5 ms·

This doesn't mention what I think is the most egregious example of Google account risk - viewers of Markiplier's YouTube live stream getting mass banned. That i

This doesn't mention what I think is the most egregious example of Google account risk - viewers of Markiplier's YouTube live stream getting mass banned. That included access to Gmail accounts from some reporting at the time (https://gamerant.com/markiplier-stream-ban-lock-users-out-of-gmail/ https://gamerant.com/markiplier-stream-ban-lock-users-out-of...). Combine that with automoderation and you have a recipe for people with no recourse getting hammered. At least when Nick (Trainer Tips) got algorithmically terminated for talking about "CP" in Pokémon Go he was prominent enough to get attention, but what if it happened to some no-name with 100 subscribers? (https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/armac3/youtube_just_terminated_trainer_tips_nicks/ https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/armac3/youtube_jus...) And haven't there been cases where developers who'd had accounts banned in the past got hired somewhere and ended up with an employer dev account linked to the banned personal account and also locked? And of course there's the whole question of phones - banned from Google and the entire Android ecosystem? Not like Google can't figure it out if you create a new account with the same phone number and geolocation.

crazygringo 4y ago
I'd never heard of that, but it doesn't appear anyone was banned for viewing a stream. Rather, accounts were banned because he asked people to vote via comments using just single emojis, and the repetitive emoji comments were classified as spamming, so accounts were blocked for spamming. Once Google recognized the error of over-aggressive spam classification, it reinstated all the accounts. [1] [1] https://www.engadget.com/2019-11-10-youtube-reinstates-banned-markiplier-fan-accounts.html https://www.engadget.com/2019-11-10-youtube-reinstates-banne...
- mort96 4y ago
  Even if those comments had truly been spam, it's horrifying that you can get your whole e-mail address locked simply for spamming in a live stream. Having your Google account locked is tantamount to being locked out of your entire digital life for most people, and the fact that Google doesn't take that seriously would have been criminal negligence in any just world.
- fencepost 4y ago
  Absolutely correct. What would have happened to those banned accounts had it been a livestreamer with a small number of subscribers and a smaller number of viewers? Would any real human have ever looked at it - and would they have cared or been empowered to do anything? Obviously proving a negative is a problem, but would anyone be surprised if small bans like that had actually happened and never got fixed? I'd be surprised if they hadn't happened.
  - rektide 4y ago
    Yes, well, Google & all sites also has a right to defend the network against attackers, which these people constitute. They actively degraded the site's quality & looked like & were an attack. Ultimately I think it's the right of these sites to handle matters as they may, and to a large degree caveat emptor us users. But I also very much want there to be forgiveness somewhere in these systems. The historical, classic, "It was just a joke" doesn't cut it, but I also am not heartless, don't think the punishment here ought to be forever. I want there to be reconciliation, reform, appeals available. I personally am a huge fan of better digital justice efforts. But these efforts need to start & take off as ground roots, voluntary systems, to avoid premature & hardening regulation. I think we need some banner sites to bother trying to do better, which so far no one at all has. Trying to force change at the top seems foolish when we have tried so little, when we still know nothing. I'd love to see some newspapers build "Digital Juries"[1] for abuse/moderation, or see some transparency floated. Just having more open processes would also be very helpful, versus how close to the chest these things are played today. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.06393 https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.06393
    - fencepost 4y ago
      My concern is that Google has built a system in which for a large portion of the population it's the one who controls whether individuals are allowed access to the Internet (via Android devices dominating the low-end of the smartphone market and many people now using smartphones as their primary/only access), and in addition it controls one of the dominant online entertainment options. So, control of whether you can get online plus decisions about that which can be based on what you do while online. Oh, and it's profit-driven so there's strong incentive to reduce costs, needs to do expensive content and comment moderation, has what could be classified as a toxic internal structure and a bunch of techies, which leads to automated moderation (e.g. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/12/youtube-moderation-bots-will-crack-down-on-spam-in-comments-live-chats/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/12/youtube-moderation-b...). Because automated moderation can be scaled cheaply, doesn't need to be paid wages and benefits, doesn't complain about mental health, and if something goes wrong, you just point and say "it was a computer problem" and that blunts most of the complaints because who's even responsible at that point? And while it has all this control it has limited options for punitive actions - Google can't really levy fines, its punishment options are effectively full or limited bans from some services (e.g. no commenting ability), temporary complete bans and permanent bans. If those bans can be circumvented easily they're kind of toothless, so with the information it has it can easily detect most bypass attempts. So financial incentives to automate and reduce appeal options, plus limited enforcement options weighted to the heavy end, plus widespread use as an identity provider. There are probably a lot of people out there for whom a week in jail would be less of a long-term life disruption than loss of their Google account.
- malepoon2 4y ago
  It still shows it's a good idea to separate your e-mail from your YouTube or whatever account though. When I still used Gmail I was always worried something like this would get me locked out of everything. I use YouTube much more now that my e-mail is safely stored elsewhere.
  - mort96 4y ago
    My YouTube account used to be independent from my Google account, just using my gmail address as the e-mail address. Then Google bought YouTube. Then Google merged my YouTube account with my Google account against my will.
- nitwit005 4y ago
  > Once Google recognized the error of over-aggressive spam classification, it reinstated all the accounts. You mean, Google's support services entirely failed, but a huge amount of social media attention eventually got them to fix things. It notes human moderators denied appeals in the article you linked.
- kobalsky 4y ago
  > it reinstated all the accounts https://twitter.com/markiplier/status/1193218509804695552 https://twitter.com/markiplier/status/1193218509804695552 markiplier complaining that not all accounts were reinstated one day before that article, I doubt everything was sorted out by the next day. having personally fell through a crack with one major service (not google) I feel like some poor souls are still looking at this bitterly.

crazygringo 4y ago

I'd never heard of that, but it doesn't appear anyone was banned for viewing a stream. Rather, accounts were banned because he asked people to vote via comments using just single emojis, and the repetitive emoji comments were classified as spamming, so accounts were blocked for spamming. Once Google recognized the error of over-aggressive spam classification, it reinstated all the accounts. [1] [1] https://www.engadget.com/2019-11-10-youtube-reinstates-banned-markiplier-fan-accounts.html https://www.engadget.com/2019-11-10-youtube-reinstates-banne...

mort96 4y ago
Even if those comments had truly been spam, it's horrifying that you can get your whole e-mail address locked simply for spamming in a live stream. Having your Google account locked is tantamount to being locked out of your entire digital life for most people, and the fact that Google doesn't take that seriously would have been criminal negligence in any just world.
fencepost 4y ago
Absolutely correct. What would have happened to those banned accounts had it been a livestreamer with a small number of subscribers and a smaller number of viewers? Would any real human have ever looked at it - and would they have cared or been empowered to do anything? Obviously proving a negative is a problem, but would anyone be surprised if small bans like that had actually happened and never got fixed? I'd be surprised if they hadn't happened.
- rektide 4y ago
  Yes, well, Google & all sites also has a right to defend the network against attackers, which these people constitute. They actively degraded the site's quality & looked like & were an attack. Ultimately I think it's the right of these sites to handle matters as they may, and to a large degree caveat emptor us users. But I also very much want there to be forgiveness somewhere in these systems. The historical, classic, "It was just a joke" doesn't cut it, but I also am not heartless, don't think the punishment here ought to be forever. I want there to be reconciliation, reform, appeals available. I personally am a huge fan of better digital justice efforts. But these efforts need to start & take off as ground roots, voluntary systems, to avoid premature & hardening regulation. I think we need some banner sites to bother trying to do better, which so far no one at all has. Trying to force change at the top seems foolish when we have tried so little, when we still know nothing. I'd love to see some newspapers build "Digital Juries"[1] for abuse/moderation, or see some transparency floated. Just having more open processes would also be very helpful, versus how close to the chest these things are played today. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.06393 https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.06393
  - fencepost 4y ago
    My concern is that Google has built a system in which for a large portion of the population it's the one who controls whether individuals are allowed access to the Internet (via Android devices dominating the low-end of the smartphone market and many people now using smartphones as their primary/only access), and in addition it controls one of the dominant online entertainment options. So, control of whether you can get online plus decisions about that which can be based on what you do while online. Oh, and it's profit-driven so there's strong incentive to reduce costs, needs to do expensive content and comment moderation, has what could be classified as a toxic internal structure and a bunch of techies, which leads to automated moderation (e.g. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/12/youtube-moderation-bots-will-crack-down-on-spam-in-comments-live-chats/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/12/youtube-moderation-b...). Because automated moderation can be scaled cheaply, doesn't need to be paid wages and benefits, doesn't complain about mental health, and if something goes wrong, you just point and say "it was a computer problem" and that blunts most of the complaints because who's even responsible at that point? And while it has all this control it has limited options for punitive actions - Google can't really levy fines, its punishment options are effectively full or limited bans from some services (e.g. no commenting ability), temporary complete bans and permanent bans. If those bans can be circumvented easily they're kind of toothless, so with the information it has it can easily detect most bypass attempts. So financial incentives to automate and reduce appeal options, plus limited enforcement options weighted to the heavy end, plus widespread use as an identity provider. There are probably a lot of people out there for whom a week in jail would be less of a long-term life disruption than loss of their Google account.
malepoon2 4y ago
It still shows it's a good idea to separate your e-mail from your YouTube or whatever account though. When I still used Gmail I was always worried something like this would get me locked out of everything. I use YouTube much more now that my e-mail is safely stored elsewhere.
- mort96 4y ago
  My YouTube account used to be independent from my Google account, just using my gmail address as the e-mail address. Then Google bought YouTube. Then Google merged my YouTube account with my Google account against my will.
nitwit005 4y ago
> Once Google recognized the error of over-aggressive spam classification, it reinstated all the accounts. You mean, Google's support services entirely failed, but a huge amount of social media attention eventually got them to fix things. It notes human moderators denied appeals in the article you linked.
kobalsky 4y ago
> it reinstated all the accounts https://twitter.com/markiplier/status/1193218509804695552 https://twitter.com/markiplier/status/1193218509804695552 markiplier complaining that not all accounts were reinstated one day before that article, I doubt everything was sorted out by the next day. having personally fell through a crack with one major service (not google) I feel like some poor souls are still looking at this bitterly.