11 ms·
YouTube cancelled my Nextcloud installation how-to
- noAnswer 5y agoThe AI works in mysterious ways. Took him 10 years to block my "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!"-Video in Pakistan and another year to completely remove it on grounds of "child protection". The video just showed a stick-figure being drawn.
- squarefoot 5y agoDo Google guidelines forbid links or references to other hosting platforms in videos? Let's say I host a video on PeerTube, then make a short teaser and post it on Youtube with a link pointing to it, would that be acceptable? Edit: note that PeerTube is 100% free and funded by a non profit organization.
- onetokeoverthe 5y ago
- agilob 5y agoHow-to of installing NextCloud to regain control over your data, and posting it on YouTube? You need another video on how to publish to PeerTube ;)
- chr15m 5y agoit is very ironic isn't it! :D
- naoqj 5y agoThe argument is ridiculous because there probably are thousands of videos on how to have your own cloud.
- Super_Jambo 5y agoBut monopolies are good for us and all regulation of companies is bad. Might be worth telling Matt Stoller about this. https://mattstoller.substack.com/ https://mattstoller.substack.com/
- ekianjo 5y agoHost it on peertube and platforms less prone to cancelling you for no vaoid reason.
- dewey 5y agoWhich defeats the whole purpose of posting it on YouTube, getting people to see your content.
- dylan604 5y agoIf I wanted nobody to see my video, I'd at least post it to Vimeo.
- lambic 5y agoNobody will see your video on youtube either unless you get very lucky.
- mattl 5y agoI posted a movie I made on Peertube —- on one of the recommended instances —- and fry instance closed down.
- BiteCode_dev 5y agoI doubt this is the real reason of the cancellation, although it's probably something equally ridiculous, and it's good we keep giving spotlights to the youtube abuses.
- ComradePhil 5y agoIt is most likely because the AI mis-captioned your accent and heard something you are not allowed to say. No way it is because Google sees Nextcloud uprising as a threat to Google Drive as it is suggested in the post.
- dantondwa 5y agoGoogle needs an appeal process. They have too much of a responsability, they can't do this to people. If they don't want to do it, the law must force them to set one up.
- 35mm 5y agoIn theory in the EU there is a provision under GDPR to have the right of a human review of algorithmic decisions. However in practice big tech companies either respond saying it doesn’t apply, or that it already has been reviewed by a human - which of course there’s no way to disprove from the outside.
- gostsamo 5y agoThis provision is for important stuff like job, rent, credit and the like. Look for proposals in the Digital Services Act, this might be more appropriate place to introduce moderation and ban standards.
- formerly_proven 5y ago> it already has been reviewed by a human - which of course there’s no way to disprove from the outside. Youtube appeals are either a non-local phenomenon or not decided by humans.
- lwkl 5y agoThere needs to be a cheap way for consumers to take this to a small claims court, so companies are forced to offer a proper review process.
- number6 5y agoIn theory you can inform the gdpr watchdogs and they can inquire further. I don't think the outcome will be different
- Teever 5y agoI've been wondering about that. What happens if people coordinate across the world to take Google to small claims court for various infractions all at the same time. Every day. For months. What happens then? If they don't have enough legal representatives and they can't show up they lose by default in many jurisdictions, right?
- turbinerneiter 5y agoIt's funny that everyone says "that's not the reason why it got banned". Yes. Well all know that. We all know that it was some mistake by some AI. Even the author knows that. But we also know that the only way to get customer support from YouTube is to get some social media outrage. It's so common, Google should put on their website: "If you need customer support, please try to create some outrage on social media. We do not provide other channels of customer support."
- zokier 5y ago> Even the author knows that. Still the meat of the article is the insinuation that yt removed the video because of some nefarious motives. So either the author knows otherwise and the article is written in bad faith, or the author genuinely believes his theories. Neither option reflects well on the author.
- usrusr 5y agoIf pretending to claim that it's done for other reasons than grotesquely failing AI is the workaround Google is basing their "good enough" on, then why wouldn't you play along?
- shkkmo 5y ago> So either the author knows otherwise and the article is written in bad faith, or the author genuinely believes his theories. That's a false dichotomy. I see no reason why Google earns any benefit of the doubt here. Letting Google off the hook by saying "it was just am AI mistake" when we don't actually know just gives Google more room to be draconian with no consequences. We really don't know why Google made this mistake and until Google provides a transparent and plausible explanation (hint, that won't happen even if this is decision is reversed), there is nothing wrong with assuming that Google is acting in bad faith. If Google wants the benefit of the doubt here, they need to earn it back.
- thatguy0900 5y agoI disagree that it reflects poorly on the author to write an article in bad faith. There is literally 0 other ways to get Googles attention than to make as big a noise as possible. If people are forced to resort to absurd lies to get some customer support then that is a game Google has created for itself. An actual support chat would mean this article was never written.
- antirez 5y agoThe problem is that private companies that become a de facto standard for content sharing can't decide unilaterally what users can publish and what not. We need new laws, the same laws that should limit what you can publish: is it illegal? Then it's banned, otherwise it is allowed.
- matheusmoreira 5y agoCompletely agree. We need new laws that completely override their little terms of service and advertiser concerns.
- PaulKeeble 5y agoThese automated algorithms that ban content are really very poor and they make a lot of mistakes. The review process being an equal mess doesn't help. Stuff like this just looks intentional at this point, all the more reason for people to start using software like Nextcloud and federated video alternatives to Youtube. Every one of this 0 cents business model companies is doing the same thing, none of them has an algorithm that does anything but annoy genuine customers.
- White_Wolf 5y agoThis here is why I think all these platforms that become the norm/de facto monopolies should be classed as "public utility" and be subject to audits on takedowns, neutrality and such.
- Gareth321 5y agoThey should, and in the past, legislators had the intestinal fortitude to break up companies of this size. It's clear to everyone that they're stifling competition at this point.
- cpach 5y agoAt this point it feels like producers perhaps should boycott YouTube and go to better platforms. Maybe having one’s own website and use Wistia or similar for hosting the videos?
- andybak 5y agoI suspect that there's a vast queue of people who would love succesful producers to step away from YouTube so they could take their place.
- jzb 5y agoAmen. Stop helping companies create walled gardens that ultimately screw you. You’d think we’d have learned that lesson by now.
- Broken_Hippo 5y agoHow, exactly, is that person going to get views? If they are supported by advertisements or sponsorships, do you think that is going to happen? Probably not. The biggest problem really is this: A lot of folks have never heard of Wistia (I hadn't until reading your comment). I'm probably not going to go there on my own - you know, unless they advertise on a youtube channel that I'm watching or something similar. And honestly, why would I believe that the smaller place is going to be any more fair to content producers, especially if they happen to pick up a lot of market share and can no longer provide the personal assistance they gave when small? And a website isn't exactly a substitute either: Who is going to find your website, anyway? Part of what makes large platforms popular is discoverability. Now, you might have some luck with some topics - the sort that people actually search for - but I'm not usually looking up any infotainment topics in a general search engine. I just go to youtube for that.
- easrng 5y agoAFAIK Wistia is for embedding video in other sites without a branded player. You aren't supposed to have heard of them.
- deleted 5y ago
- prima-facie 5y agoFunny how these companies started out with open source software as the base of their products, and are now pulling up the ladder behind them.
- progx 5y agoPlease use free alternatives not Youtube & Co.
- anothersullivan 5y agoDisclaimer: I'm new to SEO so I might have done something wrong I submitted a sitemap to Google Search Console and they indexed all my blog articles... except for the one about using Plausible instead of Google Analytics
- peppermint_tea 5y agoUnlike some other comments, I do not think legislating once more on google is the answer. I think it is up to the people to educate themselves, promote better alternatives to people they know and use it (audience drop WILL make google change it's ways) . One of my geeky friend once told me "I am no longer sure if the internet going to the masses is a good thing" EDIT : to clarify the comment above, I think internet is a wonderful tool, but by our choices/lack of actions, we allowed it to become what it is now.
- cube00 5y agoOnce the drop is significant enough for Google to notice it's likely too late. If people have found something better they won't be back.
- richardfey 5y agoBut that's a one-time loss event. Albeit catastrophical, what is the internal incentive for a company to prepare for that?
- sbarre 5y agoI feel like this argument is in line with people who are against unions and tell employees of huge corporations "you can stand up to your employer on your own!". The idea that even a fraction of YouTube's global audience would collectively choose to make an uncoordinated move - even over time - to something else because of YT moderation policy, is extremely unlikely, when compared to the coordinated marketing effort of YouTube to attract and retain viewers and content producers. The coordinated side will always win here. Other than important social issues, when has leaving things "up to the people" ever led to meaningful change? It's hard enough when we're talking about actual issues that affect people, you think that choice of video platform on the Internet, a luxury if I've ever heard one, is going to shift because of some kind of popular movement?
- peppermint_tea 5y agoAlthough I see the parallel in the comparison with unions, I would say there is a difference in the fact that, for most people, youtube does not put bread on their tables. I agree with you that it is unlikely that even a fraction of youtube audience make the switch. It is up to them. > Other than important social issues, when has leaving things "up to the people" ever led to meaningful change? I can only speak for myself here since "up to the people" means up to every single individual, not a collectivity. If youtube goes down tomorrow, I will have to find another source of music, that's all. I do not care if there is a meaningful change or not. And I totally agree that a video streaming platform is just a luxury...
- Shadonototra 5y agoThere are a shit ton videos with the same title: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Install+Nextcloud+on+your+own+VPS https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Install+Nextclo... So your issue is probably with the links in your description, it's probably to prevent spread of malwares since majority of youtube users are random people, they'd run what ever .exe/.apk they are told to open
- chr15m 5y agoInteresting, that could be it, thanks!
- mattl 5y ago
- ulkesh 5y agoAnd the fact that he has to guess at what the problem may or may not be is the core of the issue here. A simple straightforward response clearly indicating why the content is removed is not so far-fetched an idea.
- richardfey 5y agoThat would help users committing fraud to improve their vectors.
- ulkesh 5y agoSo people with honorable intentions should be punished and have no recourse? Security through obscurity is not security. I know this is a complicated subject with numerous methods of acting on fraud, abuse, or even simple mistakes -- but I don't see any reason why more information about exactly why something is removed in an automated fashion is bad for the user or bad for the business; assuming, of course, that Google even care to support their product.
- Shadonototra 5y ago
- Proven 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jrootabega 5y agoI'm not saying this is what's happening here, but here's a playbook I could see behind it: 1. Automatic/ML/AI/buzzword filtering that is, in blunt terms, kinda crappy 2. Preemptively and diligently correct for any such crappy decisions that would result in PR nightmares or credible lawsuits 3. Apply some portion of your effort to reviewing some portion of the cases that appeal. Hope (nudge nudge, wink wink) that those cases that you couldn't review, because you simply don't have the resources to review everything in depth, are those of your "enemies." You're not suppressing them; you just didn't have the resources to help them. Result: The system punishes your enemies by design and you and your enemies can just blame the AI and your front line support, which everyone already loves to do. People who are suspicious can be painted as nutjobs, because it's obviously just the unfortunate but classic case of the little guy against the giant indifferent bureaucracy. Thus any sufficiently influential entity can wield Hanlon's Razor as a weapon. You don't event need to plan for this; it is bound to happen. Parts 1. and 2. happening are foregone conclusions. When the opportunity for part 3. arises, I think people in all levels of the organization would quickly and tacitly realize that uneven review is in their best interest, if they don't just do it automatically out of laziness or tribal thinking.
- larrydag 5y agoIf this were the practices of a startup, new biz, or small org and tried something like this they would not make it at all. Is this because of monopolistic practices? Why do they believe this behavior is good for business? My question is the creator content video space in need of competitors? Some other products are making options available such as Rumble and Vimeo.
- lamontcg 5y agoGoogle basically owns all the advertising space now so they're restricted in their growth to the overall growth of the segment. So they squeeze out their overhead wherever they can. This is how managers protect their numbers. Anyone who suggests spending the money on customer support for creators is going to get laughed out of the room when they run the numbers on the cost and what it'll do to the quarterly numbers. Meanwhile there's no viable competitor to do it because they're such a monopoly due to network effects.
- BLanen 5y ago> Cancelled No, they didn't "cancel" your video. They removed it.
- cmetzger4 5y ago
- tomohawk 5y agoHow they decide what gets banned and not banned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0g07vJDFao https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0g07vJDFao
- zanethomas 5y agorumble.com
- tzs 5y agoI don't think a nefarious explanation is necessary for this kind of thing. I think it is most likely simply that false positives on their harm/spam filters are much less annoying to the average viewer than are false negatives, and so they are tuned to avoid false negatives even if it means more false positives.
- HNHatesUsers 5y ago
- Tao331 5y agoA video of myself and my kids singing a >100 year old shanty was flagged on YouTube for DMCA. A modern folk art drawing I made of a squid was blocked on Instagram for a content violation. I joked that the AI must be afraid of tentacles. The only explanation that made sense was that it looked vaguely phallic in the way that any of nature's "bulbed cylinders" do, but even that seemed like a stretch -- I should think they would have flagged an earlier painting of mushrooms. The lesson is to make everything look like a butt in a thong. None of the content moderation anywhere seems to have a problem with butts in thongs. Bulbed cylinders: bad. Smooshed jiggle orbs: good. Just no nipples.
- aklemm 5y agoThis is the most damning observation of Silicon Valley. They’ve killed art. Social media is notably lacking original visual and musical arts, and it’s because they’ve happily focused on selling butts and boobs using copyright and DMCA as cover. Combined with the incessant reliance on AI and no hope of humanity ever connecting with the customers, we have a perfect shitstorm.
- rakoo 5y ago> The lesson is to make everything look like a butt in a thong. The lesson is to not use Google, and to only depend on structures/people you can rely on. Either yourself or a collective without profit motives, for example.
- Tao331 5y agoInstagram is Meta, but the point still stands that you can't count on 'em. My long term goal is indeed to stop relying on the MAANG and publish first to my own site. I'm not really that interested in building a following. I have a small audience of friends who like to see what I'm up to and I genuinely like it that way. The major barrier is wanting to set it up in my free time since it's like doing work.
- rakoo 5y agoI can only recommend buying a vps and slapping yunohost on it. Installation is dead easy, and then applications are just a few clicks away. It takes 30 min to have an equivalent to twitter, Instagram, Facebook events and YouTube right under your total control.
- HNHatesUsers 5y ago
- mro_name 5y agoPlease never post content you hold dear exclusively on a platform that can cancel you. Post it first on your own property and additionally on any number of less trusteworthy places. => indieweb.org/POSSE
- hassancf 5y agoGreat. Thanks!
- nova22033 5y agohttps://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nextcloud https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nextcloud
- hedora 5y agoHey, any suggestions on a simple way to self host video? A static site + raspberry pi or NAS docker container + home internet + CDN should be enough to be "web scale". Anyone have a how to?
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y agohttps://docs.joinpeertube.org/install-any-os https://docs.joinpeertube.org/install-any-os ?
- _aleph2c_ 5y agoYouTube and Google will get their lumps when the Democrats are swept out of power. Forward this information to Rand Paul's office, the Republicans will need a justification for the policy changes they make once they are installed. Rand Paul has been starting his recent video's talking about how YouTube is cancelling him (a US Senator) and he advertises for Rumble.
- segmondy 5y agoI'm terrified of publishing on youtube or use any Google service that can get me banned, like adsense. I'm terrified it will cascade into my accounts and get me locked out of everything.
- mdavis6890 5y agoLots being said about how bad the DMCA moderation process is - but really let's try to empathize with the BigCo, give them the benefit of the doubt, and think about why they might do it like this, even if they hate it too: Maybe they are under a legal guillotine. Maybe it's the politicians fault for passing dumb laws like DMCA. Maybe it's our fault for continuing to elect them. The fact is, we have allowed the government to outsource the enforcement of their stupid laws to large companies who end up taking the blame. Copyright is one, but there are many more. A better pattern would be to absolve BigCo from responsibility for your copyright violations, and if the government doesn't like what you're doing, then THEY can enforce it against YOU. This would force the government to take responsibility for the laws that it passes, and we would have a clearer idea of who to actually blame for poor enforcement or stupid laws.
- RichardHeart 5y agoYouTube.com/RichardHeart was banned for the 4th time today, it's been unbanned 3 times before. I wish there was a way to solve this.
- TheChaplain 5y agoIf bilibili.com would be translated to english, it could easily destroy Youtube.
- anamax 5y agoGoogle has chosen a business model that makes it too expensive for them to provide decent customer support. It's unclear why that's a defense. There are other business models.
- chr15m 5y agoUpdate: the video has been restored. I did not receive any further correspondence from YouTube. I still have no idea why it was classified as "harmful or dangerous" or why it was restored again.