YouTube restores SineVibes channel after Peter Kirn & Ars Technica get involved
bsky.app
bsky.app
i once had google emailing me every single week to bother me about trying out GCP (i used it at work and nearly got certified for that company so i didn't need to scope it out). they offered hundreds or thousands in free credits. well now, you are trying to give me many free dollars, but i have an issue. i couldn't get Google's captcha to work. So i said if you can put me in contact with some person who can help with this very prevalent google product- then i will consider it.
the answer from google is something i will never forget. it was just "we don’t offer support, sorry"
why would i ever give you money? google even sent me a CR-48 for free as a tester, that's how much i used to use them. never again! (except gmail, ugh)
Download thunderbird and sign in via IMAP and bobs your uncle
for personal use, I'm already using MX Route which i learnt about from comments here. $30/yr for unlimited domains and mailboxes. feel free to drop me a message to check how it works! cto@floydnoel.com
for personal use the last G product i am stuck with is Google Voice. not sure of a good replacement for that if you have any recs.
When it comes to YouTube censorship freedom of speech seems applicable except for the fact that YouTube is a private platform with terms of service you have to agree to for them to host and distribute your content.
Perhaps something like utilities where a company operates at sort of a midpoint between private and public?
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-th...
Honestly it sounds like this problem would be gone entirely. The government already defines speech that is so bad as to making it illegal despite the first amendment. Treating social media as a common carrier means they get to skip moderation entirely and just have to follow what is legally allowed.
Forcing social media to act as a common carrier could very well mean algorithmic feeds aren't allowed as they impede speech and still toe the line of censorship. Without algorithmic feeds we could be back to seeing just from those in your circle, meaning moderation shouldn't be nearly as big of a concern anyway.
An example that came up was someone's GCP being wiped out because he was engaged in "ad theft". The guy had a personal video channel where he was uploading videos and then checking them for quality. Because he was a significant percentage of the viewer count, his account was flagged as "faking views to get ad revenue" and his online presence was nuked by Google. Email, VMs, YouTube channel, everything.
Or the reporter was able to contact someone that could get the issue looked into at all, more like. You don't "accelerate" something that was never going to happen in the first place.
Also, this is a good time to remember that Google occasionally doubles down when they cause serious harm to individual users, even after being contacted by the media. Google invaded the privacy of numerous parents sharing sensitive medical pictures of their children with doctors, took away access to their entire digital lives including Gmail, called the cops, and effectively called them criminals after being contacted by the New York Times. Absolutely disgusting behavior that Google hasn't taken accountability for to this very day.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/youtube-briefly-...
(PS: Ars Technica is a bit sluggish for me this evening. Not sure why.)
Why would YouTube flag them?