
Cody'sLab channel suspended [video] - cisanti
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXT5T9MH7cI
======
chillydawg
The world is a better place with CodysLab, youtube need to sort their shit
out. He may have made a couple of slightly dodgy videos, but the vast majority
are really good and sometimes very impressive science videos.

~~~
rukittenme
Which ones? I wasn't aware that Cody's Lab could receive strikes. The content
is so tame, copyright free, and educational.

~~~
Carioca
Probably things that deal with explosives. He may have had a video on making
nitroglycerin.

~~~
simcop2387
Nothing on making it that I remember But several on how sensitive it is and
how powerful.

~~~
morsch
He literally has a video titled "Making Nitroglycerine":
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMmYPAS9xB0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMmYPAS9xB0)

Not that I have any reason to think this has anything to do with the channel
suspension.

~~~
simcop2387
My mistake, I hadn't seen that far back into his videos yet, he has way too
many to watch them all. I was thinking of the recent ones where he was hitting
nitroglycerine with knives and filming it at high speed.

------
NateyJay
A big problem with Youtube's three-strikes approach is that it's the same for
all channels, big or small. It doesn't matter how much good content you've
produced or how long you've been making it, if you get 3 strikes in a short
period, your account is deleted, same as any channel.

So channels that produce a lot of content or upload videos quickly have to be
_more_ careful about what they upload. There's no credit for good behaviour or
allowance for the extra risk channels take if they post lots of videos,
potentially getting a strike with each one.

But little old me only uploads one or two videos a year. So I can afford to
have every video copyright striked and I'll suffer no consequences since they
expire in 6 months.

It seems unfair.

~~~
Already__Taken
We go through this every time there's a copyright law or something. Baseball
is not a good system for moderation.

At least the billion hours of content added you youtube constantly needs no
nuance at all.

------
cisanti
Looks like he did some kind of experiment related to microwaves and bugs.
People reported and the channel got taken down.

Are people really that sensitive nowadays? And why they take the whole channel
down, just disable the ads if the advertisers are the problem. This channel
was really big, so I believe it gets plenty of attention.

~~~
curiousgal
Regardless of people's sensitivity, I think the system functioned the way it
is supposed to function, enough people report the content, it gets taken down,
and apparently this isn't the channel's first strike. The only criticism I see
fit is that they should add a manual check of the content if the channel is
big enough, that is before it gets automatically taken down.

~~~
otakucode
I disagree. Flagging a channel should disable it solely for the overly
sensitive dimwitted user that voluntarily selected to view the video in the
first place. YouTube is not a broadcast medium. Videos are available by
voluntary positive action of the viewer only. Taking a video down, much less a
whole channel, doesn't protect the viewer whose sensibilities were aroused. It
only serves to forbid others from making the choice of whether or not to view
the content themselves.

~~~
mschuster91
> It only serves to forbid others from making the choice of whether or not to
> view the content themselves.

No, there is certain content that is forbidden by law in some countries, for
example Holocaust denial, Nazi propaganda and other racist or otherwise
discriminatory content. I do wonder why Youtube and Twitter don't disallow
that kind of stuff by default, there's no reason for giving this kind of
content any platform even if it's legal by law in the US.

Also, fringe stuff like antivaxxers, "freemen/Reichsbürger movements", flat-
earthers, chemtrail believers, other conspiracy theories or Russian fake news
would be by far smaller if Youtube had decided that this content is not wanted
on their platform. Instead Youtube willingly provides a platform for this
content and therefore is directly responsible for the resulting problems.

~~~
cisanti
And you want to be the judge who decides what is right and wrong?

Homosexuality is morally and legally wrong in many countries in the world, and
sensitive topic, why not ban it by default because it's the joy of a fringe
group of Americans?

~~~
mschuster91
> And you want to be the judge who decides what is right and wrong?

As soon as a minority is discriminated, no matter what minority it is (be it
PoC, Latinos, Asians, gays, lesbians, transsexuals, or even social groups as
poor people) it's wrong.

Dead easy definition, and for racial and gender based discrimination it's a
worldwide agreed-upon international law anyway: racism => ICERD,
[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationales_%C3%9Cbereinko...](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationales_%C3%9Cbereinkommen_zur_Beseitigung_jeder_Form_von_Rassendiskriminierung),
gender-based discrimination => CEDAW, [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN-
Konvention_zur_Beseitigung_...](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN-
Konvention_zur_Beseitigung_jeder_Form_von_Diskriminierung_der_Frau). And for
the other forms of discrimination, a judicial base may be extracted from the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

~~~
otakucode
Well that's clearly not believed by most of society. The young are
discriminated against ferociously and denigrated at every turn, yet few would
call it wrong. Few would argue that teenagers shouldn't be spied upon,
controlled, and given fewer choices in their day to day life than felons in
prison. It is 'for their own good' after all. As discrimination always has
been, and always will be, couched.

------
raiyu
The problem with large platforms is that they are open to abuse you see the
same problems at Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc, it's basically an infinite
problem.

All of the "machine learning" algorithms aren't really that intelligent,
because they have no real human context, so then you augment that with a trust
and safety team to do manual review.

When you couple that with a platform that has millions, or billions of users,
you simply do not have enough trained people doing the review process so
legitimate users, even with large followings, sometimes get nabbed.

Just like legitimate people with less subscribers can be caught in the same
web.

Then you are basically at the mercy of the queue and the number of actual
people they have doing the manual review work, which in YouTube's case I'm
guessing is rather massive.

~~~
specialp
Google really needs to have a human contact that can be reachable for channels
with a large amount of subscribers. Advertisers do provide Google with nearly
all of their revenue, but then again so do content providers as Google
provides next to no content of their own. The fact that we have large channels
being arbitrarily taken down with no warning shows how obtuse Google is.

~~~
confounded
Or maybe content creators need to get away from Google.

------
amorphid
Suggestions for YouTube I've seen here and elsewhere I like:

\- flagging a video suspends a video, not the channel

\- flagging a video hides the video (or channel) from the user who flags (this
is one of my favorite features on Reddit, allowing me to distance myself from
a few subreddits I prefer not to see)

I do not like:

\- a few flags to a single video takes down the entire channel. It feels
disproportionate to me.

~~~
PuffinBlue
It's not just disproportionate, it's going to push people away from the
platform.

YouTube isn't too big to fail. If you push out the people who are creating the
content your business model relies on, you'll fail. YouTube isn't too big to
fail.

------
pdkl95
Managing important infrastructure needs to be independent of exploitation,
management, and/or regulation of content. You are either involved in editorial
decisions or not. If you deliberately stay out of content decisions, and act
like a common carrier, your liability should be limited and you get safe
harbor protection. Editorializing and acting like a manager brings
responsibility, - and liability.

Yoytube (Goole/Alphabet) needs to decide which level of involvement they want
to have? Do they want to stay out these decision and close accounts only with
a valet court order? Or are they a manager with greater power... that might be
liable for problems casused by their negligence.

------
ben_jones
Does Google not care to fix this issue, or do they fully understand the
consequences to content creators and allow it to persist anyways? I.E. are
they so beholden to advertisers that it has to be this way?

~~~
Analemma_
> Does Google not care to fix this issue

Why would they care? YouTube is the only game in town for content like this.
Where else is this channel, or a new one looking for a platform, gonna go?

~~~
manigandham
Vid.me is attempting to become this, although they are very far behind.

The problem is that basic large-scale issues (business not technical) become
hard or impossible to handle without serious investment and cashflow.

------
jxramos
from his video description "I will be moving videos over time to other sites
and to here". I think this content duplication/redundancy (with likely vimeo
and I'm not sure what else) is going to be the future of things to come. I
wonder what sort of legal challenges may come to the fore if such battles
ensue.

------
fapjacks
Par for the course. Youtube has gone completely insane and it is leaving a
huge opening for less completely insane competitor platforms.

------
grabcocque
Youtube are just really, really desperate to kill Youtube by any means
necessary these days.

