Google terminating YouTube channels and videos (2016)
maxlaumeister.com
maxlaumeister.com
It took me 4 days to get my account restored, and required calling into both Google and Youtube, as well as emailing, and contacting friends that worked at Google to get internal numbers. All because they have some system that accidentally flagged an account with zero uploads, and Google still lacks any real form of public customer service.
I think they're safe from going under, but do worry about them shutting my account down again by accident.
This is going to sound snarky but here goes ... Sounds like the problem is not wanting to store an admittedly large number of videos but not liking the service of the company doing it for you at no charge.
Average length of time of those videos is around 5 minutes, total size ~135 hours, or ~150-200GB.
I could store a personal mirror, of much larger size for almost nothing, disregarding legality of such, but the data is less important than the references in a large number of cases. I don't care about the content as much as the ideas the references help recall, in most cases.
They're pretty safe from going under now, but what about when the next big breakthrough is at a competitor? Presumably you want to keep your memories past the 5-10 year visibility that technology cycles at.
That's the part that really rubs me the wrong way. That, for example, your nest thermostat (or email, or phone, etc) might not work right because you uploaded the wrong video one day.
Nope, it was just the Youtube account. When they did the Google+ transition, I generated a new Google account for my Youtube account, but linked it to my normal Google account.
I actually found out about the account removal because of message in Gmail that I had missed for 2-3 days.
I should be upfront and say that I got banned for uploading a video that was deemed inappropriate. I don't really fault them for banning the account, I just wish they had given me the chance to back up my other perfectly appropriate videos. I know those videos probably still exist on some hard drive on a Google server.
When my ban occurred, I had reclaimed access in a total of 5-6 days, due to an urgency to make sure I got through before any cleanup occurred.
Nitpicky, but no he shouldn't, he should feel lucky, sure, but grateful? No, he should feel angry that it happened in the first place, and only somewhat placated that they restored it.
And yes, I'm absolutely livid still over the fact that their system couldn't observe a purely consumer account, with only a few small comments, could be flagged as copyright infringing. Had I been unable to reach a human for manual review of the nonsense of my account status, I'm positive I wouldn't have regained access.
$15/mo for the family plan.
Free as in money does not mean the same as free as in speech.
An hour of 720p = ~1.15GB
An hour per week for a year is ~60GB. On a hard drive, you can fit 30 years of data at that rate into a 2TB drive. Or you could put almost a year of data onto a dual-layer Blu-Ray disc (50GB).
^I personally have a really hard time seeing quality gains in video above that.
To do offsite, in case of fire, you can clone backups onto another harddrive or every few weeks or months onto blurays and store them at a relatives, safety deposit box, or somewhere else you consider safe and accessible. Or you are willing, for offsite matters, go a cloud provided like Google, Box, DropBox, which will charge you $10-20/mo for a TB of storage on their servers, you can use that.
I personally, don't use much offsite storage, for most of my data. I make occasional Blu-Ray or thumbdrive clones of important files and keep them in my bedroom, and accessible if I have to run. And while traveling I'll bring a set of thumbdrives with me.
Within a week I will take my phone number out of Google Voice. I plan to change emails in the coming months as well. I've started to do regular backups of my Google Drive. I've also started to do any searches on controversial topics in Firefox on DuckDuckGo. If any of my side projects become valuable enough, I'll probably move them off GCS as well.
I'm a little weird in the way I think, so maybe I'm the only one so concerned. I'm probably too paranoid. But sometimes I lose a little sleep thinking about the potential consequences of Google randomly closing my account.
I am becoming concerned about the power Google has over my life (have been for a while). They know what you're reading (Chrome, even in incognito mode via DNS), what your thinking (web searches), who you're in contact with (Gmail, Android + their Apps), not to mention maps and what they do with your photos/ drive data. Even patient data with the NHS sharing data with Deepmind[0]. The company needs to broken up as the Did with Microsoft years ago.
Also, Gmail definitely has a problem with false positives. At the small agency where I worked a few years ago, a lot of our internal company emails were ending up in spam folders. It got so bad that I had to go around adding our company email domain to the spam exclusion filters just to make sure that my co-workers were receiving my emails.
I'm not attacking Fastmail. I just didn't want to put in the effort to train the spam filters.
I didn't have big problems with it, except for a monthly student loan payment confirmation email that fastmail refused to classify as not spam no matter how many times I so marked it.
In general, I found gmail's spam filter to be the best. If, however, you don't need to regularly interact with lots of new email addresses, fastmail will work fine for you.
This might be fine for some or even most people but if like me you’d prefer to spend less time on email not more it may not be the best choice as an email provider.
Nothing against the service, just be prepared to manually train a spam filter
The general rule for me is to use paid, or free and open source[0], services. As long as I'm either a community member or a customer, and not a product, I feel safer.
If you're worried about kids, better ban violent movies, video games, the news, and angry music. No, people have tried "think of the children" before but the children turned out fine.
As for other forms of media, we do prevent kids from accessing age-inappropriate stuff, more or less in line with developmental psych research [see: Huesmann, Moise-Titus, Podolski, & Eron (2003)]. YouTube is the odd man out here. The handwringing apologia over the appropriateness of a child entertainer using ethnic slurs would be laughable in any other medium.
Google has famously taken a stance on not being evil. It'd somewhat undermine this goal if it were unable to determine what evil is, and isn't.
They changed this policy when they got into the business of telling people what to think and control opinions.
Do we have a list of what Google considers to be a banned terrorist group for purposes of defunding?
Fine. Google should demonetize the videos or channels, but they shouldn't take down the channels altogether.
> searching something as innocuous as "feminist" gives the results it does
What's innocuous about feminist?
> it's not hard to see youtube as being one of the foremost contributors to extremism
That's what extremists say. That's why lgbt subs are demonetized.
> especially in kids.
I always get suspicious when pretty bring up "kids" or exploit "kids" to support an agenda.
> Real change won't happen until flagged videos get penalised in recommendations and search results too.
So you are advocating google censor?
YouTube isn't great. As a community, it's a pretty bad caretaker. But it's the best that anyone will get. It almost seems like people have forgotten the pre-YouTube times where ebaumsworld was still the dominant video site and where they were actual gatekeepers to content.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-f...
The only way it gets replaced is if they upset the majority of their users. Which at this point, still isn't happening. The YouTube drama crowd isn't the majority of the site. The reason why late night clips get sent to the top of trending most often isn't because YouTube is in conspiracy cahootz with ABC. It's because that's what an 'average' YouTube viewer is most likely to want to watch and would most likely produce a predictable return.
For a successful YouTube competitor, it's going to take a large company with real balls to want to compete with Google and YouTube.
I wonder how Google feels about vloggers leaving their platform, and if they would actively try to stop them, e.g. by downranking videos that refer to videos on other websites.
e.g. by downranking videos that refer to videos on other websites.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/21/google-ur...
What is it about providing a reasonable level of human-based customer service so many SV firms don't understand?
In seriousness, use youtube-dl or similar tools and mirror your content. If you're a content creator and can make anywhere from $1500 to $5000+ a month, surely it isn't a big problem to buy a NAS at some point. You have no excuse not to do so in this age.
Corporations don't care about people, it's shameful that this isn't a genetic memory of the entire Homo Sapiens species yet.
Guard your backyard with your own shotgun.
Google might lose a little but it won't matter or be noticed by them. But the author will lose their income and free time. This seems to be an emotional choice but not a wise one.
If the offending videos are from 5 years ago chances are they earned the majority of what they will. Youtube may change a rule in the future but you can follow policy changes and in this case they gave a year or so grace.