3 ms·

The thing that frustrates me, personally, watching a large number of very popular youtubers who are clearly producing both popular and also educational content,

The thing that frustrates me, personally, watching a large number of very popular youtubers who are clearly producing both popular and also educational content, is that they still have a "3 strikes" system no matter the size of your channel of quality of videos that you upload. If you hit 2 strikes you can't live stream and if you hit 3 strikes your channel is gone. And those strikes are not just for copyright but also community violations. But not just egregious ones, it applies equally to "borderline" violations. 3 strikes probably makes sense when the rulings are more absolute and clear intentional violations of these policies. But you would think that channels which have a long history of generally follow the rules and producing original content would have a little more lee-way on the channel-shutdown level of 3 strikes, particularly for more borderline cases. A common one I keep seeing is popular scientific channel "Cody's Lab". In one case his strike was for a video making basic, centuries old, gunpowder. A topic covered by 100s of other videos still up on YouTube. All of his strikes have been along those lines. In another case he microwaved fruit flies, knowing that they would not be harmed by this, they weren't harmed and the point of that video was exactly that. I would say yes, it's arguable, but it seems to me like these are the kinds of cases that should allow a little more lee-way than 3 strikes and your entire career is gone. Also consider that there is no way to ask for a review ahead of time to say "yes this is OK" - you just get randomly struck down later most often many months after the video was published. Meanwhile to criticize this after a string of these, he released a wonderful video of him "dangerously" drinking Hydric Acid (also known as Dihydrogen Monoxide): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vCdHfyaDLM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vCdHfyaDLM

cryptonector 8y ago
The YouTube 3-strikes concept is draconian. The risk to content creators is so outsize that it is the thing that could give a competitor a leg up, and the only reason it's not enough is that YT could fix this at any time, thus limiting the appeal of a competitor. But the risk to YT is not zero: at some point there may be a terrible-for-PR incident that drives content creators elsewhere. YT management must be aware of how terrible the situation is for content creators. The question is: why not address this?

cryptonector 8y ago

The YouTube 3-strikes concept is draconian. The risk to content creators is so outsize that it is the thing that could give a competitor a leg up, and the only reason it's not enough is that YT could fix this at any time, thus limiting the appeal of a competitor. But the risk to YT is not zero: at some point there may be a terrible-for-PR incident that drives content creators elsewhere. YT management must be aware of how terrible the situation is for content creators. The question is: why not address this?