YouTube removes hundreds of the best climate science videos from the Internet(climatestate.com)
climatestate.com
YouTube removes hundreds of the best climate science videos from the Internet
http://climatestate.com/2017/02/03/youtube-removes-hundreds-of-the-best-climate-science-videos-from-the-internet/
127 comments
Is anyone else wondering why they're selling domains like SpaceAlpha.com [1] or their own domain ClimateState.com [2]?
And that they're using clickbait titles like "YouTube/Google shuts down largest climate science channel" to say that their channel was shut down?
Doesn't it look a bit fishy?
[1] http://climatestate.com/product/domain-spacealpha-com/
[2] http://climatestate.com/product/domain-climatestate-com/
Edit: auto-correct typo
And that they're using clickbait titles like "YouTube/Google shuts down largest climate science channel" to say that their channel was shut down?
Doesn't it look a bit fishy?
[1] http://climatestate.com/product/domain-spacealpha-com/
[2] http://climatestate.com/product/domain-climatestate-com/
Edit: auto-correct typo
That is weird, though climatestate.com is "out of stock" (and it's $100k).
Also fishy: they have another very large YouTube channel[1], which is still up and running. Seems like it would have been worth mentioning? It's referenced in their shop page for site sponsorship[2].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/user/ClimateProgressWorld
[2] http://climatestate.com/product/climate-hawk/
Also fishy: they have another very large YouTube channel[1], which is still up and running. Seems like it would have been worth mentioning? It's referenced in their shop page for site sponsorship[2].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/user/ClimateProgressWorld
[2] http://climatestate.com/product/climate-hawk/
That is weird.
On the other hand, if a relatively small charity could get an offer of ~ $100,000 for their domain name, I guess it could be considered prudent to go ahead with selling the domain and relocating? That could pay for a lot of... somethings. Similar to how charities sometimes sell off land to interested developers and relocate, since their location isn't that important and the money can help their core mission.
On the other hand, if a relatively small charity could get an offer of ~ $100,000 for their domain name, I guess it could be considered prudent to go ahead with selling the domain and relocating? That could pay for a lot of... somethings. Similar to how charities sometimes sell off land to interested developers and relocate, since their location isn't that important and the money can help their core mission.
They don't say anything about being a non-profit. And it's not clear what they actually do aside from selling domains, memberships, and making a YouTube playlist.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for awareness of climate change and science in general. But not everybody is in it to support that cause.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for awareness of climate change and science in general. But not everybody is in it to support that cause.
[deleted]
> 2) Vimeo.com account
When I stopped using all things Google[1], I switched to Vimeo for any potential videos I might make. So far what I've seen is a more mature, professional, and technologically superior platform for video producers. Gone are the hordes of single-digit-IQ trolls and hate speech spewing masses, replaced with thoughtful commentary. Making money with your original content is straightforward and doesn't feel scummy like on YouTube.
The only thing I miss is the wide range of "how to" videos on YouTube; for all of its flaws, the service is a never ending fountain of hands-on knowledge.
[1] In the interest of full disclosure, I have yet to find a suitable replacement for the Nvidia Shield TV. There is simply nothing else on the market that comes close to it for our uses. I'll probably eventually replace it with a Roku 4 or similar device, but I'll keep the Shield and try to port Linux to it.
When I stopped using all things Google[1], I switched to Vimeo for any potential videos I might make. So far what I've seen is a more mature, professional, and technologically superior platform for video producers. Gone are the hordes of single-digit-IQ trolls and hate speech spewing masses, replaced with thoughtful commentary. Making money with your original content is straightforward and doesn't feel scummy like on YouTube.
The only thing I miss is the wide range of "how to" videos on YouTube; for all of its flaws, the service is a never ending fountain of hands-on knowledge.
[1] In the interest of full disclosure, I have yet to find a suitable replacement for the Nvidia Shield TV. There is simply nothing else on the market that comes close to it for our uses. I'll probably eventually replace it with a Roku 4 or similar device, but I'll keep the Shield and try to port Linux to it.
> Gone are the hordes of single-digit-IQ trolls and hate speech spewing masses, replaced with thoughtful commentary
Perhaps this is because Vimeo's reach is incredibly small when compared to Youtube.
Perhaps this is because Vimeo's reach is incredibly small when compared to Youtube.
[deleted]
Youtube-dl [1] is a great tool to backup videos from Youtube. (And just a pip install away)
[1] https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/
[1] https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/
Also, despite the name, it works for a wide range of online video sources. youtube-dl is an amazing project.
On Android: Install Termux and you can install youtube-dl via pip.
Bonus tip: install the Termux API app, and termux-tools package, and get clipboard access (along with other Android features).
Bonus tip: install the Termux API app, and termux-tools package, and get clipboard access (along with other Android features).
On Android I use Youtube Downloader, which has the necessary Intents stuff to let you just open an YT link with it. Shame it went closed source, though.
Is there some terminal app that lets you create new Intents to run commands? Should be simple to tie the action "Open link to youtube.com/" to running "youtube-dl $link".
Is there some terminal app that lets you create new Intents to run commands? Should be simple to tie the action "Open link to youtube.com/" to running "youtube-dl $link".
Here's [1] an open source app that lets you share a link from youtube which then uses a hosted version of youtube-dl to get the direct link to the mp4 url and pass it back to the Android Download app
[1] https://github.com/zeronickname/VideoDownloader
[1] https://github.com/zeronickname/VideoDownloader
On terminal apps / intents: not that I'm aware, though that would be a great question to put to the Termux folk.
There _are_ dialog prompts and such.
There _are_ dialog prompts and such.
For just Youtube, I use this script with Tampermonkey:
https://github.com/gantt/downloadyoutube
I don't think I've ever updated it. It's just worked even during times when Youtube-dl required an update to start working again.
Makes it a little more convenient because it adds a download dropdown to the video page. These days, I use it to download all the good stuff because I've had too many experiences of good content disappearing forever.
NewPipe also serves as a good youtube downloader for Android.
I don't think I've ever updated it. It's just worked even during times when Youtube-dl required an update to start working again.
Makes it a little more convenient because it adds a download dropdown to the video page. These days, I use it to download all the good stuff because I've had too many experiences of good content disappearing forever.
NewPipe also serves as a good youtube downloader for Android.
Or you can just use Google Takeout to download the original videos you uploaded before YouTube reencoded them.
More likely it was rival climate channels that want their subscribers so are just going through the vids, finding something that looks copyright and spamming google with the license in hopes the channel is taken down. If you have any kind of popular channel you will experience this as there's money to be made by somebody else gaining all your views.
Have you looked at vimeos business model? It is the opposite of youtube. On the latter, you get paid for uploading videos, on the former you pay for uploading them. And you pay quite heftily and even their most expensive option, from what I can tell, can't sustain even a moderately large youtube channel.
How do you imagine this "humans-in-the-loop" policy? Do i get jury-duty emails by google?
I think YouTube is already trying to do this with their "YouTube Heroes" program, which seems to be about trusting vetted volunteers more than random users.
Why are you asking me as if it's my problem to solve? If you're trying to imply that Google can't do any better than robots taking things offline, then you're going to have to try harder - back in my day we had human moderators on internet forum boards and they did a damned fine job.
Google's done it the way they have because it's cheap compared to paying a bunch of moderators, and mostly because they really don't give a damn as long as YouTube still generates ad revenue for them at the end of the day.
Google's done it the way they have because it's cheap compared to paying a bunch of moderators, and mostly because they really don't give a damn as long as YouTube still generates ad revenue for them at the end of the day.
So how to incentivize? Make a morally outrageous ad-blocker?
>brigaded by r/The_Donald supporters or 4chan
Proof, please.
Proof, please.
If somebody says "It's more likely..." then this person is expressing an opinion and not a fact.
I find that such opinions are valuable in addition to other opinions as far as they remain plausible in cases where all we have are other opinions.
I find that such opinions are valuable in addition to other opinions as far as they remain plausible in cases where all we have are other opinions.
One opinion is on top of the comment thread, while the other got downvoted.
opinion opinions. and i suppose you've got an opinion about that. an opinion opinion opinion.
I don't see how targeting groups and political entities with completely unverified FUD is valuable.
So quick to point fingers at /r/The_Donald. I lurk there and they are just ppl who support Trump and like to meme about it. They certainly aren't the nazis or the kkk or whatever the progressive left in America has decided to call em today, and as far as I know they don't deny climate change either.
Reporting climate science videos sounds like memeing to me...
I think that's just called being an asshole
a) For what it's worth, the The_Donald subreddit doesn't brigade and the moderators do a lot of work to ensure that they're complying with Reddit rules.
b) Having backups and an alternate hosting service is always very good advice, especially for Google's services where they use algorithms to shut down and ban people all of the time.
c) It's not in Google or YouTube's DNA to provide actual decent human customer service. They don't even provide that for actual paying customers, let alone their free services! Sadly, I think YouTube laughs at your petition idea.
b) Having backups and an alternate hosting service is always very good advice, especially for Google's services where they use algorithms to shut down and ban people all of the time.
c) It's not in Google or YouTube's DNA to provide actual decent human customer service. They don't even provide that for actual paying customers, let alone their free services! Sadly, I think YouTube laughs at your petition idea.
> The_Donald subreddit doesn't brigade
Let me point you in the direction of this quote:
> The admins accused the_donald users of “brigading” or mass downvoting comments by r/politics moderators explaining why the posts were deleted and sending them threatening personal messages.
Oh, look at this other post trying to stop The_Donald from brigading so much
> Reddit announced this week that it would tweak the algorithm on r/all, a feed of popular posts across all the site’s subreddits, to stop certain communities from promoting large numbers of their own posts into the top of that feed.
> “I cannot deny their [The_Donald] behavior hastened its deployment,”
In response to The_Donald brigading several posts about Trump to the front page in a very short amount of time.
Let me point you in the direction of this quote:
> The admins accused the_donald users of “brigading” or mass downvoting comments by r/politics moderators explaining why the posts were deleted and sending them threatening personal messages.
Oh, look at this other post trying to stop The_Donald from brigading so much
> Reddit announced this week that it would tweak the algorithm on r/all, a feed of popular posts across all the site’s subreddits, to stop certain communities from promoting large numbers of their own posts into the top of that feed.
> “I cannot deny their [The_Donald] behavior hastened its deployment,”
In response to The_Donald brigading several posts about Trump to the front page in a very short amount of time.
> For what it's worth, the The_Donald subreddit doesn't brigade and the moderators do a lot of work to ensure that they're complying with Reddit rules.
r/The_Donald brigaded my university's subreddit en masse from a post the moderators there stickied to the top of the sub.
r/The_Donald brigaded my university's subreddit en masse from a post the moderators there stickied to the top of the sub.
Trump supporters on reddit don't all come from /r/The_Donald. Unless you're willing to show specifics of how the brigading happened on that subreddit, most of the time when people make those claims it means: "my sub was suddenly full of people who agreed with Trump, so it must be the case that /r/The_Donald was behind it". Guess what, when protests in Berkeley happened it's not a surprise that /r/Berkeley is going to be full of people who sound like Trump supporters, for instance.
Aye, mate - no true Scotsman, as far as the aYe can see.
Good feeling, though, cause the other side didn't stay classy as well, thus we can all, trench in and drill to moral rock bottom.
If only we had some tool, that no side would subvert, doctor, hijack and decry - like science and reasoning.
If only we had some tool, that no side would subvert, doctor, hijack and decry - like science and reasoning.
What are you even talking about?
It's a very convoluted reference to "No True Scotsman":
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group).
This was in relation to a small chalking incident that would have had no reason to attract attention outside of our school except that the r/The_Donald mods stickied it to the top of their subreddit. I skimmed through a few of the brigaders' histories to see where they were coming from and saw mostly r/The_Donald posts. Some had posted in the stickied thread before hopping over to our subreddit. Some had previously specified that they went to other universities, so had even less reason to be visiting the subreddit for ours. It's not as if we'd hit r/all or anything.
> For what it's worth, the The_Donald subreddit doesn't brigade and the moderators do a lot of work to ensure that they're complying with Reddit rules.
Lemme guess, if I respectfully disagree with you, I'll find all of my accounts blocked and my websites DDoSed into the ground? Because the evidence that this claim is wrong is beyond staggering... Keep your Alternative Facts to yourself please.
Lemme guess, if I respectfully disagree with you, I'll find all of my accounts blocked and my websites DDoSed into the ground? Because the evidence that this claim is wrong is beyond staggering... Keep your Alternative Facts to yourself please.
I re-read your comment several times. Your beyond staggering evidence must have been removed, probably by pro-Donald Russian hackers.
awalton(1)
re: a) prove it. even if the moderators try to enforce that, their tools are limited to actions the users do on reddit. brigading to a different website seems totally beyond the control of reddit mods.
I stand up and point my finger again in the direction of decentralization. Here we have this massive societal infrastructure, a huge education tool and a hub for culture, and the whole thing is under the control of a single entity whose primary motive is exclusively profit.
The core infrastructure of the internet (search, social media, archives, etc.) should not be under the influence of single companies. The internet was supposed to be decentralized but we ended up with individual companies taking huge monopolies over our standard internet experiences.
I don't think there is any tech out there today that can properly replace YouTube. Especially things like the recommendation engine. But I also don't think it's that far out of reach. We should putting greater effort into decentralizing the core parts of the internet.
Money, search, email, data storage, social media, DNS, ISP, and I'm sure dozens of other things. We don't need to be vulnerable like this.
The core infrastructure of the internet (search, social media, archives, etc.) should not be under the influence of single companies. The internet was supposed to be decentralized but we ended up with individual companies taking huge monopolies over our standard internet experiences.
I don't think there is any tech out there today that can properly replace YouTube. Especially things like the recommendation engine. But I also don't think it's that far out of reach. We should putting greater effort into decentralizing the core parts of the internet.
Money, search, email, data storage, social media, DNS, ISP, and I'm sure dozens of other things. We don't need to be vulnerable like this.
I mean, you stated it pretty clearly yourself. How would a recommendation system rivaling YouTube's work in a decentralized fashion?
There's also the fact that people spend a lot of time, effort, and money making these videos. How would they get paid by a decentralized system?
I want to decentralize too, absolutely. But I'm at a loss as to how we'd accomplish it in a way that ultimately benefits society instead of making an inferior product.
There's also the fact that people spend a lot of time, effort, and money making these videos. How would they get paid by a decentralized system?
I want to decentralize too, absolutely. But I'm at a loss as to how we'd accomplish it in a way that ultimately benefits society instead of making an inferior product.
The recommendation engine I'm not sure. Reputation systems or upvote based aggregation seems like a decent first step though.
Payment is easy if the publisher has a machine online to accept micropayments through something like the lightning network. Maybe there's a way you could make micropayments work through an email-style system or through a delegation system.
I don't think these problems are 10 year problems, I think a good team with a determined attitude could design it in one or two years (coding aside).
Making a direct YouTube replacement is probably not the best use of time though. Instead improving the building blocks or creating a system where at least the data itself is decentralized is probably better. The decentralized replacement for YouTube likely won't be a clone, just as YouTube is not really a clone of traditional TV, yet still has replaced it in many ways.
Payment is easy if the publisher has a machine online to accept micropayments through something like the lightning network. Maybe there's a way you could make micropayments work through an email-style system or through a delegation system.
I don't think these problems are 10 year problems, I think a good team with a determined attitude could design it in one or two years (coding aside).
Making a direct YouTube replacement is probably not the best use of time though. Instead improving the building blocks or creating a system where at least the data itself is decentralized is probably better. The decentralized replacement for YouTube likely won't be a clone, just as YouTube is not really a clone of traditional TV, yet still has replaced it in many ways.
> How would they get paid by a decentralized system?
Is something like Patreon tied to youtube? Could you fund someone on vimeo or your own website with it?
Is something like Patreon tied to youtube? Could you fund someone on vimeo or your own website with it?
Patreon doesn't support video uploads, at least as an embed. You can embed them from other sites and (I think) attach them to posts as downloads, but that's it.
But can you pull your videos from anywhere, or is it tied specifically to youtube?
I think it supports all the big video hosts. There's a box to paste a video URL, and it's labeled "Embed support for YouTube, Vimeo, and more."
So it sounds like you could just run your videos on vimeo, or (even better) build and host your own videos and get paid.
How would a recommendation system rivaling YouTube's work in a decentralized fashion?
We used to have web rings. We used to follow people that posted interesting stuff and weren't too annoying, either manually or by rss.
No reason it can't be done afain I think.
How would they get paid by a decentralized system?
By editing in a sponsor message in the film? By adding a few pngs with links to sponsors?
We used to have web rings. We used to follow people that posted interesting stuff and weren't too annoying, either manually or by rss.
No reason it can't be done afain I think.
How would they get paid by a decentralized system?
By editing in a sponsor message in the film? By adding a few pngs with links to sponsors?
Maybe at least mirroring YouTube videos would be a good start.
blockchain technologies enable large decentralized systems.
Yeah 'enable' but they clearly don't seem to drive mass adoption in and of themselves
[deleted]
> The internet was supposed to be decentralized but we ended up with individual companies taking huge monopolies
I think that's perhaps one of the most fascinating lessons of the last 1-1.5 decades. As far as anyone can tell, there was nothing to stop the initially near-fully decentralized web from flourishing --- just as there was nothing to stop increasing centralization from taking hold. No "bigly" tax incentives / subsidies for big IT conglomerates to build up and solidify strongholds etc. Just "let's see how things settle over time", and this is how. (UNLESS we're still in some kind of early railroad-like macro (not micro ala 99-01) "bubble" which inflates slowly largely unnoticed over more than a decade.) At least this whole development has been a boon to FOSS as a slight silver-lining (despite all the transient rubbish that also floats to the top intermittently --- same as ever though).
Anyway, if this centralization evolved near-organically, surely any more decentralized future will also have to evolve mostly-organically? Likely through multiple painful series of "clouds raining down" or some such..
I think that's perhaps one of the most fascinating lessons of the last 1-1.5 decades. As far as anyone can tell, there was nothing to stop the initially near-fully decentralized web from flourishing --- just as there was nothing to stop increasing centralization from taking hold. No "bigly" tax incentives / subsidies for big IT conglomerates to build up and solidify strongholds etc. Just "let's see how things settle over time", and this is how. (UNLESS we're still in some kind of early railroad-like macro (not micro ala 99-01) "bubble" which inflates slowly largely unnoticed over more than a decade.) At least this whole development has been a boon to FOSS as a slight silver-lining (despite all the transient rubbish that also floats to the top intermittently --- same as ever though).
Anyway, if this centralization evolved near-organically, surely any more decentralized future will also have to evolve mostly-organically? Likely through multiple painful series of "clouds raining down" or some such..
Well... IP law has a pretty strong centralizing tendency. After all, it grants control, not cash, so those that have the ability to leverage that control benefit more. That's going to be true for any kind of state-granted monopoly, but it's particularly true where each instance (here: copying) is almost free, since each additional instance provides value at no cost - better to be large, then, and amortize the research costs. The commercial victor might not be those with the best technology, but instead those with the broadest sales network (and of course lots of other factors play a role, too).
More generally, the combination of incorporation and contract law also strongly encourages centralization: because negotiations are by mutual assent, those with better negotiating positions extract more of the added value from such agreements than those with weaker negotiating positions, and incorporation trivially allows bundling strengths with almost no downside.
Then there's the way the legal system is structured, which is extremely complicated: "red tape". That's a generalized barrier to entry; a kind of cost that doesn't scale with size. Given that legal costs are high, those that can't afford to take risks are going to be outcompeted by larger entities that can afford such gambles, assuming the merit is at least somewhat unclear. In extreme cases, even if a small company (or individual) wins a court case, they may nevertheless be the net loser because cases take long and cost of lot of attention and money - the opportunity cost of engaging is higher for small entities than it is for large entities (at least in general).
Some of those effects are probably intrinsic to any system of organization, but some of them are likely a historical quirk. I'm not sure which are which, though ;-).
More generally, the combination of incorporation and contract law also strongly encourages centralization: because negotiations are by mutual assent, those with better negotiating positions extract more of the added value from such agreements than those with weaker negotiating positions, and incorporation trivially allows bundling strengths with almost no downside.
Then there's the way the legal system is structured, which is extremely complicated: "red tape". That's a generalized barrier to entry; a kind of cost that doesn't scale with size. Given that legal costs are high, those that can't afford to take risks are going to be outcompeted by larger entities that can afford such gambles, assuming the merit is at least somewhat unclear. In extreme cases, even if a small company (or individual) wins a court case, they may nevertheless be the net loser because cases take long and cost of lot of attention and money - the opportunity cost of engaging is higher for small entities than it is for large entities (at least in general).
Some of those effects are probably intrinsic to any system of organization, but some of them are likely a historical quirk. I'm not sure which are which, though ;-).
I think Google (the search engine) demonstrated pretty well that you can search the decentralized web very well. The search interface can be regarded as a centralized service, but it is just one of several services and plays by the same rules as everyone else.
I don't see why a video recommendation engine is inherently harder than a web index (which, as hard as it may have been, clearly was possible). You could probably monetize it in exactly the same way.
Video wasn't centralized before Youtube, but since they began offering free hosting for everyone (at astronical cost! they were burning through their money in record time before Google picked it up, and they have been burning money ever since) and video bandwith is probably by far the most expensive thing on your web hosting bill that's where everyone went. If anything, perhaps there should be rules regarding hwo much money you are allowed to spend undercutting your competition at a loss, but that's a polical decision. It can not be solved by technology.
I don't see why a video recommendation engine is inherently harder than a web index (which, as hard as it may have been, clearly was possible). You could probably monetize it in exactly the same way.
Video wasn't centralized before Youtube, but since they began offering free hosting for everyone (at astronical cost! they were burning through their money in record time before Google picked it up, and they have been burning money ever since) and video bandwith is probably by far the most expensive thing on your web hosting bill that's where everyone went. If anything, perhaps there should be rules regarding hwo much money you are allowed to spend undercutting your competition at a loss, but that's a polical decision. It can not be solved by technology.
Google seems to have a pretty authoritative monopoly on search right now, which is not decentralized at all. We are safe in the sense of Google failing, as there are half a dozen other mostly decent search engines - that's not sufficient though. If Google starts censoring right-wing websites or favoriting their own political agenda in their search results, would we even know? We would not! There's no transparency into the system.
I guess really the term I am looking for is 'trustless'. I don't want to have to trust Google to do the right thing, I just want it to be manifest that there is no manipulation, and no single point of failure.
I guess really the term I am looking for is 'trustless'. I don't want to have to trust Google to do the right thing, I just want it to be manifest that there is no manipulation, and no single point of failure.
Check out http://yacy.net, decentralized search engine without a single point of falure.
> I stand up and point my finger again in the direction of decentralization.
Try out a project I am working on named biddle for your distribution needs: https://github.com/prettydiff/biddle
biddle fights censorship by allowing you to put your publications anywhere. There is no central repository, and since you are required to specify your publication point you just need to find file hosting. This means private publications are free (aside from your hosting expenses) if you publish on an internal network.
Try out a project I am working on named biddle for your distribution needs: https://github.com/prettydiff/biddle
biddle fights censorship by allowing you to put your publications anywhere. There is no central repository, and since you are required to specify your publication point you just need to find file hosting. This means private publications are free (aside from your hosting expenses) if you publish on an internal network.
> you just need to find file hosting
As it were I'm working on a decentralized file hosting / data storage platform called Sia. We are probably not quite ready to integrate, as Sia does not yet support allowing others to download your files, but it's in our roadmap.
IPFS would probably also work here, given that the files are public and likely to be downloaded many times. It works like bittorrent in the sense that distribution is unpaid and not guaranteed, but as long as you have enough seeders the file can stay alive.
As it were I'm working on a decentralized file hosting / data storage platform called Sia. We are probably not quite ready to integrate, as Sia does not yet support allowing others to download your files, but it's in our roadmap.
IPFS would probably also work here, given that the files are public and likely to be downloaded many times. It works like bittorrent in the sense that distribution is unpaid and not guaranteed, but as long as you have enough seeders the file can stay alive.
Their videos are just clips of others' content, this isn't original work or a leader on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/user/ClimateProgressWorld/videos
This reeks of breaking a ToS and then trying to masquerade their political site as something more noble to rationalize creating a narrative of victimhood for marketing/attention.
The group/person behind climatestate.com is either deluded or trying to sell an aggrandizing message by claiming that they're the subject of a "concerted attack on climate science originating from the current U.S. Administration". There might be an attack, but no way was this on anyone's radar.
This reeks of breaking a ToS and then trying to masquerade their political site as something more noble to rationalize creating a narrative of victimhood for marketing/attention.
The group/person behind climatestate.com is either deluded or trying to sell an aggrandizing message by claiming that they're the subject of a "concerted attack on climate science originating from the current U.S. Administration". There might be an attack, but no way was this on anyone's radar.
> YouTube removes hundreds of the best climate science videos from the Internet
No, they did not. YouTube removed them from YouTube.
Don't trust others to host your things or provide you with access to other's things.
No, they did not. YouTube removed them from YouTube.
Don't trust others to host your things or provide you with access to other's things.
What should they have done?
Sure, they could not post videos on the largest video-sharing platform on the Internet. They could pay someone to host and maintain all that content themselves and have far fewer people see them.
You're not wrong to distrust YouTube (or any such site), but this isn't all on the videomakers. They have a choice: put their stuff on YouTube and risk it being taken down, or put their stuff somewhere else and know for certain far fewer people will see it.
Sure, they could not post videos on the largest video-sharing platform on the Internet. They could pay someone to host and maintain all that content themselves and have far fewer people see them.
You're not wrong to distrust YouTube (or any such site), but this isn't all on the videomakers. They have a choice: put their stuff on YouTube and risk it being taken down, or put their stuff somewhere else and know for certain far fewer people will see it.
What should they have done?
Keep backups. Otherwise when YouTube deletes it from YouTube, YouTube deletes it from the everywhere.
Keep backups. Otherwise when YouTube deletes it from YouTube, YouTube deletes it from the everywhere.
Sounds like fake news nothing but speculation and inuendo.
It does look a bit odd. They're selling their own domain on that site, but it's out of stock? Weird...
http://climatestate.com/product/domain-climatestate-com/
http://climatestate.com/product/domain-climatestate-com/
That's probably just so that it'll show up in their store.
Did you see the article someone in this thread linked (cached)? It quotes YouTube's emails verbatim.
I don't really have anything to be outraged about because we don't now why they did it. Certainly one thinks of Trump's positions but this would not extent to YouTube's actions.
I don't really have anything to be outraged about because we don't now why they did it. Certainly one thinks of Trump's positions but this would not extent to YouTube's actions.
The fake part is that they are cherry picking facts from several unrelated things and putting them in the same article. The intent is clearly to give the impression to readers that they should think that their channel was somehow taken down do to government censorship when there is in fact zero evidence to suggest that. This is the _exact_ MO of all those sites people love to hate for fake news. The only real difference here is that because this fake story is about something that jives with a lot of peoples political opinions here they were primed to believe it w/o questioning.
okay but the channel was taken down for some reason - what is it? I guess we don't know. If they were spamming or abusing policy in some active way they certainly hid it well in the write-up. (Dangerously so - it would take half a sentence for any reader, even a YouTube employee writing anonymously, to call them out on it.)
There must be some "real" (actual) reason - and no one has even speculated as to what it is. The writeup (which you can see in the cached copy elsewhere in this thread, if the site is still down or unresponsive) makes it really clear that they haven't broken any policy and actively sought guidance on what their infraction might have been.
There must be some "real" (actual) reason - and no one has even speculated as to what it is. The writeup (which you can see in the cached copy elsewhere in this thread, if the site is still down or unresponsive) makes it really clear that they haven't broken any policy and actively sought guidance on what their infraction might have been.
YouTube says:
>This account has been terminated due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube's policy against spam, deceptive practices, and misleading content or other Terms of Service violations.
>This account has been terminated due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube's policy against spam, deceptive practices, and misleading content or other Terms of Service violations.
They asked for clarification and did not receive any, and didn't have any violations they knew about. They certainly sound like they don't believe they have any violations and were not doing anything wrong.
I will say that the word "ongoing" sounds like they admit they did some specific thing wrong in the past, that they rectified. It doesn't sound like "this came as a total surprise to us." I'm curious why they didn't choose to elaborate on the word "ongoing". Still, there had to be some reason for this action.
They're curious what that was. (Or are faking being curious what that was - and they're faking it well; I believe them.)
I will say that the word "ongoing" sounds like they admit they did some specific thing wrong in the past, that they rectified. It doesn't sound like "this came as a total surprise to us." I'm curious why they didn't choose to elaborate on the word "ongoing". Still, there had to be some reason for this action.
They're curious what that was. (Or are faking being curious what that was - and they're faking it well; I believe them.)
If their videos are anything like this blog post then they certainly fall into the "deceptive" category. No mystery there.
What is deceptive about the blog post?
Everything? They are implying that their some some conspiracy against them.
There is literally a conspiracy - https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+climate+change+social+...
by the administration, so... I'm still waiting for the misleading part? I am sure you will agree that there is a conspiracy (two or more people in Trump's administration, conspiring.)
You're saying it doesn't affect them, but if the conspiracy doesn't aeffect them then...why did this happen?
I guess I just don't see anything misleading about their report. If I had my blog about climate change removed since Trump's administration and was told not to open any new blog, period (despite having thousands of views) I'd come to the obvious conclusion that this was the reason. I would (as they did) ask for clarification.
I mean what other reason is there? What did they do wrong exactly - and why wouldn't YouTube clarify in their human-written email on the subject which they quoted in full?
I guess I don't understand your perspective at all.
by the administration, so... I'm still waiting for the misleading part? I am sure you will agree that there is a conspiracy (two or more people in Trump's administration, conspiring.)
You're saying it doesn't affect them, but if the conspiracy doesn't aeffect them then...why did this happen?
I guess I just don't see anything misleading about their report. If I had my blog about climate change removed since Trump's administration and was told not to open any new blog, period (despite having thousands of views) I'd come to the obvious conclusion that this was the reason. I would (as they did) ask for clarification.
I mean what other reason is there? What did they do wrong exactly - and why wouldn't YouTube clarify in their human-written email on the subject which they quoted in full?
I guess I don't understand your perspective at all.
You think that because the administration asked executive agencies to stop all posting to social media under _official_ government accounts that that means YouTube took down a _private_ parties youtube channel run by a private party / individual company not associated with the US government?
There is literally ZERO evidence that is true.
What you are saying is like saying I saw the president's dog poop on the white house lawn and today I found poop on my lawn. Then concluding it must have been the president's dog that pooped on your lawn. It's nutty false and untrue.
You are taking two completely unrelated facts and making a wild unsupported claim which most people would call misleading if not a lie.
There is literally ZERO evidence that is true.
What you are saying is like saying I saw the president's dog poop on the white house lawn and today I found poop on my lawn. Then concluding it must have been the president's dog that pooped on your lawn. It's nutty false and untrue.
You are taking two completely unrelated facts and making a wild unsupported claim which most people would call misleading if not a lie.
Not all fake news is political. This looks a bit like a marketing stunt. Their Twitter update is "YouTube/Google shuts down largest climate science channel".
Notice that they don't say "our largest channel" or something less click baited.
Notice that they don't say "our largest channel" or something less click baited.
Youtube is owned by Google. Google is not at all pro-republican party, so this is not a Trump-related thing.
[deleted]
This is the problem with using any privately-owned server as your primary vehicle for hosting your content. By all means, post your videos to YouTube - but please, host secondary copies yourself, especially now that government censorship seems to be becoming the norm.
[Edit] "government censorship seems to be becoming the norm" is perhaps too extreme. Still, the link between the article's evidence of increased censorship and the Trump administration's stance on climate change (and other issues) is concerning.
[Edit] "government censorship seems to be becoming the norm" is perhaps too extreme. Still, the link between the article's evidence of increased censorship and the Trump administration's stance on climate change (and other issues) is concerning.
Censorship aside, content creators should never depend on a single third-party service for hosting their videos, especially if they intend to make a living from that content. Google has already proven willing to remove arbitrary content, delete channels, etc. from Youtube with no apparent rationale or recourse given.
I suspect a lot of their recent "glitches" are an attempt to poison the well for public content and to drive potentially copyright infringing channels[0] away in order to eventually turn the service into an entirely subscription based, big media friendly platform. But who knows? The point is, it doesn't matter. Unless you're Sony, you might well wake up tomorrow to find your entire channel erased, and you'll never know why.
If your content is important to you, consider hosting it elsehwere, or else offering it as a torrent. It may require a bit more of a technical investment, be less convenient, and even reduce revenue, but in the long run, the more channels for distribution you have, the more you can afford to lose.
[0] infringing from the point of view of media conglomerates, who refuse to respect the legitimacy of fair use.
I suspect a lot of their recent "glitches" are an attempt to poison the well for public content and to drive potentially copyright infringing channels[0] away in order to eventually turn the service into an entirely subscription based, big media friendly platform. But who knows? The point is, it doesn't matter. Unless you're Sony, you might well wake up tomorrow to find your entire channel erased, and you'll never know why.
If your content is important to you, consider hosting it elsehwere, or else offering it as a torrent. It may require a bit more of a technical investment, be less convenient, and even reduce revenue, but in the long run, the more channels for distribution you have, the more you can afford to lose.
[0] infringing from the point of view of media conglomerates, who refuse to respect the legitimacy of fair use.
This is why MediaGoblin is such an important project. By all means, publish to YouTube, offload different codec/bitrate copies to BitTorrent, place a copy on the Internet Archive, but also run a MediaGoblin server.
[0] http://mediagoblin.org/
[0] http://mediagoblin.org/
> content creators should never depend on a single third-party service
No business should never depend on a single third-party service
No business should never depend on a single third-party service
>but please, host secondary copies yourself
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as asking nicely. Self-hosting costs money especially with huge files like videos. If you have a cheap hosting plan with something like 500 gigabytes of bandwidth and you have a moderately popular video, the web visitors will get a "bandwidth exceeded" error message. Self-hosting videos is a huge costly leap over serving static HTML files.
Hosting videos on others' platforms like YouTube/Vimeo/etc gets past the bandwidth constraint.
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as asking nicely. Self-hosting costs money especially with huge files like videos. If you have a cheap hosting plan with something like 500 gigabytes of bandwidth and you have a moderately popular video, the web visitors will get a "bandwidth exceeded" error message. Self-hosting videos is a huge costly leap over serving static HTML files.
Hosting videos on others' platforms like YouTube/Vimeo/etc gets past the bandwidth constraint.
That's true. An alternative could simply be hosting on multiple platforms - at least that way you'll have a backup plan if a service deletes your content.
i'm not ready to jump to conclusions that this is government-related as implied in the article. i'd like to know more, but youtube's takedown policy is not a court of law and no rulings are ever published.
[deleted]
Server is responding pretty slowly (maybe not used to this much traffic?) so here's a Google cache for it: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lxQe4zC...
You see, this is the problem with automated DMCA stuff. If enough people don't like your stuff, they just brigade report you until youtube or $company gets rid of you. The second they bought youtube I knew eventually their evil would infiltrate it, unfortunately though no competitor has done a good job replacing them.
My favorite comment on youtube comes from one of the founders, Jawed Karim, back when google was trying to merge all accounts and force you to use real names in google+ and then to tie google+ to youtube: "why the fuck do i need a google+ account to comment"
I whish people wouldn't deride those of us critical of google for being essentially NSA's best friend and reminding people they basically started by the CIA's venture capital firm In-Q-Tel. Please attempt to refrain from accusing those of us who do "paranoid conspiracy theorists" because I feel like over time we are being proven correct and being vindicated, as much as I would like it to be otherwise.
*Edited to take dijit's advice and be less negative/combative.
My favorite comment on youtube comes from one of the founders, Jawed Karim, back when google was trying to merge all accounts and force you to use real names in google+ and then to tie google+ to youtube: "why the fuck do i need a google+ account to comment"
I whish people wouldn't deride those of us critical of google for being essentially NSA's best friend and reminding people they basically started by the CIA's venture capital firm In-Q-Tel. Please attempt to refrain from accusing those of us who do "paranoid conspiracy theorists" because I feel like over time we are being proven correct and being vindicated, as much as I would like it to be otherwise.
*Edited to take dijit's advice and be less negative/combative.
I find it highly likely that you're going to be downvoted due to being so hostile.
If that's the case, please don't assume it's because of a conspiracy, or that everyone loves google.
Plenty of people on HN are very critical of google and centralisation in general, myself included.
If that's the case, please don't assume it's because of a conspiracy, or that everyone loves google.
Plenty of people on HN are very critical of google and centralisation in general, myself included.
How can they not have copies of their videos?
Are these original content or taken from other sources without permission?
the dmca is one of the worst things that has ever happened to the internet. i hope one day we get rid of it.
Wtf. Is this for real?
Furthermore: Could it be due to an automatic process?
Furthermore: Could it be due to an automatic process?
Everything at Google is automated. It's just that to get a response from an actual person when you appeal a decision, you usually need to have a blog post that reaches the front page of HN, and a couple of known friends inside Google. Sometimes even that is not enough.
Google's support has become a meme at this point, on par with Valve's support.
Google's support has become a meme at this point, on par with Valve's support.
On par with Valve? I would say Google has the worst online support system of any company, by far.
Did Google ever actually have human tech support staff? That just doesn't sound like the sort of thing they'd do.
Yes. The Google Play Store (the part where you can buy phones etc.) has actually good support. I think the only other area they have support is Google AdSense and maybe the paid Google Apps.
> Could it be due to an automatic process?
Of course it's automated. Algorithmic censorship is the name of the game when you want to avoid hiring an army of humans. Most companies also cut on the help desk costs by not providing a mechanism for complaints.
Only those who manage to make waves in public get handled by the PR department, but those are a very small percentage of all the victims.
Of course it's automated. Algorithmic censorship is the name of the game when you want to avoid hiring an army of humans. Most companies also cut on the help desk costs by not providing a mechanism for complaints.
Only those who manage to make waves in public get handled by the PR department, but those are a very small percentage of all the victims.
Agreed with the brigades. I've been watching Rust videos on building bases and evidently some of the more popular streamers get hammered by take down requests all the time from the Zerg clans. Zerg is evidently a term used by players to refer to the "group think mentality" players. Learn something new every day!
googles automatic takedowns has a lot of false posetives. and their support is bad or non existing. they dont do manual takedowns though. if your lucky they will restore.
Time to start archiving to the Internet Archive.
I hope they have Servers outside the control of the US government.
[deleted]
Scary.
[deleted]
Okay, USA, I guess you're going to be losing a lot of business to countries with less crazy governments now. I wish I could say the UK will benefit, but I doubt it.
I find it incredibly difficult to believe that the US government is demanding the removal of climate science videos from YouTube, and even more difficult to believe that YouTube would acquiesce to such a request.
I'm sure we'll learn of a far more mundane explanation in short order. My money is on some automated process mistakenly removing content (possibly triggered by trolls, but just as likely triggered by a sub-par algorithm).
I'm sure we'll learn of a far more mundane explanation in short order. My money is on some automated process mistakenly removing content (possibly triggered by trolls, but just as likely triggered by a sub-par algorithm).
It's not really a mistake. It's the design of those automated systems. There is little to no human control in taking down material that people complain about.
There have been activists - e.g. Muslim immigrants who work against Islamism - who are targeted by complaints from hard-line Islamists and whose accounts have been suspended. So this is nothing to do with Trump administration.
There have been activists - e.g. Muslim immigrants who work against Islamism - who are targeted by complaints from hard-line Islamists and whose accounts have been suspended. So this is nothing to do with Trump administration.
I hope you are right, I really do.
The USA could mess up how it treats the Internet a few hundred times and not get to how the UK is. The UK censors a huge number of websites on the basis of content.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Uni...
> Categories blocked across the major ISPs include: Dating, Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco, File sharing, Gambling, Games, Pornography, Nudity, Social networking, Suicide and Self-harm, Weapons and violence, Obscenity, Criminal Skills, Hate, Media Streaming, Fashion and Beauty, Gore, Cyberbullying, Hacking and Web-blocking circumvention tools
It's apparently what the British want, so that's what they're going to get, but the idea that US censorship will lead to British prosperity is ludicrous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Uni...
> Categories blocked across the major ISPs include: Dating, Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco, File sharing, Gambling, Games, Pornography, Nudity, Social networking, Suicide and Self-harm, Weapons and violence, Obscenity, Criminal Skills, Hate, Media Streaming, Fashion and Beauty, Gore, Cyberbullying, Hacking and Web-blocking circumvention tools
It's apparently what the British want, so that's what they're going to get, but the idea that US censorship will lead to British prosperity is ludicrous.
I did say I doubt it, if you actually read my post.
Also, I'll just point out that British censorship systems don't stop the content from being hosted (except where it is illegal, where I wouldn't call that censorship,) it is censored at the ISP level. So, foreign companies could reasonably host stuff in the UK more safely on that basis.
(Unfortunately the recent ban on hosting end-to-end encryption services here wipes out my argument, but that's an orthogonal to the specific case of censorship.)
Also, I'll just point out that British censorship systems don't stop the content from being hosted (except where it is illegal, where I wouldn't call that censorship,) it is censored at the ISP level. So, foreign companies could reasonably host stuff in the UK more safely on that basis.
(Unfortunately the recent ban on hosting end-to-end encryption services here wipes out my argument, but that's an orthogonal to the specific case of censorship.)
I did read it. I was upgrading your mild expression of disbelief to downright incredulity.
So, lessons learned: 1) Keep backups of everything you'd upload to YouTube. 2) Vimeo.com account 3) Petition YouTube to revamp their content policing strategies to keep humans in the loop instead of algorithms knocking content offline because a mob with pitchforks decides they don't agree with you.