6 ms·

I'm happy for you that you speak a language google happens to have support in, and that you have the time to besides creating and uploading content, to monitor

by ggg2 7y ago

I'm happy for you that you speak a language google happens to have support in, and that you have the time to besides creating and uploading content, to monitor it is not censored at a later, random, date by google. And that you were able to provide the US based documentation they required and that your videos content happened to not be in the blacklist of any nation state. /s (I guess)

0xfeba 7y ago
YouTube is a private company. They are under no obligation to provide support in 5,000 different languages. Or to host your videos at all. This post reeks of entitlement.
- jlawson 7y ago
  They control the pathways of modern speech. It's not like a baker where you can just get your wedding cake somewhere else. If Google doesn't like you they can damn near erase you from public view. If you have an internet business they can ruin it. There is no way to escape their influence. Because of this, they have a responsibility to uphold people's natural right to expression. In many ways Google now has more control over speech than governments historically have. If there was a viable competitor this would be different, but there is no such competitor.
  - krapp 7y ago
    >They control the pathways of modern speech. Not true. Almost all modern speech doesn't take place on Youtube or any Google platform. It's possible to broadcast without Google, publish without Google, disseminate without Google, gather without Google, dissent without Google, make phone calls without Google, chat, email, text, audio, video, everything - literally all forms of speech and expression are possible without Google, both on and off the internet. >If Google doesn't like you they can damn near erase you from public view. Also not true. Plenty of people Google "doesn't like" are still in public view. Name one person Google has effectively "disappeared" in this way, and I'll bet they still have a presence elsewhere on the web, still participate in society, still can communicate publicly, be contacted, etc. >If you have an internet business they can ruin it. Maybe. But then so could Amazon. So could your ISP. If losing SEO would ruin your business, the problem isn't Google's power, it's your crappy business model. >There is no way to escape their influence. Really? Do they control you here? In your home? Do they moderate other sites? Do they control Twitter, Facebook, Hacker News? It's arbitrarily easy to escape their influence. They control one platform, not the internet, not society, not governments. >In many ways Google now has more control over speech than governments historically have. Governments can imprison you, torture you, kill you, run over your friends with tanks, nuke entire cities, fill shallow graves with dissidents, burn down libraries and make it legal. Google has no more control over speech than the governments whose laws they must obey by definition. They don't claim a monopoly on violence or sovereign immunity. >If there was a viable competitor this would be different, but there is no such competitor. There are plenty. Google is not the only search engine, and Youtube is not the only video streaming service. Almost every part of your comment is falsehood, hyperbole and nonsense.
    - verisimilitudes 7y ago
      >Plenty of people Google "doesn't like" are still in public view. Name one person Google has effectively "disappeared" in this way, and I'll bet they still have a presence elsewhere on the web, still participate in society, still can communicate publicly, be contacted, etc. Alex Jones was attacked by Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Apple in a short span of time and this certainly does bring noticeable harm. Your argument that Google isn't a monopoly so much as a participant in an oligopoly is pointless. >Maybe. But then so could Amazon. So could your ISP. If losing SEO would ruin your business, the problem isn't Google's power, it's your crappy business model. It's amusing how people raise this same argument about advertising and how newspapers or other publications can die for all they care, but then newspapers are ''important to Democracy'' and shouldn't need to exist like others do and the other publications are just trying to make end's meet and can't do anything else. Maybe letting large businesses buy or crush everything else is a bad idea? >Really? Do they control you here? No. >In your home? No. >Do they moderate other sites? Yes. Large chunks of the WWW contain Google malware or are at the behest of Cloudflare and that makes avoiding these two difficult, as it's likely at least one place one visits is involved with one or the other. I can't even contact some businesses because of Gmail and its strangulation of the email protocols and with ReCaptcha it becomes increasingly harder to do certain things without giving Google free work. >Almost every part of your comment is falsehood, hyperbole and nonsense. You're either misguided or purposefully arguing in bad faith.
      - KirinDave 7y ago
        > Alex Jones was attacked by Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Apple in a short span of time and this certainly does bring noticeable harm. Your argument that Google isn't a monopoly so much as a participant in an oligopoly is pointless. Alex Jones is not a victim of anyone but his own avarice. He defamed victims of horrible violence and refused to stop. He kept ending up in court trying to use defenses like, "I am actually a comedy show and everyone knows it is a joke." It became so absurd that his liability was spilling over onto other broadcast networks who couldn't deny he was deliberately slandering people. I'm saying: his speech is about as valuable as shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater. So maybe he is not your go-to example. May I recommend instead Dan of "Three Arrows," who has been banned for explaining Nazi history in a factual way with the highest standards of evidence, but ends up being banned or demonetized because of brigading organized by pro-fascist elements lead by reactionary channels failing the same standard like Tim Pool. But I agree that you could probably make a case YouTube is a monopoly. > Large chunks of the WWW contain Google malware or are at the behest of Cloudflare and that makes avoiding these two difficult, Your problem is with site runners who do not consider it malware. You're demanding a product with a price of $0, but such things don't have $0 cost. And of course, you can instantly 0 it out by using tools like noscript. But you can't try to blame Google or CloudFlare for the presence of these tools. That's a conscious decision by website engineers who could offer their content free of charge, but cannot afford to. Ain't capitalism great? May I recommend doing what I do, which is using NoScript on Firefox? I won't lie, FireFox is worse than Chromium and the plugins are worse, but sometimes we gotta take a hit for our principles. > ReCaptcha it becomes increasingly harder to do certain things without giving Google free work. Exactly how many street sign identification tasks do you think Google needs for Waymo or Maps? I'll give you a hint: a kid with tensorflow can solve those captchas using off the shelf parts. The primary value of those captchas is forcing a human to interact with the captcha in a very short span of time, which raises the costs of using cheap contract labor solutions to evade the captcha several orders of magnitude. > You're either misguided or purposefully arguing in bad faith. "People who disagree with me are all wrong or liars" isn't a very "good faith" argument either.
- knolax 7y ago
  They're a private company and GP is complaining about their poor service. They're not obligated to support multiple languages, but a service that big not supporting multiple languages seems like an incredibly bad move even from a purely business perspective. Doesn't seem entitled to me.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  It's uncouth and a rude display of privilege to be smug about the fact that English is by far the most supported language on the Internet.
- wolco 7y ago
  This poster is a customer and has every right to complain about a service. The fact that you think they are entitled tells me you view the services as a gift and they should be grateful for whatever they get. The services provided are not gifts.
  - equalunique 7y ago
    YouTube's customers are advertizers, not viewers.
    - albertsondev 7y ago
      Yes, because the viewers are the product being sold to the advertisers. Content creators, meanwhile, are essentially independent contractors that get free video hosting and a little cut of the ad money (assuming they fulfill a lengthy checklist) in exchange for giving the platform any real reason to exist. You'll find that this is the exact angle that the folks at Google like to spread until the second one of their advertisers starts to hesitate. So in essence, you have a bunch of kind-of employees complaining about their kind-of employer's insistence that the customer is always right, even if it undermines their livelihoods. That sounds like what you'd expect out of any other customer-facing job, so what's the problem here?
- KirinDave 7y ago
  You're not wrong, but it's also bad customer service. Given Youtube has essentially no credible competition, you'd think that they'd be more worried about being the focus of multiple new national government regulatory frameworks. The important think to recognize about Youtube (as opposed to search, or ads) is that YouTube has no real competition and it's absurdly difficult to compete with Youtube. They're like Facebook but moreso. As such, they may end up being subject to different rules from other businesses if they're not careful.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    They are way more likely to face regulation for not attempting curating. The mainstream of small minds is why we are in this shitshow. Mainstream mentality has always been to freak out when something goes outside what they consider acceptable even if it is harmless. It goes back to the Oscar Wilde and he certainly wasn't the first. Including the observers commenting on the stupidity with "So long as they don't do it in the streets and frighten the horses." While callous and somewhat homophobic by today's standard it pointed out how society really should be reacting - not giving a shit unless it leads to an actual danger.
- girvo 7y ago
  The issue with that is the global monopoly YouTube currently has on video content and video communities
- daemin 7y ago
  At what stage does a private company need to become a public service? There's examples of this happening throughout the ages where private companies like fire fighters, telephone, etc went from being private to public, and sometimes back to private.
kdbg 7y ago
> And that you were able to provide the US based documentation I don't recall needing to provide any documentation? I'm also not American so I couldn't provide "US Based documentation" whatever that means. There also wasn't any back and forth interaction with support to get unbanned.

by ggg2 7y ago

0xfeba 7y ago

YouTube is a private company. They are under no obligation to provide support in 5,000 different languages. Or to host your videos at all. This post reeks of entitlement.

jlawson 7y ago
They control the pathways of modern speech. It's not like a baker where you can just get your wedding cake somewhere else. If Google doesn't like you they can damn near erase you from public view. If you have an internet business they can ruin it. There is no way to escape their influence. Because of this, they have a responsibility to uphold people's natural right to expression. In many ways Google now has more control over speech than governments historically have. If there was a viable competitor this would be different, but there is no such competitor.
- krapp 7y ago
  >They control the pathways of modern speech. Not true. Almost all modern speech doesn't take place on Youtube or any Google platform. It's possible to broadcast without Google, publish without Google, disseminate without Google, gather without Google, dissent without Google, make phone calls without Google, chat, email, text, audio, video, everything - literally all forms of speech and expression are possible without Google, both on and off the internet. >If Google doesn't like you they can damn near erase you from public view. Also not true. Plenty of people Google "doesn't like" are still in public view. Name one person Google has effectively "disappeared" in this way, and I'll bet they still have a presence elsewhere on the web, still participate in society, still can communicate publicly, be contacted, etc. >If you have an internet business they can ruin it. Maybe. But then so could Amazon. So could your ISP. If losing SEO would ruin your business, the problem isn't Google's power, it's your crappy business model. >There is no way to escape their influence. Really? Do they control you here? In your home? Do they moderate other sites? Do they control Twitter, Facebook, Hacker News? It's arbitrarily easy to escape their influence. They control one platform, not the internet, not society, not governments. >In many ways Google now has more control over speech than governments historically have. Governments can imprison you, torture you, kill you, run over your friends with tanks, nuke entire cities, fill shallow graves with dissidents, burn down libraries and make it legal. Google has no more control over speech than the governments whose laws they must obey by definition. They don't claim a monopoly on violence or sovereign immunity. >If there was a viable competitor this would be different, but there is no such competitor. There are plenty. Google is not the only search engine, and Youtube is not the only video streaming service. Almost every part of your comment is falsehood, hyperbole and nonsense.
  - verisimilitudes 7y ago
    >Plenty of people Google "doesn't like" are still in public view. Name one person Google has effectively "disappeared" in this way, and I'll bet they still have a presence elsewhere on the web, still participate in society, still can communicate publicly, be contacted, etc. Alex Jones was attacked by Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Apple in a short span of time and this certainly does bring noticeable harm. Your argument that Google isn't a monopoly so much as a participant in an oligopoly is pointless. >Maybe. But then so could Amazon. So could your ISP. If losing SEO would ruin your business, the problem isn't Google's power, it's your crappy business model. It's amusing how people raise this same argument about advertising and how newspapers or other publications can die for all they care, but then newspapers are ''important to Democracy'' and shouldn't need to exist like others do and the other publications are just trying to make end's meet and can't do anything else. Maybe letting large businesses buy or crush everything else is a bad idea? >Really? Do they control you here? No. >In your home? No. >Do they moderate other sites? Yes. Large chunks of the WWW contain Google malware or are at the behest of Cloudflare and that makes avoiding these two difficult, as it's likely at least one place one visits is involved with one or the other. I can't even contact some businesses because of Gmail and its strangulation of the email protocols and with ReCaptcha it becomes increasingly harder to do certain things without giving Google free work. >Almost every part of your comment is falsehood, hyperbole and nonsense. You're either misguided or purposefully arguing in bad faith.
    - KirinDave 7y ago
      > Alex Jones was attacked by Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Apple in a short span of time and this certainly does bring noticeable harm. Your argument that Google isn't a monopoly so much as a participant in an oligopoly is pointless. Alex Jones is not a victim of anyone but his own avarice. He defamed victims of horrible violence and refused to stop. He kept ending up in court trying to use defenses like, "I am actually a comedy show and everyone knows it is a joke." It became so absurd that his liability was spilling over onto other broadcast networks who couldn't deny he was deliberately slandering people. I'm saying: his speech is about as valuable as shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater. So maybe he is not your go-to example. May I recommend instead Dan of "Three Arrows," who has been banned for explaining Nazi history in a factual way with the highest standards of evidence, but ends up being banned or demonetized because of brigading organized by pro-fascist elements lead by reactionary channels failing the same standard like Tim Pool. But I agree that you could probably make a case YouTube is a monopoly. > Large chunks of the WWW contain Google malware or are at the behest of Cloudflare and that makes avoiding these two difficult, Your problem is with site runners who do not consider it malware. You're demanding a product with a price of $0, but such things don't have $0 cost. And of course, you can instantly 0 it out by using tools like noscript. But you can't try to blame Google or CloudFlare for the presence of these tools. That's a conscious decision by website engineers who could offer their content free of charge, but cannot afford to. Ain't capitalism great? May I recommend doing what I do, which is using NoScript on Firefox? I won't lie, FireFox is worse than Chromium and the plugins are worse, but sometimes we gotta take a hit for our principles. > ReCaptcha it becomes increasingly harder to do certain things without giving Google free work. Exactly how many street sign identification tasks do you think Google needs for Waymo or Maps? I'll give you a hint: a kid with tensorflow can solve those captchas using off the shelf parts. The primary value of those captchas is forcing a human to interact with the captcha in a very short span of time, which raises the costs of using cheap contract labor solutions to evade the captcha several orders of magnitude. > You're either misguided or purposefully arguing in bad faith. "People who disagree with me are all wrong or liars" isn't a very "good faith" argument either.
knolax 7y ago
They're a private company and GP is complaining about their poor service. They're not obligated to support multiple languages, but a service that big not supporting multiple languages seems like an incredibly bad move even from a purely business perspective. Doesn't seem entitled to me.
lonelappde 7y ago
It's uncouth and a rude display of privilege to be smug about the fact that English is by far the most supported language on the Internet.
wolco 7y ago
This poster is a customer and has every right to complain about a service. The fact that you think they are entitled tells me you view the services as a gift and they should be grateful for whatever they get. The services provided are not gifts.
- equalunique 7y ago
  YouTube's customers are advertizers, not viewers.
  - albertsondev 7y ago
    Yes, because the viewers are the product being sold to the advertisers. Content creators, meanwhile, are essentially independent contractors that get free video hosting and a little cut of the ad money (assuming they fulfill a lengthy checklist) in exchange for giving the platform any real reason to exist. You'll find that this is the exact angle that the folks at Google like to spread until the second one of their advertisers starts to hesitate. So in essence, you have a bunch of kind-of employees complaining about their kind-of employer's insistence that the customer is always right, even if it undermines their livelihoods. That sounds like what you'd expect out of any other customer-facing job, so what's the problem here?
KirinDave 7y ago
You're not wrong, but it's also bad customer service. Given Youtube has essentially no credible competition, you'd think that they'd be more worried about being the focus of multiple new national government regulatory frameworks. The important think to recognize about Youtube (as opposed to search, or ads) is that YouTube has no real competition and it's absurdly difficult to compete with Youtube. They're like Facebook but moreso. As such, they may end up being subject to different rules from other businesses if they're not careful.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  They are way more likely to face regulation for not attempting curating. The mainstream of small minds is why we are in this shitshow. Mainstream mentality has always been to freak out when something goes outside what they consider acceptable even if it is harmless. It goes back to the Oscar Wilde and he certainly wasn't the first. Including the observers commenting on the stupidity with "So long as they don't do it in the streets and frighten the horses." While callous and somewhat homophobic by today's standard it pointed out how society really should be reacting - not giving a shit unless it leads to an actual danger.
girvo 7y ago
The issue with that is the global monopoly YouTube currently has on video content and video communities
daemin 7y ago
At what stage does a private company need to become a public service? There's examples of this happening throughout the ages where private companies like fire fighters, telephone, etc went from being private to public, and sometimes back to private.

kdbg 7y ago

> And that you were able to provide the US based documentation I don't recall needing to provide any documentation? I'm also not American so I couldn't provide "US Based documentation" whatever that means. There also wasn't any back and forth interaction with support to get unbanned.