fallacys within each post in an easy-to-understand way. Wouldn't it be nice?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]