4 ms·

There's a distinct difference between trying to make things less accidentally discriminatory or exclusionary.. and banning an entire channel in an often un-appe

There's a distinct difference between trying to make things less accidentally discriminatory or exclusionary.. and banning an entire channel in an often un-appealable way (which can in many cases end up disabling peoples personal google accounts etc as well).

newacct583 6y ago
It wasn't un-appealable. They restored it within 24 hours per the article. Please don't hyperbolize about this stuff. If you want people to take you seriously about real censorship you need to not fly off the handle with accidents (which have ALWAYS been with us, c.f. buttbuttination).
- ttt0 6y ago
  I don't know the details of this particular case, but it's not a hyperbole. Another commenter here pointed out the Markiplier case. They banned entire Google accounts for spamming emotes in YouTube chat and those bans were un-appealable. They unbanned the accounts only after the public outrage on Twitter. Besides, people don't take it seriously anyway, because they actually agree with real censorship and they dismiss it with the "private company" argument.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > I don't know the details of this particular case, but it's not a hyperbole. The details of this particular case were in the linked article. And they show that this wasn't unfixable or unappealable or otherwise beyond relief. It was a fuckup and they fixed it. Characterizing it "un-appealable" is hyperbolic by definition. It's not helpful. And it happens almost every time something like this comes up, and people like you end up redirecting to something else, like that emote spam thing. And per your text it seems like that was resolved via appeal too! It's just very tiresome to see everyone screaming so loud about something that doesn't seem like a big deal. I mean, if they really wanted to be censoring you, don't you think they'd come after threads like this first?

newacct583 6y ago

It wasn't un-appealable. They restored it within 24 hours per the article. Please don't hyperbolize about this stuff. If you want people to take you seriously about real censorship you need to not fly off the handle with accidents (which have ALWAYS been with us, c.f. buttbuttination).

ttt0 6y ago
I don't know the details of this particular case, but it's not a hyperbole. Another commenter here pointed out the Markiplier case. They banned entire Google accounts for spamming emotes in YouTube chat and those bans were un-appealable. They unbanned the accounts only after the public outrage on Twitter. Besides, people don't take it seriously anyway, because they actually agree with real censorship and they dismiss it with the "private company" argument.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > I don't know the details of this particular case, but it's not a hyperbole. The details of this particular case were in the linked article. And they show that this wasn't unfixable or unappealable or otherwise beyond relief. It was a fuckup and they fixed it. Characterizing it "un-appealable" is hyperbolic by definition. It's not helpful. And it happens almost every time something like this comes up, and people like you end up redirecting to something else, like that emote spam thing. And per your text it seems like that was resolved via appeal too! It's just very tiresome to see everyone screaming so loud about something that doesn't seem like a big deal. I mean, if they really wanted to be censoring you, don't you think they'd come after threads like this first?