YouTube Updates Its Strike System

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by cageymaru, Feb 19, 2019.

  1. cageymaru

    cageymaru [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    19,815
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    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.
     
    Nightfire likes this.
  2. Raffin

    Raffin Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    138
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    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.
     
  3. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,565
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008

    Except I see a ton of pro-right shit posted on Youtube so why do you say this?
     
  4. Twisted Kidney

    Twisted Kidney 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,500
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Everything is a conspiracy.
     
    potency, Curl, Flatline and 12 others like this.
  5. BloodyIron

    BloodyIron 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,440
    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    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?
     
    D-Money, Nolan7689, Armenius and 3 others like this.
  6. mlcarson

    mlcarson Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    320
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    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.

     
  7. masquap

    masquap Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    135
    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2011
    Those sorts of statements are just a conspiracy to diminish conspiracy theorists in the eyes of the public.
     
  8. sw33tlou

    sw33tlou n00b

    Messages:
    13
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2013
    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.
     
  9. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,565
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    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.
     
    D-Money and bboynitrous like this.
  10. Raffin

    Raffin Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    138
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    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.
     
  11. Seventyfive

    Seventyfive [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,347
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    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.
     
  12. RPGWiZaRD

    RPGWiZaRD [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,042
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    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.
     
  13. mlcarson

    mlcarson Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    320
    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    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.
     
  14. sw33tlou

    sw33tlou n00b

    Messages:
    13
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2013
    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.
     
    James21 and Seventyfive like this.
  15. Raffin

    Raffin Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    138
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    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.
     
  16. Staples

    Staples [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,859
    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    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.
     
  17. tetris42

    tetris42 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,518
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    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.
     
    britjh22, Flatline and Youn like this.
  18. sfsuphysics

    sfsuphysics I don't get it

    Messages:
    13,715
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    Well that certainly didn't take long.
     
  19. Raffin

    Raffin Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    138
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Well anyone who takes Alex Jones seriously isn't paying attention. The man is a straightup nutball.
     
    Armenius likes this.
  20. Dalexx

    Dalexx Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    160
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2014
    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.
     
    Armenius likes this.
  21. GoldenTiger

    GoldenTiger [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    18,891
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    It's true, that's why.
     
    Armenius and Snowdensjacket like this.
  22. purple_monster

    purple_monster Gawd

    Messages:
    617
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2018
    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.
     
  23. pgwalsh

    pgwalsh Gawd

    Messages:
    679
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    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.
     
    equinox654 and Armenius like this.
  24. Snowdensjacket

    Snowdensjacket Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    316
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2017
    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.
     
  25. tetris42

    tetris42 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,518
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    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.
     
    britjh22 and Revdarian like this.
  26. Oldmodder

    Oldmodder Gawd

    Messages:
    707
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2018
    I think Haters are going to have a field day with this.
     
  27. purple_monster

    purple_monster Gawd

    Messages:
    617
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2018
    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!!!@!@@
     
    AlphaQup, Armenius, Skyblue and 3 others like this.
  28. likeman

    likeman Gawd

    Messages:
    605
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    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)
     
    Revdarian likes this.
  29. tetris42

    tetris42 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,518
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2014
    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.
     
    britjh22 and purple_monster like this.
  30. socK

    socK 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,696
    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2004
    I mean who doesn't eat a spicy bowl of chili before court and subsequently suffer memory loss?
     
    Silverlok likes this.
  31. mullet

    mullet [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,625
    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    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.
     
  32. DukenukemX

    DukenukemX [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,460
    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    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.
     
    Armenius likes this.
  33. percydaman

    percydaman Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    294
    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2011
    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.
     
    britjh22 and Youn like this.
  34. Exavior

    Exavior [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,660
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2005
    so now vox can get channels removed faster.
     
  35. Master_shake_

    Master_shake_ [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,732
    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    so instead of letting people make a decision about it they take away that ability.

    sounds like, sounds like you've had too much to think.
     
  36. Youn

    Youn [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,456
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    dude has bracelet, seems legit

    can't wait to see angry joe cry about this
     
    Armenius likes this.
  37. Raffin

    Raffin Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    138
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Never said he should be banned by YT, just that he's a nutball.
     
    Armenius likes this.
  38. purple_monster

    purple_monster Gawd

    Messages:
    617
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2018
    i dont think anyone claims otherwise... just that there is a clear double standard in how they run their platform.
     
  39. awawa

    awawa n00b

    Messages:
    29
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2019
    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.
     
    Inacurate likes this.
  40. freeloader1969

    freeloader1969 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,238
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2003
    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.
     
    AlphaQup and Armenius like this.