5 ms·

YouTube was banning links to filmmusic – now reversed

54 points by gzalo 3y ago

Just got this email a few mins ago: > We wanted to let you know our team reviewed your content, and we think it violates our spam, deceptive practices and scams policy. We know you may not have realized this was a violation of our policies, so we're not applying a strike to your channel. However, we have removed the following content from YouTube: > URL: ht tps://filmmusic. io/standard-license Looks like some false positive, Youtube is really banning links to a valid and safe URL. The "appeal" link doesn't seem to work either. Worst part is that this probably affects thousands of videos using royalty free music, and they are now breaking the license due to deleting the attribution link :( Any ideas on how to contact YT to fix that? Edit: they have fixed it!

clough42 3y ago
I got the same email this morning. By the time I looked, the links were (apparently) back and the appeal link doesn't work for me, either. I was very confused until I found your post.
catserver111 3y ago
Looks like YT has reversed their action. The URL is back in the video description, and the videos involved have monetization back on again. Most likely, their human reviewers made yet another mistake. This has been the 3rd time for my channel. 1st one, they reversed on their own. 2nd one, I appealed and they retracted. And this 3rd one, they reversed on their own again. They should really fire their human reviewers. These are the same ones who keep demonetizing rule-abiding channels and rejecting applications for channels that actually make good content.
- blitzar 3y ago
  'Computer says no' is a catchphrase first used in the British sketch comedy television programme Little Britain in 2004. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_says_no https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_says_no We can satirise the problem for 20 years, yet multi billion / trillion dollar corporations filled with visionaries making the world better still havent figured it out yet.
  - K0balt 3y ago
    There is zero incentive for them to improve moderation. Moderation is a cost center, and faulty moderation is a revenue generator. We have allowed soulless corporations to pave the cultural commons and make shitty replacement “services” that they own outright but offer as tawdry alternatives to the cultural wealth that they destroyed. This is “progress” This is “move fast and break things” in its worst version. I mean, they actually removed “don’t be evil” from their public facing presence. We would do well to remember that there is no fundamental human right of incorporation. Corporations were allowed to exist to form a legal structure for towns and public works projects. The business corporation is outside of that intention in most iterations. When a corporation becomes a public scourge we should remember that it exists at the convenience of the people. We need to begin referendums to censure, limit, or even dissolve corporations that turn out to have a net negative effect on society. There is absolutely zero reason why the people should bear such a burden. When corporations become large enough to be de-facto governments in their own right, they need to be subject to democratic oversight. Otherwise we will inevitably live in an oligarchy of corporate exploitation.
    - onetokeoverthe 3y ago
      [dead]
- Tepix 3y ago
  > They should really fire their human reviewers. These are the same ones who keep demonetizing rule-abiding channels and rejecting applications for channels that actually make good content. But by demonetizing your videos temporarily, they make even more money. They have little incentive to change the system until there is serious competition.
  - archerx 3y ago
    They should have to retroactively pay back what was earned on those videos if they where demonetized for false or incorrect reasons.
    - cfn 3y ago
      They should not be able to demonetize videos. Deeming a video inappropriate but still making a buck off it is unethical if not outright dishonest. They are basically stealing from the author and I am surprised that it isn't a copyright issue at all.
  - kalleboo 3y ago
    I thought "demonetization" meant "not suitable for advertisers" => no ads shown => no money And a consequence of the "not suitable for advertisers" definition means that demonetized videos still make money from YouTube Premium views.
- quikoa 3y ago
  Perhaps it's worth considering taking them to a small claims court for this.
- ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago
  I would have thought they a/b tested the verdicts given by reviewers, so that a descision can't be made by a single reviewer
- boesboes 3y ago
  Are there even humans involved? I mean, I've seen some interactions with YT 'support' which clearly was just a bot pretending to be a human. Anyway, this won't stop until we stop using youtube. Not sure how to do that though without regulation or something to force the issue.
  - CameronNemo 3y ago
    I just added it to my ublock filter list. Been better off.
- DANmode 3y ago
  Why would they fire the humans who are doing exactly as they're told? YouTube/Google moderation could be way more accurate if they were truly incentives there for them.
JEDI-HACKER 3y ago
[dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ChrisArchitect 3y ago
Tell HN:

54 points by gzalo 3y ago

clough42 3y ago

I got the same email this morning. By the time I looked, the links were (apparently) back and the appeal link doesn't work for me, either. I was very confused until I found your post.

catserver111 3y ago

Looks like YT has reversed their action. The URL is back in the video description, and the videos involved have monetization back on again. Most likely, their human reviewers made yet another mistake. This has been the 3rd time for my channel. 1st one, they reversed on their own. 2nd one, I appealed and they retracted. And this 3rd one, they reversed on their own again. They should really fire their human reviewers. These are the same ones who keep demonetizing rule-abiding channels and rejecting applications for channels that actually make good content.

blitzar 3y ago
'Computer says no' is a catchphrase first used in the British sketch comedy television programme Little Britain in 2004. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_says_no https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_says_no We can satirise the problem for 20 years, yet multi billion / trillion dollar corporations filled with visionaries making the world better still havent figured it out yet.
- K0balt 3y ago
  There is zero incentive for them to improve moderation. Moderation is a cost center, and faulty moderation is a revenue generator. We have allowed soulless corporations to pave the cultural commons and make shitty replacement “services” that they own outright but offer as tawdry alternatives to the cultural wealth that they destroyed. This is “progress” This is “move fast and break things” in its worst version. I mean, they actually removed “don’t be evil” from their public facing presence. We would do well to remember that there is no fundamental human right of incorporation. Corporations were allowed to exist to form a legal structure for towns and public works projects. The business corporation is outside of that intention in most iterations. When a corporation becomes a public scourge we should remember that it exists at the convenience of the people. We need to begin referendums to censure, limit, or even dissolve corporations that turn out to have a net negative effect on society. There is absolutely zero reason why the people should bear such a burden. When corporations become large enough to be de-facto governments in their own right, they need to be subject to democratic oversight. Otherwise we will inevitably live in an oligarchy of corporate exploitation.
  - onetokeoverthe 3y ago
    [dead]
Tepix 3y ago
> They should really fire their human reviewers. These are the same ones who keep demonetizing rule-abiding channels and rejecting applications for channels that actually make good content. But by demonetizing your videos temporarily, they make even more money. They have little incentive to change the system until there is serious competition.
- archerx 3y ago
  They should have to retroactively pay back what was earned on those videos if they where demonetized for false or incorrect reasons.
  - cfn 3y ago
    They should not be able to demonetize videos. Deeming a video inappropriate but still making a buck off it is unethical if not outright dishonest. They are basically stealing from the author and I am surprised that it isn't a copyright issue at all.
- kalleboo 3y ago
  I thought "demonetization" meant "not suitable for advertisers" => no ads shown => no money And a consequence of the "not suitable for advertisers" definition means that demonetized videos still make money from YouTube Premium views.
quikoa 3y ago
Perhaps it's worth considering taking them to a small claims court for this.
ikekkdcjkfke 3y ago
I would have thought they a/b tested the verdicts given by reviewers, so that a descision can't be made by a single reviewer
boesboes 3y ago
Are there even humans involved? I mean, I've seen some interactions with YT 'support' which clearly was just a bot pretending to be a human. Anyway, this won't stop until we stop using youtube. Not sure how to do that though without regulation or something to force the issue.
- CameronNemo 3y ago
  I just added it to my ublock filter list. Been better off.
DANmode 3y ago
Why would they fire the humans who are doing exactly as they're told? YouTube/Google moderation could be way more accurate if they were truly incentives there for them.

JEDI-HACKER 3y ago

[dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ChrisArchitect 3y ago

Tell HN: