ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, December 11, 2019

Ever more nebulous fake rules

This is what those worried about a YouTube purge should be worrying about rather than the new terms of service:
YouTube will no longer allow videos that "maliciously insult someone" based on "protected attributes" such as race, gender identity or sexuality. The video-sharing platform will also ban "implied threats of violence" as part of its new harassment policy.

A row erupted in June after a prominent video-maker said he had been the target of abuse by another YouTube star. At the time, YouTube said its rules had not been broken. But it has now deleted many of the videos in question.

"Even if a single video doesn't cross the line, with our new harassment policy we can take a pattern of behaviour into account for enforcement," Neal Mohan, chief product officer at YouTube, told the BBC.
Then again, it doesn't really matter because there are no actual rules to which anyone, much less a banned creator, can hold YouTube accountable or any authority to which one can appeal. This means that YouTube will do whatever it wants right up until the moment that it finds suddenly itself paying out tens of millions of dollars in the inevitable class action lawsuit.

We're not dealing with great legal minds here. Notice how everything is veiled in subjectives; they can't simply ban insults because doing so would be relatively easy to objectively observe. Is it an insult, Y/N? So, in order to allow selective enforcement, they ban "malicious" insults depending upon whatever motivation their mindreaders determine applies. Or difficult-to-define things such as implications and patterns of behavior.

Labels: ,

28 Comments:

Blogger The Pitchfork Rebel December 11, 2019 9:21 PM  

I'm beginning to think these rules are designed to condition people to report their contrived indignities to some "authority", not unlike the "see something, say something" campaigns.

"Hello, yes, I would like to report something. My neighbors have been heard saying something like "Our Father" and since that's the beginning of a Christian prayer, I think they might be Christian".

Blogger Sologamer December 11, 2019 9:46 PM  

I've noticed a huge uptick on Bitchute recently. It's increasingly viable as an alternative to YouTube. Although it is in itself a vulnerable point of infrastructure.

Blogger Azimus December 11, 2019 9:47 PM  

How can anyone look at the millions youtube loses (or is it billions now) and not see it for what it is? Years ago they used to lie to us and say they had a fiduciary responsibility to be inclusive, to bring in the freaks because afterall, freaks spend money! Now they cut down giant swaths in their viewership and creators, irrespective of their fiduciary responsibilities. The only consistent theme is protection, promotion, and promulgation of degeneracy. This is a great fundamental flaw of capitalism - the assumption that profit, and the enjoyment therof, is the end goal. It turns out, for ABC, Twitter, others like Soros, that it is just a means to an end.

I don't know enough to know if there's a simple solution to the problem - multi-multi-billion dollar mutual funds run by politically active fund managers effectively drown out the people's ability to vote w/their money - or rather turn their votes over to these Scrooge McDuck-types who wield power far above that of the press to bend companies to their will. Maybe breaking up this investment monopoly would force companies to ACTUALLY exercise fiduciary responsibility and abandon these insane social engineering projects? Well the solution is above my pay grade, but I'll keep thinkin about it and listening to SDL.

Blogger Stilicho December 11, 2019 9:52 PM  

And youtube's pattern of behavior will be a primary exhibit in the eventual case against it, including whether it engaged in malicious conduct or acted with wanton disregard for the effect of its actions when the jury decides whether to award punitive damages. Since youtube loses money, there will also be big fight over whether its parent Google should be a party (the real party in interest) since youtube is an alter ego, a loss leader for Google's ad business and doesn't have a separate existence in any meaningful way. If Google is ultimately made a party, imagine the punitive damages that might be assessed based on Google's income. It will never get near a jury because Google execs will trample schoolkids to throw money at a settlement once a class is certified against it.

Blogger Rick December 11, 2019 10:07 PM  

This deleting of videos without consent of the creator seems illegal; regardless of what the terms of service may say. Like destroying records or files which could be needed for an investigation in a law suit. Who owns medical records?
Does the TOS specifically say YT owns the videos?

Blogger CCP December 11, 2019 10:29 PM  

I tear up a bit for our lost friends, MySpace and Yahoo. They were kind of nice. I'm hoping Google and YouTube don't get to leave this world as humanely and there are ample SJW skulls, scalps, and crushed bones for all of us to enjoy

Blogger David son of Mark December 11, 2019 10:35 PM  

I do find it amusing to watch YouTube not only build the gallows of their own public execution, but to also tie the rope around their own necks and start screaming at people to pull the lever.

Blogger Doktor Jeep December 11, 2019 10:45 PM  

They will go the way of MySpace.

Blogger Akulkis December 11, 2019 11:15 PM  

Vagueness is the refuge of scoundrels.
Whenever you see a published policy that is long on vagueness and has little to no absolutes or specifics, you know that the people putting out the policy are just playing Calvinball.

Blogger FrankNorman December 11, 2019 11:41 PM  

What happened to MySpace?

Blogger Blake December 12, 2019 12:03 AM  

Rick wrote:This deleting of videos without consent of the creator seems illegal; regardless of what the terms of service may say. Like destroying records or files which could be needed for an investigation in a law suit. Who owns medical records?

Does the TOS specifically say YT owns the videos?


1. The videos are never deleted from Youtube entirely, just delisted and inaccessible to the public.

2. Not exactly. Legally, no. In the sense that Youtube can do whatever they want to it while it's uploaded? Yes.

Then again, it doesn't really matter because there are no actual rules to which anyone, much less a banned creator, can hold YouTube accountable or any authority to which one can appeal.

Google is the only company I've ever seen get away with the complete non-existence of customer service. You don't talk to Youtube. Youtube talks to you, peasant.

Blogger Nate73 December 12, 2019 12:14 AM  

@4: I'm probably missing something, but hasn't the "vague TOS so we can do whatever we want" strategy been working well for the tech companies so far? What would it take for a lawsuit to succeed beyond just the basic unfairness of terminating people's income without notice?

Blogger Jim the Curmudgeon December 12, 2019 1:01 AM  

Handing a big stick to the SJWs, while trying to make it look like they are really going after extreme content (so that they continue to benefit from being a platform, and not a publisher). Lefties will have a field day with this one. Make a few videos on the gang rapes in the UK? Banned for singling out minority men.

If VK was smart it would bring out an English language video service immediately.

Blogger Troushers December 12, 2019 1:47 AM  

The problem I foresee is that YouTube's purple haired decision makers will be forced to explicitly declare that possessing white skin - but not brown, black or yellow - is not a protected characteristic. Likewise heterosexuality. Likewise maleness.

YouTube's going to be increasingly tasked with explaining why it's hate-filled SJW videomakers are getting a pass from its hateful SJW moderators, for using "malicious insult" against these groups.

Blogger Gregory the Tall December 12, 2019 2:38 AM  

If it weren't for the Darkstream I would have very little reason to open Youtube regularly at the moment.

Blogger bodenlose Schweinerei December 12, 2019 3:02 AM  

They do so love to pretend their political truths are not merely irrefutable, but also self-evident.


And all this just to defend hateful little crapweasel Carlos Maza.

Blogger bodenlose Schweinerei December 12, 2019 3:08 AM  

A Black Hebrew and his 50-year female companion attack a Jewish grocery store. Why is the internet not melting down over this "hate" crime?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50747374

Blogger Lovekraft December 12, 2019 5:40 AM  

A reflection of the left - fake audience, fake viewership etc. If they truly thought their ideology could meet basic standards, then they wouldn't need these arbitrary censorship powers.

Blogger Wolfman December 12, 2019 5:53 AM  

I took footage of a recent incident in Austria of men dressed like Krampus driving away migrant troublemakers that were bothering a Christmas festival; slapped an Amon Amarth song over it and then added memes to pad it out enough to use the whole song. YouTube automatically age restricted the video so it'll be interesting to see if it stays up. (equal number of views so far.)

https://www.bitchute.com/video/DV7zMuUt1TFh/

Blogger urthshu December 12, 2019 7:07 AM  

bodenlose SchweinereiDecember 12, 2019 3:08 AM

Getting dangerous out there! I suggest we gather them all together at the soon to be abandoned sprawling, beautiful tech parks for safety until we can figure out a better solution.

Blogger Stilicho December 12, 2019 7:50 AM  

@Nate73 no one has really tried it to my knowledge. And, if they have, they've probably focused on the TOS, which are vague enough to be interpreted in Google's favor by an amenable authority. It will take time and resources to mount a successful challenge because Google's lawyers will defend via a thousand frivolous motions, etc. Plus the lawfirms that specialize in such class actions tend heavily to the leftist/sjw mindset and narrative (they are little different from your friendly neighborhood ambulance chaser with a billboard ad). However, there is case law/common law which would provide bases for legal action (tortious interference, defamation, etc.) along with statutory bases in some cases (discrimination against protected classes for example--age,gender,religion, national origin). At some point, it will happen. Also, the state AG's may jump on the bandwagon when they recognize a chance to make a name for themselves and get elected to higher office (see, e.g. the lawsuits against companies that distribute/deliver opioid medications to pharmacies blaming them for the opioid abuse problem).

Blogger Damelon Brinn December 12, 2019 7:54 AM  

What would it take for a lawsuit to succeed

There would have to be such lawsuits, for starters. When the degenerates wanted to force Christian bakeries to bake the cake, they didn't just point to a document that they thought supported them and wait for the bakeries to give in. They hired lawyers and went to court until they found amenable judges to make it happen, and they kept at it through appeals until they won.

Right-wingers don't think in those terms because the courts have been a leftist stronghold for so long that there seemed to be no point. We also didn't have Soros types to fund endless lawsuits. But the courts aren't all left-wing and Trump is making them less so all the time, so it may be time to start thinking that way.

Blogger lowercaseb December 12, 2019 11:00 AM  

I think you have to crack the forced arbitration and no class action clause if it's users bringing the suit. If someone can get past that then YouTube/Google would be in trouble.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash December 12, 2019 11:31 AM  

lowercaseb wrote:I think you have to crack the forced arbitration and no class action clause if it's users bringing the suit. If someone can get past that then YouTube/Google would be in trouble.
Vox has already demonstrated that the "no class action" is a weakness, not a strength.

Blogger James Dixon December 12, 2019 11:51 AM  

> Then again, it doesn't really matter because there are no actual rules to which anyone, much less a banned creator, can hold YouTube accountable or any authority to which one can appeal.

And when you control the judges "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law". Trump is working hard to change that, but it won't get done this term.

> If it weren't for the Darkstream I would have very little reason to open Youtube regularly at the moment.

Youtube is a great source for free music. That's about it.

Blogger lowercaseb December 12, 2019 12:53 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:Vox has already demonstrated that the "no class action" is a weakness, not a strength.

You're not wrong. It's going to be a while but I can't wait for the time when Vox can talk about the details of that particular rubble bouncing.

Blogger DonReynolds December 12, 2019 1:11 PM  

From the standpoint of Google and YouTube, it becomes a fool's errand to attempt to sanitize the platform of every possible unpleasantness. Once they make the decision to remove, delete, ban, or zap the FIRST comment, or video, or commenter, they have started down a road that has no end or fork. Why? Because they are attempting to remove all legitimate complaint, but it is left to the chronic complainers to decide what is legitimate. Sanitize all you like, it will never be clean enough.

Even if every reference to race (or religion, or gender, etc) were completely removed from the platforms, there would be imagined slights, bad intents, uncharitable speech, and the "I know what they were thinking" nonsense. The Truth of the information stopped being a valid defense in these matters years ago. It does not matter if it is true. What matters is whether ANYBODY says they feel bad, or might feel bad, or think someone else might feel bad, or they heard that might, maybe someone actually felt bad, but they did not say anything....cause they felt bad. Like an infinite regress, there is no end and there is no achievement, just an open door that never closes to even one objecting voice....even if they have never seen the material.

Blogger OneWingedShark December 13, 2019 12:36 PM  

David son of Mark wrote:I do find it amusing to watch YouTube not only build the gallows of their own public execution, but to also tie the rope around their own necks and start screaming at people to pull the lever.
They do so because they're untouchable, too big to fail business-wise and with intelligence-agency connections. This makes them arrogant beyond belief.

Stilicho wrote:It will never get near a jury because Google execs will trample schoolkids to throw money at a settlement once a class is certified against it.
This is very likely the outcome. Especially since getting to trial itself would be a huge loss for them. I would anticipate that any such settlement would also entail gag-orders.

Nate73 wrote:@4: I'm probably missing something, but hasn't the "vague TOS so we can do whatever we want" strategy been working well for the tech companies so far? What would it take for a lawsuit to succeed beyond just the basic unfairness of terminating people's income without notice?
Legally speaking? Utterly crushing them. Invalidating their lawyer's understanding of the law by treating the federal and State Constitutions as actual law would go a long way towards that. (eg A1, S8, C8: an honest reading of this would strip corporations of the ability to hold either copyright or patent.) — The real problem is that nobody [in the political sphere] wants to go this route, instead opting for Socialism and/or Social Justice.

Snidely Whiplash wrote:lowercaseb wrote:I think you have to crack the forced arbitration and no class action clause if it's users bringing the suit. If someone can get past that then YouTube/Google would be in trouble.
Vox has already demonstrated that the "no class action" is a weakness, not a strength.

Indeed; force them to bleed by a million cuts.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts