6 ms·

One effective way to protest this would be to report videos by high-profile companies such as Microsoft, Amazon, and Google itself. Take a few minutes to look

One effective way to protest this would be to report videos by high-profile companies such as Microsoft, Amazon, and Google itself. Take a few minutes to look for a video about Azure or AWS or GCP, or a video of a presentation at a conference around such things, and report it as Inappropriate content citing the relevant terms of service. Be very careful only to report content that conforms to the above description — the point here is to show YouTube where they're wrong by forcing them into direct confrontation with their own vested interests. Bonus irony points will be conceded to correctly flagging a Google Project Zero video, or a YouTube security team video, as in violation of the terms of service as stated. Again, please do not do this indiscriminately. Use your judgement on how to create the maximum exposure of stupidity through honest and careful judgement of what obviously should be permitted and yet does not comply with the rules as stated today. EDIT: Per commenters below — if you behave improperly and report a ton of videos inappropriately, you very well could get your account banned. If you're worried about this, report one video only. Be selective, use your single vote, and then move on.

asdf21 7y ago
It's called selective enforcement.
- floatingatoll 7y ago
  What is?
  - cosmotron 7y ago
    asdf21 is implying that your strategy probably won't be effective because YouTube may only enforce this policy selectively (i.e. not on their own parent's content or other powerful entities).
  - asdf21 7y ago
    When you "report" videos of large companies, they will likely simply ignore those reports, rendering your outlined tactic futile. Policies like these are almost always selectively enforced.
  - calcifer 7y ago
    Reporting their own content doesn't matter, because the rules don't apply to them. Ergo, selective enforcement.
- exolymph 7y ago
  You can make it a PR issue. Go through reporting and if the videos clearly violate TOS and aren't taken down, point out the double standard to the activist press.
  - hrktb 7y ago
    Technically you can. In practice it’s playing the outrage lottery: you can’t complain not winning if you don’t buy into it, but you only have one in a million chance to have your issue blow up to any proportion, and then some more astronomically low chance it leads to anything. I am still thinking about the Vox presenter Carlos Maza who painstakingly documented and published how youtube didn’t enforce its hate speech rules, gathered 20 000 retweets, got an official youtube account reply to assure they’ll look into it. And nothing (well, some more harrasment and hate speech)
    - effie 7y ago
      Do you have a link where this is documented? Reports on this seem quite polarized.
      - hrktb 7y ago
        It seems to be very polarizing yes. Then Steven Crowder's channel has 4 000 000 subscribers, so someone asking youtube to punish the channel is garanteed to have "strong opinions" facing him. This is the original tweet series: https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1134263774591037441 https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1134263774591037441 The final response from the youtube team: https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1136056663927087105 https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1136056663927087105
  - tenpies 7y ago
    > out the double standard to the activist press. Except the activist press only cares about their side. If you're censoring anything they don't like or critical of them, they will shower you with praise. They will actually cheer at Google to ban more. Just wait until a US President, British PM, or other leader they like is in power - they'll beg Google to merge with the government.
gambiting 7y ago
That's probably a great way to get your own Google account banned, and there is no way in hell I'm risking that.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- castis 7y ago
  This is a good example of what people do in real life when confronted with change they want vs repercussions. Compounded by the fact that it was posted by username 'gambiting'.
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    At least in real life you get a chance to face your opponent, even if it's a goliath and david mismatched weight-class scenario. An angry mob may be outgunned by the police, but at least they can still throw bricks. What can realistically be done online to hurt Google? Does there exist a digital brick heavy enough for google to even notice you throwing it?
  - gambiting 7y ago
    I'm always curious what people think my username means. I thought of it when I was only starting to learn English at around age 10, and my young brain thought it would be amazing to combine "game" and "biting" (as in, eating games, since I loved playing them). I only discovered the word gambit much later.
    - ruste 7y ago
      I read it as gam-biting. Seemed nice enough if a bit out there for hn.
    - em-bee 7y ago
      this is way off topic, but what the heck. i read your name as doing a gambit, playing a gambit, or something along those lines. risking your google account by making a report, as you observed, is a gambit :-)
bryanrasmussen 7y ago
This is a great strategy when dealing with a corporate entity that isn't actively evil.
JudgeWapner 7y ago
can you clarify which options to click on? I dont see a label that best fits this complaint. there are options like terrorism/child abuse/offensive content, etc.
- floatingatoll 7y ago
  I cannot, sorry.
dantondwa 7y ago
This reminds me of the Charter 77 movement in Czechoslovakia. They protested against the Communist regime by reporting to the it its own violations of its laws and agreements. It was a brilliant way of unveiling the lies of their government. Somehow, this approach is very similar.
ryanmarsh 7y ago
I can say from experience this does not work at scale. YouTube has allowed large public accounts to be in blatant violation of the terms of service. They are selectively enforced.
otakucode 7y ago
This will be ineffective. Google whitelists many channels by large organizations and they are sheltered from any such reports. If 200k reports came in on the next Microsoft video posted, someone at YouTube might notice, but the video would never be taken down. You should read (as should everyone else) Eric Schmidt's book 'A New Digital Age'. In it he lies out his view. Basically (and obviously this is my perspective, this is the meaning not the language he uses to sell it), because Google is rich, they are Better. The teeming masses of the unwashed must be yolked by their betters. Left to their own devices, the public would destroy themselves and it is the responsibility of Google and other gigacorps to create culture in order to preserve civilization.
- andrekandre 7y ago
  > because Google is rich, they are Better. The teeming masses of the unwashed must be yolked by their betters. Left to their own devices, the public would destroy themselves and it is the responsibility of Google and other gigacorps to create culture in order to preserve civilization (probably an unpopular opinion, but...) sounds like neoliberalism
  - otakucode 7y ago
    Really? It is almost the textbook definition of Conservatism. Not like 'Republicans are conservative', but the political science sort of Conservatism that ruled the world for centuries, the ideology that supports monarchies, dictatorships, theocracies, etc. The belief that the rights of the state (or church or similar) are primary, that some people are 'special' in a way that destines them to lead while the majority are destined to follow because they are constitutionally incapable of anything else. A refutation of that was the meaning of "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence which was the first official codification of Liberalism. Liberalism then conquered the world, but I imagine there's nothing absolute in place that would prevent it from re-emerging.
    - andrekandre 7y ago
      well, neoliberalism is a weird thing because it means different things to different people, but wikipedia puts it thusly[1]: > economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society basically how “gigacorps” rule society and public needs to be lead by private institution because they can’t rule themselves fits very much (in my opinion) with neoliberal thinking... and in more modern times neoliberal thinking very much has an anti-democratic and more capital-centered (or you could say elitist) orientation... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism [edit] just to be clear, what i mean to say is that neoliberalism shouldn’t be confused with classical liberalism even if they have similar origins, with neoliberalism being more closer to the conservative ideal economically (not socially per se)
ajross 7y ago
> Bonus irony points will be conceded to correctly flagging a Google Project Zero video, or a YouTube security team video, as in violation of the terms of service as stated. Without reading the ToS too carefully, I'm all but certain academic and industry-leading security work is deliberately carved out. Clearly this rule is designed to disallow liability concerns like a viral "how to see someone else's snapchats!" video, etc... In the case of the linked tweet, it seems to have also hit a legitimate-seeming-if-not-industry-leading security source as a false positive. And that's bad, and a reason to oppose this policy in general. But treating this as an "Ah hah! Hypocrisy!" kind of thing is missing the point and not going to help anyone. You know what they're trying to do.
- floatingatoll 7y ago
  Sadly, this is the moment where the terms of service that do permit such work would have been precisely what we need to counter the direction of the entire post. I hope you or someone are able to discover it and cite it here. (I couldn’t manage to find the terms from my device, but that’s likely more my device’s fault than any. I’ll try again later if I remember, but it might be too late for today’s comment.)
  - pietroglyph 7y ago
    Ok, here we go: In section 6.E. of the YouTube ToS (https://m.youtube.com/static?template=terms https://m.youtube.com/static?template=terms), they say you cannot submit content contrary to the Community Guidelines. On this page (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964?hl=en) of the Community Guidelines they say you may not post “Instructional hacking and phishing [content]: Showing users how to bypass secure computer systems or steal user credentials and personal data.” Interpret that how you will. It seems broad enough to include academic/security work.
    - floatingatoll 7y ago
      Indeed it does. I look forward to their response after the US Holiday tomorrow.
ssalka 7y ago
Here are some good candidates: https://www.youtube.com/user/AtGoogleTalks/search?query=security https://www.youtube.com/user/AtGoogleTalks/search?query=secu...

asdf21 7y ago

It's called selective enforcement.

floatingatoll 7y ago
What is?
- cosmotron 7y ago
  asdf21 is implying that your strategy probably won't be effective because YouTube may only enforce this policy selectively (i.e. not on their own parent's content or other powerful entities).
- asdf21 7y ago
  When you "report" videos of large companies, they will likely simply ignore those reports, rendering your outlined tactic futile. Policies like these are almost always selectively enforced.
- calcifer 7y ago
  Reporting their own content doesn't matter, because the rules don't apply to them. Ergo, selective enforcement.
exolymph 7y ago
You can make it a PR issue. Go through reporting and if the videos clearly violate TOS and aren't taken down, point out the double standard to the activist press.
- hrktb 7y ago
  Technically you can. In practice it’s playing the outrage lottery: you can’t complain not winning if you don’t buy into it, but you only have one in a million chance to have your issue blow up to any proportion, and then some more astronomically low chance it leads to anything. I am still thinking about the Vox presenter Carlos Maza who painstakingly documented and published how youtube didn’t enforce its hate speech rules, gathered 20 000 retweets, got an official youtube account reply to assure they’ll look into it. And nothing (well, some more harrasment and hate speech)
  - effie 7y ago
    Do you have a link where this is documented? Reports on this seem quite polarized.
    - hrktb 7y ago
      It seems to be very polarizing yes. Then Steven Crowder's channel has 4 000 000 subscribers, so someone asking youtube to punish the channel is garanteed to have "strong opinions" facing him. This is the original tweet series: https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1134263774591037441 https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1134263774591037441 The final response from the youtube team: https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1136056663927087105 https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1136056663927087105
- tenpies 7y ago
  > out the double standard to the activist press. Except the activist press only cares about their side. If you're censoring anything they don't like or critical of them, they will shower you with praise. They will actually cheer at Google to ban more. Just wait until a US President, British PM, or other leader they like is in power - they'll beg Google to merge with the government.

gambiting 7y ago

That's probably a great way to get your own Google account banned, and there is no way in hell I'm risking that.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
castis 7y ago
This is a good example of what people do in real life when confronted with change they want vs repercussions. Compounded by the fact that it was posted by username 'gambiting'.
- darkpuma 7y ago
  At least in real life you get a chance to face your opponent, even if it's a goliath and david mismatched weight-class scenario. An angry mob may be outgunned by the police, but at least they can still throw bricks. What can realistically be done online to hurt Google? Does there exist a digital brick heavy enough for google to even notice you throwing it?
- gambiting 7y ago
  I'm always curious what people think my username means. I thought of it when I was only starting to learn English at around age 10, and my young brain thought it would be amazing to combine "game" and "biting" (as in, eating games, since I loved playing them). I only discovered the word gambit much later.
  - ruste 7y ago
    I read it as gam-biting. Seemed nice enough if a bit out there for hn.
  - em-bee 7y ago
    this is way off topic, but what the heck. i read your name as doing a gambit, playing a gambit, or something along those lines. risking your google account by making a report, as you observed, is a gambit :-)

bryanrasmussen 7y ago

This is a great strategy when dealing with a corporate entity that isn't actively evil.

JudgeWapner 7y ago

can you clarify which options to click on? I dont see a label that best fits this complaint. there are options like terrorism/child abuse/offensive content, etc.

floatingatoll 7y ago
I cannot, sorry.

dantondwa 7y ago

This reminds me of the Charter 77 movement in Czechoslovakia. They protested against the Communist regime by reporting to the it its own violations of its laws and agreements. It was a brilliant way of unveiling the lies of their government. Somehow, this approach is very similar.

ryanmarsh 7y ago

I can say from experience this does not work at scale. YouTube has allowed large public accounts to be in blatant violation of the terms of service. They are selectively enforced.

otakucode 7y ago

This will be ineffective. Google whitelists many channels by large organizations and they are sheltered from any such reports. If 200k reports came in on the next Microsoft video posted, someone at YouTube might notice, but the video would never be taken down. You should read (as should everyone else) Eric Schmidt's book 'A New Digital Age'. In it he lies out his view. Basically (and obviously this is my perspective, this is the meaning not the language he uses to sell it), because Google is rich, they are Better. The teeming masses of the unwashed must be yolked by their betters. Left to their own devices, the public would destroy themselves and it is the responsibility of Google and other gigacorps to create culture in order to preserve civilization.

andrekandre 7y ago
> because Google is rich, they are Better. The teeming masses of the unwashed must be yolked by their betters. Left to their own devices, the public would destroy themselves and it is the responsibility of Google and other gigacorps to create culture in order to preserve civilization (probably an unpopular opinion, but...) sounds like neoliberalism
- otakucode 7y ago
  Really? It is almost the textbook definition of Conservatism. Not like 'Republicans are conservative', but the political science sort of Conservatism that ruled the world for centuries, the ideology that supports monarchies, dictatorships, theocracies, etc. The belief that the rights of the state (or church or similar) are primary, that some people are 'special' in a way that destines them to lead while the majority are destined to follow because they are constitutionally incapable of anything else. A refutation of that was the meaning of "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence which was the first official codification of Liberalism. Liberalism then conquered the world, but I imagine there's nothing absolute in place that would prevent it from re-emerging.
  - andrekandre 7y ago
    well, neoliberalism is a weird thing because it means different things to different people, but wikipedia puts it thusly[1]: > economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society basically how “gigacorps” rule society and public needs to be lead by private institution because they can’t rule themselves fits very much (in my opinion) with neoliberal thinking... and in more modern times neoliberal thinking very much has an anti-democratic and more capital-centered (or you could say elitist) orientation... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism [edit] just to be clear, what i mean to say is that neoliberalism shouldn’t be confused with classical liberalism even if they have similar origins, with neoliberalism being more closer to the conservative ideal economically (not socially per se)

ajross 7y ago

> Bonus irony points will be conceded to correctly flagging a Google Project Zero video, or a YouTube security team video, as in violation of the terms of service as stated. Without reading the ToS too carefully, I'm all but certain academic and industry-leading security work is deliberately carved out. Clearly this rule is designed to disallow liability concerns like a viral "how to see someone else's snapchats!" video, etc... In the case of the linked tweet, it seems to have also hit a legitimate-seeming-if-not-industry-leading security source as a false positive. And that's bad, and a reason to oppose this policy in general. But treating this as an "Ah hah! Hypocrisy!" kind of thing is missing the point and not going to help anyone. You know what they're trying to do.

floatingatoll 7y ago
Sadly, this is the moment where the terms of service that do permit such work would have been precisely what we need to counter the direction of the entire post. I hope you or someone are able to discover it and cite it here. (I couldn’t manage to find the terms from my device, but that’s likely more my device’s fault than any. I’ll try again later if I remember, but it might be too late for today’s comment.)
- pietroglyph 7y ago
  Ok, here we go: In section 6.E. of the YouTube ToS (https://m.youtube.com/static?template=terms https://m.youtube.com/static?template=terms), they say you cannot submit content contrary to the Community Guidelines. On this page (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964?hl=en) of the Community Guidelines they say you may not post “Instructional hacking and phishing [content]: Showing users how to bypass secure computer systems or steal user credentials and personal data.” Interpret that how you will. It seems broad enough to include academic/security work.
  - floatingatoll 7y ago
    Indeed it does. I look forward to their response after the US Holiday tomorrow.

ssalka 7y ago

Here are some good candidates: https://www.youtube.com/user/AtGoogleTalks/search?query=security https://www.youtube.com/user/AtGoogleTalks/search?query=secu...