4 ms·

Did nobody watch the linked video? It's obvious he had comments restricted because his comment was deemed as abusive, and not because it was critical of "hidin

Did nobody watch the linked video? It's obvious he had comments restricted because his comment was deemed as abusive, and not because it was critical of "hiding dislikes". "That's not abusive at all", you may be thinking. But calling others names, even something as nonsensical as calling them a "handjob", can still easily fall under their terms of use. If you refer to the original video[1], people are nothing but critical of the change. Why aren't those being disappeared? Maybe because Youtube doesn't care what people post as long as they follow their terms of service. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxOuG8jMIgI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxOuG8jMIgI

hn_throwaway_69 5y ago
I also thought it was not helpful that he chose to include the word 'job' in the demonstration comment. Their systems could perceive it as an attempt to evade the filter.
skinkestek 5y ago
You might very well be right and of so these are some good points, but there is a bigger theme here: Many of us who used to defend Google before now don't. Some because Reader. Some because the nymwars/Google+ (the single identity part). Some because Google shuttered Google+ after they had made it the only social network some of us ever liked. Some because Google is sucking the oxygen out of markets and then leaving. Some because of how eager they are to obey China. Some because of the James Damore story. Some because search has been more or less broken for a decade and nobody cares. Point is: there is a limit how many times and how badly you can disappoint/hurt users before even the most ardent fans gets tired of it.
- pas 5y ago
  Google is a big boy/gal/firm, it can defend itself. And there are new fans of G who never ever heard of any of these.
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    Yep. But it must be weird to go from everyone supporting and cheering you forward to everyone suspecting you of having something foul in mind again.
finite_jest 5y ago
Maybe not in this particular case (though I'm not sure about that), but they certainly do care what people post (irrespective of their ToS). Remember the "communist bandit"/"50-cent party" fiasco? [1][2] Also, their terms of service are not divine unambiguous laws. They makes the the rules themselves, and enforce them as selectively as they please. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23223219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23223219 [2]: https://reclaimthenet.org/youtube-was-censoring-china-propaganda-pusher-criticism-again/ https://reclaimthenet.org/youtube-was-censoring-china-propag...
sillysaurusx 5y ago
Abusive to who? To YouTube? This is one step removed from not being able to criticize [elided so as not to send this thread the wrong direction; use your imagination]. It was a handjob. He wasn’t wrong. And his comment abused no one, merely a corporation. If you’re arguing that an ML algorithm picked up on their comment and deemed it problematic enough to shadowban him forever with no appeals process, then that’d be even worse. But doing it manually is nearly as bad. Remember, you can’t just “create a new account” on YouTube. You have a fan base. The only reason we heard his message at all today was because YouTube chose not to restrict his ability to post videos too; other moderators might. Especially against someone so abusive, who is clearly harming the wider community… right? I think this type of thing is going to become a bigger deal over the next decade. Being shadowbanned from Twitter would kill me; I’ve put years of effort into it. But we’re one handjob away from people being fine with it.
- consp 5y ago
  > And his comment abused no one, merely a corporation. Corporations are people too you know.
- root_axis 5y ago
  > Being shadowbanned from Twitter would kill me; I’ve put years of effort into it. This doesn't sound like healthy engagement. When people talk this way about online video games we consider it an addiction issue that needs addressing.
  - thesnowdog 5y ago
    You can't think of one single 'healthy' reason to invest years of effort in cultivating a social media presence?
    - jerska 5y ago
      On a single platform, no.
- bserge 5y ago
ziml77 5y ago
As soon as I saw that he had used the word "handjob", I was skeptical that the reason for the shadow ban had to do with opposing the dislike change. Everyone is hating on the removal of the dislike count; across many videos and many comments. If I hear that more of them are getting removed or shadow banned and that they hadn't used a vulgar word, I'll start believing that YouTube is suppressing opposition to the change.

hn_throwaway_69 5y ago

I also thought it was not helpful that he chose to include the word 'job' in the demonstration comment. Their systems could perceive it as an attempt to evade the filter.

skinkestek 5y ago

You might very well be right and of so these are some good points, but there is a bigger theme here: Many of us who used to defend Google before now don't. Some because Reader. Some because the nymwars/Google+ (the single identity part). Some because Google shuttered Google+ after they had made it the only social network some of us ever liked. Some because Google is sucking the oxygen out of markets and then leaving. Some because of how eager they are to obey China. Some because of the James Damore story. Some because search has been more or less broken for a decade and nobody cares. Point is: there is a limit how many times and how badly you can disappoint/hurt users before even the most ardent fans gets tired of it.

pas 5y ago
Google is a big boy/gal/firm, it can defend itself. And there are new fans of G who never ever heard of any of these.
- skinkestek 5y ago
  Yep. But it must be weird to go from everyone supporting and cheering you forward to everyone suspecting you of having something foul in mind again.

finite_jest 5y ago

Maybe not in this particular case (though I'm not sure about that), but they certainly do care what people post (irrespective of their ToS). Remember the "communist bandit"/"50-cent party" fiasco? [1][2] Also, their terms of service are not divine unambiguous laws. They makes the the rules themselves, and enforce them as selectively as they please. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23223219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23223219 [2]: https://reclaimthenet.org/youtube-was-censoring-china-propaganda-pusher-criticism-again/ https://reclaimthenet.org/youtube-was-censoring-china-propag...

sillysaurusx 5y ago

Abusive to who? To YouTube? This is one step removed from not being able to criticize [elided so as not to send this thread the wrong direction; use your imagination]. It was a handjob. He wasn’t wrong. And his comment abused no one, merely a corporation. If you’re arguing that an ML algorithm picked up on their comment and deemed it problematic enough to shadowban him forever with no appeals process, then that’d be even worse. But doing it manually is nearly as bad. Remember, you can’t just “create a new account” on YouTube. You have a fan base. The only reason we heard his message at all today was because YouTube chose not to restrict his ability to post videos too; other moderators might. Especially against someone so abusive, who is clearly harming the wider community… right? I think this type of thing is going to become a bigger deal over the next decade. Being shadowbanned from Twitter would kill me; I’ve put years of effort into it. But we’re one handjob away from people being fine with it.

consp 5y ago
> And his comment abused no one, merely a corporation. Corporations are people too you know.
root_axis 5y ago
> Being shadowbanned from Twitter would kill me; I’ve put years of effort into it. This doesn't sound like healthy engagement. When people talk this way about online video games we consider it an addiction issue that needs addressing.
- thesnowdog 5y ago
  You can't think of one single 'healthy' reason to invest years of effort in cultivating a social media presence?
  - jerska 5y ago
    On a single platform, no.
bserge 5y ago

ziml77 5y ago

As soon as I saw that he had used the word "handjob", I was skeptical that the reason for the shadow ban had to do with opposing the dislike change. Everyone is hating on the removal of the dislike count; across many videos and many comments. If I hear that more of them are getting removed or shadow banned and that they hadn't used a vulgar word, I'll start believing that YouTube is suppressing opposition to the change.