Recently I have seen a couple of videos from a couple of channels I am following about Youtube removing their content with the motivation of being dangerous and harmful.
What the removed videos have in common is that they are about how to bypass the restrictions imposed by Micro$oft on hardware and logging in with a Micro$oft account when you set up Windows 11.
I wonder if Micro$oft is pulling some strings from behind the scene.
Have you seen something similar?
I put the videos here if someone is interested to âscrollâ through them:
Youtube is âtoo big to failâ now. You canât do with it, and you canât do without it. It probably has the largest data centers all around the world, hosting what? millions of hours of video. I mean there are some alternatives out there of course (vimeo), but good luck finding what you are looking for in them. Is youtube a monopoly? Well, if it is, it is because a âmonopolyâ is an inevitable outcome of our market trends which are formed by our psychological behavior patterns. Monopolies do not become monopolies by themselves.
We can choose not to use youtube. Not to go there. But that would be like the mouse fighting the mountain. The mountain wonât even feel it. If the âcontent creatorsâ like the big names decide to fight with it, maybe then somethings could change. But i am looking at those big names and the videos they create and i see âidiocracyâ in action. So i wouldnât hold my breath there.
It is a lot more complicated. âToo big to failâ also means âtoo big to deal with such inquriesâ. Thousands of correspondence every âhourâ. You canât hire enough people for such volume, so everything has to be automated. There is no other way.
yeah but cease and desist and litigation stuff is only going to get routed (AI or not) automatically to Googs Legal Dept, not unrelated stuff like âI was locked out of my accountââŚ
..unless you are saying the legal notices are the bulk (1000âs and 1000âs per week?) of YTâs overall correspondence?
I just got home so am asking you that questions without the benefit of having watched these 2 vids yetâ lemme have some lager and maybe a shot and I will view them soon
What i was trying to say was, when youtube receives a copyright claim, it immediately does whatever the owner of that claim wanted (1.take it down, 2.mute the video, 3.send us the earnings), without questioning the authenticity and legality of the claim. If i for example make a formal claim about some random video, that video is going down. The responsibility to refute and disprove the claim is borne to the creator of that particular video. Most creators are not rich, they donât earn enough, so they just let it go. Most of the time it is some fake/phony corporation writing such claims to receive the very small earnings of low-level youtubers. Big companies like Universal targets âlargerâ creators like Rick Beato.
So youtube of course has the burden to reply to legal correspondence, but the system âautomaticallyâ just does whatever the lawyers wanted so it never reaches to a level of litigation. They protect themselves. Even google doesnât have the power to deal with thousands of lawsuits every month. Or maybe they do But it will be expensive.
Content creators are well aware. They try to fight it with Nebula, Floatplane, Patreon etc. The issue is monetization, and Googleâs big advantage is the synergy of youtube combined with its vast advertisement platform.
ization often. Otherwise there are already some alternatives.
But it will be expensive.