YouTube Updates Its Strike System

cageymaru

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
21,912
Starting on February 25, YouTube will release its updated strike system. The new strike system will feature a simple, one-time warning for the first strike issued against a channel when content posted to the channel crosses the line. Warnings don't reset after 90 days, but strikes do. YouTube has also updated its policy resources to give more detail about what behavior will result in a strike.

The first strike will result in a one-week freeze on the ability to upload any new content to YouTube, including live streaming, and other channel activities. Strikes will expire after 90 days. The second strike in any 90-day period will result in a two-week freeze on the ability to upload any new content to YouTube. The third strike in any 90-day period will result in channel termination.
 
The fact he clarified this isn't about Copyright or other such stuff, _and then completely stops talking about that facet_ shows they really aren't prepared to talk publicly about false-copyright strikes, false-DMCA take-downs, false-demonitization, and such. All they had to do was say something like "we know the copyright stuff is a big deal right now, we're working on it" and it would help a tonne.

But no, they not only say nothing about what they're working on for that part, they simply mention the topic and walk away from it.

Slap in the face. How can she slap?
 
The reason is that pro-right stuff is what seems to be the target of most of the content-based take-downs. Google and Facebook admit that they come from a left of center viewpoint and they seem to be letting this bias affect their banning/take-downs in a way that is not even-handed.

lcpiper said:
Except I see a ton of pro-right shit posted on Youtube so why do you say this?
Click to expand...
 
Translation: Because almost every major conspiracy theory has been proven true at some level we are blocking that kind of content because the people implicated in said conspiracies are very powerful and want to remain free to do as they please.
 
mlcarson said:
The reason is that pro-right stuff is what seems to be the target of most of the content-based take-downs. Google and Facebook admit that they come from a left of center viewpoint and they seem to be letting this bias affect their banning/take-downs in a way that is not even-handed.
Click to expand...

Youtube is a company, a company made up of humans.

Humans are fallible, no reason to expect much better of companies is there?

My point is, you may be entirely correct, and yet I don't find it remarkable. I don't have time enough to view everything that's be produced in a day by right, or left leaning posters.

If Youtube is left leaning, then I would understand if their policies are more supportive of the left, and that their view of what encroaches on a negative, and hate-speechish post is less than fair.

So I can easily accept your explanation and see the possible truth in it. But I can also see why it could be this way and not demonize Youtube too badly.
 
Raffin said:
So it sounds like no real change in their BS policies of what will be taken down, just a different way of implementing the take down. Got it - if it leans the slightest bit to the right it gets a strike then it's gone.
Click to expand...

lcpiper said:
Except I see a ton of pro-right shit posted on Youtube so why do you say this?
Click to expand...

A good example would be the Dennis Prager videos. Many of them were removed from Youtube. They are all fact based, but many are apparently objectionable to the YT powers that be. Watch them at http://prageru.com and judge for yourself.
 
It's a much better system. If you are a conservative you'll be given strikes until you're banned. If you're a liberal you can do whatever you want including calling for people to get dox'd, no big deal.

What makes it better is it's easier to understand.
 
Music promoting 3rd party channels definitely won't like this update, it's common to mix other artists tracks and it's not like even if you are a newcomer producer going the long route in actually trying to get an "ok" from the management of the label for your free release with your puny audience you won't even necessarily get any response at all as you're a nobody and this in turn increases the difficulty for the 3rd party channels to upload bootlegs/remixes. Most channels probably will continue to do so but a 1 week or 2 week ban isn't going to go down with open arms exactly.

Not a fan of this change.

What is truly needed is an update to copyright as a whole to fit modern times, like totally rethinking of how copyright is handled and thought of. I'd like to see a total revamp how artists get their share of the pie rather than go waving with the banhammer. I thought YouTube's already existing monetization protecting system that identified who is the copyright holder and redistrubuted the income to the rightful owner was a good example in which direction copyright needs to go, I mean that's the main purpose of copyright laws right? If thousands of people is helping to spread the income sources that's only a win-win for everyone.
 
Youtube has a safe harbor provision under the law. They don't have the luxury of being able to censor one side and not the other based on their belief system or they should lose this provision and be responsible for ALL content uploaded. You'd see things quite differently if your side were the one being censored and there were not good alternatives to post content.
 
BTW this is just simply a way to enhance Youtube's ability to prevent 100% factually correct viral videos about Left-wing politicians like John Podesta getting out and ruining their preferred candidate's chances of becoming President.
 
sw33tlou said:
BTW this is just simply a way to enhance Youtube's ability to prevent 100% factually correct viral videos about Left-wing politicians like John Podesta getting out and ruining their preferred candidate's chances of becoming President.
Click to expand...

Let's not let facts get in the way. First off John P is not nor has ever been an elected politician. He "might" very well be a slimeball, but I haven't seen any proof of that yet. He hasn't been indicted for anything just yet. Playing loose with facts is one of the many things that has this country in a bad way right now. If everyone would pay more attention to actual fact based information the divide we currently see would be quite a bit smaller.
 
People like Alex Jones have gotten taken down. Was he right wing or just a lunatic? Any reasonable person would say the latter but to many Conservatives, he was one of them.

So no, their policy isn't right wing or left wing. It is against copyright, lunacy and hate speech.

People get taken down for hate speech and somehow Conservatives see it as some left wing conspiracy.

Lunacy and hate speech are not intrinsically right wing as much as the "victims" seem to think.
 
Raffin said:
A good example would be the Dennis Prager videos. Many of them were removed from Youtube. They are all fact based, but many are apparently objectionable to the YT powers that be. Watch them at http://prageru.com and judge for yourself.
Click to expand...
Okay, you had me curious, so I looked it up. I think you're getting part of the truth, then making the wrong conclusion. Here's what I found:

1. The videos weren't removed. PragerU itself says they were flagged as not appropriate for younger audiences. Meaning, they're still there, on Youtube, you can still watch them, but you have to be 18.
2. This got contested in court and was thrown out. In that article, it states the videos were pertaining to Islam.
3. Now the above IS a case that a video about Islam shouldn't be an age appropriate issue, however, this is part of a larger initiative by Youtube as a whole to make things more "family friendly." You may have heard of the "adpocalypse" earlier on Youtube, that's what this is all about. Plenty of smaller left leaning Youtubers got hit by this as well, Jimmy Dore, Kyle Kulinski, etc. They've made videos about how they've been demonetized, have to change things like "war" to "w@r" not to get flagged, etc. even if they're just reporting news. Meanwhile, the exact same news can be displayed on major news networks on Youtube without any issue.

What's happening is Youtube is trying to sanitize the hell out of everything because they want big corporate sponsors, which don't want anything too controversial. Some topics they're considering taboo now UNLESS you're a major network like MSNBC, CNN Fox, etc. because they bring in major advertising dollars and have a system in place for making sure their content is approved by advertisers, wheras Youtubers are a wild card.

This isn't left v. right, this is big money v. everybody else.
 
Staples said:
People like Alex Jones have gotten taken down. Was he right wing or just a lunatic? Any reasonable person would say the latter but to many Conservatives, he was one of them.

So no, their policy isn't right wing or left wing. It is against copyright, lunacy and hate speech.

People get taken down for hate speech and somehow Conservatives see it as some left wing conspiracy.

Lunacy and hate speech are not intrinsically right wing as much as the "victims" seem to think.
Click to expand...

Well anyone who takes Alex Jones seriously isn't paying attention. The man is a straightup nutball.
 
tetris42 said:
3. Now the above IS a case that a video about Islam shouldn't be an age appropriate issue, however, this is part of a larger initiative by Youtube as a whole to make things more "family friendly."
Click to expand...

Slightly off the topic of what you are pointing out, but I giggled at that statement, because there was an internal stink at google\youtube over the term "family friendly", because it excluded people without kids. In correlation to the topic, I think we can see where part of the problem is with google's guidelines, when the employees themselves don't know or don't like the meaning of words.
 
a lot of judgement on Alex Jones here. the problem with loving the 1st amendment as its written is you get stuck defending people that you dont even agree with- or that you also think are lunatics. I ask you to imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, or accept that the statement "Alex Jones is a lunatic" is subjective, even if you think you have facts that disprove every statement the man has made. Flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, open racists, and radicals all have a right to not be suppressed. Ideas have to stand on their own, even if you think something is dumb or dangerous it doesn't mean it should be suppressed. If you think it does, realize that a human at some point then has to define "dangerous", "lunatic" or "false", and their bias is immediately introduced. Its a two way street.

For example imagine that history played out differently and some event(9/11?) caused the media to lean right... by proximity which people/ideas can you imagine being suppressed instead? Its an easy game to play.
 
purple_monster said:
a lot of judgement on Alex Jones here. the problem with loving the 1st amendment as its written is you get stuck defending people that you dont even agree with- or that you also think are lunatics. I ask you to imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, or accept that the statement "Alex Jones is a lunatic" is subjective, even if you think you have facts that disprove every statement the man has made. Flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, open racists, and radicals all have a right to not be suppressed. Ideas have to stand on their own, even if you think something is dumb or dangerous it doesn't mean it should be suppressed. If you think it does, realize that a human at some point then has to define "dangerous", "lunatic" or "false", and their bias is immediately introduced. Its a two way street.

For example imagine that history played out differently and some event(9/11?) caused the media to lean right... by proximity which people/ideas can you imagine being suppressed instead? Its an easy game to play.
Click to expand...

I think this is the most important and valid comment in this thread.

Freedom of speech is extremely important and regardless if it's hate speech or not (people have varying degrees of the definition). If they have a video that's too graphic for youth then it should come with a warning and some type of verification perhaps. It's important that people can see the good and ugly sides of the world, it's helps us grow and have compassion. Hiding the ugly allows it to continue without people seeing what's going on.

Conspiracy theories can be entertaining, I like the History channels UFO series, but I don't buy into them (love crazy hair guy, cause aliens). However I'd certainly like to see more attention focused on human trafficking, gang related crimes and suppression of freedom that's going on around the world, those are so much more important. Right now people are being beaten or killed by governments and you hardly hear a word about it, sad.
 
Raffin said:
Well anyone who takes Alex Jones seriously isn't paying attention. The man is a straightup nutball.
Click to expand...

I could point out any number of utter lunatic college professors teaching some bizarre intersection tranny feminism while literally having discussions about when it's OK to kill white men. They get flagged like mad, the worst stuff they say gets removed, but they don't get mass censored like the their turning the frogs gay man. And he sounds perfectly sane compared to these college professors.
 
purple_monster said:
a lot of judgement on Alex Jones here. the problem with loving the 1st amendment as its written is you get stuck defending people that you dont even agree with- or that you also think are lunatics. I ask you to imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, or accept that the statement "Alex Jones is a lunatic" is subjective, even if you think you have facts that disprove every statement the man has made. Flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, open racists, and radicals all have a right to not be suppressed. Ideas have to stand on their own, even if you think something is dumb or dangerous it doesn't mean it should be suppressed. If you think it does, realize that a human at some point then has to define "dangerous", "lunatic" or "false", and their bias is immediately introduced. Its a two way street.

For example imagine that history played out differently and some event(9/11?) caused the media to lean right... by proximity which people/ideas can you imagine being suppressed instead? Its an easy game to play.
Click to expand...
Not trying to get off topic, but

1. This isn't a first amendment issue. It's a corporation, they can do whatever they want regarding speech, they're not a government entity. Now granted, you can argue that because Youtube's influence is so large they SHOULD be regulated in that way, but that's a separate issue. As the law currently stands, the first amendment has nothing to do with Youtube.

2. My understanding is Alex Jones wasn't banned for having crazy theories, but for telling his followers to get their "battle rifles" and also saying "mainstream media is the enemy" and "now is the time to act on the enemy", creating an argument he was trying to incite violence. Now you can argue that was too interpretive to warrant being banned, but the point was he wasn't banned because he has wild ideas, it was because his statements were too close to inciting violence for Youtube's comfort.
 
tetris42 said:
Not trying to get off topic, but

1. This isn't a first amendment issue. It's a corporation, they can do whatever they want regarding speech, they're not a government entity. Now granted, you can argue that because Youtube's influence is so large they SHOULD be regulated in that way, but that's a separate issue. As the law currently stands, the first amendment has nothing to do with Youtube.

2. My understanding is Alex Jones wasn't banned for having crazy theories, but for telling his followers to get their "battle rifles" and also saying "mainstream media is the enemy" and "now is the time to act on the enemy", creating an argument he was trying to incite violence. Now you can argue that was too interpretive to warrant being banned, but the point was he wasn't banned because he has wild ideas, it was because his statements were too close to inciting violence for Youtube's comfort.
Click to expand...

i keep hearing this, but people dont stand out on soapboxes in the street anymore, or even take out ads in newspapers anymore- social media and giant sites just like youtube are realistically the de facto place where discourse exists. No one will hear you if you aren't active on one of 4-5 giant services. you say its not related but like... i cant see how it isn't unless you are aggressively and mindlessly isolating your thoughts. legislation as usual is behind, but its coming for you.

and i mean you. i am indeed proposing legislation that tetris42 is no longer allowed to disagree with me. how dare you!!!@!@@
 
Don't agree with first strike is to aggressive especially when it's a false strike the second strike should be where punishments should happen (as first strike kills the uploaded video any way why kill streaming and new videos for a week, maybe a day at best)
 
purple_monster said:
i keep hearing this, but people dont stand out on soapboxes in the street anymore, or even take out ads in newspapers anymore- social media and giant sites just like youtube are realistically the de facto place where discourse exists. No one will hear you if you aren't active on one of 4-5 giant services. you say its not related but like... i cant see how it isn't unless you are aggressively and mindlessly isolating your thoughts. legislation as usual is behind, but its coming for you.
Click to expand...
Oh I get what you're saying, but the point is the 1st Amendment has no power at all there. Even newspapers, like you mentioned. If they purposefully omit coverage of a certain topic, the 1st amendment doesn't prevent that. What it prevents is the GOVERNMENT mandating that information should be omitted.

What you seem upset with is essentially exercise of monopoly power. That's why we created antitrust laws. Once upon a time we used to enforce those.
 
Raffin said:
Well anyone who takes Alex Jones seriously isn't paying attention. The man is a straightup nutball.
Click to expand...

I mean who doesn't eat a spicy bowl of chili before court and subsequently suffer memory loss?
 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
I like the part where he says that if there's a copyright strike then YouTube is required to take the content down cause it's a law. Fucking what? That's a very specific law just for YouTube as I can't see this "law" effecting others businesses.
 
Raffin said:
So it sounds like no real change in their BS policies of what will be taken down, just a different way of implementing the take down. Got it - if it leans the slightest bit to the right it gets a strike then it's gone.
Click to expand...

1. I see AAAALLL sorts of conservative stuff on youtube.
2. Youtube is a private company and doesn't owe you, me, or anybody an explanation. They can run the company how they want as long as they don't run afoul of laws. They could remove ALL content even remotely conservative and there's not a damn think you could do about it, except choose to not use it.
 
dude has bracelet, seems legit

can't wait to see angry joe cry about this
 
percydaman said:
1. I see AAAALLL sorts of conservative stuff on youtube.
2. Youtube is a private company and doesn't owe you, me, or anybody an explanation. They can run the company how they want as long as they don't run afoul of laws. They could remove ALL content even remotely conservative and there's not a damn think you could do about it, except choose to not use it.
Click to expand...

i dont think anyone claims otherwise... just that there is a clear double standard in how they run their platform.
 
Politics became the same as cheering for a particular soccer team. Except that, well, it's expected to be 100% emotional when it comes to something that's basically a distraction.

There's a lot of emotion going in politics, of course - some people just go through different things through life. There's not so much a wrong opinion as much as different points of view about the same subject, all due to how our experiences taint our perceptions. That can all be mitigated by proper discussion and sharing of ideas, flaws and all. But now we have to say that it could, as the landscape changed completely.

Now? You're all in, or you're out. You either agree 100%, or you're a traitor of the cause. It used to be like this for the very edge of both spectrums, the hardcore, "extremist" types. Unfortunately, it became the mainstream, on both sides. And nothing good ever came out of a political climate like this.
 
Staples said:
People like Alex Jones have gotten taken down. Was he right wing or just a lunatic? Any reasonable person would say the latter but to many Conservatives, he was one of them.

So no, their policy isn't right wing or left wing. It is against copyright, lunacy and hate speech.

People get taken down for hate speech and somehow Conservatives see it as some left wing conspiracy.

Lunacy and hate speech are not intrinsically right wing as much as the "victims" seem to think.
Click to expand...

The problem with Youtube, Facebook and many other social networks is they keep moving the field posts as to what hate speech and lunacy are. If they would just stick to the legal letter of the law regarding hate speech, they'd have a much better reputation for being fair to the left and the right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top