4 ms·

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.

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.