5 ms·

I wish lawmakers instead of spending time on misguided cookie banner laws, spent more time on things like this. Behavior like this is completely unacceptable,

by chr1 7y ago

I wish lawmakers instead of spending time on misguided cookie banner laws, spent more time on things like this. Behavior like this is completely unacceptable, it is equivalent to store owner throwing you out because he thought your hair are red. People whose accounts are being suspended without warning, without explanation, and without a way to appeal, like in this case, should be able to sue the company for a large sum of money, so that company knows that breaching contracts is not a good thing. The job of government is to help people establish contracts between themselves, and to help keeping the explicit and implicit terms of the contract. The random suspension of account is likely a more serious breach of contract than selling private data to third parties.

alexis_fr 7y ago
> without explanation Common misconception. Let’s assume something as bad as a criminal in prison. Well, they still need their emails. Perhaps not in prison but at least for their recovery. Or to access their bank account. Their retirement funds. Their social security. It’s a misconception that there could be a good reason to entirely revoke any account. Youtube is different. It’s a broadcasting tool.
- chr1 7y ago
  There can be some special cases when suspending account is justified, e.g. criminal not in prison using the account for criminal activity, someone creating new account and sending spam from it or collecting phishing data. So we do not want to completely prevent companies from banning users who abuse the service and cause financial damage to the company, we want companies to not mistreat the normal users who happened to trigger a bug in some algorithm. But i was not saying that explanation alone would make suspension ok, i was saying that the lack of explanation is an aggravating circumstance in this case.
  - alexis_fr 7y ago
    Correct, they shouldn’t be allowed to keep using digital means to perform criminal activity. Perhaps a read-only email or receive-only would be an idea. I just wanted to make people think twice about the idea that suspending an account based on ToS is necessarily as legitimate as currently accepted.
wdr1 7y ago
> Behavior like this is completely unacceptable This comment gives a lot more context: https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/dtr6gi/youtube_suspends_google_accounts_of_markipliers/f70lbtq/ https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/dtr6gi/youtube_susp... IMHO, it seems a lot more reasonable.
- whymauri 7y ago
  No, it's not reasonable. >The emote spam in question was not "minor", the accounts affected averaged well over 100 messages each, within a short timeframe. This is a crazy bad take. 100 messages in a few minutes is totally normal for live-streams. Just hold the ctrl-V button and... oops, your G-Mail is locked. That. Is. Crazy. I worked at Twitch and the idea of disabling someones Amazon account for spamming emotes (even temporarily) is completely insane.
  - kpU8efre7r 7y ago
    Nuts. Why not just have a cooldown for emote spam? It's ridiculous it's that easy to have your shit banned.
- falcolas 7y ago
  I love how their final point is "there's just too much content for us to manage". Google, you're being paid by advertisers for that content. You hold people's entire livelyhoods in the palms of your hands. No individual's ability to access their email should depend on the number of emoticons they're putting into a chat channel. Step up and put a bit more of your billions of profit every year into making sure you're not destroying lives by empowering poor automation.
  - chr1 7y ago
    Exactly, and even if they do not want to spend billions to manage all the content, they should spend at least a few millions and implement per site blocking + warnings, so that a small error in youtube spam filter results in a small issue of youtube account not being able to post comments. This is just a common sense, because with their current approach of nuking everything and then sending explanations to the blocked email account they are eventually going to upset either enough people or someone wrong, and that will cost them way more.

by chr1 7y ago

alexis_fr 7y ago

> without explanation Common misconception. Let’s assume something as bad as a criminal in prison. Well, they still need their emails. Perhaps not in prison but at least for their recovery. Or to access their bank account. Their retirement funds. Their social security. It’s a misconception that there could be a good reason to entirely revoke any account. Youtube is different. It’s a broadcasting tool.

chr1 7y ago
There can be some special cases when suspending account is justified, e.g. criminal not in prison using the account for criminal activity, someone creating new account and sending spam from it or collecting phishing data. So we do not want to completely prevent companies from banning users who abuse the service and cause financial damage to the company, we want companies to not mistreat the normal users who happened to trigger a bug in some algorithm. But i was not saying that explanation alone would make suspension ok, i was saying that the lack of explanation is an aggravating circumstance in this case.
- alexis_fr 7y ago
  Correct, they shouldn’t be allowed to keep using digital means to perform criminal activity. Perhaps a read-only email or receive-only would be an idea. I just wanted to make people think twice about the idea that suspending an account based on ToS is necessarily as legitimate as currently accepted.

wdr1 7y ago

> Behavior like this is completely unacceptable This comment gives a lot more context: https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/dtr6gi/youtube_suspends_google_accounts_of_markipliers/f70lbtq/ https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/dtr6gi/youtube_susp... IMHO, it seems a lot more reasonable.

whymauri 7y ago
No, it's not reasonable. >The emote spam in question was not "minor", the accounts affected averaged well over 100 messages each, within a short timeframe. This is a crazy bad take. 100 messages in a few minutes is totally normal for live-streams. Just hold the ctrl-V button and... oops, your G-Mail is locked. That. Is. Crazy. I worked at Twitch and the idea of disabling someones Amazon account for spamming emotes (even temporarily) is completely insane.
- kpU8efre7r 7y ago
  Nuts. Why not just have a cooldown for emote spam? It's ridiculous it's that easy to have your shit banned.
falcolas 7y ago
I love how their final point is "there's just too much content for us to manage". Google, you're being paid by advertisers for that content. You hold people's entire livelyhoods in the palms of your hands. No individual's ability to access their email should depend on the number of emoticons they're putting into a chat channel. Step up and put a bit more of your billions of profit every year into making sure you're not destroying lives by empowering poor automation.
- chr1 7y ago
  Exactly, and even if they do not want to spend billions to manage all the content, they should spend at least a few millions and implement per site blocking + warnings, so that a small error in youtube spam filter results in a small issue of youtube account not being able to post comments. This is just a common sense, because with their current approach of nuking everything and then sending explanations to the blocked email account they are eventually going to upset either enough people or someone wrong, and that will cost them way more.