Welp looks like I was right the first time around. Not only do they get to claim it they get to take total control of it.
Not only should there be no billionaires, I am now in favor of banning for-profit companies period. All profits have to either go back into the company for a demonstrable use that must be disclosed fully, or be paid to the government in taxes. Stock trading is banned (sorry @SkeleRym ) and profits from private investment are capped. Fuck capitalism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6L__oR1O9A
Someone cracked the hashing algorithm YouTube uses for video IDs.
Itâs called google stadia because you have to stadia, dropida and rollida away.
uBlock Origin only!
uBlock Origin builds getting rejected for the Chrome store.
Use Firefox!
So this is apparently going into the YouTube TOS:
So is this just a clause to allow them to terminate service to bad actors and people they are in legal disputes with, or is it a clause to excuse ousting small creators and dissident political views? Both? Is it just a weasel clause to let them do whatever?
My read is both, but most likely whatever makes the most profit. Itâll be used to throw off lgbt creators and hardcore nazis alike.
Some channels are talking about how itâs laying the groundwork for when they start getting demonetized theyâll just be getting the axe entirely. So instead of creators complaining about getting demonetized they just wonât be creators (at least on YT)
My reading of it is more like âIf getting YouTube to you doesnât make us a profit, we reserve the right to pull outâ.
I think it is all encompassing:
Whether you are a viewer, commentator, or video uploader, it doesnât matter. If your usage of YouTube is economically and commercially damaging to YouTube, then you can be banned are their sol discretion.
Watching lots of those child porn adjacent videos, which hurts Youtubeâs repuation even though the videos themselves are completely innocent? Banned.
Writing racist comments on otherwise great videos? Banned.
Uploading videos that give YouTube a bad repuation like PewDiePie? Banned.
Are your videos bringing in tons of views, using lots of bandwidth, costing YouTube lots of money, but not bringing in lots of ad revenue? Banned.
My problem with this is the commercially viable part of the clause. They should just be saying âWe can ban anyone, at any time, to any degree, for any reason. Deal with it.â
So like Scott is right in a perfect world, but I tend to view things not in the spirit in which they are intended but in the consequences that they bring. (I hereby declare myself to be a consequentialist I guess)
Anyway, while I believe this policy currently exists in âwait and see landâ when you consider that all LGBTQIA+ content is demonitized on YouTube this sends a pretty clear and horrifying messageâŚ
