The Linux Experiments YouTube channel has been terminated(twitter.com)
twitter.com
The Linux Experiments YouTube channel has been terminated
https://twitter.com/thelinuxEXP/status/1434952628337795072
430 コメント
It appears to have been banned when the author offered an illegal sweepstakes.
Contests and sweepstakes are carefully regulated in America, with slightly different regimes in all 50 states. You should not run one unless you have gotten legal help with it!
Contests and sweepstakes are carefully regulated in America, with slightly different regimes in all 50 states. You should not run one unless you have gotten legal help with it!
Channel has been reinstated!
https://twitter.com/thelinuxEXP/status/1435311971973406726
I want to know what happened for Google to make such a serious mistake.
https://twitter.com/thelinuxEXP/status/1435311971973406726
I want to know what happened for Google to make such a serious mistake.
The fault is on YouTube’s reliance on automated systems, making permanent decisions, without human intervention. However, in my humble opinion, people are naturally lazy. The humans who might be charged with reviewing automated decisions are no different. Especially if there is a cultural or language divide.
YouTube has been changing in weird ways in the last year or so.
The amount of propaganda on the platform is ridiculous, though very frequently disguised as "news" or "educational". As someone who's been around quite a bit, I can also imagine that it doesn't look like propaganda to average Americans (I'd be glad to be wrong on this).
A great deal of content is just plain sophistry too. Inspecting comments, it seems that most viewers don't pick up on this.
At the same time, finding reviews or alike for products or services is near impossible -- the platform is filled with generic reviews which are indistinguishable form ads.
The amount of propaganda on the platform is ridiculous, though very frequently disguised as "news" or "educational". As someone who's been around quite a bit, I can also imagine that it doesn't look like propaganda to average Americans (I'd be glad to be wrong on this).
A great deal of content is just plain sophistry too. Inspecting comments, it seems that most viewers don't pick up on this.
At the same time, finding reviews or alike for products or services is near impossible -- the platform is filled with generic reviews which are indistinguishable form ads.
Maybe governments should forbid and fine YouTube and if they ask why just answer that they violated laws and that no appeal is possible.
Any large communication platform has a choice: either accept some form of content neutrality or become a petty and chaotic tyrant constantly reeling from one public backlash after the other. YouTube made its choice. Now, random videos and channels get demonetized, content gets deleted for no reason and people covering basic news speak in code to avoid the wrath of the idiot AI. In the background Google publishes batshit crazy research papers that call automated propaganda "AI fairness" and relies on a horde of underpaid serfs bordering mental breakdown to make final decisions on content moderation. Welcome to the predicable future of your bad decisions.
As it often happens, again I discover a cool resource from the news about its termination.
Is there by any chance a mirror of its content anywhere to download?
If I were a YouTuber I would maintain an archive of my old videos available on ThePirateBay.
Is there by any chance a mirror of its content anywhere to download?
If I were a YouTuber I would maintain an archive of my old videos available on ThePirateBay.
Chris Titus has covered this topic excellently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHeZXkZT_jk
Another "google's customer support is only available via online mob outrage" situation. Just pathetic, who isn't embarrassed to work for Google at this point?
Can someone add some context to this? I have never heard of this channel and a link to a screenshot of a generic message from Google tells me nothing.
Wow. It's hard for me to imagine how he crossed any line worthy of deletion. He's one of the best Linux voices on YouTube, and seems like an incredibly nice guy.
His content can be seen on Odysee[0].
Chris Titus Tech has a video covering this[1].
Honestly, I try to watch everything on Odysee these days, anyway, just to try to continue de-Googling my life.
[0] https://odysee.com/@TheLinuxExperiment:e
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHeZXkZT_jk
His content can be seen on Odysee[0].
Chris Titus Tech has a video covering this[1].
Honestly, I try to watch everything on Odysee these days, anyway, just to try to continue de-Googling my life.
[0] https://odysee.com/@TheLinuxExperiment:e
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHeZXkZT_jk
I was doing this YouTube survey last night. This was one of the points I raised in the survey. That a channel with 10 years of videos can be deleted without notice.
Most people do not give a second thought to employees having a minimum set of rights and obligations even if they work for a private company.
I think it is not difficult to consider any contributor in a (virtual) Commons to be subject not only to obligations but also to a set of rights.
I think it is not difficult to consider any contributor in a (virtual) Commons to be subject not only to obligations but also to a set of rights.
The Linux Experiment is one of the best Linux channels on Youtube for beginners as well as just a feel good vide technology channel for everyone.
Its a must have channel next to Destination Linux Network suite of channels.
Hope it gets reversed.
Its a must have channel next to Destination Linux Network suite of channels.
Hope it gets reversed.
Donating free content to censorship platforms is a way to continue having this sort of nonsense happen forever.
I hope he can get it back, it is a great resource for well researched news in my oppinion.
I just tried out /e/ recently after learning about it on his channel
I love his channel. Definitely one of the better Linux-focussed channels around and far less cringe than Baby WoGuE.
Once again, using the private platform argument here: YouTube (owned by Google) reserves the right to terminate and de-platform anyone's account who has been in violation of YouTube's guidelines and terms of service.
You can criticise, protest, appeal, scream or throw a tantrum about it, etc but you should finally see that this can happen to anyone sitting on private platforms like YouTube.
YouTube will never change and it will only get worse.
You can criticise, protest, appeal, scream or throw a tantrum about it, etc but you should finally see that this can happen to anyone sitting on private platforms like YouTube.
YouTube will never change and it will only get worse.
I just sauntered over to Apple App store to take a look-see at Odysee app and its privacy “level”.
No thanks.
No thanks.
Google is EVIL.
I'm sympathetic but not a video creator, but I wonder why don't people band together and sue, or alternatively pressure their state attorneys-general to bring a civil enforcement action? Yes, yes, arbitration clauses, but there's a doctrine in law called 'unconscionable contract' and a demonstrable pattern of unilateral kafkaesque behavior by YT is a good start for any attorney.
As I have pointed out over and over market solutions don't work when there are huge power/capital differentials involved. Hoping some plucky little underdog product/service will lead to an exodus isn't going to happen.
Back in the day, Google ate Yahoo's lunch (along with Altavista, Lycos and everyone else) because Google had a genuine search engine (in the form of a graph database) whereas the incumbents were operating directories, and the classification/curation couldn't keep up with the volume of information being crawled. For those who were not around at the time, it's hard to communicate how different the products were. Incumbents let you search but also offered a huge number of categories, like a library catalog. Google looked like a joke website the first time you visited due to the lack of any categorical or navigational options, just this over-confident search field...except that it worked. It was like sorcery.
The reason I mention this is because in economics there's a concept of elasticity of demand, of how attached you are to a thing you already use or consume. Generally, you want to stick with what works. This is especially true where network effects come into play. Competitors that offer X + some incremental improvement usually fail; their best outcome is that X buys them and incorporates the incremental improvement (which is sometimes the competitors' ultimate goal). To lure people away from a successful product the additional benefit to the buyer has to be more like 100% than 10% or 20%, and that rarely happens. If you look at Youtube's contenders, they fall into specialized categories such as art stuff like Vimeo (extra access control, higher video quality/ delivery options), Twitch (emphasis on livestreaming and social, especially for gamers), Rumble (for Freeze Peach aficionados), Pornhub and the whole adult entertainment ecosystem, or high-end commercial content streaming.
So if you dream of beating YouTube in the market, you need to either occupy a niche they don't want to be in (most of which have already been occupied) or offer something that's radically different for the consumer. Being distributed/ FOSS/ blockchain/ whatever isn't it because only nerds care about that stuff. Nerds don't rule the marketplace, even when they build the marketplace: 95% of people do not care how something works or that it serves a higher purpose. It needs to offer a wholly different user experience, and really, it's kinda hard to see how you're gonna radically rethink TV.
You have a better chance to do something amazing in virtual reality or internet navigation in general, and provide a native offering in which Youtube is diminished to the minor status of a channel owner, ie your UI/brand is The Thing and YouTube is just a minor service provider icon below the content.
So the alternative is to address the situation legally. Monopoly complaints won't work, because the nice capitalists at the University of Chicago have institutionalized the idea that monopolies are fine as long as the public is happy, and the huge # of consumers using YouTube vastly outweighs the small # of creators who are pissed off with it, so good luck with your public interest argument. However, there might be some mileage in attacking the contract terms or alleging that YouTube has implicitly defamed creators by suspending them without explanation. Or you could go in a different direction and argue that YouTube is a sort of public utility, though then you need to decide whether you really want online video to be regulated by FCC.
Litigation would be expensive and stressful and would need to be a collective rather than individual undertaking, and a selective one at that - folks like Linux Experiment are sympathetic plaintiffs, folks like Logan Paul are not (you may think this shouldn't matter, but tough luck, it does). Chances are that such a case would almost certainly fail, but the object would be to make discovery and the trial excruciatingly embarrassing for youtube, which would mean refusing to settle and (probably) looking for specific performance like YT submitting to supervision of some kind in the form of a consent decree, rather than mere compensation. If you just ask them for money you'll (maybe) eventually get some but nothing will change, because asking for money is essentially the same as saying whoever has the most money gets to be king of the market and Alphabet has plenty of coins to toss in the direction of the peasants.
The potential upside here is not winning in court (a vanishingly unlikely possibility) or getting a big check to shut up and go away (nice and what your lawyers want, but basically selling out your principles), but either a change in the law from Congress (ha ha good luck) or a shift in the public's thinking about how contracts should work, the distribution of obligations, and how much market power is acceptable.
As I have pointed out over and over market solutions don't work when there are huge power/capital differentials involved. Hoping some plucky little underdog product/service will lead to an exodus isn't going to happen.
Back in the day, Google ate Yahoo's lunch (along with Altavista, Lycos and everyone else) because Google had a genuine search engine (in the form of a graph database) whereas the incumbents were operating directories, and the classification/curation couldn't keep up with the volume of information being crawled. For those who were not around at the time, it's hard to communicate how different the products were. Incumbents let you search but also offered a huge number of categories, like a library catalog. Google looked like a joke website the first time you visited due to the lack of any categorical or navigational options, just this over-confident search field...except that it worked. It was like sorcery.
The reason I mention this is because in economics there's a concept of elasticity of demand, of how attached you are to a thing you already use or consume. Generally, you want to stick with what works. This is especially true where network effects come into play. Competitors that offer X + some incremental improvement usually fail; their best outcome is that X buys them and incorporates the incremental improvement (which is sometimes the competitors' ultimate goal). To lure people away from a successful product the additional benefit to the buyer has to be more like 100% than 10% or 20%, and that rarely happens. If you look at Youtube's contenders, they fall into specialized categories such as art stuff like Vimeo (extra access control, higher video quality/ delivery options), Twitch (emphasis on livestreaming and social, especially for gamers), Rumble (for Freeze Peach aficionados), Pornhub and the whole adult entertainment ecosystem, or high-end commercial content streaming.
So if you dream of beating YouTube in the market, you need to either occupy a niche they don't want to be in (most of which have already been occupied) or offer something that's radically different for the consumer. Being distributed/ FOSS/ blockchain/ whatever isn't it because only nerds care about that stuff. Nerds don't rule the marketplace, even when they build the marketplace: 95% of people do not care how something works or that it serves a higher purpose. It needs to offer a wholly different user experience, and really, it's kinda hard to see how you're gonna radically rethink TV.
You have a better chance to do something amazing in virtual reality or internet navigation in general, and provide a native offering in which Youtube is diminished to the minor status of a channel owner, ie your UI/brand is The Thing and YouTube is just a minor service provider icon below the content.
So the alternative is to address the situation legally. Monopoly complaints won't work, because the nice capitalists at the University of Chicago have institutionalized the idea that monopolies are fine as long as the public is happy, and the huge # of consumers using YouTube vastly outweighs the small # of creators who are pissed off with it, so good luck with your public interest argument. However, there might be some mileage in attacking the contract terms or alleging that YouTube has implicitly defamed creators by suspending them without explanation. Or you could go in a different direction and argue that YouTube is a sort of public utility, though then you need to decide whether you really want online video to be regulated by FCC.
Litigation would be expensive and stressful and would need to be a collective rather than individual undertaking, and a selective one at that - folks like Linux Experiment are sympathetic plaintiffs, folks like Logan Paul are not (you may think this shouldn't matter, but tough luck, it does). Chances are that such a case would almost certainly fail, but the object would be to make discovery and the trial excruciatingly embarrassing for youtube, which would mean refusing to settle and (probably) looking for specific performance like YT submitting to supervision of some kind in the form of a consent decree, rather than mere compensation. If you just ask them for money you'll (maybe) eventually get some but nothing will change, because asking for money is essentially the same as saying whoever has the most money gets to be king of the market and Alphabet has plenty of coins to toss in the direction of the peasants.
The potential upside here is not winning in court (a vanishingly unlikely possibility) or getting a big check to shut up and go away (nice and what your lawyers want, but basically selling out your principles), but either a change in the law from Congress (ha ha good luck) or a shift in the public's thinking about how contracts should work, the distribution of obligations, and how much market power is acceptable.
Also, if you don't know the channel and want to check out his videos, you can still watch them on Odysee - https://odysee.com/@TheLinuxExperiment.