5 ms·

Lots of commenters rushing to chastise the user for not taking pro-active steps to preserve content, since your Google account (or any cloud account once a prov

Lots of commenters rushing to chastise the user for not taking pro-active steps to preserve content, since your Google account (or any cloud account once a provider decides you've violated their Terms of Service) may go "poof". Wouldn't it be nice if the platforms themselves helped out with this, instead of luring their users into a false sense of security?

Aunche 5y ago
YouTube isn't a cloud storage service, let alone one a paid one. I'm not really sure what you'd expect them to do. If they lost access to their free Google drive I'd be more sympathetic.
- ShoveItHN 5y ago
- fouc 5y ago
  It kind of is. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, then we can effectively treat it like a duck, even if it denies it in the legalese.
Ekaros 5y ago
It would. I hope people here work towards their companies regularly warning their customers that any content stored on their services can be gone any day without any warning.
- rectang 5y ago
  How about if durable archival was an upsell alongside upload?
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    I wonder how that would work, after certain amount of data or time period. For reasonable cost ship a tape archive or similar to customer?
    - rectang 5y ago
      For most services (certainly for Google) the cost of long-term storage isn't the main issue — it's the cost of supporting an appeals process when you have to deal with bad actors and legal complexities. We have to overcome the economics and legalities and make it feasible to provide download of the archived materials even after an account gets banned. Brainstorming an interface, I can imaging "archive your original source materials" as an upsell alongside the YouTube upload, with an option to archive the actual video file as well. This would actually be enabled if you were to subscribe to the archival service, which would be paid in advance. Perhaps we can argue that such files should be considered private materials rather than redistributed works, so not subject to copyright takedowns.
  - ocdtrekkie 5y ago
    So the issue is Google often takes down accounts with illegal content using the same process as here. Imagine the very real scenario that Google found CSAM on an account: They aren't going to let you access it or download it again for any amount of money. And that's the problem here: With no humans in the process, YouTube treats ordinary users and predators exactly the same way, because ultimately, algorithms are stupid and don't make good moderators.
    - rectang 5y ago
      > YouTube treats ordinary users and predators exactly the same way Does it have to be that way? There are various reasons for banning an account. If the content is actually CSAM, then I imagine a provider's hands are tied under US law at least. But algorithmically flagged CSAM has a confidence percentage associated with it. A provider is not legally obligated to deny you archival access to video of a kid's pool party given a false positive flag by a scanning algo. Then there are lots of other reasons that an account may end up banned where archival access doesn't necessarily have to be problematic. For example, there's no reason to take away access to completely original COVID denialist videos, even if the platform decides that it's not going to allow them to be shared.
    - charcircuit 5y ago
      YouTube can undelete accounts. All of their old videos are still there.
    - alienbeast 5y ago
      Solution: A button that says "Click here to pay $5 for a human to review your situation."
      - Tozen 5y ago
        Good idea. Not sure why YouTube/Google doesn't do it. As you would think there is good money in it and better user relations. Possibly they like the authoritarian algorithm approach, and feel they are making enough money, so don't need to bother with alternatives or "lowly user" issues.
- feupan 5y ago
  Not that I'm justifying it, but isn't that part of every single ToS of web services? "Your account may be terminated at any time" No business owner wants to print that in large letters above every upload form: "Thanks for uploading, your content may be deleted at any time, keep a copy." What we need though is some accountability especially from large companies and for real users. How long can we go before we start treating online stuff like real stuff? Why is my car protected from theft but my data isn't?
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    Clearly many users here want it. Maybe even with these pop-on level forced notification boxes. And thus I recommend they fully start pushing such big red warning letters in the services they work with. And size should have nothing to do with it. I believe treating most SaaS providers the same.
sli 5y ago
Both of those things are true simultaneously. YouTube and other Google products are advised against for long term storage because Google's acting this way is entirely unacceptable. Until the latter can be fixed, the only real hedge a person has is to simply not rely entirely on Google for anything. That's just the reality of it. Blame never rests on the user, either way. Google will always have far more power than the user.

Aunche 5y ago

YouTube isn't a cloud storage service, let alone one a paid one. I'm not really sure what you'd expect them to do. If they lost access to their free Google drive I'd be more sympathetic.

ShoveItHN 5y ago
fouc 5y ago
It kind of is. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, then we can effectively treat it like a duck, even if it denies it in the legalese.

Ekaros 5y ago

It would. I hope people here work towards their companies regularly warning their customers that any content stored on their services can be gone any day without any warning.

rectang 5y ago
How about if durable archival was an upsell alongside upload?
- Ekaros 5y ago
  I wonder how that would work, after certain amount of data or time period. For reasonable cost ship a tape archive or similar to customer?
  - rectang 5y ago
    For most services (certainly for Google) the cost of long-term storage isn't the main issue — it's the cost of supporting an appeals process when you have to deal with bad actors and legal complexities. We have to overcome the economics and legalities and make it feasible to provide download of the archived materials even after an account gets banned. Brainstorming an interface, I can imaging "archive your original source materials" as an upsell alongside the YouTube upload, with an option to archive the actual video file as well. This would actually be enabled if you were to subscribe to the archival service, which would be paid in advance. Perhaps we can argue that such files should be considered private materials rather than redistributed works, so not subject to copyright takedowns.
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  So the issue is Google often takes down accounts with illegal content using the same process as here. Imagine the very real scenario that Google found CSAM on an account: They aren't going to let you access it or download it again for any amount of money. And that's the problem here: With no humans in the process, YouTube treats ordinary users and predators exactly the same way, because ultimately, algorithms are stupid and don't make good moderators.
  - rectang 5y ago
    > YouTube treats ordinary users and predators exactly the same way Does it have to be that way? There are various reasons for banning an account. If the content is actually CSAM, then I imagine a provider's hands are tied under US law at least. But algorithmically flagged CSAM has a confidence percentage associated with it. A provider is not legally obligated to deny you archival access to video of a kid's pool party given a false positive flag by a scanning algo. Then there are lots of other reasons that an account may end up banned where archival access doesn't necessarily have to be problematic. For example, there's no reason to take away access to completely original COVID denialist videos, even if the platform decides that it's not going to allow them to be shared.
  - charcircuit 5y ago
    YouTube can undelete accounts. All of their old videos are still there.
  - alienbeast 5y ago
    Solution: A button that says "Click here to pay $5 for a human to review your situation."
    - Tozen 5y ago
      Good idea. Not sure why YouTube/Google doesn't do it. As you would think there is good money in it and better user relations. Possibly they like the authoritarian algorithm approach, and feel they are making enough money, so don't need to bother with alternatives or "lowly user" issues.
feupan 5y ago
Not that I'm justifying it, but isn't that part of every single ToS of web services? "Your account may be terminated at any time" No business owner wants to print that in large letters above every upload form: "Thanks for uploading, your content may be deleted at any time, keep a copy." What we need though is some accountability especially from large companies and for real users. How long can we go before we start treating online stuff like real stuff? Why is my car protected from theft but my data isn't?
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Clearly many users here want it. Maybe even with these pop-on level forced notification boxes. And thus I recommend they fully start pushing such big red warning letters in the services they work with. And size should have nothing to do with it. I believe treating most SaaS providers the same.

sli 5y ago

Both of those things are true simultaneously. YouTube and other Google products are advised against for long term storage because Google's acting this way is entirely unacceptable. Until the latter can be fixed, the only real hedge a person has is to simply not rely entirely on Google for anything. That's just the reality of it. Blame never rests on the user, either way. Google will always have far more power than the user.