SpaceCadet
@SpaceCadet@sopuli.xyz
- Comment on Our Channel Could Be Deleted - Gamers Nexus 5 days ago:
willing to say that a $4T market cap company is full of shit.
I’m willing to say that too, but you have to admit that it’s a lot easier to say such things on a Youtube video that gets you 900k views in a day.
Also: careful to censor those middle fingers so you don’t get … gasp… demonetized
- Comment on Our Channel Could Be Deleted - Gamers Nexus 5 days ago:
Um, the video in question here?
The channel is not in danger of being deleted, not even close. They received a single copyright strike, which in principle already got reversed by youtube (though still pending a 10 day waiting period for the claimant to reply and file legal action). It takes 3 valid copyright strikes within a 90 day period for a channel to be deleted.
They’re not angry because their channel is in danger of being deleted, they’re angry because they got hit in the moneys, losing ad revenue on a video that probably cost quite a bit of money to produce. Because of how the algorithm works, they’ll probably not recoup the lost views on that particular video, even when it’s reinstated. I mean, that’s not cool, but it doesn’t really warrant the hysterics they’re trying to create over it.
It’s also not like abusive and frivolous copyright strikes are a new thing. They’ve been a byproduct of the safe harbor provisions (aka OCILLA ) in the DMCA for almost 3 decades now (DMCA was introduced in 1998), and the chilling effects on online speech and liberties have been well documented and covered to death by various publications over the years, but somehow GamersNexus only discovers it and starts to care when their bottom line is affected by it. I get that it’s not cool, but I don’t get why people should care about this particular instance of DMCA abuse, especially as it seems to be going as well for GamersNexus as a copyright strike can possibly go, given that Youtube already ruled in their favor.
To me it comes across as a hastily put together video to spring on their audience to whip up outrage and compensate for lost ad revenue. It’s a tried and true tactic, if you don’t have news, make the news. It seems to be working too: after one day this video already has more views than anything else they put out in the last 6 months, so it will probably make them more money than the taken down video would ever make. Good for them, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t see it for the sensationalist click bait non-story that it is.
- Comment on Our Channel Could Be Deleted - Gamers Nexus 5 days ago:
Play in someone else’s walled garden, and they may kick you out and not let you back in. It’s not as if people haven’t been warning against this since the beginning of youtube.
- Comment on Our Channel Could Be Deleted - Gamers Nexus 5 days ago:
It’s not clickbait. The 3 strikes is general, so even if Bloomberg comes back and says it was an accident or unsubstantiated, gn still takes the hit and is that much closer to being deleted
That’s not true. It has to be 3 strikes with merit, so rejected or reverted ones don’t count, and they expire after 90 days too.
- Comment on Our Channel Could Be Deleted - Gamers Nexus 5 days ago:
You can easily get three strikes in a few moments with frivolous takedown
So what you’re basically saying is that any YouTube channel since the dawn of the DMCA has been permanently in the status of “Our Channel Could Be Deleted”. That’s… not exactly news is it? What makes the GamersNexus case special?
- Comment on Our Channel Could Be Deleted - Gamers Nexus 5 days ago:
Why is this being downvoted?
You angered the tech jesus fanbois
- Comment on Our Channel Could Be Deleted - Gamers Nexus 5 days ago:
It’s explained very clearly in the video, that it takes 10 days from filing the complaint. If Bloomberg persist on the issue, the take down stands.
I addressed this. Bloomberg must press actual legal charges for the takedown to stand, and provide proof to Youtube. This is mentioned very around 7:32 in the video. Here’s a screenshot:
YouTube is basically saying to Bloomberg: yeah, we are ruling that this is not infringement, but if you still disagree and really want to press the issue… put your money where your mouth is and provide proof that you filed actual legal charges. They’re only doing what is legally required of them by the DMCA.
And, as you conveniently keep ignoring, even if alllll this ends up with Bloomberg suing GamersNexus in a court of law and winning (a highly unlikely outcome) and the video being permanently delisted… that is still only 1 copyright strike, and not enough for “The Channel To Be Deleted!!!”. Ergo: it is fucking click bait.
- Comment on Our Channel Could Be Deleted - Gamers Nexus 5 days ago:
Just because it’s being normalized by the Linuses and Tech Jesuses on youtube doesn’t mean we shouldn’t call it what it is.
This video is click bait and the content is rather mid. We’re clearly supposed to feel some kind of outrage over a freedom of press kinda thing, but in reality the video is more like: waaah our ad revenue took a hit on this one video because of Big Evil Company abusing the copyright claim system, NOT FAIR! (Ignoring that this has been happening hundreds if not thousands of times per day for over a decade to much smaller channels than GamersNexus, without a peep from Tech Jesus on the issue).
- Comment on Our Channel Could Be Deleted - Gamers Nexus 5 days ago:
How the fuck are you so dense?
Read my whole comment. It is demonstrably NOT true.
- Comment on Our Channel Could Be Deleted - Gamers Nexus 5 days ago:
But very clearly it isn’t here
How the hell isn’t it?
Title: “Our Channel Could Be Deleted!!!” <insert dramatic thumbnail featuring the word “SILENCED” in red capital letters>
Yet even in the video itself they explain that :
- Youtube sided with them, the copyright strike got reverted and the video restored. The only recourse Bloomberg has is to press actual charges in a court of law.
- It takes three copyright strikes to delete a channel.
And I will add my own 3: YouTube will never just outright delete a cashcow channel like GamersNexus.
I get that they’re pissed because the claim was bogus and it cost them good ad revenue on that video, but the channel is not and never was in danger of being deleted. The title is clickbait for some rather mid content.
the amount of downvotes
LOL “I’m right because I got more upvotes”.
- Comment on Our Channel Could Be Deleted - Gamers Nexus 5 days ago:
Oh please get over yourself, you silly self righteous fan boy. Don’t act as if your beloved “Tech Jesus” is above tactics like click baiting to get clicks and views. Almost every single one of his videos has a click bait or otherwise “algorithm optimized” title and thumbnail.
And I get it, it’s their livelihood, they rely on getting views, but that doesn’t make it not click bait and this one in particular is a gross exageration: they got a single bogus copyright strike and it was reverted. The channel was never going to be deleted.
Hey and it worked too, because I got it in my youtube feed, clicked on it and watched the video, and I probably wouldn’t have if I had known it was such a nothing burger.
- Comment on Our Channel Could Be Deleted - Gamers Nexus 6 days ago:
How is his channel going to be deleted?
It’s clickbait.
- Comment on The UK’s Online Safety Act is a licence for censorship – and the rest of the world is following suit 2 weeks ago:
you might have to soon move away to something much better. Let me know if you find it.
Great “counter” argument 👍
- Comment on The UK’s Online Safety Act is a licence for censorship – and the rest of the world is following suit 2 weeks ago:
Your examples only serve to show what a shithole nanny state the UK has been sliding down towards to, and what a slippery slope all these “omg think of the children! 😱” legislations are.
The alcohol you have in your home you had to be legal age to buy in the first place. Similarly if you had a porn DVD at home you would have had to prove your age when you bought it
I live in a EU country, never in my life have I had to provide an ID to buy alcohol or pornography, neither online nor in person.
Why is online special?
Online, there are risks of privacy and security. It’s already difficult enough to maintain a reasonable security and privacy stance that balances between convenience and not being tracked and targeted everywhere, without putting age gates into the mix. Even if you made the perfect age gate app without vulnerabilities (which you can’t), that perfect app could still be spoofed to trick people into providing sensitive identifying information to bad actors. It happens with banking apps, it will happen with age gate apps.
In real life the government does not get in the middle. It is a private transaction between a buyer and the seller, and the unspoken assumption is that the buyer is an adult of legal age. Only when there are serious doubts about the buyer’s age will the seller scrutinize. Online, the assumption of being bona fide is reversed: the assumption is that everyone is a minor until proven otherwise.
Online is also typically not a one stop transaction. In a single browsing session an adult might want to access many different pieces of content, spread out over several different sites. Adults having to stop and prove their age at every turn online is burdensome, draconian and has a huge chilling effect. Data has shown that sites that introduce an age gate, only retain about 10% of their users. So the other 90% either goes dark or is dissuaded entirely from accessing said materials. Neither of those are good outcomes.
Online is also special in that it doesn’t even work. An online age gate doesn’t really prevent anything, making it little more than a nuissance. If a liquor store denies a minor buying liquor, the minor is SOL because there are only so many places they can physically try. Online they can just click the next link, or the next, or the next,… It’s simply impossible to age gate all the sites where you can find porn. And yes, it’s ridiculously trivial to find non-age gated porn, when I tried it with a UK VPN yesterday it was as simple as typing “porn videos” in DDG, and clicking the first link.
Finally, there is also a huge difference in harmfulness between consuming certain physical substances like alcohol, and viewing adult content. The very idea that it is particularly harmful for teens to view sexual materials is scientifically dubious, making this more an overbearing and disproportional “moral panic” type of reaction than a proportional, well studied and well reasoned measure. It also conveniently ignores and does nothing about much greater harms that young people fall prey to online, like what TikTok is doing to the attention span of kids, or incel/manosphere echo chambers and various other misinformation spheres, or online bullying, or unrealistic and ultra-materialistic world views promoted by influencers. It aims to be a technological solution to a tiny part of a much larger societal problem, and that never works.
In my opinion, the true intent of this legislation has never been to protect children. Instead it is a power grab by a control obsessed government, and an ideological attack against those who create, distribute and view porn. The children, as usual, are only there to provide emotional blackmail to get people to accept intrusive, draconian measures. And you, my friend, fell for it hook, line and sinker.
- Comment on The UK’s Online Safety Act is a licence for censorship – and the rest of the world is following suit 2 weeks ago:
If there really, truly was no way to tie back proving your age to who proved their age, then surely this is a good thing?
Still nope.
The government shouldn’t be putting up mandatory barriers for what adults watch in the privacy of their own home. It’s a huge overreach.
Imagine being an adult in your 40s, living alone without a minor anywhere near you, and having to prove you’re an adult with a fucking Android app every time you want to open your liquor cabinet. That’s how this feels to me, and I find it extremely offensive. Like, get out of my life.
And then this age gating crap doesn’t even solve the problem, and has the potential to make things worse, because only the major players like pornhub and reddit will comply. For shits and giggles, I set my VPN to UK the other day, and was able to find non-age gated porn in no time. So this is just driving minors who want to view porn to more sketchy, less moderated sites.
- Comment on The UK’s Online Safety Act is a licence for censorship – and the rest of the world is following suit 2 weeks ago:
the brits really need to learn from the french how to protest
Where were all the protests to this: techinformed.com/france-enforces-age-verification… ?
- Comment on The UK’s Online Safety Act is a licence for censorship – and the rest of the world is following suit 2 weeks ago:
FWIW, Denmark has had this digital infrastructure in the last 10 years and it’s been the foundation of a huge transformation in terms of how people interact with the government services.
I don’t think anyone has a problem with an ID you need to interact with government services. They know your identity anyway, and for obvious security reasons it’s necessary that they properly verify that you are who you claim you are.
What people have a problem with, is needing to provide an ID to simply access whole categories of content across the wide internet that are not related to your identity in any way.
- Comment on What techniques do bad faith users use online to overwhelm other users in online discussion and arguments? 3 months ago:
Hey look, we have a live one!
