Youtube isn't some mom n' pop operation - they do have a review process and make an attempt at following the rules they set. They can ban you for any reason...but they generally don't unless you're clearly breaking a rule.
I'm not getting into the rabbit hole of finding out if it was actually generated - once again, that's a different problem. One that I already mentioned 2 comments back. My point was that there is less subjectivity with this rule. If the content is found to have been generated and isn't marked, then there are clear grounds to remove the video.
What youtube does when there is doubt is not known yet. I don't deal in "well this _could_ lead to this".
> Youtube isn't some mom n' pop operation - they do have a review process and make an attempt at following the rules they set. They can ban you for any reason...but they generally don't unless you're clearly breaking a rule.
They use (with some irony) AI and other algorithms to determine if you're breaking the rules, often leading to arbitrary or nonsensical results, which the review process frequently fails to address.
> I'm not getting into the rabbit hole of finding out if it was actually generated - once again, that's a different problem.
It isn't a different problem, it's the problem. You want people to label things because otherwise you're not sure, but because of that problem exactly, you have no way of reliably or objectively enforcing the labeling requirement. And you specifically have no way to do it in the cases where it most matters because it's hard to tell.
At a mom and pop you could at least talk to a person and figure out what happen.
>I don't deal in "well this _could_ lead to this"
Did you not learn from the entire DMCA thing? Remember the thing where piles tech people warned "Wow, this is going to be used as a weapon to cause problems" and then it was used as a weapon to cause problems.
Well, welcome to the next weapon that is going to be used to cause problems.
The DMCA implementation implemented is the only thing that saved youtube from getting sued out of existence. And people on the internet don't know what fair-use actually means, so they complain/exaggerate about DMCA takedowns when, surprise, it wasn't actually covered by fair-use.
There's a handful of cases where yt actually messed up w/ DMCA and considering the sheer volume of videos they process, I'd say it's actually pretty damn good.
So no, DMCA is not a valid reason to assume youtube will handle this improperly.
> The DMCA implementation implemented is the only thing that saved youtube from getting sued out of existence.
The alternative to the DMCA is Section 230 of the CDA, which could have just as easily been applied to copyright as it is to anything else if it weren't for the DMCA providing a more abuse-prone alternative.
> And people on the internet don't know what fair-use actually means, so they complain/exaggerate about DMCA takedowns when, surprise, it wasn't actually covered by fair-use.
Abusive takedowns are a huge problem, actually. It's common in cases of businesses sending takedowns for their competitors' websites or videos, for example. They're often completely fraudulent with no merit whatsoever, but the company receiving the takedown has no information on which to base a decision (who created this content? how would they know?), so they just mechanistically execute all of them with no validation.
I'm not getting into the rabbit hole of finding out if it was actually generated - once again, that's a different problem. One that I already mentioned 2 comments back. My point was that there is less subjectivity with this rule. If the content is found to have been generated and isn't marked, then there are clear grounds to remove the video.
What youtube does when there is doubt is not known yet. I don't deal in "well this _could_ lead to this".