he did not age gate it, assuming that censoring the explicit scenes would be enough to satisfy YouTube
That’s why you don’t just assume and gamble.
Right wingers literally build entire platforms to lift each other up and report/bitch en masse when anyone does this to one of theirs up to and including making millionaires our of people meanwhile, the alternate side…
Lectures Bring each other down Endless “i told you so”s Offer alternatives they themselves do not back monetarily
Then you wonder why the fuck no one buys into this bullshit.
Would you be just as outraged if someone started running an online business via their lemmy.ca profile and then their account was closed for spamming (or breaking some other part of the TOS)?
Alphabet is not a good entity. They took what was Google and YouTube, and just crushed them into the same corporate hellscape that is every big business, BUT Alphabet does not force anyone to base their career on their platform. If you choose to use their platform you are subject to their rules whether you know what they are or agree with them. Like moving to the UAE for a high paying job, if you break the local, ridiculous and arbitrary laws, you are going to loose your job and maybe land your ass in jail.
Alphabet didn’t “take” Google and YouTube. There was no takeover or purchase. Alphabet was created as an umbrella over Google’s sprawling business empire.
The game itself has an ESRB rating of Mature 17+ which should be enough of an indication that the video should have been age-restricted, the fact that he had to add his own censor bars means he was fully aware that the video was not appropriate for general consumption.
YouTube does not specifically state that censored nudity should immediately qualify a video for age-restriction but the several pages[1][2] of guidelines heavily suggests that you should err on the side of caution.
Age-restricted videos are not shown in certain areas of YouTube. These videos may have limited or no ads monetization.
Guy was greedy, he didn’t want to miss out on the ad revenue. When you have tied your livelihood to an account/service that uses automated checks and moderation, it is extremely irresponsible to push the boundaries, or even test them gently. YouTube is not YOUR job, you work for them, they own the platform, they set the rules.
Dang, 190k subscribers and his source of income? That’s pretty awful.
Poor guy, fuck these people
J0nathan claimed that this is the scene that got his channel banned, despite the fact uncensored gameplay of the same scene remains live on other YouTube channels. While he did add the “Not Made for Kids” label to the video, he did not age gate it,** assuming that censoring the explicit scenes would be enough to satisfy YouTube.**
Guy made an assumption about the rules and lost his account, no different from posting on any other website. If you are going to base your career on an online account you had better be 100% fucking sure about the rules before you post anything publicly to that account.
and this is why I basically never login to any google account anymore, unless it’s in a container.
It’s not YOUR account, it’s theirs.
I thought you had 3 strikes and your out? Also he could/should have been a lot more cautious:
Since the rest of the game was just a standard horror title like Resident Evil I figured it didn’t really require an age restriction, and that if anything, YouTube would just apply one later on like they always do
I actually had mine unbanned after years. I now stiffle myself heavily.
I thought you had 3 strikes and your out?
I think that’s for external claims like copyright takedowns, not violating YouTube rules.
Copyright strikes are a cumulative deal, community guidelines can be one and done depending on the nature of the video. In this case the video was not “advertiser friendly” and would have been considered inappropriate for anyone under 18. Not only does that restrict YouTube’s ability to monetize the video it also could be a liability for them should someone complain about a lack of warning/age gating.
Forgive me if I have no sympathy for losing work done for someone else, especially a corporation and especially one like Google.
If I paint a mural at a company’s office, if they decide to remove the wall, it sucks to see but it’s not my wall. If I tend a tree at work and they decide to cut it down, same thing. A YouTube channel is never yours.
Your analogy sucks because the example given with the mural is actually against the law if they don’t give the artist an opportunity to preserve the work.
Terminations and Suspensions by YouTube
YouTube reserves the right to suspend or terminate your Google account or your access to all or part of the Service if (a) you materially or repeatedly breach this Agreement; (b) we are required to do so to comply with a legal requirement or a court order; or © we believe that there has been conduct that creates (or could create) liability or harm to any user, other third party, YouTube or our Affiliates.
It’s in the TOS. You use their service with the full knowledge that you can loose access to that service at any time for any reason.
Content is the responsibility of the person or entity that provides it to the Service. YouTube is under no obligation to host or serve Content. If you see any Content you believe does not comply with this Agreement, including by violating the Community Guidelines or the law, you can report it to us.
The TOS explicitly states that they can stop hosting your videos whenever they want, you own the copyright to the video that you uploaded, they own the platform.
It sucks for that guy but basing your career on an online account is a huge risk, taking chances with that account is irresponsible and ultimately the decision of the user.
Anecdote about the YouTube TOS and it’s enforcement.
The following restrictions apply to your use of the Service. You are not allowed to: use the Service to view or listen to Content other than for personal, non-commercial use (for example, you may not publicly screen videos or stream music from the Service); or
My dumbshit employer (with 20 locations globally and tens of thousands of employees) decided to install TVs all over the factory floor with a looping corporate wank videos uploaded to YouTube, and played on a loop. YouTube has blacklisted the plant’s IP, it’s been impossible to watch any YouTube videos at our plant for the past 2 years. YouTube does not care who you are, they set the rules, they enforce the rule.
Did they delete his videos? Or just ban the account? Can they still log in and download them?
Not if you’d done backups …
Well, backups would have saved his content, but for what viewer base? How is he supposed to use his backups to get his viewer base and income back? It took 10 years to get that.
YouTube/Google is the main or only platform for many content creator.
Easier said than done, but: don’t put all eggs in one basket. If the viewer base is following a creator through a mix of channels (YouTube, Mastodon, Vimeo, RSS, newsletter…) then it’s easier to notify people “hey I moved to Vimeo/Nebula since YouTube kicked me out, follow me there…”
You just named several platforms with about 7 users each. Would have to be using xitter and twitch, maybe instagram. And obviously tiktok.
See anything in common between those platforms?
Right, I omitted some toxic platforms.
Twitch might be the least toxic, yet owned by Amazon.
he dint branch out to twitch, or similar even, meant for games?
Oh yeah, absolutely. I do feel lucky that the majority of the creators I like are on alternative platforms. I know a lot of creators do just use YouTube though. Some of them have even had their personal Google account deleted because of their attached YouTube account.
Unfortunately, even if a lot of viewers follow you on other platforms, creators tend to lose a huge amount of viewers since many do not.
