33 ms·
3blue1brown YouTube Bitcoin video taken down as copyright violation
- throwaway290 2y ago> The request seems to have been issued by a company chainpatrol, on behalf of Arbitrum, whose website says they "makes use of advanced LLM scanning" for "Brand Protection for Leading Web3 Companies" Tech built on copyright abuse used for copyright trolling? Too early for peak irony of 2025!
- reaperman 2y agoI understand this isn't a DMCA request, so quite a few legal remedies are unavailable for abusing the Youtube reporting system. But it seems like "tortious interference" would still apply here. Is there some reason it wouldn't?
- hnbad 2y agoUsing "LLM scanning" for "Web3" companies sounds like tortious interference already.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- henryfjordan 2y agoTortious Interference might apply, but how much money was actually lost? 2 days of ad revenue on a video from 2017 is not much, certainly not enough to pay the lawyers for a lawsuit.
- the__alchemist 2y agoI wish Youtube etc would blacklist requests by these companies, but am not optimistic. Curation seems like the path here, but it seems difficult. (See also the recent Kagi thread here, highlighting how being able to curate which sites appear on your search results is a big deal)
- claytonwramsey 2y agoThe problem is not YouTube, but the law. The DMCA requires that online service providers (YouTube, Reddit, etc.) comply immediately with any takedown request and without question, so long as it meets sufficient conditions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Notice_from_copyright_owner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_...
- monocasa 2y agoYouTube's system goes well beyond what is required by the DMCA. Notice no mention of "copyright strike" in the DMCA.
- infinitesoup 2y agoYouTube’s “three strikes” policy is their implementation of the DMCA’s “repeat infringers” requirement: > has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the *termination* in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are *repeat infringers* https://www.aclu.org/documents/text-digital-millennium-copyright-act-dmca https://www.aclu.org/documents/text-digital-millennium-copyr...
- avianlyric 2y agoYouTube's copyright system has little to do with DMCA. Music right holders managed forced YouTube to implement a copyright claim system that explicitly didn't involve DMCA takedown requests. As a result any protection that DMCA provides to recipients of takedown requests don't apply to YouTube copyright claims. In effect, the YouTube copyright system is a purely "voluntary" system for taking down copyright content, that goes way beyond the DMCA. It's basically designed to ensure theres no possible repercussions for issuers of copyright claims, even claims clearly made in bad faith.
- infinitesoup 2y ago
- wil421 2y agoThe year is 2030. After the AI bot wars, FaceBook and Google have been crippled. They let AI automation control their content and it was deleted after OpenAI GPT10 discovered vulnerabilities in automated copyright strikes. Taco Bell won the franchise war and is the only restaurant remaining.
- elromulous 2y agoPizza Hut outside the US
- mywittyname 2y agoAKA, Uncle Enzo's CosoNostra Pizza Inc.
- adamc 2y agoSnow Crash was another take on this whole slide to <is there even a bottom?>.
- easywood 2y agoIndeed, in the version I saw, they said "Pizza Hut" but you could see it was badly dubbed. Only much later I learned it was originally "Taco Bell".
- mkl 2y agoTaco Bell in NZ. It was the first time I'd heard of it, though, and the movie is still probably the source of most of my knowledge of it.
- n4r9 2y agoThere's at least 15 in London, UK.
- pseudosudoer 2y agoEvery year it becomes clearer that Idiocracy was indeed a documentary.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- the__alchemist 2y agoI noticed `ChainPatrol` has a Github: https://github.com/chainpatrol https://github.com/chainpatrol There's a `report abuse` button on the right of that page. I used it. (Category: Bullying and Harassment)
- geor9e 2y agowe should make a bot to do this for us
- jagged-chisel 2y agoThe bullying didn’t happen on GH, so I'm not sure this is a good strategy.
- TZubiri 2y agoIt's childish. Taking down their github isn't even impactful, and forcing github to be a court is playing games instead of using real courts.
- echelon 2y agoContrary to this, I'd like to see 3blue1brown actually get two more strikes and get deleted per YouTube "3 strikes" policy. Imagine the furor and outrage of that. One of the most popular, meaningful, and impactful channels done in by YouTube's (and the DMCA's) ridiculous policy [1]. The public outcry from this might motivate real policy changes both within Google and other FANNG companies as well as with lawmakers. Until a big channel gets stricken, this will continue to plague smaller creators with no recourse. We need a symbolic gesture of this magnitude to effectuate real change. [1] And it's not like YouTube would actually delete their data or we wouldn't have a way to restore it. This is such an important channel that there's no way it wouldn't be restored by Google or archivists.
- JoshuaDavid 2y ago> Contrary to this, I'd like to see 3blue1brown actually get two more strikes and get deleted per YouTube "3 strikes" policy. Does the "3 strikes" policy apply to large channels that bring in a lot of views and ad revenue?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- pbhjpbhj 2y agoSurely YouTube making a knowingly false allegation of tortfeasance against someone is libel. That should be actionable, possibly in a group action? Continued libel that inhibits the democratic exercise of free speech seems like something the government should act on?
- Joel_Mckay 2y agoIt is common for racketeers to steal revenue from a popular video until YT sorts out the legal ownership a few weeks later. It is a known con... one often not worth the $50k to extradite and haul them in front of a judge to recover your losses. =3
- 8note 2y agoits crazy that those funds arent held in escrow until the video publisher gets to respond/the dispute is resolved
- trogdor 2y agoThe funds are held in escrow. GP is wrong.
- Joel_Mckay 2y agoWhen the copyright strike is issued a video is taken offline from the publishers channel. In general, the racketeers will ask for a fee whether they have rights to the IP or not. They play the numbers counting on people not calling their bluff, and googles limited 3 strikes policy on channel publishers. It is a problem only slightly less nasty than channel hijacking. =3
- trogdor 2y agoFair enough. I was referring to the Content ID system. >In general, the racketeers will ask for a fee whether they have rights to the IP or not. I make my living from YouTube and I have never heard of this. Can you point me to evidence of what you are referring to?
- kepano 2y agoYou have to think of YouTube and other platforms as a mechanism for distribution, not a source of truth. If you're a creator it's essential to have your own place on the web were you can host and publish anything without fear that it will be taken down for any reason — even accidentally. As it becomes cheap to automate both creating takedown requests and processing requests, the volume of spam requests is going to skyrocket and it seems likely there will be more false positives.
- bunderbunder 2y agoThis is not just an information preservation problem. It's a problem with the creators who depend on YouTube ad revenue to fund to create content like this suddenly and unpredictably losing that revenue stream.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoYou cannot depend on Youtube ad revenue to survive, as it can be taken away at any time.
- janalsncm 2y agoYou can’t depend on any particular job to survive either. Does that imply OSHA is useless?
- toomuchtodo 2y agoAre you comparing a federal labor regulatory agency to ad payments that exist at the whim of a commercial entity?
- janalsncm 2y agoThis makes it sound like this is an overt decision by YouTube to stop monetizing a 3B1B video rather than an abuse of automated systems. The difference is important. Whether creators should depend on YouTube as a practical matter is different from whether they should be able to. As a practical matter, yes, diversifying is safer. But creators and YouTube probably agree that diversifying shouldn’t be necessary. Of course creators do not know how much money any particular video will make, but the implied social contract has always been that good videos will do well, for some definition of “good”. And no part of that definition of good has anything to do with bots abusing copyright systems.
- tialaramex 2y agoI think a good baseline might be that you need to deposit say $1M and then when oops, you accidentally made a bogus claim it's OK that $1M is split between the victim of your oopsy and Youtube for their trouble - you just pay $1M to get back into the game. Outfits like this could explain to their investors that while their technology does sometimes have little goofs that cost a few billion dollars per year, once they invent perfect AI they can scale infinitely and make that back easily, so if you invest $10Bn of your fiat currency today, in 18 months they can 100% guarantee nothing in particular, wow. This works for actual creators, who are occasionally slightly inconvenienced but handsomely rewarded when that occurs, for Youtube, who get paid each time these "rare" mistakes happen, and for the companies "innovating" by making up nonsense and taking people's money. Just as well the "investment" goes to a Youtuber as to some random office park or an ad firm.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> a good baseline might be that you need to deposit say $1M This is a license to rip off the copyrights of anyone without a million dollars in cash.
- mullingitover 2y agoI don't think so, since YouTube is operating their extrajudicial "go the extra mile for copyright holders" copyright claim system. It isn't required by law and this is what's being abused, not plain DMCA claims. For regular claimants, the regular (and free) DMCA system would still be in effect. The bonus is that filing fraudulent DMCA claims has real legal repercussions under the law. I don't know if there's any real consequence for lying about copyright ownership to Google under their made-up claim system.
- vkou 2y agoIt isn't required by law, it's required by people who would sue the pants off it if it didn't kowtow to them. Which is way scarier than something required by law. Law can be lobbied about and changed. Law has limits. Law can be ignored when you are rich and powerful. Lawsuits from megacorps, on the other hand, cannot.
- RobertDeNiro 2y agofrom https://x.com/ChainPatrol/status/1876300596182983151 https://x.com/ChainPatrol/status/1876300596182983151 " Hello! This was a false positive in our systems at @ChainPatrol . We are retracting the takedown request, and will conduct a full post-mortem to ensure this does not happen again. We have been combatting a huge volume of fake YouTube videos that are attempting to steal user funds. Unfortunately, in our mission to protect users from scams, false positives (very) occasionally slip through. We are actively working to reduce how often this happens, because it's never our intent to flag legitimate videos. We're very sorry about this! Will keep you posted on the takedown retraction. "
- Mistletoe 2y agoThis company is basically an extreme nobody and has like 1-3 likes on their posts. It is absurd how imbalanced the power is with regard to automation and copyright strikes.
- vkou 2y agoThere's nothing absurd about it, our society is not built about making people with a lot of likes comfortable, it's built around making people who own stuff comfortable.
- robertlagrant 2y agoYou don't really need to own much to initiate a bogus copyright strike, so I don't know how that's relevant.
- ikiris 2y agoI’m very interested how they think any of their copyright takedown claims pass scrutiny.
- everfree 2y agoFrom their home page, it looks like their stated goal is to remove brand impersonation materials. Lookalike websites, social media compromises, malicious links, etc. They allege to work with registrars, contribute to blocklists and take down scam content. True brand impersonation of this ilk almost always includes copyright infringement. Sure it's possible that the company is a truly malicious actor that has a fake website and does not actually submit any valid claims, while working alongside the top brands in the industry to tear down that same industry. Personally though, I think it's more likely the company is a startup rushing to grab profits, has bad algorithms that come up with a lot of false positives, and is generally a bull in a china shop. Not that that's excusable, but being sloppy and taking shortcuts that hurt people is a bit different from being a "copyright hit company" where hurting people is the company's entire raison d'etre. The former calls for better regulation; the latter calls for being stamped out. I don't know if you've tried to consume any crypto-related content on YouTube recently, but YouTube has a major problem with fake "live streams" from "Elon Musk" and other prominent crypto figures who promise they'll "double your crypto for a limited time" if you just send it to them within the next ten minutes. Someone's gotta fight that, on behalf of both the scam victims and the impersonated brands, because YouTube themselves don't give a shit.
- Joel_Mckay 2y agoBen's channel is visually stunning, and should be sponsored as public access educational content. Best of luck suing the IP racketeers =3
- chad1n 2y agoIt truly protected web3 from the "normies" that could have learned about crypto from this video. AI moderation is such a joke, every reupload (or a completely different video on the same subject) can take a video down because they look "similar" enough for the AI and no person would bother checking it. I expected a different treatment of their bigger creators, but that's what it is.
- some_random 2y agoThis reminds me of that time CGP Grey's channel got in trouble for.... impersonating the famous youtube channel CGP Grey. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIssymQvrbU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIssymQvrbU
- davidjhall 2y agoAre there any other copies of this video out there? Since it's a bogus claim, the video should be able to be posted elsewhere --- YouTube can't be the only source of record.
- crtasm 2y agoI know there's a text version: https://www.3blue1brown.com/lessons/bitcoin https://www.3blue1brown.com/lessons/bitcoin
- HelloUsername 2y agoAnd here the video: https://web.archive.org/web/20241116220152/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBC-nXj3Ng4 https://web.archive.org/web/20241116220152/https://www.youtu...
- olalonde 2y agoWow, how does that work? Archive.org can't possibly archive every YouTube video, right?
- Stagnant 2y agoThey don't but if it is a popular video the likelyhood of it being archived increases. It is possible to submit URLs to archive.org manually too. Also the youtube videos downloaded by archiveteam volunteers[0] possibly end up in wayback machine though I'm not sure if it happens automatically anymore. 0:https://tracker.archiveteam.org/youtube/ https://tracker.archiveteam.org/youtube/
- lousken 2y agocan we start permanently banning companies that submit false-positive takedown requests? 3 strikes for them should result in not being able to submit any strikes anymore and all their content being removed if the content creator can get their channel removed, same thing must apply to the opposite side as well
- hkon 2y agoYou can just create a new company. There is an asymmetry there which your tit for tat approach does not take into consideration. And no, creating a new channel requires far more work.
- lousken 2y agoI don't mean banning the company which does the takedown submission, I mean the company that actually owns the copyright. That would result in companies being a lot more vary in terms of whom to trust with such job.
- TZubiri 2y agoI know that it's rather opaque, but I'm pretty certain Google does basic reputation tracking. When they manually revert this, the ChainPatrol account won't have as much power.
- cduzz 2y agoWhen I first saw this I was reminded of the Mend it Mark copyright takedown event where he fixed and documented a phono preamp and the maker of that preamp filed a copyright take down against the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPIrCaeVtvI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPIrCaeVtvI
- sneak 2y agoWhy do we tolerate centralized censorship platforms when we know their catastrophic failure modes? This is just a mistaken corporate interest. What about when the state wants very much to hide something?
- rosesmith2255kk 2y ago[flagged]
- tomalaci 2y agoWith AI exponentially accelerating effects of Dead Internet, I think any social or content-sharing platforms will require some form of Digital ID that can't be easily created/mass-generated (e.g. maybe tie bank account to it?). That would put real consequences on users misusing platforms. Even a small fee for misbehavior would likely curtail vast swathes of bad actors. It would also make companies be less trigger-happy with their bots if such are allowed to operate in that ID framework (i.e. an identifiable bot being punished would be a fee subtracted from the company that uses it). I pretty much expect that kind of system in the future, otherwise we will just return back to private networks and private communities.
- vincnetas 2y agoCompanies bread much faster than humans can. So in that new internet where we ID every participant we should not equate company and human. And fines are not the solution as some actors can buy their way out with unlimited funds (compared to regular human)
- adamc 2y agoGoogle's notoriously terrible customer service strikes again!
- grumple 2y agoAre there any nations that have laws that require investigation before takedowns, or at least have financial punishment for issuing incorrect takedowns? Why don't we build a video hosting service served from there, if such a place exists?
- kemiller 2y agoI mean, it's good they are doing the right thing here, even if it were only damage control. But doesn't give a lot of confidence they won't harm creators who don't yet have 3b1b's reach.
- hkon 2y agoDead internet moves forward one step
- TZubiri 2y agoI'd like a couple of laws whereby if you charge or make money through something, you need to have some human monitoring. Surely there's precedent is it not illegal to operate an unmonitored industrial factory
- jjk166 2y agoThere are humans that work at google (or so I am told), just not enough. It is not illegal to operate an unmonitored (nonetheless an under-monitored) factory.
- ngriffiths 2y agoIn the future we will maybe need a physical ID (or other sufficiently costly proof) to post a video or file a complaint or do stuff other than consume. I don't know though, maybe that will prove to be too hard and the bot filled platforms will win. In which case maybe the only way to be safe from the bot armies is to hire a bigger bot army yourself. Fun!
- btown 2y agoOne of the reasons that copyright processes are so biased towards traditional rightsholders and against individual creators is that the latter group is simultaneously captive to the platform and unorganized/decentralized; YouTube needs licenses and goodwill from, say, Universal, far more than it needs 3blue1brown individually. And the incentives for rectifying this are skewed: video platforms simply need to address individual cases with influential creators just reactively enough so that collective action isn't incentivized; that's far cheaper, and far easier to not need to coordinate with traditional rightsholders, than addressing the problem systematically. If we believe that the vision of being an independent content creator is important to humanity - and I think it's becoming vital as "a way to distinguish myself" that folks are able to dream about from an early age - then we need to seriously work to protect it. Not everybody will get their "big break" but we can at the very least start having conversations about protecting creators from an AI-driven DMCA bot arbitrarily destroying their career through automated channel-disabling rules.
- throw310822 2y agoThe state of content producers (including app developers) on the internet today is the same as that of factory workers in the industrial revolution. Everyone's work is immediately replaceable with that of someone else, who is more than willing to step in to take the spot. Workers solved that with unions that can coordinate the workers' actions. In concrete terms, a content-creators union might act as a middleman who is able to make all the contents from all its members simultaneously and immediately unavailable on the targeted platforms until some agreement is met or either side gives up.
- btown 2y agoWhile the presence of an algorithm that "auto-scabs" makes a full-fledged strike fundamentally difficult, a threat of a coordinated campaign where large creators encourage users to install ad blockers and go off-site for donations, rather than buying superchats/subscriptions on platform, might be meaningful enough to compel achievable asks like copyright strike reform.
- Hilift 2y ago
- mensetmanusman 2y agoThe crypto YouTube scams are incredibly sophisticated. Bitcoin is the best currency for scammers bar none, so millions from nation states like North Korea will pour into this to decimate lowly pensioners scared for their future. 3b1b is basically a causality in this war of greed.
- Murphysharon 2y ago[dead]
- malwrar 2y agoA policy I think would be interesting: copyright violation stops being about who is able to post what, and starts being about who is profiting from what. Content takedowns are impossible, but affected artists are directly and nontransferrably allowed to legally assert rights to the profits directly derived from their content and can legally reclaim lost funds. Preferably there would be a similar mechanism for false claims. No one loses money they aren’t entitled to, the rightsholder doesn’t need to play whack-a-mole to enforce an artificial monopoly, and no disruption for viewers in any case. We need something that frees us from this prison. I still remember when it was normal for youtube videos to play mainstream music in the background. Now draconian enforcement has created this artificial power that people beyond music labels can abuse, and it affects our art adversely. Feels clear to me we need something new that operates in 2024, not from the era where individual movie pirates faced 6-7 figure fines and jail time.
- teekert 2y agoWeird how I hear the tweet in his voice as I read it.
- daveguy 2y agoJust a friendly heads up. Anyone who wants to avoid Twitter, since it has become so toxic, can use the domain xcancel.com in place of twitter.com or x.com. like so: https://xcancel.com/3blue1brown/status/1876291319955398799 https://xcancel.com/3blue1brown/status/1876291319955398799 This links to independent Nitter to provide a full thread.
- Lance_ET_Compte 2y agoThank you!
- abnercoimbre 2y agoGreat to see a resurgence of a genuinely working Nitter instance. Appreciate this.
- gxvwb 2y agoA Firefox Add-on to redirect Twitter links to X Cancelled automatically: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/nitter/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/nitter/ (Disclosure: I published this Add-on)
- abnercoimbre 2y agoInstalled immediately and enabled to run on private windows. Good self-plug :)
- HelloUsername 2y agohttps://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/libredirect/ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/libredirect/ Might interest you as well
- tim333 2y agoThat doesn't have the reply from ChainPatrol: Hello! This was a false positive in our systems at @ChainPatrol . We are retracting the takedown request, and will conduct a full post-mortem to ensure this does not happen again. We have been combatting a huge volume of fake YouTube videos that are attempting to steal user funds. Unfortunately, in our mission to protect users from scams, false positives (very) occasionally slip through. We are actively working to reduce how often this happens, because it's never our intent to flag legitimate videos. We're very sorry about this! Will keep you posted on the takedown retraction.
- lazzlazzlazz 2y agoIsn't this very strong evidence in favor of a thesis that HN hates? That the most important networks (like YouTube) ought to be decentralized? Unfortunately, a strike in favor of the blockchain people — the best of which have been working to find ways to keep systems permanently decentralized (and not just temporarily decentralized, like Bluesky/Nostr/Mastodon/SMTP/etc.).
- abnercoimbre 2y agoA genuine question: can you clarify what you mean by temporarily decentralized? Seeing SMTP lumped in the same category as Bluesky made me realize I don't know what you mean. The best argument in your favor is that Gmail captured 80% market share. Or that hosting your own mail server is a full-time job. However, this doesn't mean email isn't decentralized.
- seabass-labrax 2y ago> Or that hosting your own mail server is a full-time job. Many others have said so in the past, but I think it's worth saying again: this isn't true. With a good foundation in system administration, hosting an email server is not a full-time job; it's barely part-time. I self-host an email server for myself; it has reasonable spam protection plus calendar and contacts synchronization. Gmail, Fastmail, GMX etc. accepts my outgoing emails. It took me around three days full-time to learn everything and set it up (from starting the virtual machine to fully working) and then an hour or two each month after that to keep it maintained. Please feel welcome to say hello with it :) contact@seabass.systems
- lazzlazzlazz 2y agoEmail is ostensibly a decentralized system. But in its real-world use, it is centralized both at the application layer and at the protocol layer. At the application layer, email clients (like the Gmail or iOS email app) are typically bundled with a reliance on centralized email hosting (running the mail server) and relying on their centrally-controlled name (@gmail.com, @icloud.com, etc.). This in turn gives the app developers significant leverage against the protocol layer, since they completely control how their users (through their app) interact with the protocol layer. At the protocol layer, email relies heavily on a de facto reputation system, since any valuable and truly decentralized and permissionless system will have an abundance of spam. The reputation system is used to filter spam and isolate bad actors. This is why running a home email server is not really what this is about: it's about who you need to rely on to have your emails delivered. The challenge isn't designing a protocol without reliance on any single actor. What's difficult is designing a protocol that can avoid becoming de facto centralized when critical features (like spam prevention, registration, etc.) need to be filled in by agents outside of the protocol. The crypto people recognize this and that's why they want to build the economics explicitly into their protocols (a critically important part of any protocol; all protocols without exception have economic components whether one recognizes this or not). This is also why they emphasize global consensus and more. Hacker News and others hate blockchains because they see the scams (which happen in all permissionless systems, and they are even more obvious when the financial components nakedly visible). Yet HN laments when the properties of decentralization that they love and value are lost for seemingly mysterious reasons ("dead internet theory", "enshittification"). The truth is that the reasons are right in front of us.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- throwaway423342 2y agoLuckily there are copies on other video platforms. e.g. https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1yJ41117we/?spm_id_from=333.337.search-card.all.click&vd_source=204d16a89d6ce892cae191a976edefda https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1yJ41117we/?spm_id_from=333...
- Imnimo 2y agoAfter looking at the websites for ChainPatrol and Arbitrum, I still have no idea what's going on here. How do these two things combine to result in a YouTube copyright claim? What sort of videos are they supposed to be issuing takedowns for?
- j45 2y agoI hope YouTube can make this a better experience extremely soon. With YouTube video being used as a proxy for credible content on search results.. 3 relatively anonymous complaints, in bad faithc can end so much learning and work… without evidence or reply kind of is deterring from having great content on YouTube. The deterrent to creating good content on YouTube lets the bad content win, except it might not keep the eyeballs for advertising as well or broadly. I’m not sure if the complainant must be required to contact the channel prior to accepting a dmca complaint? EBay has a built in messaging system, maybe YouTube can too. Further if there’s ways creators can be protecting their creations before posting they should be built into the workflow, whether it’s registering custom music, etc. Otherwise the price of success is targetable in an automated fashion to take down a channel if they don’t comply or pay out. A channel inbox might force behaviour into first creator to creator before escalating straight to too easily triggering things. Maybe new complainants found to have too many complaints in short order or some other pattern could possibly have to pass much higher kyc requirements to help each other communicate more effectively.
- rglover 2y agoIt's deeply haunting to think about how badly AI is going to mess up the world over the next few years. Today, it's YouTube videos. Later, it will be a rejection of the insurance claim for a kid's life-saving surgery. If you're in a position of influence in an organization that's losing its marbles over AI, please, at the very least encourage others to pump the brakes and think. If there was ever a time to speak up when you know implementing something will lead to a likely disaster, it's now.
- connicpu 2y agoUnitedHealthcare is already using AI to deny claims, and reportedly I've heard that 90% of the AI denials that are appealed end up approved when it gets to a human.
- xiaq 2y ago> Later, it will be a rejection of the insurance claim for a kid's life-saving surgery. According to this article, it's been happening for a while now: https://www.statnews.com/2023/03/13/medicare-advantage-plans-denial-artificial-intelligence/ https://www.statnews.com/2023/03/13/medicare-advantage-plans...
- maeil 2y agoIf only this had to do with AI. This has been going on for many years, long before LLMs. These are simple scammers. Many a good article has been written about the way these scams work. With or without AI, their claims are entirely bogus, they have never needed AI to pretend to have a claim, and nothing has changed in that regard. Sugggest search query: Youtube copyright fake claim revenue scam.
- gweinberg 2y agoPreaching to the choir I know, but there needs to be consequences for issuing a bogus takedown request.
- dredmorbius 2y ago"Be a property owner and not a renter on the Internet" <https://den.dev/blog/be-a-property-owner-not-a-renter-on-the-internet/ https://den.dev/blog/be-a-property-owner-not-a-renter-on-the...> HN discussion: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlcDHlK_RoY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlcDHlK_RoY> If you keep working on Maggie's Farm, you'll keep encountering Maggie's rules. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie%27s_Farm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggie%27s_Farm> Rely on YouTube for distribution, for now, but build a home base (or bases) elsewhere which you can fall back on.
- vasco 2y agoI wonder if it makes sense for someone to do a huge IP troll bot network to make copyright claims on all the big YouTubers in such an egregious and in-your-face wrong way that youtube would be forced to redesign or remove the system. It'd suck for a bit but I think this slow burn affecting people that can't defend themselves (3blue1brown can) is worse.
- wruza 2y agoYou’re probably assuming youtube doesn’t know about the scale of this problem and all it takes is to show it. It absolutely does know it and “be big enough to get human assistance” is their conscious mode of operation. They couldn’t care less about what’s right, because it’s not money.
- vasco 2y agoOf course youtube knows, the point is to make all the users and creators pissed with them in a critical moment, vs slowly burning with mild annoyance forever.
- LittleTimothy 2y agoHere's my guess what would happen: Youtube will have a word with their contacts in government and in short order you'd end up in a court room for some nebulous federal crime about malicious use of computers and hacking and they'd have no concerns about locking you up for decades. Oh and absolutely nothing about Youtube's attitude to copyright would change. Take a look at Aaron Swartz's case for example, people may be sympathetic to his motives but he still got pursued for a 50 year federal sentence and ended up killing himself.
- projectileboy 2y agoI apologize in advance for not offering something constructive to say. I just wish anyone here who is younger could see the difference between what the promise of the web was in ‘95 and what it has become. Such a burning pile of trash, it’s heartbreaking.
- bulletmarker 2y agoThis is a good example of a sensationalist post title.
- queuebert 2y agoCinemaStix has also been fighting these lately. In their case, YouTube seems to have zero regard for Fair Use, and short-sighted film rights holders are striking every video containing any amount of their film, even though the publicity CinemaStix gives them likely increases sales.
- Jupe 2y agoLost in all this... can someone ELI5?
- dbspin 2y agoHypothetically, would it be possible to create a legal entity to make claims against ones own videos, as a shell protection against bogus claims?
- throw5959 2y agoThat's the purpose of limited liability companies.
- dbspin 2y agoThat's not quite what I mean. Being a llc doesn't help you within the Youtube Content ID system. What I'm wondering is could you have a second entity you control make claims against your own videos - or do claims stack. i.e.: Would you still be vulnerable to vexatious claims from a third party.
- jvreeland 2y agothis has been a known problem with YouTube for ever and they seem to have no interest in fixing it.
- nathanmills 2y agoActually, this is exactly why we should embrace blockchain technology. With a decentralized video platform built on Web3, these kinds of copyright issues wouldn't happen because everything would be verified on-chain.I know people have been working on a similar project using smart contracts that could solve this. YouTube is just too centralized.
- paulbecker1919 2y ago[dead]
- akino_germany 2y agoFrom https://x.com/ChainPatrol/status/1876456092164653328 https://x.com/ChainPatrol/status/1876456092164653328 "We found that this video was never reported in our system, and our system did not flag it. This false positive was due to human error, not bots or AI. One of our analysts, responsible for submitting takedowns, accidentally copied the wrong link while reporting a malicious video."
- adas222 2y agoI'm not sure about x dmca check here: https://www.enforcity.com/blog/x-twitter-dmca https://www.enforcity.com/blog/x-twitter-dmca
- andy1232 2y ago[dead]
- Elizabeth0147 2y ago[dead]