Poll of the Day > youtube is just getting absolutely destroyed by the community and the media

(+) Yeah! (+)

ya love to see it

Did they delete sssniperwolfs channel yet?

papercup posted...

Did they delete sssniperwolfs channel yet?

YouTube dragging their feet on this is a disgrace. They demonetize channels at the drop of a hat... How they allow her channel to stay up after the stunt she pulled is sheer insanity. She should be permabanned for that shit

Crazy that people are shifting the ad blocking situation to other drama garbage.

oh man i didn't even think of that grifter, i was referencing the ad block block debacle

speaking of, after it was found out that she was never even actually playing the games she streamed and pretended to be playing, i thought for sure she would be gone for ever

and it turns out that no, her botched botox face is fuckin massive on social media

Idiot_Savant posted...

They demonetize channels at the drop of a hat...

They demonetize *small* channels at the drop of a hat. Larger ones, they'll bend over backwards to protect because they're the only ones they care about.

shit, they completely were able to roll-back and undelete videos on the linus tech tips channel

but when stuff like that happens to smaller channels, youtube claims it does not have the ability to do that

it's funny

Judgmenl posted...

Crazy that people are shifting the ad blocking situation to other drama garbage.

I thought this was about her threatening jacksfilms. Whats the ad block situation?

papercup posted...

Whats the ad block situation?

They've stopped playing videos if they detect an ad blocker. As always, it's an arms race between the blockers and the blocker blocking efforts that means periodic blocker updates are needed to keep up with Youtube's updates.

It's honestly kind of baffling. There's absolutely no way the time, effort, and money required to fight this battle is going to be recovered by the tiny handful of people that give up and accept ads, especially given how inevitable everyone knows it is that the blockers will ultimately outlast Google's willingness to fight them.

papercup posted...

I thought this was about her threatening jacksfilms. Whats the ad block situation?

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/80594842
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/80592070
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/80594499
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/173z6sy/nice_move_youtube/
https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/173iyie/bye_bye_youtube/
https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/173jmog/youtube_antiadblock_and_ads_october_09_2023/
https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/178yasm/youtube_antiadblock_and_ads_october_16_2023/
https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/178fux6/dear_youtube_i_will_not_buy_premium/

I could go on.

Is YouTube struggling financially? Eh, these companies are impossible to predict.

The hatred for ads is universal.

Oh watching YouTube on my PC causes it to crash, been like that for over a year. So I watch it on my TV or phone, so at this point Im just used to the ads and didnt know they were doing this.

Is this some kind of poor people problem I'm too Premium to understand

I've been looking to see if creators are on bitchute. Youtube keeps age restricting things for silly reasons. I can find the exact same video somewhere else and don't see anything about it that would set it appart from other videos made by the same person.

Blightzkrieg posted...

Is this some kind of poor people problem I'm too Premium to understand

I don't know, my Youtube account was created in 2006 and Premium didn't exist then and I don't believe in paying for free services.

Judgmenl posted...

Crazy that people are shifting the ad blocking situation to other drama garbage

It's almost as if certain people have a vested interest in not drawing attention to it, and may be encouraging a shift in the narrative.

Oh, by the way, look over here *jingles keys* Shiny!

There is the issue that video hosting does cost a lot of money.

I looked into creating a platform where videos are crowd hosted.

Turns out the main limiting factor is ISP bandwidth. If the average upload speed is around 10 MB/s, the average video bandwidth is also 10 MB/s, so for every viewer there would have to be one hoster. ISPs don't prioritize upload speeds.

The only hope would be to run the hoster on every single client viewing any video or on the website at all, website view or otherwise, relying primarily on temporary Chrome caches. That's not even tackling the issue that people don't just adopt (I call it "vegan") software for no reason.

I saw a video say that bitch was arrested for robbery and a second time for assault. Not sure why youtube won't ban her, she is clearly a violent person and had violent intentions.

BlackScythe0 posted...

I saw a video say that bitch was arrested for robbery and a second time for assault. Not sure why youtube won't ban her, she is clearly a violent person and had violent intentions.

Did she upload a video of committing the robbery or the assault? I disapprove of YouTube banning users for thing that were done off-site.

I haven't been following the ssssssniprewolf or the illuminaughty garbo

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Did she upload a video of committing the robbery or the assault? I disapprove of YouTube banning users for thing that were done off-site.

What? No she uploaded a video of her doxxing another youtuber while her sister was talking about fighting him in the background. She just has a history of violent crime.

Yellow posted...

Is YouTube struggling financially? Eh, these companies are impossible to predict.

Youtube has struggled to make money for pretty much its entire existence. I expect the only reason it's still around is that the data Google collects from it has enough uses that benefit other branches that it ends up being worthwhile in the larger picture (that, and the niche would be filled by somebody else if Youtube died, so part of it may just be aiming to prevent competitors from being too successful).

youtube, or rather google, like to claim that youtube doesn't make a profit

but they've never been in the red, either, so take from that what you will

ConfusedTorchic posted...

youtube, or rather google, like to claim that youtube doesn't make a profit

but they've never been in the red, either, so take from that what you will

Hollywood also claimed that Return of the Jedi has literally never produced a profit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

it probably didn't back when they made that claim in 1990

the budget the movie had to make doesn't take into account the marketing budget, and the marketing for it was massive

oh, it was made again by a different person who deserves royalties in like 2009

okay now that's not believable

How are they getting destroyed?

https://youtu.be/-dkte9CDbbU?si=oiHO9-RCzkHD8P9u

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Hollywood also claimed that Return of the Jedi has literally never produced a profit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

As someone who works in this biz, I can confirm. This even happens on the on-the-ground level I work again, as opposed to the broader studio level the Wiki is citing. Movie math is wild.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

it probably didn't back when they made that claim in 1990

the budget the movie had to make doesn't take into account the marketing budget, and the marketing for it was massive

oh, it was made again by a different person who deserves royalties in like 2009

okay now that's not believable

It wasn't even believable in 1990, considering the movie made nearly half a billion dollars profit. And regardless of how insane the marketing budget was in 1983, they weren't spending $400 million dollars on it (even the the most overhyped blockbusters NOW barely spend that much). And a lot of the marketing for RotJ was synergistic (ie, Burger King paying for the right to give away RotJ glasses with meals - the studio is making money off that deal, not losing it).

And that's just taking theaters into account. Once you start adding VHS and DVD sales into the mix, there's tons more money in the equation.

It's one of the huge dangers of taking points on the backend or a percentage of net profit in a movie contract - there's a good chance you're going to get screwed. Which is why most of the actors with clout will take a percentage of the gross instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5po2WBlZ6E

I don't have a YouTube account. I never agreed to anything. I'm not subject to YouTube's terms of service.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't have a YouTube account. I never agreed to anything. I'm not subject to YouTube's terms of service.

EULAs and ToS are generally unenforceable anyway.

But I don't watch on an account either. Which makes me wonder how long before they disable public viewing without an account entirely to further control usage. I could see them doing that in an attempt to lock down blockers ("If you get caught using one we'll ban your account!").

My ad block is working just fine on YT

Skill issue in that regard.

I have never seen a SSSniper Wolf video in my life but I support anyone who encourages the gospel of Metal Gear Solid.

I still haven't experienced any of this lol

I heard her excuse basically boiled down to "I couldn't have doxed him because I have no idea what doxing is!" Umm...it is the thing you did, which is highly illegal, that pretty much anyone and their mother could tell you is highly illegal, even if they don't know what it is called...

But she isn't going to get banned. She is Youtube's golden child. She would have to literally murder someone on video before they would consider it.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't have a YouTube account. I never agreed to anything. I'm not subject to YouTube's terms of service.

The terms apply to anyone watching videos. You tacitly agree to them by choosing to watch something, whether you actually read them or not.

Saying that, though, you're never actually going to get in legal trouble for violating them, simply because of the extensive precedent of EULAs and ToSs not holding up in court because it's such common knowledge that nobody reads them (and in Youtube's case, you actually have to work to even find it) and there's no explicit agreement to the terms required before accessing the service. It does, however, mean that Youtube is completely within their rights to block adblock users from watching videos. Per their terms of service, they make no commitment to provide videos to people who block ads, and that means they can cut you off if they want.

You aren't "subject" to the ToS in a sense that you can be positively punished for it (that is, punished by doing something to you), but you can absolutely be negatively punished as far as Youtube's service delivery has the power to (which pretty much just extends to "no videos for you"). The only people that are actually entitled to watch Youtube with no ads are Youtube Premium subscribers. The rest of us just do it anyway because advertisers have made the Internet browsing experience intolerably miserable without ad blocking. They have killed my capacity to care about any potential wrong I'm committing by blocking ads.

adjl posted...

You tacitly agree to them by choosing to watch something, whether you actually read them or not.

That was neither understood nor implied. I never agreed to the condition that by watching a video I was agreeing to any conditions.

adjl posted...

you can absolutely be negatively punished as far as Youtube's service delivery has the power to (which pretty much just extends to "no videos for you").

That's why I look if the creators are on bitchute.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That was neither understood nor implied. I never agreed to the condition that by watching a video I was agreeing to any conditions.

At this point, you should assume that any apparently free service you find online comes with some kind of terms attached to it, especially one offered by a large corporation. If you choose not to go looking for them to understand what you're agreeing to, that's on you, and you're still just as subject to them as anyone else. This applies in most contexts: ignorance of the rules is only accepted as a valid excuse for breaking them if the rules have been hidden well enough that you can blame somebody else for your ignorance.

It's also worth noting that this would only be relevant if Google were looking to punish you for your past transgressions. Right now, they have informed you that using an adblocker violates their ToS. You can no longer claim ignorance of that, and any future adblocking you do is done in the full knowledge that you are going against their terms. Any past use is irrelevant.

adjl posted...

If you choose not to go looking for them to understand what you're agreeing to, that's on you, and you're still just as subject to them as anyone else.

It sounds like we're talking about contract law at this point so let's see what I can find on that.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract

A contract is an agreement between parties, creating mutual obligations that are enforceable by law. The basic elements required for the agreement to be a legally enforceable contract are: mutual assent, expressed by a valid offer and acceptance; adequate consideration; capacity; and legality.

Mutual assent refers to an agreement by all parties to a contract. Mutual assent is an essential element in the formation of a valid contract. Under modern contract law, mutual assent must be proven objectively.

Consideration is a promise, performance, or forbearance bargained by a promisor in exchange for their promise. Consideration is the main element of a contract. Without consideration by both parties, a contract cannot be enforceable.

This is enough for me to conclude that watching a video is not enough to prove objectively that I agreed to enter into a contract with YouTube. And I am under no contractual obligation to keep a promise of not using adblock. If anything the continued use of adblack is evidence of a lack of mutual assent.

Dikitain posted...

I heard her excuse basically boiled down to "I couldn't have doxed him because I have no idea what doxing is!" Umm...it is the thing you did, which is highly illegal, that pretty much anyone and their mother could tell you is highly illegal, even if they don't know what it is called...

But she isn't going to get banned. She is Youtube's golden child. She would have to literally murder someone on video before they would consider it.

so, she posted and deleted the video after about an hour

her first response was "it's not doxxing if you posted your address to Google"

which,

he didn't do, and

it isn't on google, asking Google where he lives will bring up no address except for his general area

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't have a YouTube account. I never agreed to anything. I'm not subject to YouTube's terms of service.

Yes you are.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

It sounds like we're talking about contract law at this point

We're not talking about law at all. We're talking about Google telling you the circumstances under which they're willing to revoke your access to their service. Google's never going to sue you for adblocking, they're just going to stop you from using their service because you're using it in a way that violates their terms.

adjl posted...

they're just going to stop you from using their service

And that's why YouTube alternatives are a good thing.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

And that's why YouTube alternatives are a good thing.

the majority have the exact same issues. want to share a video and not be under a corporation's lordship? host it yourself.

so far I have still seen exactly 0 of what the topic title mentions

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Did she upload a video of committing the robbery or the assault? I disapprove of YouTube banning users for thing that were done off-site.

rofl if youtube wants to ban someone for something they did off-site, that's their right. it's like firing an idiot that makes your company look bad. bye bye.

I think we should go back to exchanging VHS tapes on Ebay

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

And that's why YouTube alternatives are a good thing.

Unless you're paying for it, there will likely never be an alternative that's genuinely okay with you blocking their ads. Ads are how most free sites make their money, and given that video hosting and streaming isn't cheap (not to mention compensating content creators well enough to choose this site over competitors), nobody's going to run such a site without at least making enough money to more or less break even. Blocking ads is using the service without paying for it. Most sites just accept that that happens because fighting it is significantly more trouble than it's worth, but there's always going to be a risk that they start cracking down on adblocking and trying to stop blockers from using the service. That's just the simple reality of adblocking.

the ads on youtube alternatives are arguably worse than youtube and that's saying something

adjl posted...

Ads are how most free sites make their money,

Sucks for them then. Nobody likes ads, and adblockers are a pretty essential part of using the internet. Lucky most people still don't use an adblocker.