4 ms·

Given how vague their "eligibility criteria" are and how they consider on- and off-platform behavior, I'm not sure that's such a great loss. The whole thing re

by xg15 1y ago

Given how vague their "eligibility criteria" are and how they consider on- and off-platform behavior, I'm not sure that's such a great loss. The whole thing reads like institutionalized selective enforcement.

Onavo 1y ago
> The whole thing reads like institutionalized selective enforcement. The State forced their hands here. Comply and let certain favored creators back, or else they might find themselves subject to political prosecution.
- deaux 1y ago
  They didn't force anything, they gave them a choice, and Google consciously and actively chose to make this decision. AP News chooses to still call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of Mexico; a different choice from the outlets that no longer do. The New York Times, NBC News, the Hill and CNN chose to rather have their Pentagon access revoked; a different choice than the one made by New York Post, One America News Network, Breitbart News Network, HuffPost News and others. It's important to keep repeating this. Companies, organizations and individuals all have choices. Not every one of them makes the same choice given the same situation - in fact, they make opposite choices.
  - hugey010 1y ago
    Your second example of a choice is a consequence of a choice. Those companies chose not to comply with new reporting rules which resulted in having their Pentagon access revoked. This is an important distinction when given "choices" that aren't really choices but mandates. As far as how this YouTube scenario is different, people can host their content elsewhere, but there's only one Pentagon in the US.
throwaway48476 1y ago
Unfortunately they have a virtual monopoly on ugc video streaming. Without competitive pressure highly centralized services become the playfield of government forces.
andrepd 1y ago
A monopolistic entity enforces opaque and arbitrary rules with little to no ability to appeal. In less strange times this would merit the hammer coming down, but in 2025...
flashgordon 1y ago
Oh man I had a similar experience and realized how horrible it was. I put up a recording of me teaching my kids some Carnatic music. (The "twinkle twinkle little star" equivalent songs were like 800 years old). And I got takedowns almost immediately. Wtf. Luckily I was working at Goog at the time so I was able to actually find the "form" to explain how bs this was and was able to get those takedowns taken down! But then I tried to find an external way of doing it and it was easier to drive rusted nails through my eyeballs!

by xg15 1y ago

Onavo 1y ago

> The whole thing reads like institutionalized selective enforcement. The State forced their hands here. Comply and let certain favored creators back, or else they might find themselves subject to political prosecution.

deaux 1y ago
They didn't force anything, they gave them a choice, and Google consciously and actively chose to make this decision. AP News chooses to still call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of Mexico; a different choice from the outlets that no longer do. The New York Times, NBC News, the Hill and CNN chose to rather have their Pentagon access revoked; a different choice than the one made by New York Post, One America News Network, Breitbart News Network, HuffPost News and others. It's important to keep repeating this. Companies, organizations and individuals all have choices. Not every one of them makes the same choice given the same situation - in fact, they make opposite choices.
- hugey010 1y ago
  Your second example of a choice is a consequence of a choice. Those companies chose not to comply with new reporting rules which resulted in having their Pentagon access revoked. This is an important distinction when given "choices" that aren't really choices but mandates. As far as how this YouTube scenario is different, people can host their content elsewhere, but there's only one Pentagon in the US.

throwaway48476 1y ago

Unfortunately they have a virtual monopoly on ugc video streaming. Without competitive pressure highly centralized services become the playfield of government forces.

andrepd 1y ago

A monopolistic entity enforces opaque and arbitrary rules with little to no ability to appeal. In less strange times this would merit the hammer coming down, but in 2025...

flashgordon 1y ago

Oh man I had a similar experience and realized how horrible it was. I put up a recording of me teaching my kids some Carnatic music. (The "twinkle twinkle little star" equivalent songs were like 800 years old). And I got takedowns almost immediately. Wtf. Luckily I was working at Goog at the time so I was able to actually find the "form" to explain how bs this was and was able to get those takedowns taken down! But then I tried to find an external way of doing it and it was easier to drive rusted nails through my eyeballs!