
YouTube deleted an electronics repair channel [video] - lmilcin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0mMOHrftgU
======
jscheel
We had YouTube take down our church livestream in the middle of service,
claiming that we violated their community guidelines (we didn't). The clip in
question was blank, and the note said that it was an automated takedown. I
immediately appealed, switched our stream key, and let everyone know to
refresh their browsers. But still, serious interruption to people's worship
because google relies too-heavily on automation.

~~~
ballenf
I would guess there are some passages from many religions' sacred texts which
could get your whole channel deleted if promoted. Unless there's a written or
unwritten exception.

The conflict or tension that troubles me the most is between platforms'
incentive to have the most vague and broad TOS and users' reasonable
expectation of consistency and explanation.

The same tension exists in government police/arrest powers and resulted in
many historic documents and rights. YT is not a government but their power
rivals many actual countries. It will be interesting to see if the same
revolutionary actions result. I don't think it's clear yet that it will or
could happen.

~~~
jandrese
* This section of the Bible is copyright BMG Music Group and has been removed. This is your first strike.

~~~
SamReidHughes
Many bible translations are in fact copyrighted.

~~~
gorgoiler
I don’t think this is surprising? KJV, for example, is such a foundational and
original cornerstone of English language poetry that if it were to have been
created in 2020 I would fully expect it to be copyrighted.

~~~
thaumasiotes
I find it surprising; inhibiting the copying of the Bible would seem to
contradict most of the goals of the Church.

~~~
dhosek
Many (most?) of the full texts are available online through authorized
sources. Copyright is exercised as a means of quality control as much as if
not more than as a mean of generating revenue/restricting distribution.

~~~
nix23
>through authorized sources

That can be just God's bookshelf itself right?

>Copyright is exercised as a means of quality control

Is that God too, or another 'authorized source' like the Vatican? ;)

~~~
dhosek
Protestant translations tend to be held by publishers, I believe, with
Zondervan being the biggest player, I think. I can't speak too much about how
all of that works.

For Catholic translations there's a requirement that a Bishop sign off on the
accuracy/suitability of the translation and its accompanying commentary (at
the minimum, a Catholic Bible will include references to parallel/related
passages in the other parts of the Bible and usually also includes significant
additional commentary). The most commonly used Catholic Bible in the US has
its copyright held by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops who have published
the full text on their website as well as have authorized multiple (20,
according to Wikipedia) publishers to produce print editions.

------
deadalus
Alternative Video Sites :

[https://lbry.tv/](https://lbry.tv/)

[https://www.dailymotion.com/](https://www.dailymotion.com/)

[https://www.bitchute.com/](https://www.bitchute.com/)

[https://dlive.tv/](https://dlive.tv/)

~~~
kanox
Alternative platforms exist but they much less content and it seems
implausible for significant numbers of viewers to switch.

In particular bitchute seems to be entirely filled with conspiracy videos to
the point where it would be better if people didn't suggest it as an
alternative.

~~~
ColanR
> entirely filled with conspiracy videos

Better than having the content be deleted, though. Choose for yourself what
you want to watch, and don't choose for other people.

~~~
kanox
My point is that there's almost nothing else to watch.

~~~
olah_1
Most people use Bitchute only for the channels that they're already subbed to
on youtube.

So you log in to Bitchute and just see your subs which are like 5 channels
that got deleted from youtube. Subbing is the curation system.

~~~
monkeywork
and how do you discover someone to sub to them.

~~~
olah_1
Usually through their YouTube channel or twitter or telegram. “hey, I just got
my channel taken down on YouTube. Sub to me on bitchute instead”

Personally, I’m not confident bitchute is technically competent enough to
implement a real discovery algorithm. They haven’t made any discernible
technical improvements to the site since they first launched.

~~~
monkeywork
no what you are describing is how I keep up with someone after I've already
found and followed them (ie Twitter / Youtube / other social platform). I
asked about discovery ... because at the end of the day that is the difference
maker.

~~~
olah_1
I know what you’re asking. That’s why I said

> Personally, I’m not confident bitchute is technically competent enough to
> implement a real discovery algorithm.

------
altgoogler
Googler here, who doesn't work in the YouTube PA.

It does certainly seem like this was an erroneous take-down. I'm not familiar
with the content, but I can't imagine a more innocuous channel. If JPdylon is
out there, the first recommendation is to appeal the decision [1].

Granted that doesn't always work, and it's unfortunate that common next step
is to resort to "Support via Hacker News". That being said, content moderation
is a super hard problem. It needs to get better and more fair on both sides
(i.e. taking down what should be; leaving up what is quality content), but the
scale here is often forgotten.

There is far, far too much content posted to manually review. If EEVblog's
suggestion was taken and Susan (YouTube CEO) had to manually review every
moderation action on channels with 5K+ subs, she would not be able to keep up.
If you had a team of people, they would not be able to keep up. Even if you
had a fleet of people, the scale is just unreal.

EEVblog's suggestion to diversify platforms is reasonable. The fact that those
platforms don't have some of the same problems doesn't necessarily mean that
they're better at content moderation, however. They just don't have to operate
on the same scale.

[1]
[https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/185111](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/185111)

~~~
pjc50
May I make a simpler suggestion:

\- a list of clear rules

\- takedowns must provide a reference of which video caused the takedown,
roughly where in the video it was, and which rule it was violating

Someone may reply that this is feeding information on the rule boundaries to
spammers, at which point I make a second suggestion which could apply to more
services:

\- a "this platform is valuable to me" deposit, of say $10, which guarantees
human review of administrative decisions.

It's people's livelihood. You can't just vaporise it. Well, you can, but
eventually the angry mob you create will get large enough and come for your
statue.

~~~
sempron64
Simply requiring a small fee for review is a great suggestion!

It would be difficult to structure this but simply allowing a video creator
(or any fan of the channel!) to pay a Youtube analyst or a third-party auditor
at cost ($10 seems reasonable for 15 minutes of even a decently-payed,
English-speaking Western employee's time) to review the channel/video for 15
minutes for actual violations would be a huge boon to real content creators.

This would also allow Google to identify what takedown requests are blackmail
botnets and block them from doing further harm.

If anyone at Google is reading this please consider it! So many viewers would
be willing to pay that this need not even impact creators.

(Obviously this would have to be kept from getting out of hand and turning
into Google racketeering with multiple takedowns of the same channel, but I
trust them not to do that)

~~~
Aunche
Asking people to pay for a human reviewer is a recipe for bad PR. Inevitably,
some content creator is going to pay $10 and disagree with a ruling even if
it's justified. They'll then complain that it's all a scam. To be fair, there
wouldn't be a way to prove that it's not a scam. Also, humans are inevitably
wrong decisions, especially when it comes to videos that are borderline.

~~~
save_ferris
> Asking people to pay for a human reviewer is a recipe for bad PR.
> Inevitably, some content creator is going to pay $10 and disagree with a
> ruling even if it's justified.

I don't really see how this is any different now. Google is already generating
bad PR by not having an appeal process for these issues and plenty of people
are already complaining that it's all a scam.

If a nominal fee gets you a written report that details exactly how you
offended YT's policies and creates a possible scenario which you're given the
opportunity to course-correct perhaps, then it's a win. What you're arguing
would happen is already happening.

~~~
Faark
> I don't really see how this is any different now.

Right now, blocking a video will lead to Google being unable to earn money
from it. Their incentives are aligned with those of the video creator.

> What you're arguing would happen is already happening

No, right now you are not pressured into giving Google money to review their
automated decisions. With the suggested system implemented, you might fork
over $10 individually for each of your 452 videos and get humans picking
mostly the same useless text block in response, not really helping you to
understand their decision. You will feel kind of like now, except you notice
that YT actually made more money by banning your videos and start to wonder if
that is by design...

Courts are great, but have to be independent. Even arbitration can be skewed
in favor of bigger companies, since getting their recurring business is in the
arbitrators interest.

I'd still be in favor of setting up something like that for lower level
decisions, but understand this can only happen if Google finds a way to stay
out of the line of fire. And still keeps a way for them to overrule those
third party decisions...

~~~
zo1
> "Right now, blocking a video will lead to Google being unable to earn money
> from it. Their incentives are aligned with those of the video creator."

I would say that's only true if the volume of video content was a bottleneck
for their advertisers. They have more than enough content.

------
keiferski
At some point, the collective tech community needs to develop a serious
alternative to the current reality of a single corporation controlling the
overwhelming majority of a) online video content and b) online content in
general (via search.) Online video is in its infancy now, but within a few
decades, it will have become the modern equivalent of the book. Do we really
want a single Kafkaesque, politically-biased entity controlling which books
can be published?

Presumably/hopefully this will happen when storage becomes cheap enough to
easily host video _and_ someone figures out a way to filter through all the
undesirable content which currently afflicts free-speech-oriented
alternatives.

~~~
dkh
Unfortunately, there are a number of things at play here that overall results
in progress towards anyone being able to be "their own YouTube" very
difficult.

* Storage costs have decreased over the years and will continue to do so, but video quality has increased during this time, as well as the number of delivery formats you need to create. For each video uploaded, you likely need to encode and store 5+ different variations.

* Bandwidth is not cheap, and while it may be lower than the cost of storage initially, for any chance of survival you'll eventually need some popular content, at which point its cost of delivery will exceed that of storage

* To prevent the video from buffering and provide an experience that is tolerable to the average user, you need to have all of the above replicated on a dozen edge nodes around the world, and serve a user the video they've requested from the one nearest to them. This is a situation where the latency differences here really can make or break the entire thing

There are numerous ways to try to optimize these things, or filter out
costly/undesirable content, or prioritize only things that people are actually
watching, or whatever, but few that come without consequences or that will
cause bigger problems down the line.

~~~
ehnto
I think looking for a "YouTube Killer" is the wrong direction anyway, unless
you're just looking for another large corporation to take over video
dominance.

What I would personally love is an aggregator, or many aggregators, that act
like YouTube, but are actually a distributed network of video sources.

The key to the concept is thinking of a source like a library of content, and
the individual uploader manages their own source. You could consider it a
channel, and then that uploader can syndicate their source/channel to any
aggregator they want. Sources can be private/public, sources can be tagged,
discoverable, and searchable.

Another key point is that uploaders need not host things themselves, SaaS
products will quickly fill that role.

a) Anyone can start an aggregator and immediately have content, lowering the
bar for entry.

b) A niche aggregator can pick or have submitted to them video library sources
that match their niche, and can curate them just like any other video hosting
site.

c) A cottage industry for video hosting can utilize an "average user" friendly
UI to allow for anyone to create a source and submit it to these aggregators.

d) Allows free information to flow freely

f) Allows content creators full control over deals with aggregators on how
they'll be reimbursed for access to their source. You can imagine YouTube
accepting sources with an ad revenue share model just like they have now. Some
aggregators will choose to "cache and redistribute" content from sources to
allow for consistent UX to their users, but that's their decision.

~~~
vkou
You're going to get a flood of porn, pirated content, illegal-for-other-
reasons content, and, of course, nazis who have been banned from all the other
platforms.

Which will, of course, drive all the normies away. (Well, okay, all the
pirated content might not, but then you'll also include 'all the media
companies' and 'the government' as your list of enemies.)

And if you add federated moderation (Like Mastodon did), you're going to
quickly understand why federated moderation is a labour-sucking, drama-ridden,
centralized-censorship, tire pyre.[1] (Like Mastodon did.)

[1] Mastodon instance administrators blacklist instances that produce problem
content and problem users.[2] (Child pornography, nazis, furries, etc.) These
ban-lists are centralized, because nobody has time to investigate every single
other instance in the network. I hope you trust the person running those
centralized lists!

[2] Oh, and if a troll group does not like a particular person, they can
follow him around, shitting on every instance that he posts in. How do
instance operators deal with this sort of thing? By banning[3] the target of
the trolls, because then they can stop wasting time playing whack-a-mole.

[3] [https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/31/17801404/mastodon-
harassm...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/31/17801404/mastodon-harassment-
wil-wheaton-mobs-twitter)

~~~
hedora
I think the “niche aggregator” part of the proposal (c) completely addresses
your moderation concerns.

~~~
vkou
No, it doesn't, because that is _exactly_ how Mastodon instances work - or
rather, fail to work.

------
motohagiography
Youtube previously banned hacking demonstration videos, and his content might
have got caught up in it. It could have been an accident, but even without
evidence, one can't help but hypothesize he browsed or engaged with the wrong
kind of ideas, or the wrong kind of people were interested in what he did and
got associated with that traffic, triggering a cancellation. Conspiracy?
Maybe, it doesn't take much to speculate on that conclusion, and there is
enough mistrust in tech platforms right now that such a view would just be a
product of the where their brands are. Youtube's service, their rules. They
have the discretion to disappear peoples content for any reason, but it's
worth considering that dumb stuff like this is a multiplier for reinforcing
peoples negative views of their service. It's not a question of whether this
person was arbitrarily cancelled, it's whether that's what everyone else
thinks.

Would you launch, invest in, or run a business that depended on Youtube? If
there is hesitation, that's a problem with the platform's brand. In an
economics sense, it's becoming an inferior product - something you substitute
away from as soon as you can afford to. There is still lots of money to be
made in inferior products, but that does imply a negative inflection point for
growth.

~~~
afrcnc
They banned home hacking videos and proof-of-concept videos only.

You can still host your ransomware kit ad on YouTube without any problems for
months.

------
topkai22
1) Alphabet needs to be broken up (at least YouTube, Google the search engine,
and the ad business).

Ideally, there would be a way to pull apart the hosting business, the
“social”/channel/search business, and the ad delivery businesses. YouTube that
runs only 3rd party ads looks very different than having to directly manage
its own relationships with brands.

2) We need a creators bill of rights. Platforms that allow users to upload and
share content should be required to inform users why content is removed, have
a clear mechanism for appeal to a 3rd party, and allow users to exfiltrate
their content if it even if it is removed.

------
raxxorrax
I hate people that normalised censorship of this kind and it was predictable
that someone would crash the fun at some point...

Our own fault to give single corps that much control on content though.
Content creators should always upload their videos to other platforms too. If
those get a critical mass of content, they might stand a chance.

~~~
libertine
If Youtube was liable for mistakes/wrongfully enforce their guidelines, this
would be way less stressful.

This guy would go to a website and file a claim on a legal authority that
would put Youtube's balls in a wheel that would squeeze them gradually the
longer Youtube would take to present the case with facts that support the take
down, and I'm pretty sure you'd start to receive less auto-replies and you'd
get more humans typing.

Youtube is fucking over people's livelihoods because of a system that doesn't
work properly, so they should pay for that. Shouldn't be the other way around.

If Youtube gives the tools for people to make money on it, then Youtube should
be responsible for such people - not only advertisers.

------
aaron_m04
This is a shame. I strongly recommend this Python program called youtube-dl
for archiving any videos you care about. Occasionally it stops working but if
you update it, it always works after the update.

~~~
PhantomGremlin
I upvoted this because it's important to know. Too much good stuff gets
deleted from YouTube.

But I have mixed feelings, because the first rule of youtube-dl is you don't
talk about youtube-dl. E.g. it used to have a Wikipedia page but that got
removed!

------
dgellow
Business idea: videos creators pay $$ per month for a service to constantly
scrap their videos from youtube as a backup system. If youtube delete your
channel, in one click you can recreate it and reupload everything to another
platform (or an alternative channel, whatever)

~~~
toomuchtodo
While a great business idea, you can also use youtube-dl to backup your
youtube videos locally.

~~~
jacobgreenleaf
Depending on the channel, this could be terabytes of content.

~~~
dgellow
You can specify clear limits on how much content you will save per user. Or
ask for more money for people with huge amount of videos.

------
tom-thistime
There is no Web 2.0. There are endless versions of sort of "AOL Reloaded." Why
we embrace that is getting less and less clear.

~~~
throw_m239339
> There is no Web 2.0. There are endless versions of sort of "AOL Reloaded."
> Why we embrace that is getting less and less clear.

There was a web 2.0. It allowed tech giants to hoard a lot of data before
cancelling the web 2.0 themselves. This is why I'm not using microformats and
semantic HTML in my webpages, it only profits Google which then display the
product of my hardwork on their own webpages without giving back anything.

------
anderspitman
We need to decouple video hosting from discoverability.

~~~
acomjean
somewhat oddly google has "video search" with results from many sources..

But discoverability is a huge problem.

~~~
falcrist
You're technically correct in that the video search returns results from
different websites, _however_ the results are almost exclusively youtube or
some website embedding a youtube video.

"Almost exclusively" isn't an exaggeration, either. You have to dig pretty
deep before you start seeing _some_ results from other video hosting
platforms.

------
mensetmanusman
Someone make a service that automates uploading and managing channels on every
video platform known to date:

Youtube vimeo dailymotion etc.

Wouldn’t that be a great tool for creators?

~~~
Jommi
It would be awesome, and I have a huge network of creators ready to use this
product when available. Email me at joakim(at) matchmade.tv if you're
interested in developing this.

------
throwawaysea
Censorship is bad. Discuss a better future for video at
[https://www.reddit.com/r/YoutubeAlternatives/](https://www.reddit.com/r/YoutubeAlternatives/).
Current options seem like Bitchute
([https://www.bitchute.com/](https://www.bitchute.com/)), LBRY
([https://lbry.com/](https://lbry.com/)), and D.tube
([https://d.tube/](https://d.tube/)).

Reddit and Twitter alternatives are listed at
[https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditAlternatives/comments/hi97fz/...](https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditAlternatives/comments/hi97fz/list_of_active_reddit_alternatives_v5/)

------
legohead
Copyright and patents need to be done away with or updated to work with
contemporary thinking -- although, I don't trust the latter, so I'll stick
with 'do away with'.

People whine about YouTube being strict about content, well, they are just
trying to cover their ass. As soon as a real replacement comes along and gets
big enough, it's going to have the same issues as YouTube.

I've seen it happen over and over again. One example is imgur. It was a nice
replacement for all the image share sites and their annoying ads. But, now it
has ads too. I've seen people asking for an imgur replacement.

~~~
rjmunro
It's not just copyrights and patents, though. One of the main benefits of
YouTube is that it handles all that for you. Sometimes it doesn't quite work,
but it's pretty valuable to be able to post a video with some music and have
it claimed, and they take the revenue, rather than they sue you and/or issue a
take down notice of some kind.

What about things like hate speech, abusive imagery and content aimed at
children that actually is unsuitable?

------
sschueller
Ideally each community runs their own servers. Something like
[https://joinpeertube.org/en/](https://joinpeertube.org/en/) can help with
that. So for example someone would run an electronics and repair instance that
only has those kinds of videos. Those are then all discoverable by the
Fediverse.

This way also controversial instances can exist and people can choose to
follow them or not. What's controversial in one country may not be in another.
One size fits all doesn't work.

------
godshatter
Everyone wants a youtube replacement, but I'd rather see more options for
niche content. It might not be doable for most people to create something big
enough to give something the size of youtube a run for their money, but
someone could make a site that is basically a private bit torrent tracker that
people could upload their own videos to. They could court advertisers, or
offer a small subscription to be able to log in for more than free content.
Then you'd just need a way of finding sites like this.

~~~
unethical_ban
I've considered (though haven't had the energy) to build a serverless AWS
video-on-demand project that anyone could spin up in their own AWS account,
then either "just host" their own content or be a provider, and provide
billing to customers.

Yes, that means that serving videos would cost money rather than earn money...
or the provider could run a donation/ad service.

In any case, the ability to procure and operation a world-scale video
distribution website easily is _there_ , it is a matter of building it and
having cost estimates built in.

~~~
williamscales
Have you thought about integrating a way to bill the viewers directly? There
are all kinds of content on the internet that I'd be willing to pay $2-5 on
the spot to get a high quality stream that I could watch for some period of
time.

------
squarefoot
He's got the channel back.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mRpj4jQ6Zg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mRpj4jQ6Zg)

However, if I was in the same situation I would seriously consider moving
elsewhere, or at least keeping my stuff in more than one place just in case.

------
torresjrjr
Federated (decentralised) video hosting: PeerTube.
[https://joinpeertube.com](https://joinpeertube.com)

\- Don't use a company's service, then complain.

\- Use a federated server, and share videos freely.

\- Most importantly, learn what the Fediverse is.

Forget BitTube, Daily Motion, LBRY, or whatever other proprietary (company
owned) video hosting site. The reason you've never heard of PeerTube is
because it's a a community project who don't advertise their software, because
it's not a product. It's free (as in cost and freedom) for anyone to to use
and _it works_.

> But I won't get nearly enough views

Then stay on YouTube. If you value your freedom, you'll make the decision and
the views will come. Be the change.

~~~
hydroxark
your link seems broken, I believe it's .org not .com

------
WalterBright
Because of a miscommunication youtube once deleted some of our D conference
videos. Fortunately, we had a backup of them.

Moral: don't rely on the cloud as the only copy of your data. If you don't
control it, it can disappear at any moment for any reason.

~~~
wuunderbar
> don't rely on the cloud as the only copy of your data

The real moral: don't think of YouTube (a public video discovery platform) as
a cloud backup tool. They don't pretend to be and you shouldn't think of it as
so.

------
nurettin
Agadmator (a chess youtuber) complained about his live podcast being taken
down by youtube as well. It appears there is a new youtube algorithm out there
which doesn't like it when black's position is compromised by white.

------
vezycash
The problem with bandwidth is that its cure is largely political.

Legislations and agreements that prevent competition, community run ISPs...
Help YouTube.

On more thought, bandwidth isn't the major politically caused road block. It's
copyright laws.

Facebook and Microsoft are both capable of building YouTube clones.

But Microsoft has limited itself to cooperate video hosting.

And I believe Facebook has intentionally bad video discovery mechanism to keep
copyright sharks at bay.

Porn hosting is pretty much triving in part because copyright laws /
enforcement is weak there.

YouTube started aggressive, automated takedowns because of copyright laws.

Fix the laws and the tech will take care of the rest.

------
thewhitetulip
And Youtube let's fraudsters who claim to get you money for free run channels.
I tweeted to them about the recently fraudulent ads that I see, but they take
no action. I still see the same ads over and over again. they seem to be
targeting the gullible people who want 'secret pubg level' or 'get cashback of
500 in one hour' or get '10000 subscribers within one day'. all of which are
fraudulent, that I am sure.

------
jaybuff
John Gruber and Ben Thompson discussed a comparison of podcast vs. youtube and
how podcasting isn't dominated by one company like youtube is for video. This
is in the context of Joe Rogan moving to spotify.
[https://overcast.fm/+B7NB1G3rw/44:01](https://overcast.fm/+B7NB1G3rw/44:01)

~~~
vxNsr
Spotify is trying real hard to become the YouTube of podcasts unfortunately.

------
t0ughcritic
This is surely getting out of hand, we need to go back to the days of
competition. Google controls everything!

------
frankzen
These services can't be trusted anymore as a single point of failure.
Distributed torrent like systems need to replace them. Trusting any of these
companies as the stewards of content is foolish at this point.

------
smileypete
Just posted a topic about another channel that got deleted, 'CraigTube':

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23781180](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23781180)

------
aabbcc1241
Centralized service and Youtube can apply censorship as they like. This is by
nature. I'd suggest more people get into p2p network like ZeroNet or PeerTube
if they value freedom of speech over popularity.

------
mottosso
While we're here getting riled up about the subject of this video, the content
itself features a cleverly disguised banner running in a recorded video that
cannot be blocked or paid to avoid. Well played, sir.

------
rexreed
He's back online:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mRpj4jQ6Zg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mRpj4jQ6Zg)

It was a wrongful termination.

------
pizza
What would it take to automatically upload every youtube video viewed in
Chrome or Firefox to eg ipfs via a browser extension?

~~~
MrStonedOne
Lots and lots of storage.

------
Hard_Space
Two ads to get to the video? Better a TLDW.

~~~
aaron_m04
I have uBlock Origin on Firefox (both for my phone and my laptop) and I can't
remember the last time I saw an ad on YouTube.

~~~
Hard_Space
I also have it on Firefox here in Windows 10, but it couldn't stop those two
ads.

------
mbostleman
It is hard to underestimate importance of the lack of competition in FAANG
services.

------
squarefoot
We should have the UN mandate IPv6 adoption everywhere, then that a block of
public IPs for everyone is considered a human right, and great part of the
issue would be over.

------
rgrieselhuber
These companies need to be broken up.

------
FillardMillmore
It looks like more of Big Tech is against the 'right to repair' than just
Apple.

I'd like to know what 'policy violations' were committed by Jordan Pier. But
of course, Youtube has no obligation to let him know or to let his viewers
know.

~~~
Gravityloss
Youtube is a platform.

But can one really build a business on that platform? What kind of protections
does the enterpreneur have? Do they have a contract with youtube? Is it easy
to switch to some other platform?

How hard is it to buy video hosting from a web hotel?

I think the whole idea of the internet was a difference to these "dial in"
services. On the internet, you can run your thing anywhere and anybody can
access it just the same. No walls. That's the whole point.

~~~
dageshi
The audiences won't move. Mixer proved it recently, they bought two of the top
streamers from twitch (Ninja and Shroud) but barely a fraction of their
audiences would leave twitch for mixer, maybe 10% if that.

More to the point, it's not that simple, it's not just streaming but apps for
all the mobile devices + everything else that people watch video on (xbox,
playstation, smart tv's).

~~~
pteraspidomorph
Moving takes time (and some marketing/word of mouth). Mixer wasn't willing to
invest that time, which was very disappointing, because technologically
speaking they had a very interesting platform, despite some flaws they never
got around to fixing. I would have liked to stream Beat Saber on it and was
only waiting for the necessary mods... Which someone finally implemented like
1 week before Mixer announced they were going down. Probably a bummer for
whoever worked on that, too...

~~~
dageshi
I don't think any amount of time would've helped. Twitch is long established
as the place for video game streaming. It's possible that mixer could have
established itself as a place for IRL streaming back when IRL was banned on
twitch, but mixer was always under the xbox/gaming part of microsoft so
ultimately IRL was contrary to their focus.

------
halflings
TL;DR: The channel seems to have been deleted by mistake, potentially by an
automated moderation algorithm.

Consequences of having tons of bad actors (like on any website). I hope the
channel will be restored after contacting support, esp. since it has a decent
following.

~~~
asah
Reported to insiders for escalation.

~~~
Brian_K_White
As long as insiders keep putting out the high profile fires, the real problem
remains. If everyone can't benefit from having access to an insider, then it
would be better for everyone to keep getting hit in the face with the fact
that this is a real problem, rather than hiding the problem from most people
by having insiders fix the few cases everyone else ever might notice.

------
pcunite
YouTube = the new PayPal

------
smabie
I mean if YouTube is deleting flat earther videos than they should be deleting
religious ones too.

The thing is that they shouldn't be deleting flat earther videos, and instead
delete videos that are explicitly illegal.

~~~
asadlionpk
I don't get how you compare religious videos with flat earthers but I agree
with your conclusion.

~~~
metalliqaz
Lets set aside for a moment that the flat earth movement is actually a
religious movement disguised as science-based.

FE videos might be removed because they explicitly promote falsehoods as fact.
By that standard, religious videos would be similar.

~~~
Alupis
> FE videos might be removed because they explicitly promote falsehoods as
> fact. By that standard, religious videos would be similar.

You have to be careful here, because you cannot prove God isn't real or that a
religion is false.

You can prove the earth is not flat, however.

~~~
Sessions
There are plenty of bible literalist traditions that present falsifiable
events/ideas as historical facts. See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism).

~~~
lurquer
An assertion that X happened in the past is fundamentally different from an
assertion that X exists.

The certitude one can achieve through evidence for (or against) the claim that
the Earth is presently flat, can never be obtained for an assertion regarding
a past event.

You're mixing apples and oranges.

~~~
nitrogen
This video, and the others on the Qualiasoup channel, cover the endgame of
this type of discussion pretty well:
[https://youtu.be/KayBys8gaJY](https://youtu.be/KayBys8gaJY)

------
dathinab
Wait, what?!

Honestly I'm completely speechless.

EDIT: I actually mixed up the name with another person. I don't know about
Jordan Pier's, so yeah. I will still not delete my comment for transparency.
(I mixed him up with Louis Rossmann). I wonder what the reason was, why his
channel got deleted?

