BigCliveDotCom back from temporary YouTube ban

[MK14]

BigCliveDotCom is apparently back from a temporary YouTube ban.

This is what he says about it, in a recent YouTube video description:

>If you wonder why there haven't been videos for a while, it's because I received what I believe to be a very unfair strike from YouTube for a harmless 18 second short where I singed the end of my beard with a lighter in a controlled manner.

Source of quote (N.B. I've watched a lot of that video, and didn't seem to find any mention of the ban, but it could be in the parts I didn't watch):


Edited, in response to replay #16 and added new 6th option "Other, please reply below":
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/bigclivedotcom-back-from-temporary-youtube-ban/msg5557079/#msg5557079

[Andy Chee]

YouTube are pussies

[factory]

(N.B. I've watched a lot of that video, and didn't seem to find any mention of the ban, but it could be in the parts I didn't watch):

The comments to that video mention the ban numerous times and the banned video is still available on his Odysee channel.

David

[MK14]

The comments to that video mention the ban numerous times and the banned video is still available on his Odysee channel.

David

Thanks.
Yes, here it is (linked for others, possible convenience):

https://odysee.com/@bigclivedotcom:0d/beard-fire:b


Wow!

Warning, warning warning.  Do not watch it, unless you are at least 95 years old, wearing a crash helmet, and are not suffering from any imminent medical conditions or weaknesses.

Possible sarcasm in previous paragraph.

I actually voted 'yes', in this threads poll.  As I thought it could be risky to younger people, so I gave YouTube the benefit of the doubt.

But, firstly, I think YouTube are far too heavy handed.  They should have temporarily suspended the offending video, and then peacefully discussed the situation with BigClive, in order to come to a conclusion.
Then after the discussions, the video can either be reinstated, have adult only mode enabled, or be edited/toned down, enough to keep YouTube happy.

Forcefully banning the YouTuber, even if only a temporary ban, seems rather far fetched.

Now I've seen it, it doesn't seem much or possibly even any worse, than perhaps one hundred or more 'bad' scenes, throughout BigClives video collections.

Such as Lithium battery fires/explosions, drinking or tasting things, that could be harmful, promoting beverages, electronically blowing up components (I suspect and vaguely remember), etc.

[langwadt]

I suspect it is mostly automated, a few Karens report a video and the ban-bot swings the ban-hammer, if the video owner appeals some sleepy intern at google, that doesn't understand much, might spend a few seconds watching before flipping coin on whether to deny the appeal..

afaict google just needs to pretend they care so they avoid shitstorms and advertisers leaving

[soldar]

I suspect it is mostly automated, a few Karens report a video and the ban-bot swings the ban-hammer, if the video owner appeals some sleepy intern at google, that doesn't understand much, might spend a few seconds watching before flipping coin on whether to deny the appeal..

afaict google just needs to pretend they care so they avoid shitstorms and advertisers leaving

I think this is probably how it works.  If a bunch of people rain reports on a channel then Youtube just bans the videos. Shawn Woods Mousetrap Monday videos have been the target of complaints for showing traps killing mice and rats so he can no longer show that. In the meanwhile many other channels do it without a problem. It is "mob justice".

[Ranayna]

This is likely due to the claim that Youtube is only hosting content and does not create it.
They are essentially a provider and therefore not responsible to approve/disapprove of content by themselves.

Unless someone complains. Then they need to act. And business-wise it makes sense to overreact to avoid fines, or worse, risk a change in regulations.

[MK14]

I think this is probably how it works.  If a bunch of people rain reports on a channel then Youtube just bans the videos. Shawn Woods Mousetrap Monday videos have been the target of complaints for showing traps killing mice and rats so he can no longer show that. In the meanwhile many other channels do it without a problem. It is "mob justice".

That is sad.  Because important technique videos, within electronics/engineering, DIY and other areas, could be disrupted, stopped, by the mechanism(s), you are describing.  Because there can be some, who disagree, sometimes strongly with some of the things.

E.g. A video, showing the potentially, significant, violent and sometimes very dangerous, explosions/flames or similar, when a way too cheap, mostly or fully non-fused, multimeter, is connected to a very powerful, high voltage source.  Going bang, very dramatically.

As it is an important safety alert video, for upcoming electronics hobbyists/professionals, both as to why the very cheap multimeters can be dangerous, and why it is best to take great care when working on powerful mains voltages.

But some people may worry that such videos can encourage, dangerous experiments, by some.

[MK14]

This is likely due to the claim that Youtube is only hosting content and does not create it.
They are essentially a provider and therefore not responsible to approve/disapprove of content by themselves.

Unless someone complains. Then they need to act. And business-wise it makes sense to overreact to avoid fines, or worse, risk a change in regulations.

But there needs to be a balance.  The real world, is not 100% white(as in the colour white, no connection to humans)/clean/disinfected/virus-free/crime-free/100%-perfect/golden/beautiful everywhere, in all parts of the world, in every corner of everything.

E.g. Those rodent videos, can be helpful, to anyone who has such a problem.

As I see it.  BigClive was just showing some of his personality, and having some fun, creating nice entertainment for us.  I'm rather disappointed, if we can't show a bit of personality, playfulness, fun etc.  That could make things too strict and regimented.

[langwadt]

This is likely due to the claim that Youtube is only hosting content and does not create it.
They are essentially a provider and therefore not responsible to approve/disapprove of content by themselves.

Unless someone complains. Then they need to act. And business-wise it makes sense to overreact to avoid fines, or worse, risk a change in regulations.

they only need to act if it is outright illegal, or if it's a complain about copyrights

[themadhippy]

they only need to act if it is outright illegal

under who's jurisdiction?

[MK14]

under who's jurisdiction?

Good question.

But I suppose as long as it is the legitimate laws of the land, for the countries involved, it should be good.

Edit: Toned down my response.

[MK14]

they only need to act if it is outright illegal

under who's jurisdiction?

I think I can better explain my feelings about this, without going too political now, so here it is:

TV (which YouTube is a sort of partial, modern equivalent), in the old days (at least, here in the UK, although I suspect other countries, had varying, but somewhat similar systems in place, as well).  We had the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation, who still exist, of course), with some kind of censorship, as to what we were or were not, allowed to watch.  Which also, varied, depending on the time of day (when children were more or less likely to be watching, e.g. a 9 PM threshold/watershed, after which, things can get worse).

N.B. I'm no expert on the precise details on how this censorship mechanism worked, so take what I say, as being extremely rough.

But at least, it was a country wide, implemented/voted-in/decided/controlled/owned, body.  Who set lines in the sand, as to how bad (violence, sexual stuff, etc), things could go.

So it was sort of fair and reasonable, and could both sometimes allow, fairly/somewhat political/violent/different/sexual/problematic stuff through, onto the TV (Cinemas/Video-Tapes etc, were controlled by a similar or identical mechanism).

Whereas now, it seems the (analogy) YouTube TV channel, is controlled by a company.  That company is largely based in a different country, is highly motivated by adverts and profit.  They (the company), can also be extremely secretive as to exactly what is and is not allowed.

This would seem to be a significantly bad, downward step.

E.g. The company could decide to politically bias the content.  So, content which promotes their views, could be given lots of promotion, but content that is against their political views, could be blocked (possibly silently), and/or only rarely presented to users.

So in summary, I don't think it is a good thing.  Such choices (what is and is not allowed to be shown), should be chosen by society as a whole, who can elect suitable governing bodies, along with rules and laws, to keep things in shape.

Not some, who knows what, at the top of these (often) giant technological companies.  Who may not have our (the users), best interests at heart, and be far from neutral about stuff, including important political things.

[Andy Chee]

Whereas now, it seems the (analogy) YouTube TV channel, is controlled by a company.  That company is largely based in a different country, is highly motivated by adverts and profit.  They (the company), can also be extremely secretive as to exactly what is and is not allowed.

This would seem to be a significantly bad, downward step.

E.g. The company could decide to politically bias the content.  So, content which promotes their views, could be given lots of promotion, but content that is against their political views, could be blocked (possibly silently), and/or only rarely presented to users.

So in summary, I don't think it is a good thing.  Such choices (what is and is not allowed to be shown), should be chosen by society as a whole, who can elect suitable governing bodies, along with rules and laws, to keep things in shape.

Not some, who knows what, at the top of these (often) giant technological companies.  Who may not have our (the users), best interests at heart, and be far from neutral about stuff, including important political things.

If I believe a company does not have by best interests, I am free to choose another company.

Sure, the sheer popularity of the monopolistic faceless behemoth that is YouTube can make it challenging to find an alternative platform that reaches the same audience.  But if you really wanted to get your unrestricted content out there, there are many other ways to do it.

[MK14]

If I believe a company does not have by best interests, I am free to choose another company.

Sure, the sheer popularity of the monopolistic faceless behemoth that is YouTube can make it challenging to find an alternative platform that reaches the same audience.  But if you really wanted to get your unrestricted content out there, there are many other ways to do it.

I agree, that if they refuse to show/allow, what we consider reasonable content, such as the one highlighted in this thread.  We are free to choose another 'YouTube' provider, who does share our values.

But, on the other hand, it could be harmful to society.  If they allow, their own political leanings, and that causes the wrong (as regards the true/real view of the voting population of a country) person to get elected.

I.e. Incidents, such as these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal

But also, allowing (other peoples) copyrighted material, excessively violent/sexual/problematic content.  Could be harmful to society.

It is a bit like saying the Microsoft Windows operating system situation (such as regards, privacy of your data, who owns your data, etc), is ok, because we could install other operating systems, on the computer.

But the problem is, Microsoft, get their money, as part of what you pay to buy a new computer, in most cases, so you don't really have a choice.

Similarly, YouTube effectively has a monopoly on that part of the video market.  A YouTuber, with perhaps millions of subscribers and billions of views on YouTube.  Would probably lose a massive percentage of their revenue and viewer quantity, if they abandoned YouTube entirely and moved to other platform(s).

I.e. It is arguably not viable for a successful YouTuber, to leave YouTube for another of the similar offerings.  If they still want to make at least some money and get a reasonably large number of people, watching their videos.

[Andy Chee]

But the problem is, Microsoft, get their money, as part of what you pay to buy a new computer, in most cases, so you don't really have a choice.

Many Linux users have complained about this very issue over the decades, and were able to successfully obtain a refund credit from Microsoft.

Similarly, YouTube effectively has a monopoly on that part of the video market.  A YouTuber, with perhaps millions of subscribers and billions of views on YouTube.  Would probably lose a massive percentage of their revenue and viewer quantity, if they abandoned YouTube entirely and moved to other platform(s).

Yes, getting an established creator and audience to transition to an alternative platform is pretty much impossible (unless the platform goes bankrupt itself).

However, that seems to be a separate issue to your beef with company policies.

[Nominal Animal]

He didn't sing his beard, he singed it.

This nitpicking post is as important as that ban was.

[MK14]

Similarly, YouTube effectively has a monopoly on that part of the video market.  A YouTuber, with perhaps millions of subscribers and billions of views on YouTube.  Would probably lose a massive percentage of their revenue and viewer quantity, if they abandoned YouTube entirely and moved to other platform(s).

Yes, getting an established creator and audience to transition to an alternative platform is pretty much impossible (unless the platform goes bankrupt itself).

However, that seems to be a separate issue to your beef with company policies.

It is a separate issue, but it was in response to what you said, here:

If I believe a company does not have by best interests, I am free to choose another company.

I.e. Because of the huge market share YouTube has.  Users (viewers) and/or YouTube creators, are not really free, to choose another platform.

Analogy:
Let's create an imaginary world.
There is only one car available on the market, no others.  No rail, buses or airplanes etc.

The Mord Model T 1, NicroSoftCars, which can be any colour you want, yes any, with absolutely no limitations whatsoever, except it has to be the colour black.

The only known alternative in this factitious world, is walking or bicycles.

So if you want to travel, perhaps 150 miles, each way, in a single day, and have time to enjoy the event/venue/meetup etc.  You realistically need a car.

[MK14]

He didn't sing his beard, he singed it.

This nitpicking post is as important as that ban was.

I'm sorry, you're right.  I misspelled singed.

[Nominal Animal]

He didn't sing his beard, he singed it.

This nitpicking post is as important as that ban was.

I misspelled singed.

You did, but more importantly, you missed my point: I do not believe for a second anybody misunderstood the poll as in claiming that BigClive sang (because of the typo); I believe everybody understood that it was about setting his beard on fire for a second or two.

Similarly, the ban had no meaning, other than stop BigClive from posting videos for a week or so.

Meaningless nitpicking, meaningless ban.

[MK14]

You did, but more importantly, you missed my point: I do not believe for a second anybody misunderstood the poll as in claiming that BigClive sang (because of the typo); I believe everybody understood that it was about setting his beard on fire for a second or two.

Similarly, the ban had no meaning, other than stop BigClive from posting videos for a week or so.

Meaningless nitpicking, meaningless ban.

I did notice, and understood, that as what you meant.  But thanks for clarifying/confirming it, anyway.

I'm a bit of a spelling/grammar fanatic (only a bit), so hate to have errors, in any of my threads or posts.

Their (YouTube/Google/Alphabet) system of banning, even if temporary, seems to be rather heavy handed and big brother like.

Imagine if on this forum, I was banned, for 7 days, because of accidentally making that spelling mistake.
It would be mayhem, and perhaps make a lot of people leave the forum.

I think YouTube, should give creators, the benefit of the doubt, and assume they are a nice, peaceful, sensible/reasonable entity/individual, who has just (possibly) made a slight mistake or error of judgement.  Perhaps it is the unknown to us, people who made the original complaint(s), that are at fault.

Maybe even an automated AI, problematic/bad video content detector at play?

It is not at all clear.  Except that I remember in some of BigClives videos, he starts off by saying a fairly innocuous word, such as, "this item is used with drugs", then saying something like "I just used the D word, so bang goes my monetization for this video".
Then he peacefully makes a (usually) enjoyable video.

I'm sort of glad, he is NOT intimidated, by the occasional demonetization of videos, just because he mentions one of the 'banned' words.  Because it increases the broadness of the videos he makes.

[langwadt]

I think YouTube, should give creators, the benefit of the doubt, and assume they are a nice, peaceful, sensible/reasonable entity/individual, who has just (possibly) made a slight mistake or error of judgement.  Perhaps it is the unknown to us, people who made the original complaint(s), that are at fault.

I can understand why the general ban-hammer is more or less automated, the amount of new content on YT  every day is enormous.
But to me it makes no sense that creators with more than a decade of content and sometimes +million subscribers doesn't get at least some leeway
or human attention before a ban 

[MK14]

I can understand why the general ban-hammer is more or less automated, the amount of new content on YT  every day is enormous.
But to me it makes no sense that creators with more than a decade of content and sometimes +million subscribers doesn't get at least some leeway
or human attention before a ban

Since, as I seem to have picked up, Google are somewhat secretive, about the real business accounts, as in, they reportedly just supply, perhaps barely above the legal minimum amount and probably get fancy waged accountants and lawyers, to come up with ever more clever ways, of hiding the true picture, from competitors and others.

Which is sort of fair enough, as it is both legally right to do that, and morally right, given that some other businesses, also do similar.

So, I'm not sure if it is because YouTube (Google) needs very low actual costs, as they get limited revenue, per actual YouTube view.

Or if it is because of excessive cost cutting on YouTube (Googles) part?

Consider this forum, as an analogy.

If it needed to employ full time, paid staff, in offices, to handle all enquiries, and moderator/administrator activities.  It probably wouldn't be economically viable.

So, given that the revenue streams, are probably not that different, and YouTube (Google), is perhaps N times bigger, than this forum.  It also, would perhaps struggle, to pay for a full sized, moderator/administrator team, to handle all such events.

You're right, when a YouTuber is big enough, it should then allow YouTube to be able to economically deal with it.

One thing that comes to mind.  Maybe for the first couple of strikes, since there is not going to be a permanent ban, yet.  YouTube consider it good enough to allow the automated systems to deal with it.

But if/when the final strike occurs, then, if the channel is big enough, human intervention can take place, as an automated permanent banning system, would be a much more serious affair, if it sometimes gets it wrong.

[helius]

It's easy to get upset that a company like Alphabet has so much control, indeed censorship, over what people may say and what they may watch. As well as the fact that control is used capriciously, giving the appearance of hypocrisy. I suppose you are destined not to please everyone once you operate at the massive scale that YouTube does, but there are some real injustices to how it operates.

A recent example is how some channels and videos are made age-restricted, based simply on politically unfavored facts and opinions. This is clearly an abuse; I'm not even sure why YouTube implements age-restriction, since porn is against their TOS. A darker possible motive is that age-restricting a video requires you to sign in, so that those watching those videos become easier to monitor.

Another sleazy thing that YouTube does is the "fact check information panel" that floats above the entire video. What gives them the incredible chutzpah to presume to be an authority over anything?

[MK14]

Another sleazy thing that YouTube does is the "fact check information panel" that floats above the entire video. What gives them the incredible chutzpah to presume to be an authority over anything?

Although I very much like and agree, with the rest of your post.  My understanding and recollection, is that YouTube did the "fact check information panel", in response to concerns by some, about random people and sources, doing Covid videos, which gave misleading information (compared to the official government sources), or even conspiracy stories, such as Covid is a lie, look at these empty hospitals, don't bother wearing a mask or taking any precautions.
Which meant that some (arguably vulnerable people), listened to the very bad advice and in same cases became ill with Covid, and subsequently passed away, from it.

Forcing (in real terms), YouTube to act, or if they didn't, risking angry Governments, penalizing YouTube and imposing massive fines and changes (new laws), that could badly affect YouTube.

I think there were also complaints about so many conspiracy, Flat-Earth and other dubious claims videos on YouTube.  So they decided to clamp down on such channels.

E.g. When new 5G mobile phone masts, were 'violently' destroyed by fire (and perhaps other means), over health fears surrounding 5G.  Stirred up, with dubious (typically) YouTubers, who seemed to be anti-establishment, trouble-makers, attention-grabbers, scam-merchants and similar (something on those lines anyway).

I think one such person, made these YouTube videos, claiming LED street lights, were secret spy devices, but which could emit powerful (something, rf?), which killed all the birds in an area (again, something on those lines, I can't remember the exact details).

He would even make YouTube teardown videos, of those LED street lights, with somewhat wild claims, by pointing to sections of it and claiming weird ideas as what they were doing.

E.g. (I can't remember exactly, so take this extremely roughly), pointing to a likely SMPS (or something), then claiming it was an rf death ray thing, which was killing birds, in the street.  Then we had thread(s) on here, debunking those dubious claims and even explaining that the device(s) shown, are way too small to have the effects, he was claiming, even if they were not what they appeared to be.

So in summary, I agree with YouTube doing that.  But, such a mechanism is rather open to possible abuse.  So really an independent (of Google etc), non-profit making (possibly government) agency, should be deciding what needs to be censored (or whatever it should be called), in that way.