Tons of Markiplier Fans Suspended for no good reason! (Google/Youtube overreach))

[Crowbar]

19 minutes ago, imreloadin said:

Yeah if you're a full time YT creator who happens to like to watch other content and your account gets banned who cares right?

Also who uses Gmail right? Pffft it's not like every account you sign up for these days is based solely around your email account and your access to said account or anything like that.

 

Seriously, are you so dense that you can't see this as an issue besides "i CaN sTiLl WaTcH vIdEoS" ?

How many "yt creators" actually make a successful living off the platform alone? It's also been a dumpster fire for years now with literally some form of controversy every month it seems. Why do you think channels like LTT have been building/looking for an alternative?

 

Gmail is a completely optional email client among hundreds. Many of which don't intentionally scan through every single email you send/receive to build an advertising profile on you to sell to marketers.

 

So who's clearly the "dense" one arguing semantics that don't actually effect the vast majority of users? I think you can guess the answer.

 

[Rune]

2 hours ago, rcmaehl said:

Youtube resolved the issue

Not really. Accounts are starting to be unbanned, but all content associated with them, videos, favorites, etc....are wiped. It wasn't just a youtube ban, it was a full on G account sweep.

[Harry Voyager]

2 hours ago, Crowbar said:

How many "yt creators" actually make a successful living off the platform alone? It's also been a dumpster fire for years now with literally some form of controversy every month it seems. Why do you think channels like LTT have been building/looking for an alternative?

 

Gmail is a completely optional email client among hundreds. Many of which don't intentionally scan through every single email you send/receive to build an advertising profile on you to sell to marketers.

 

So who's clearly the "dense" one arguing semantics that don't actually effect the vast majority of users? I think you can guess the answer.

 

 

How frequently do you change email providers, and on average, what fraction of your contacts do you lose every shift? Of you've been on a platform for any length of time it is not a trivial task.

 

I've been thinking off and on about moving off of Yahoo since they became Oath and their new arbitration clauses came into effect, but it will involve changing dozens of secondary accounts and numerous contacts, and honestly, there's no expectation that whoever I end up at won't turn around and do exactly the same sort of thing. I find myself wondering if the Post Office hosts email accounts these days? They at least have rules they have to follow. 

[sharknado34]

10 hours ago, Crowbar said:

Who cares?

 

Google/youtube accounts serve no real purpose anyway. You can still watch videos and use the same services else where without google spying on everything you do.

What?

 

This is a REALLY BIG DEAL. Just for starters this could mean that: you could loose some of your accounts (because your email no longer exists), your stuff on Google Drive, all your emails, purchase history, important documents, and even loose records from other websites (because you used your google account to create an account for that website), etc. It is difficult to determine if this is an issue that is being fixed, but in the meantime I am creating a throwaway google account, setting up 2 factor authentication where I can and getting backups of records that I haven't gotten already.

[Praesi]

YT is a SJW Shitshow.

Too bad its "to big to fail"

[sharknado34]

10 minutes ago, Praesi said:

YT is a SJW Shitshow.

Too bad its "to big to fail"

I feel like Youtube is just barely skirting around the first amendment. 

[Spotty]

Just now, sharknado34 said:

I feel like Youtube is just barely skirting around the first amendment. 

First amendment does not apply to private platforms...

[Taf the Ghost]

56 minutes ago, Spotty said:

First amendment does not apply to private platforms...

Funny things happen when you're a monopoly...

 

In other news, who's up for some Trust Busting?

[imreloadin]

8 hours ago, Crowbar said:

How many "yt creators" actually make a successful living off the platform alone?

You'd be surprised actually. There are also a lot more people who make videos on the side and would still like to get that supplemental income from it.

 

8 hours ago, Crowbar said:

Gmail is a completely optional email client among hundreds.

Yeah, just like literally everything else on the internet. It ALSO happens to be the largest email provider in the world...which also accounts for over 50% of the email market share in the US. So this has the potential to affect a lot of people.

 

8 hours ago, Crowbar said:

So who's clearly the "dense" one arguing semantics that don't actually effect the vast majority of users?

You're the one who is really failing to grasp the seriousness of an issue like this so it's still you. It wouldn't be that big of an issue if they just banned you from YouTube for it but the fact that they're completely disabling people's Google accounts is what is the issue. This would lock you out of being able to login to a lot of other accounts you've made online with that email address. A lot of people use their email account as two-factor authentication, guess who can't do that anymore when their Google account is disabled? Look, you make it pretty obvious that Google pissed in your Cheerios this morning, and every morning apparently, but that shouldn't shut off your brain when it comes to seeing the bigger picture here about how getting your email account disabled can cascade into a lot of different issues.

 

Now do you actually have something constructive to add to this conversation other than shouting "i HaTe GoOgLe" like you have been with each of your posts in this topic?

[ARikozuM]

4 hours ago, Spotty said:

First amendment does not apply to private platforms...

And it really should.

 

Google should be policing the streamer's content, not the audience's when there's no reason to.

[Harry Voyager]

5 hours ago, Spotty said:

First amendment does not apply to private platforms...

It really depends. One argument is the company town square issue. Essentially it has been found that in a company town, just because the company owns the town square, does not mean they can regulate who can say what I'm their town square. 

 

The dance that YouTube and Google are doing, however is the Publisher/forum thing. Basically Google and YouTube are not legally liable for the contents that their users put up on it because they are content hosts, rather than the publisher. So if someone puts up an illegal or libelous YouTube video, the uploader can be in trouble, but YouTube has little legal issue. However, that only really stands if they are a neutral host. If they are making significant editorial decisions on what does and does not get published in their platform, they can become, legally, a publisher, and legally liable for what goes up. 

 

Think of it as, the phone company isn't liable for you coordinating your multi state criminal empire over their phone lines, but the newspaper sure is liable for letting you coordinate it over their editorial pages. 

 

There is also precedent for regulating private companies in the name of free speech. Particularly early in the broadcast era the FCC maintained what was called the "Fairness Doctrine" that required that broadcast networks provide equivalent time to both side of controversial topics. It was eventually repealed by Congress, but the precedent still permits it to return. I don't know that that would be a good thing, but if a large enough part of the population feels they are being mistreated or targeted by the current primary media hubs, I could see people bringing it back again. 

[sharknado34]

2 hours ago, Harry Voyager said:

It really depends. One argument is the company town square issue. Essentially it has been found that in a company town, just because the company owns the town square, does not mean they can regulate who can say what I'm their town square. 

 

The dance that YouTube and Google are doing, however is the Publisher/forum thing. Basically Google and YouTube are not legally liable for the contents that their users put up on it because they are content hosts, rather than the publisher. So if someone puts up an illegal or libelous YouTube video, the uploader can be in trouble, but YouTube has little legal issue. However, that only really stands if they are a neutral host. If they are making significant editorial decisions on what does and does not get published in their platform, they can become, legally, a publisher, and legally liable for what goes up. 

 

Think of it as, the phone company isn't liable for you coordinating your multi state criminal empire over their phone lines, but the newspaper sure is liable for letting you coordinate it over their editorial pages. 

 

There is also precedent for regulating private companies in the name of free speech. Particularly early in the broadcast era the FCC maintained what was called the "Fairness Doctrine" that required that broadcast networks provide equivalent time to both side of controversial topics. It was eventually repealed by Congress, but the precedent still permits it to return. I don't know that that would be a good thing, but if a large enough part of the population feels they are being mistreated or targeted by the current primary media hubs, I could see people bringing it back again. 

Corporations have way too much power right now. In politics they have waaaaayyyyy too much influence, I don't understand how companies are exempt from the amendments. There seems to be a decent amount of politicians that are being paid off by big corporations. The only way you can get by in politics is to make "alliances" and promise, you do this I will do this in return. If I wanted to get into politics (which becomes more tempting the more I see such massive corruption in government/politics) and opposed big corporations I would get ruined. Capitalist societies have some benefits, but who is reining them in?

[vanished]

Bad title, didnt even think to read or care about this until someone reposted and I go led here through the link.

 

This goes beyond Markiplier, it's clearly a general issue on YouTube, and a very serious one at that.  Aside from the obvious fact that no action should have been taken against any of these accounts since they were not harming the host or each other (or advertising or other issues), going after the associated Google account is completely insane and unacceptable.  There are rare instances where a user may have violated policy so badly that it is appropriate, but in virtually all cases like this, a ban on commenting or if necessary, accessing and using YouTube altogether should be more than enough to solve the problem.  I never would have expected such careless and foolhardy behaviour from Google regarding such a serious topic.

 

Frankly, they've just killed themselves, and a good portion of the internet along with it.  Not literally, of course they are a huge company and will survive, but I mean figuratively.  Their services are an integral part of modern internet and modern life, and they've shown that they can't be trusted to provide them reliably.  That is a very unfortunate and inconvenient fact but a fact nevertheless.  I'll be moving as many accounts as possible to a different email asap and aiming to eliminate my use of their services entirely.

[Thaldor]

8 hours ago, sharknado34 said:

I feel like Youtube is just barely skirting around the first amendment. 

As shitty as this case is, this really doesn't concern the first amendment aka free-speech. If you really wanna turn this into talk about that at best this is just the part after the free-speech, the consequences. Freedom of speech means you are free to say whatever you want but it doesn't mean that you wouldn't need to feel the consequences of your words. Like this doesn't really stand here but people are free to build a bot to spam shit around a service, that's the free-speech/first amendment part, their account being banned for spamming around the service is the consequence of them using their free-speech privilege to do something that is prohibited.

[Belgarathian]

The auto ban hammer strikes again.

[Unixsystem]

I can accept that Youtube's bots are overzealous and banned people because they appeared to be spamming even though they weren't. It sucks, but that's YouTube for you. 

 

The bigger question is why on earth does a ban from chat involve an automatic deletion of your account? I could see spamming racial slurs or something resulting in a suspension or serious warning or something, but why is an automated system able to access and delete your personal account without any oversight. And even more so, how the hell does Youtube's automated system have the ability to elevate itself to delete your entire Google account. I realize that the two accounts are closely linked nowadays (for no good reason), but how is a piece of software built to manage YouTube chat etiquette even capable of wiping out private user data? Ignoring any safeguards and security best practices that obviously weren't in place, how does it even have the access necessary to do it? 

[Fasauceome]

22 hours ago, Crowbar said:

Who cares?

 

Google/youtube accounts serve no real purpose anyway. You can still watch videos and use the same services else where without google spying on everything you do.

That's not true. People who have purchased YouTube red no Ionger have access to that service, so losing the account is a big deal.

[Xiee]

This is why I keep more than one google account. One for my personal stuff and family and one for everyone else and for foolishness on Youtube.

[Bramimond]

Back in 2009, when Youtube wanted me to link a Google account or not let me log in anymore, I decided to not log in anymore. I don't have a Google account and don't plan on ever getting one. Incidents like this confirm that this was the correct decision on my part.

[amdorintel]

its the lemming affect

 

do you do 200 on the highway just because a yt vlogger is doing it

 

common sense is not so common

[Mark Kaine]

18 hours ago, Rune said:

Not really. Accounts are starting to be unbanned, but all content associated with them, videos, favorites, etc....are wiped. It wasn't just a youtube ban, it was a full on G account sweep.

This is really something that needed to be regulated. A email provider shouldn't be allowed to simply wipe your stuff and if they do they should be liable to compensate the damage that they have done. 

 

They only do this because it's not regulated currently besides "a provider can do whatever they want"  which gives them way too much power. 

 

 

Same goes for online services like Steam, PSN, etc.  You "bought" it they shouldn't be allowed to take it away for whatever reason they seem fit (which is the current defacto regularies though) 

 

I really don't get why there aren't more stringent rules for these things,  it's like the people responsible "just don't get the internet"  in which case I have to wonder why they're responsible to begin with.  @.@

 

[Harry Voyager]

I wonder if it is time for an entity like the Post Office for email communication? In its day, the post was important enough that its the only business actually in the US Constitution. The rest of it is rules about what the government can, and mostly cannot do, and by the way, establish a post office. Yet now, the vast majored of what people did by mail is now done by email instead.

 

My general inclination is less government is better, but this might be one of the exceptions. 

[OutsideOctaves]

OK, Mark posted another video (cited earlier in the post, thanks ) about the fact that it's being dealt with by google.  A google/youtube big-wig for content called Mark herself and confirmed that this should never have happened and is in inter-business communications to try and prevent future issues, as this is THAT big an event ;).

 

But having said that, this shouldn't have happened in the first place, and a TON of people lost important work and time because of it.  I wonder what kind of steps altoegher they are doing, hopefully somehow they are able to bring all that content (e-mails, google docs, etc.) back to the people affected by this... but they have lost major internet-points here as the Mod said (paraphrasing).

 

A link to Mark's Update video:

 

[Master Disaster]

On 11/9/2019 at 10:05 AM, PineyCreek said:

I suppose.  I'd like to think even when making billions upon billions of dollars that they'd treat the little people that use their services with grace.

YouTube is nothing but a money sink for Alphabet.

 

It's important to note that any figures you see are nothing but estimates, Alphabet doesn't release actual YouTube figures.

 

It's possible that YouTube is now profitable but if that's the case it's only been that way very recently. Going back only 2 years market analysts suggested YouTube cost alphabet billions a year while hardly making anything in return.

 

Of course since then they've gone hard on advertising.

[vanished]

3 hours ago, Harry Voyager said:

I wonder if it is time for an entity like the Post Office for email communication? In its day, the post was important enough that its the only business actually in the US Constitution. The rest of it is rules about what the government can, and mostly cannot do, and by the way, establish a post office. Yet now, the vast majored of what people did by mail is now done by email instead.

 

My general inclination is less government is better, but this might be one of the exceptions. 

In practice I suspect that they would never do this, and if they did it would be a poorly made, slow, unreliable and insecure service no one would want to use, but in theory and in principal, I totally agree.