4 ms·

My son (a curious juvenile) found his own YouTube account banned in a similar manner for disclosing a security issue in Google wifi products. There was no first

My son (a curious juvenile) found his own YouTube account banned in a similar manner for disclosing a security issue in Google wifi products. There was no first or second warning (despite what the Terms of Service say). Google would not give him a justification for the banning other than "terms of service violation". The appeals fell on deaf ears. Now their automated system keeps banning every YouTube account he creates within days of creation. I worry that he'll never be able to appeal and a stupid 'mistaken reading of the ToS' on his part as a minor will affect his ability to ever host a YouTube channel or have a premium account subscription. Good luck getting a real human in Google to sympathize with your plight and restore your account. They see disclosure of security issues related to their products or their customers' products as ToS violations and appear to be unyielding and swift in silencing such content permanently.

usbqk 5y ago
I think they recently changed the tos to blacklist all videos regarding hacking and similar stuff
- MereInterest 5y ago
  Looks like it's buried several layers deep, and very poorly worded. You need to go from the Terms of Service [0], to the Community Guidelines [1], to the subsection on "Harmful or dangerous content" [2]. Once there, the wording of the guideline is as follows. > Hacking: Demonstrating how to use computers or information technology with the intent to steal credentials, compromise personal data or cause serious harm to others such as (but not limited to) hacking into social media accounts. The placement of "with the intent to" is really weird to me. I could see it applying either to the demonstration being performed with intent, or the demonstrated usage having intent. The latter doesn't really make sense, because any basic computer usage could also be done with the intent to perform malicious actions. (e.g. "How to back-up your stored passwords", used maliciously to back-up somebody else's stored passwords.) The former would make sense, but not be applicable in this case. It would apply to cases where the video itself was an attempt to steal credentials, such as guiding people to a known compromised browser extension. In order for this to apply, the "with the intent to" clause would need to be missing entirely. In that case, a demonstration alone would be enough to fall under that clause. So either Google poorly wrote their guidelines, or are poorly applying it. But that's just from the strict letter of the ToS, which is as meaningless as a fart in a breeze when Google can unilaterally amend them. The real story is that Google is removing content in order to protect itself and others from embarrassment, and their actions to discredit and downplay responsible disclosure are what matter here, not their supposed justification of those actions. [0] https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms [1] https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/policies/community-guidelines/ https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/policies/community-g... [2] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964
  - jcun4128 5y ago
    This is interesting what if the content is for training/defense like "how to not allow sql-injection" or "how to avoid xss" etc
- Ironlikebike 5y ago
  We did quite extensive digging into the ToS and there was nothing explicitly forbidden about what he had done and they refused to point to any rule he had violated in particular. If they've updated it, it must have been in the last 4-5 months.
  - evilksandr 5y ago
    YT changed their ToS on Jan 5 https://www.youtube.com/t/terms https://www.youtube.com/t/terms and after 2 days my channel was suspended
  - evilksandr 5y ago
    Thanks for your support! These videos were published 4 months ago, I posted a link to one of them 75 days ago on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29056542 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29056542 and my channel was suspended on Jan 7.
politician 5y ago
Congratulations on figuring out how to keep your son’s data out of the hands of Google at such a young age. What a blessing that will be! Many of the folks here have tried Degoogling with less success.
- judge2020 5y ago
  These bans affect the YouTube Brand account / Channel only, Google accounts haven't been affected by regular YT ToS violations for a while.
  - Ironlikebike 5y ago
    Right, he still has access to his Google account, but he can't use YouTube from that account. In fact, he can't create a new account and login to YouTube from any of his devices. His only access to YouTube at this point seems to be through non-logged in access.
    - usbqk 5y ago
      You mean that he can’t open YouTube at all, not even to watch videos?!
      - rovr138 5y ago
        >Now their automated system keeps banning every YouTube account he creates within days of creation.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - evilksandr 5y ago
      Yes, it is. I am not going to create new accounts, it is fundamentally important for me to reinstate my own account.
- godelski 5y ago
  You can still track users without accounts. It's called finger printing. It's still probably associated with the main Google account too. There's tons of articles on Facebook and "dark" accounts.
RajT88 5y ago
Wow. I think my big take-away is to never post disclosures about a company, on that company's platform. No, I'm not being sarcastic either. I am sure some Company-Man type was the one who stumbled across it and implemented the ban. Of course, the other lesson is one I have learned just reading tech news for years and years: Cover your bases and plan for retaliation. Even if the company in question doesn't have a history of that.
HWR_14 5y ago
> worry that he'll never be able to appeal and a stupid 'mistaken reading of the ToS' on his part as a minor will affect his ability to ever host a YouTube channel or have a premium account subscription. How can a minor (who cannot sign a contract) be punished (legally) for not adhering to a ToS?
- cortesoft 5y ago
  Well, the 'punishment' is not letting him use the service, which he wasn't supposed to be able to do anyway as a minor. It isn't like he is going to jail or being forced to pay a fine. You seem to be arguing that you can't ever prevent minors from using your service, since you can only exclude them via your TOS and you can't enforce a TOS against minors. This seems very similar to the arguments that "freeman of the land" use to argue that they can do whatever they want since they don't agree to be bound by laws.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    > You seem to be arguing that you can't ever prevent minors from using your service Oh, I actually meant you shouldn't be able to exclude an adult based on them violating the ToS when they were a minor.
    - cortesoft 5y ago
      They can exclude an adult for any reason they want (in the US at least), as long as the reason isn't discriminatory against a protected class (for example, they can't exclude someone based on their religion). Other than that, they can exclude you for any reason they want, or no reason at all.
- staticautomatic 5y ago
  The agreement can be voided.

usbqk 5y ago

I think they recently changed the tos to blacklist all videos regarding hacking and similar stuff

MereInterest 5y ago
Looks like it's buried several layers deep, and very poorly worded. You need to go from the Terms of Service [0], to the Community Guidelines [1], to the subsection on "Harmful or dangerous content" [2]. Once there, the wording of the guideline is as follows. > Hacking: Demonstrating how to use computers or information technology with the intent to steal credentials, compromise personal data or cause serious harm to others such as (but not limited to) hacking into social media accounts. The placement of "with the intent to" is really weird to me. I could see it applying either to the demonstration being performed with intent, or the demonstrated usage having intent. The latter doesn't really make sense, because any basic computer usage could also be done with the intent to perform malicious actions. (e.g. "How to back-up your stored passwords", used maliciously to back-up somebody else's stored passwords.) The former would make sense, but not be applicable in this case. It would apply to cases where the video itself was an attempt to steal credentials, such as guiding people to a known compromised browser extension. In order for this to apply, the "with the intent to" clause would need to be missing entirely. In that case, a demonstration alone would be enough to fall under that clause. So either Google poorly wrote their guidelines, or are poorly applying it. But that's just from the strict letter of the ToS, which is as meaningless as a fart in a breeze when Google can unilaterally amend them. The real story is that Google is removing content in order to protect itself and others from embarrassment, and their actions to discredit and downplay responsible disclosure are what matter here, not their supposed justification of those actions. [0] https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms [1] https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/policies/community-guidelines/ https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/policies/community-g... [2] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964
- jcun4128 5y ago
  This is interesting what if the content is for training/defense like "how to not allow sql-injection" or "how to avoid xss" etc
Ironlikebike 5y ago
We did quite extensive digging into the ToS and there was nothing explicitly forbidden about what he had done and they refused to point to any rule he had violated in particular. If they've updated it, it must have been in the last 4-5 months.
- evilksandr 5y ago
  YT changed their ToS on Jan 5 https://www.youtube.com/t/terms https://www.youtube.com/t/terms and after 2 days my channel was suspended
- evilksandr 5y ago
  Thanks for your support! These videos were published 4 months ago, I posted a link to one of them 75 days ago on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29056542 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29056542 and my channel was suspended on Jan 7.

politician 5y ago

Congratulations on figuring out how to keep your son’s data out of the hands of Google at such a young age. What a blessing that will be! Many of the folks here have tried Degoogling with less success.

judge2020 5y ago
These bans affect the YouTube Brand account / Channel only, Google accounts haven't been affected by regular YT ToS violations for a while.
- Ironlikebike 5y ago
  Right, he still has access to his Google account, but he can't use YouTube from that account. In fact, he can't create a new account and login to YouTube from any of his devices. His only access to YouTube at this point seems to be through non-logged in access.
  - usbqk 5y ago
    You mean that he can’t open YouTube at all, not even to watch videos?!
    - rovr138 5y ago
      >Now their automated system keeps banning every YouTube account he creates within days of creation.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - evilksandr 5y ago
    Yes, it is. I am not going to create new accounts, it is fundamentally important for me to reinstate my own account.
godelski 5y ago
You can still track users without accounts. It's called finger printing. It's still probably associated with the main Google account too. There's tons of articles on Facebook and "dark" accounts.

RajT88 5y ago

Wow. I think my big take-away is to never post disclosures about a company, on that company's platform. No, I'm not being sarcastic either. I am sure some Company-Man type was the one who stumbled across it and implemented the ban. Of course, the other lesson is one I have learned just reading tech news for years and years: Cover your bases and plan for retaliation. Even if the company in question doesn't have a history of that.

HWR_14 5y ago

> worry that he'll never be able to appeal and a stupid 'mistaken reading of the ToS' on his part as a minor will affect his ability to ever host a YouTube channel or have a premium account subscription. How can a minor (who cannot sign a contract) be punished (legally) for not adhering to a ToS?

cortesoft 5y ago
Well, the 'punishment' is not letting him use the service, which he wasn't supposed to be able to do anyway as a minor. It isn't like he is going to jail or being forced to pay a fine. You seem to be arguing that you can't ever prevent minors from using your service, since you can only exclude them via your TOS and you can't enforce a TOS against minors. This seems very similar to the arguments that "freeman of the land" use to argue that they can do whatever they want since they don't agree to be bound by laws.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > You seem to be arguing that you can't ever prevent minors from using your service Oh, I actually meant you shouldn't be able to exclude an adult based on them violating the ToS when they were a minor.
  - cortesoft 5y ago
    They can exclude an adult for any reason they want (in the US at least), as long as the reason isn't discriminatory against a protected class (for example, they can't exclude someone based on their religion). Other than that, they can exclude you for any reason they want, or no reason at all.
staticautomatic 5y ago
The agreement can be voided.