
I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next - AlexeyBrin
https://www.gamefromscratch.com/post/2020/05/26/I-Was-Blackmailed-Any-YouTuber-Could-Be-Next.aspx
======
gkoberger
This might not be a popular opinion, but I feel like YouTube is doing their
best with a really hard problem.

I see a lot of people complaining about things like this, but I also see a lot
of people complaining that YouTube/Twitter/etc aren't doing enough to take
down false/immoral/illegal content quick enough. [1]

It really sucks when a legitimate video is taken down by mistake. But it also
really sucks when revenge porn is left up. YouTube is doing it's best to blend
automation (fast but inaccurate) with human curation (more thoughtful but
slower), and sometimes it gets it wrong.

I feel like most of the time I see posts like this, the situation is resolved
favorably and relatively quickly. YouTube is dealing with two opposing issues,
and is constantly doing its best to find a fair middle ground.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23316660](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23316660)

~~~
tekkk
I don't think they are really doing their best. If other Google's support
forums are any indicator of their effort, they are mostly trying to automate
the whole process as much as possible which then causes errors like this.
Which makes sense from the SV software engineer perspective, but really is
unfathomable to the normal user who then has to live in fear if some malicious
teenager decides to ruin their channel.

Instead of actually trying to create the best customer service, to me it feels
that they treat it like a fun ML problem that they want to solve with magical
algorithmic pixie dust.

Yeah I know it's terribly expensive to keep a horde of content reviewers, but
then it would be nice for Youtube to be upfront about it that there is maybe a
human in the process, but most likely not. I guess honesty is not anymore a
valuable commodity in this world, yet it would feel nice sometimes to hear the
truth, not some lawyer jargon to avoid all responsibility.

~~~
movedx
> Instead of actually trying to create the best customer service

I've worked in high volume customer services. It's not easy for the agents
doing the work or the companies operating them.

I've worked in multiple call centers dealing with calls and tickets. I've
worked in companies in which I dealt with mobile phone bill queries and
hardware issues right up to Cisco networking problems and then eventually
enterprise grade Linux clusters at Rackspace (UK). I've spanned a pretty large
spectrum of industries from a customer services perspective. I've even done
customer services in the food industry.

It's HARD. Not just for you as an operator, but as a company trying to offer
the service to begin with. of all of the companies I worked for, O2 (a mobile
phone provider and network operator) had tens of millions of customers. We had
several call centers that spanned close to ten thousand agents doing
everything from calls to tickets, emails to Tweets. The call queue for that
company never dropped below a constant 200-300 on hold and emails took days to
even get to.

Google has approx' one BILLION customers.

What is your suggestion here?

> they are mostly trying to automate the whole process as much as possible
> which then causes errors like this

Damn straight automation, to a larger degree, is the answer. People don't
scale at all. They can do one job at a time, for a limited amount of time, and
are subject to all kinds of problems.

> Yeah I know it's terribly expensive to keep a horde of content reviewers

It cost O2 about $5/6 to answer a single call. That's the cost of the agent's
time and JUST answering the call, not the cost of listening, understanding,
resolving and ending the call. Humans are expensive.

I'm not saying don't use people. I'm saying automation at Google's scale is
one of the few solutions available to them when it comes to dealing with the
simply insane amounts of complaints they'll receive just via their YouTube
platform alone.

EDIT: Apologies for being so crude in my original wording. I'm updating the
comment to reflect a more professional, civil tone.

~~~
novok
They might have 1 billion free users, but they definitely don't have 1 billion
partners or 1 billion paying customers.

Google's customer service is horrible even for organizations that pay them
+$10k/month or make them +$10k/month for ad sales, and that is a far smaller
number.

You would think they could at least scale customer support properly for that
much smaller number, but they don't because culturally they do not want to.
Even people who have used google cloud services say the support is bad
compared to AWS. Google stands out as a corp that is really bad at customer
service.

While apple, amazon, AWS & many other companies provide customer support that
mostly works for customers who provide maybe $40/month max in revenue. They
don't even let you self pay for your own support at google in most cases.

I bet youtubers who live on their work on youtube would gladly pay $100 to
deal with one off incidents like these that might happen once a year if it
meant they had proper thought applied to their issues for example.

~~~
SXX
Personally I had very much opposite experience with Google Ads support. For
the person who buy ads it's exceptional and with available phone support even
if you only buy ads for $100. They can literally explain how every single
thing work on their system, giving advice on how to improve campaigns or fix
something.

It's very much opposite when it's come to AdSense, but again they don't really
care when some webmaster lose his source of income since there will be other
webmasters to replace him.

~~~
disiplus
that's not true in my experience. the rep had no direct answer and sometimes
it would take a couple days till they reached somebody that knows the answer.
and for everything else that i asked that they did not know directly the
answer was "it's algorithm, even when i found the answer later somewhere deep
in forums or faq".

i have dealt with google europe, i even visited the offices in dublin but i do
not have a confidence that they know the answer, most of them are there to try
to convince you to try this new thing and incrase you budget.

~~~
SXX

       > i have dealt with google europe, i even visited the offices in dublin
    

I guess I should be perfectly honest: ads is obviously no my specialization
and I only worked with Google Ads for small businesses with quite a small
budgets not more than $10000-$20000 a month.

So obviously my impression might be limited to quite superficial questions or
problems. It's very much possible that if you work with something actually
complex their support isn't anywhere as useful as it's for entry-level
customers.

------
jandrese
It seems like the extortionists can keep sending claims until they stumble
across a YouTube moderator who guesses wrong and clicks the "this claim was
legit" button. Even if 90% of the moderators would get it right eventually
your video is going to be down for good. Even humans make mistakes sometimes,
so human-in-the-loop isn't a perfect solution.

The thing that really doesn't make sense to me is that when a moderator marks
a claim as invalid it doesn't switch the automod system to requiring the
moderator to review the claim before taking the video down. Ideally you'd like
that to be the case for all videos, but presumably that would anger the media
cartels that dictated the requirements for the system and just want a way to
do mass takedowns that doesn't cost them lawyer hours or have the potential of
consequences for them.

~~~
pxtail
Would be pretty interesting if some moderators (who are probably residents of
low wage countries) not just simply "guess wrong" but are part of the scheme
and mark some videos on purpose.

~~~
donkeyd
I feel like this is too deep into the conspiracy domain. There are so many
videos and moderators, that, of course, there's assholes in there. But the
chance that this one specific video ends up on the task queue of the
fraudulent moderator just seems too low to be a feasible strategy.

------
causality0
Google has an absolute fetish for making the ratio of profit to employees as
large as possible. They will do it at any cost. There is no Google service
without horrific customer support. Youtube, Google Fiber, Google Fi, doesn't
matter. They refuse to accept that having 2x as many customers requires 2x as
many support personnel.

~~~
antpls
Aren't YouTube's customers the advertisers paying to have their ads displayed?
YouTubers are not customers. At best, I believe they are "partners" (like with
Twitch)

~~~
Lev1a
They are the people making the content ad companies can plaster their drivel
on.

Essentially YT is a middleman between billboard manufacturers (content
creators) and advertisers (drivel manufacturers).

------
Animats
This is extortion. Did Google disclose to you the identity of the party who
sent the takedown notice. If not, a lawyer might be able to help here. You
have a good case against the other party for extortion, and a weak case
against Google for assisting them. There's a strong legal incentive here for
Google to disclose the name of the other party, if they are being difficult
about doing so. DMCA notices can't be anonymous.

~~~
bencollier49
Is a circumvention of technology claim part of the DMCA?

~~~
Animats
Yes. 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)(A).

~~~
bencollier49
Thanks

------
scottlawson
I think this is called extortion, not blackmail.

~~~
Freeboots
Right?! This annoyed the hell out of me when i saw the vid on youtube. It
sucks his videos are getting taken down, but to my mind he loses intergity by
playing it up as blackmail. Extortion is bad enough, why not call it like it
is?

~~~
meowface
Extortion is a worse crime than blackmail generally, in my opinion, ethically
speaking. Extortion is using one's power and force to threaten harm to someone
in some way if not paid, while blackmail is using knowledge of information to
do the same. Extortion is the more "violent" and violating act. Either way,
they're pretty similar, though

Your post is extremely confusing and bizarre to me.

------
Communitivity
You can also mirror on PeerTube,
[https://joinpeertube.org/](https://joinpeertube.org/).

PeerTube is a more distributed clone of YouTube, and this site explains what
it is well: [https://framablog.org/2019/11/12/peertube-has-worked-
twice-a...](https://framablog.org/2019/11/12/peertube-has-worked-twice-as-
hard-to-free-your-videos-from-youtube/).

Technology used includes a HLS video player, and WebTorrent. Like Mastodon it
also uses the ActivityPub protocol.

~~~
XCSme
PeerTube sounds interesting, but going to their website I am lost. Why all
those promotional videos and descriptions and confusing links? I expected to
just see the videos in their directory and be able to search for videos,
something like the YouTube interface. And I'm a technical user, I imagine the
average user would close the page instantly.

~~~
LockAndLol
Think of it as email:

Peertube = email software

In order to have an email account you don't go to "email.com", you have to go
to an email service provider. Peertube works in the same way so they have a
list of providers:
[https://instances.joinpeertube.org/instances](https://instances.joinpeertube.org/instances)

If you can understand email, you can understand peertube.

~~~
XCSme
So the site is mostly promoting the technology, right? Is there any popular
platform that uses PeerTube and actually has interesting or exclusive content?

~~~
LockAndLol
If you want to think of it as promotion, yeah. You check out the promoted
content.

It actually has a list of instances too where you can watch videos. I'd
suggest picking one and simply having a look.

------
CryoLogic
DevFactor ([https://youtube.com/devfactor](https://youtube.com/devfactor)) was
shut down several years ago due to a similar issue with automated copyright
trolling that took YouTube about 3 months to fix per time it happened.

------
unexaminedlife
It seems an obvious solution would be to incorporate historical data into
future decisions on whether to take down immediately vs take down after manual
verification.

If someone has been hit with these takedown requests over and over where the
resolution was always to put it back up, what likelihood is there that future
resolutions will be different? By standing by your content creators with a
history of improper takedown requests you'll build brand loyalty. By making it
just as difficult on content creators the 100th time as the first time makes
me think YouTube isn't going to be the "platform of the future" for content
creators.

~~~
Andrex
This is how I naively assumed it worked back in the day and was constantly
perplexed by how much trouble TeamFourStar would get into with seemingly every
new upload.

------
damm
YouTube isn't even trying to protect the creators here. You could make excuses
about how they have to review each claim to ensure it's valid bases on the
DMCA or some interpretation of the DMCA. Having said this I have watched
prominent channels get hacked and spread Binance (bitcoin) videos all their
content deleted. After 90 days YouTube finally stepped in and stopped the
hacker and very slowly restored some of the content.

Kind of super thankful I am not a YouTube Creator because having my channel
hacked and my content deleted would be very hard to deal with.

------
hysan
Not surprising given what other creators have said about YouTube’s
“moderation” system. I watch this channel regularly and am posting in hopes
that this gets enough publicity that someone from Google steps in. It’s sadly
the only way for these issues to get resolved.

------
chamakits
More incredible is that they don’t seem to have a system for “this account is
being actively targeted” because even after this somewhat public attack and
“fix”, the same creator just got attacked again with the same thing on another
video.

Tweet 4 hours ago from that creator:
[https://mobile.twitter.com/gamefromscratch/status/1265579494...](https://mobile.twitter.com/gamefromscratch/status/1265579494217265153)

------
qqj
It used to be that everyone on the internet were a Dog, nowadays it seems like
the internet became a cesspool of stagnant hyper centralized services catering
to the lowest common denominator (twitter, youtube, linkedin, facebook) with
morally bankrupt somali-pirate types circling around them like vultures.

In the old days griefing was done for the lulz. Today it's done out of malice,
or worse, out of greed.

------
Findeton
I keep reading these horror stories about YouTube. It must really suck, as
there are alternatives, but they just don't have the audience YouTube has. I
guess there just isn't much we can do about this apart from hosting elsewhere
when necessary?

~~~
probably_wrong
My personal, non-Toutuber theory is that people should use YouTube as a
promotion channel, but have your main presence elsewhere: make your own
website your hub, use Patreon as your main income, and post copies to YouTube,
Facebook, Vimeo, Twitch, pretty much wherever you can.

That way, if you lose one channel you don't lose your followers, and you can
take your time to deal with getting your channel back. And you still get the
benefits of YouTube's reach.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
Unfortunately, if you want to monetize your Youtube, Twitch, or other videos,
the partner agreements on those platforms explicitly forbid uploading the same
content to other video sites within certain time periods or posting videos on
one platform to send users to your preferred platform. In particular, I know
that you have to wait at least 24 hours after a Twitch stream to upload the
VOD to Youtube, you can't co-stream simultaneously or upload immediately after
streaming and retain your Twitch partnership, and Youtube has killed channels
for posting 30-second "I'm going live on Twitch in 5 minutes" notifications
(Twitch notifications are notoriously broken). If your income is through
advertisements monetizing video views that won't work.

I agree, though, that a website with merchandise (depending on the channel) or
a Patreon, distributing your video hosting across platforms, is probably the
safest way to go.

~~~
sildur
They could post a free teaser in YouTube with a link to their main platform.

~~~
rasz
Against YT tos, Linustechtips got channel blocked for it once.

~~~
xingyzt
How would that apply to movie trailers?

~~~
throw_m239339
There is obviously different rules for big Hollywood players vs small
youtubers, since YouTube also sells their movies in VOD, if you know what I
mean. I mean that's already the case regarding copyright strikes where big
corps, music labels and Hollywood can abuse the YouTube copyright system
without any repercussion whatsoever. All YouTube channels aren't equal.

------
Tepix
Perhaps takedown requests should be accompanied by a fee: If the request is
successfully appealed, the fee is kept. If not, it is returned.

~~~
unnouinceput
Same problem only this time you'll leverage rich vs. poor while Internet is
suppose to be the great equalizer.

------
jimbob45
Yeah, our copyright laws are absurd but how do you change them when we spent
the tariff wars forcing other countries to adopt US copyright laws? How could
we go back now?

~~~
wmf
Many of YouTube's policies aren't required by law.

------
unethical_ban
After a video has been reviewed by a moderator on appeal, why isn't a block on
new reports put on it? If, say, they can tell that a video hasn't been altered
since the last time it was looked at, why aren't things disabled after initial
flagging and review?

"Malicious actors reports, and Youtube bots autoremoved, my video four times"
should not be possible.

------
jschuur
I'm not discounting that this was an annoying ordeal for this channel to go
through, but if this is so easy, why don't professional criminals go after
huge channels and take them down as easily?

There might be some subscriber count threshold or partner status that, once
crossed, flags extra steps that mean a new violation is escalated for a closer
look first?

~~~
slightwinder
How do you know they are not doing that already?

~~~
jschuur
Because MKBHD isn’t tweeting about this all the time.

------
kelvin0
In case of a popular channel: maybe the subscribers to a channel could be
'polled' in order to vet a channel's content?

If the majority of subscriber's vote confirms the content then the channel
owner could be given a 2nd chance?

Just an idea off the top of my bald head.

------
savingGrace
What are the reasons the creator could not just re-upload the video as a new
video?

I don't use Youtube as a creator, so I can only guess.

Links to it from outside of Youtube? 'Millions of views' type of stuff? Ad
revenue? Getting their account perma-banned?

------
madsbuch
It seems like we are seeing the limit of "infinitely scaling business models".
It is definitely going to be interesting to see what the future of content
distribution / monetization brings!

------
trianx
Just want to stress, that the root of the problem is the evil extortionist,
not Google.

Google can and will try to do a better job, but as long as such people are
around (i.e. forever) those problems will persist.

------
nineparts
With every new "takedown" please refer back to past reinstatements by Youtube.
That's all I can contribute from my experience. Good luck!

------
peter_d_sherman
Some comments/ideas/takeaways:

1) According to this video, it is very easy for some troll living in another
country, who has a bot network, to extort money from YouTube creators by
gaming YouTube's takedown request system:

"I'll get your video taken down unless you pay me" (Sounds a whole lot like
patent trolls -- but applied to videos).

2) YouTube (or any other video sharing site, present or future), should
conduct a thorough investigation as to how their system for user requested
takedowns -- could be gamed by bot networks / multiple phony user accounts
requesting takedowns -- and what could be done about it, using what happened
here as a baseline for that investigation.

Note that this also applies to non-video sharing sites where user takedowns
can be requested, i.e., craigslist -- if that process is automated in any way,
it should be thought about from the perspective of "how do we protect against
swarms of automated bots / fake user accounts, requesting takedowns?"

3) Any ML/AI algorithm that is used in the takedown determination process
should consider the reputation of the user whose videos are being requested to
be taken down.

This includes such things as 'how long has the user been a user', how many
other videos have they uploaded, how many likes they've received over the
years, how many video views, and how many real legitimate complaints, verified
by an actual YouTube human staffer -- have occurred on that account over the
years (feeding that data in only after human YouTube staffer review, etc.)

4) It wouldn't be a bad idea (if YouTube is short of staff), to create another
tier of users, "review users", that is, these users would be / could be called
upon to review content that was flagged for removal/deletion for one reason or
another. If enough "review users" (randomly selected) collectively vote that
the content should be removed, THEN and only then it gets queued for a human
being staffer at YouTube for final review... otherwise it's not banned, and
sticks around... but this would hopefully save a lot of work for human YouTube
staffers -- much in the same way automated voice assistants do for human
telephone operators or receptionists... any AI/ML algorithms could be the
gatekeeper for this tier of users; if the AI/ML has a problem with the content
-- escalate it to this tier of users for further review...

5) To implement #4, User accounts, agreements, and YouTube's suggestion
algorithm -- would have to be modified (basically you're adding another user
account type and another agreement type) to support the functionality.

6) No matter how great YouTube is, it's a human created system like all
others, and as such, subject to failure. As the old expression, _" Don't put
all of your eggs in one basket"_ goes, similarly:

 _Don 't host all of your videos on one and only one video hosting site_.

Just like you wouldn't store your important files in one location only,
without making/having backups...

------
Simon_says
I'm sorry. I didn't really understand what was happening. What's the mechanism
by which the attacker convinces Youtube to take down this guy's video?

------
whotheffknows
Hi so this is illegal. Call the FBI. Extortion and coercion are felonies in
all 50 states.

~~~
philpem
"Hello, FBI? This random guy on the Internet is extorting me."

FBI: 'Go away and come back when you have a name and address, and can prove
the guy is under our jurisdiction.'

~~~
sircastor
Fortunately the FBI doesn't dismiss illegal activities of you lack this kind
of information. They will investigate and can arrest individuals on US soil as
well as consenting countries. Additionally a country's own law enforcement may
cooperate and the perpetrators can be extradited for trial.

------
panzagl
Is there a legitimate, distinct, unique use case for cryptocurrency to weigh
against it's use as an enabler for extortion??

~~~
ericflo
It's in the post - the author was able to put the taken-down video back up on
lbry.tv, which is a cryptocurrency-based decentralized media platform.

~~~
panzagl
But he could have put it on Vimeo as well.

~~~
Tepix
Perhaps he liked the monetization on libry more.

