YouTube suspended my channel for a video with disclosed issue in Grammarly(twitter.com)
twitter.com
YouTube suspended my channel for a video with disclosed issue in Grammarly
https://twitter.com/evilksandr/status/1479507618066571268
193 comments
1) At the blocking moment I had only 2 videos (just screen records) on my channel which showed the same problem in 2 different Grammarly products
2) these videos were an illustration for my report https://hackerone.com/reports/1282282, which Grammarly disclosed to the public and does not consider this a problem.
3) these videos were published after Grammarly representatives allowed me to release this information
4) in the description of the video there were links to the HackerOne case for the problem and to my blog https://evilksandr.medium.com/7bdb343c956b with a detailed study of this problem
5) the video was posted for educational purposes only and without malicious intent
I believe that my channel was blocked by mistake.
Please, anyone who knows somebody from YT/G team, tag them in my tweet.
My son (a curious juvenile) found his own YouTube account banned in a similar manner for disclosing a security issue in Google wifi products. There was no first or second warning (despite what the Terms of Service say). Google would not give him a justification for the banning other than "terms of service violation". The appeals fell on deaf ears. Now their automated system keeps banning every YouTube account he creates within days of creation.
I worry that he'll never be able to appeal and a stupid 'mistaken reading of the ToS' on his part as a minor will affect his ability to ever host a YouTube channel or have a premium account subscription.
Good luck getting a real human in Google to sympathize with your plight and restore your account. They see disclosure of security issues related to their products or their customers' products as ToS violations and appear to be unyielding and swift in silencing such content permanently.
I worry that he'll never be able to appeal and a stupid 'mistaken reading of the ToS' on his part as a minor will affect his ability to ever host a YouTube channel or have a premium account subscription.
Good luck getting a real human in Google to sympathize with your plight and restore your account. They see disclosure of security issues related to their products or their customers' products as ToS violations and appear to be unyielding and swift in silencing such content permanently.
Wow. I think my big take-away is to never post disclosures about a company, on that company's platform.
No, I'm not being sarcastic either. I am sure some Company-Man type was the one who stumbled across it and implemented the ban.
Of course, the other lesson is one I have learned just reading tech news for years and years: Cover your bases and plan for retaliation. Even if the company in question doesn't have a history of that.
No, I'm not being sarcastic either. I am sure some Company-Man type was the one who stumbled across it and implemented the ban.
Of course, the other lesson is one I have learned just reading tech news for years and years: Cover your bases and plan for retaliation. Even if the company in question doesn't have a history of that.
I think they recently changed the tos to blacklist all videos regarding hacking and similar stuff
We did quite extensive digging into the ToS and there was nothing explicitly forbidden about what he had done and they refused to point to any rule he had violated in particular. If they've updated it, it must have been in the last 4-5 months.
YT changed their ToS on Jan 5 https://www.youtube.com/t/terms and after 2 days my channel was suspended
Thanks for your support! These videos were published 4 months ago, I posted a link to one of them 75 days ago on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29056542 and my channel was suspended on Jan 7.
Looks like it's buried several layers deep, and very poorly worded. You need to go from the Terms of Service [0], to the Community Guidelines [1], to the subsection on "Harmful or dangerous content" [2]. Once there, the wording of the guideline is as follows.
> Hacking: Demonstrating how to use computers or information technology with the intent to steal credentials, compromise personal data or cause serious harm to others such as (but not limited to) hacking into social media accounts.
The placement of "with the intent to" is really weird to me. I could see it applying either to the demonstration being performed with intent, or the demonstrated usage having intent. The latter doesn't really make sense, because any basic computer usage could also be done with the intent to perform malicious actions. (e.g. "How to back-up your stored passwords", used maliciously to back-up somebody else's stored passwords.) The former would make sense, but not be applicable in this case. It would apply to cases where the video itself was an attempt to steal credentials, such as guiding people to a known compromised browser extension.
In order for this to apply, the "with the intent to" clause would need to be missing entirely. In that case, a demonstration alone would be enough to fall under that clause. So either Google poorly wrote their guidelines, or are poorly applying it.
But that's just from the strict letter of the ToS, which is as meaningless as a fart in a breeze when Google can unilaterally amend them. The real story is that Google is removing content in order to protect itself and others from embarrassment, and their actions to discredit and downplay responsible disclosure are what matter here, not their supposed justification of those actions.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms
[1] https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/policies/community-g...
[2] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964
> Hacking: Demonstrating how to use computers or information technology with the intent to steal credentials, compromise personal data or cause serious harm to others such as (but not limited to) hacking into social media accounts.
The placement of "with the intent to" is really weird to me. I could see it applying either to the demonstration being performed with intent, or the demonstrated usage having intent. The latter doesn't really make sense, because any basic computer usage could also be done with the intent to perform malicious actions. (e.g. "How to back-up your stored passwords", used maliciously to back-up somebody else's stored passwords.) The former would make sense, but not be applicable in this case. It would apply to cases where the video itself was an attempt to steal credentials, such as guiding people to a known compromised browser extension.
In order for this to apply, the "with the intent to" clause would need to be missing entirely. In that case, a demonstration alone would be enough to fall under that clause. So either Google poorly wrote their guidelines, or are poorly applying it.
But that's just from the strict letter of the ToS, which is as meaningless as a fart in a breeze when Google can unilaterally amend them. The real story is that Google is removing content in order to protect itself and others from embarrassment, and their actions to discredit and downplay responsible disclosure are what matter here, not their supposed justification of those actions.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms
[1] https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/policies/community-g...
[2] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964
This is interesting what if the content is for training/defense like "how to not allow sql-injection" or "how to avoid xss" etc
> worry that he'll never be able to appeal and a stupid 'mistaken reading of the ToS' on his part as a minor will affect his ability to ever host a YouTube channel or have a premium account subscription.
How can a minor (who cannot sign a contract) be punished (legally) for not adhering to a ToS?
How can a minor (who cannot sign a contract) be punished (legally) for not adhering to a ToS?
Well, the 'punishment' is not letting him use the service, which he wasn't supposed to be able to do anyway as a minor. It isn't like he is going to jail or being forced to pay a fine.
You seem to be arguing that you can't ever prevent minors from using your service, since you can only exclude them via your TOS and you can't enforce a TOS against minors.
This seems very similar to the arguments that "freeman of the land" use to argue that they can do whatever they want since they don't agree to be bound by laws.
You seem to be arguing that you can't ever prevent minors from using your service, since you can only exclude them via your TOS and you can't enforce a TOS against minors.
This seems very similar to the arguments that "freeman of the land" use to argue that they can do whatever they want since they don't agree to be bound by laws.
> You seem to be arguing that you can't ever prevent minors from using your service
Oh, I actually meant you shouldn't be able to exclude an adult based on them violating the ToS when they were a minor.
Oh, I actually meant you shouldn't be able to exclude an adult based on them violating the ToS when they were a minor.
They can exclude an adult for any reason they want (in the US at least), as long as the reason isn't discriminatory against a protected class (for example, they can't exclude someone based on their religion). Other than that, they can exclude you for any reason they want, or no reason at all.
The agreement can be voided.
Congratulations on figuring out how to keep your son’s data out of the hands of Google at such a young age. What a blessing that will be!
Many of the folks here have tried Degoogling with less success.
Many of the folks here have tried Degoogling with less success.
You can still track users without accounts. It's called finger printing. It's still probably associated with the main Google account too. There's tons of articles on Facebook and "dark" accounts.
These bans affect the YouTube Brand account / Channel only, Google accounts haven't been affected by regular YT ToS violations for a while.
Right, he still has access to his Google account, but he can't use YouTube from that account. In fact, he can't create a new account and login to YouTube from any of his devices. His only access to YouTube at this point seems to be through non-logged in access.
Yes, it is. I am not going to create new accounts, it is fundamentally important for me to reinstate my own account.
[deleted]
Why did you consider tricking the plagiarism detection engine a hack? Seems more like just one of probably several or even dozens of ways to trick the detection engine.
While I applaud your work and clearly think the channel suspension is BS, I just don't know that I would have thought "HackerOne" when I discovered the issue.
While I applaud your work and clearly think the channel suspension is BS, I just don't know that I would have thought "HackerOne" when I discovered the issue.
History is filled with people having an idea, thinking it is not worth pursuing, then watching someone else actually do something with that idea instead, followed by the first person downplaying the idea altogether.
Trick the program into doing something other than intended is a hack.
Whether someone cares enough to pay a bounty is something else
Whether someone cares enough to pay a bounty is something else
Grammarly didn't pay me even a penny for this issue I published in their Bug Bounty channel on the HackerOne.
After Grammarly spent millions of dollars on Google ads, I expect them not to accept valid criticism on Google platforms.
But it's unfair to block a guy that talked about a real flaw in Grammarly's plagiarism checker, at least pretend that you allow free speech and take down that video for a random reason specified in your ToS.
But it's unfair to block a guy that talked about a real flaw in Grammarly's plagiarism checker, at least pretend that you allow free speech and take down that video for a random reason specified in your ToS.
I think you've incorrectly invoked "free speech" here, IMO this isn't a free speech issue. It may be a TOS issue and it does sound like Google are being a bit unreasonable but "free speech" isn't really something Google ever promised to permit on their platforms
Free speech isn’t just something that can be encoded into law, it’s an ideology. A great ideology, imo.
That said, with COVID-19 it really became apparent that these platforms have basically become a new public square, putting everyone in an awkward position. You can basically be ousted from the internet by just a couple entities like Facebook or Twitter and have your entire online presence torpedoed. IRL I can just go to a different bar, gym, whatever. On the internet, everything consolidates rapidly. It’s hard to argue that companies should be forced to allow things they don’t want on their platforms, but it’s clear that something has to be done here if platforms are going to consolidate this badly.
That said, with COVID-19 it really became apparent that these platforms have basically become a new public square, putting everyone in an awkward position. You can basically be ousted from the internet by just a couple entities like Facebook or Twitter and have your entire online presence torpedoed. IRL I can just go to a different bar, gym, whatever. On the internet, everything consolidates rapidly. It’s hard to argue that companies should be forced to allow things they don’t want on their platforms, but it’s clear that something has to be done here if platforms are going to consolidate this badly.
My point is not that "free speech" as a concept is bad (though I do mention in another comment here that it does raise thorny issues). My point is that tying this complaint and "free speech" together is pointless because it directs attention at the wrong thing.
It's the difference between saying "$person got kicked off Google in a violation of their free speech" and "$person got kicked off Google for a totally specious reason that doesn't even violate Google's TOS".
The first one gets immediately shut down because they didn't violate anyone's free speech. If you try to make that argument it's a total non-starter. We can have a big fun discussion about free speech online some time - and that does happen here on HN - but that's not the issue here.
The second one gets at the actual issue - Google have just booted someone even though they didn't apparently violate their TOS. They just arbitrarily did so to appease a paying client.
I hope this is clear.
It's the difference between saying "$person got kicked off Google in a violation of their free speech" and "$person got kicked off Google for a totally specious reason that doesn't even violate Google's TOS".
The first one gets immediately shut down because they didn't violate anyone's free speech. If you try to make that argument it's a total non-starter. We can have a big fun discussion about free speech online some time - and that does happen here on HN - but that's not the issue here.
The second one gets at the actual issue - Google have just booted someone even though they didn't apparently violate their TOS. They just arbitrarily did so to appease a paying client.
I hope this is clear.
It's not that I didn't understand the point you were making, I just think it was not really relevant. It would be incorrect to say that they violated the user's first amendment rights. But the comment you responded to says:
> at least pretend that you allow free speech
Which is different than that, and I'd argue most platforms do at least pretend to espouse the ideals of 'free speech' even if that notion has been weaker lately.
> The second one gets at the actual issue - Google have just booted someone even though they didn't apparently violate their TOS. They just arbitrarily did so to appease a paying client.
It is a speech issue, even if not a legal issue, if you can pay Google to shut down random accounts that say things you don't like. The ToS violation is a red herring.
> at least pretend that you allow free speech
Which is different than that, and I'd argue most platforms do at least pretend to espouse the ideals of 'free speech' even if that notion has been weaker lately.
> The second one gets at the actual issue - Google have just booted someone even though they didn't apparently violate their TOS. They just arbitrarily did so to appease a paying client.
It is a speech issue, even if not a legal issue, if you can pay Google to shut down random accounts that say things you don't like. The ToS violation is a red herring.
> It is a speech issue, even if not a legal issue, if you can pay Google to shut down random accounts that say things you don't like. The ToS violation is a red herring.
I think we here all presume that interested parties can pay corporations to do anything that is both legal, and which remains within the letter of the contracts (e.g. Terms of Service) that the corporation has entered into; and that the only thing stopping corporations from not being actively malicious/malfeasant (though not illegal) in their interactions with customers/users, is that they don't want to be perceived as breaking the terms of contracts they themselves offer.
Voluntary self-bindings in a contract like a ToS are effectively precommitments about a corporation's own ethical behavior; with negative PR as a punishment for breaking said precommitment. Corporations offer these because they want people to have faith that they won't do certain things, even when interested parties offer to pay them to do those things.
So it's not interesting to me that Grammarly can pay YouTube to terminate creators that were already violating the ToS in some way, but where YouTube previously hadn't much cared. Of course they can. Selective enforcement is an omnipresent fact of how corporate social-network moderation works, because corporations have no legal mandate of 100% enforcement, and costs can be cut by doing as little as it takes to make users not complain. So there are always going to be cases where a corporation didn't notice a violation. And why shouldn't a paying customer (one of their advertisers) be able to prioritize YouTube's attention on a previously un-noticed violation? If YouTube wanted to promise us that they wouldn't do that, they'd put a self-binding to that effect in the ToS. YouTube, like all corporations, is an evil genie that starts off by telling you a bounded list of ways in which it won't screw you. You still have to assume it'll screw you in every way not mentioned in the list.
But it is interesting to me that Grammarly can pay YouTube to terminate creators that weren't already violating the ToS in some way. Because that sets a precedent for the ToS not limiting YouTube's behavior — of YouTube not abiding by the precommitments they have made, of not caring about the negative PR consequences of doing so. Which really means that — to the degree that this is a structural issue rather than a "renegade" actor — there is no reason to believe that YouTube will hold to any of its own precommitments in the future. Like, say, its precommitment to pay content creators.
I think we here all presume that interested parties can pay corporations to do anything that is both legal, and which remains within the letter of the contracts (e.g. Terms of Service) that the corporation has entered into; and that the only thing stopping corporations from not being actively malicious/malfeasant (though not illegal) in their interactions with customers/users, is that they don't want to be perceived as breaking the terms of contracts they themselves offer.
Voluntary self-bindings in a contract like a ToS are effectively precommitments about a corporation's own ethical behavior; with negative PR as a punishment for breaking said precommitment. Corporations offer these because they want people to have faith that they won't do certain things, even when interested parties offer to pay them to do those things.
So it's not interesting to me that Grammarly can pay YouTube to terminate creators that were already violating the ToS in some way, but where YouTube previously hadn't much cared. Of course they can. Selective enforcement is an omnipresent fact of how corporate social-network moderation works, because corporations have no legal mandate of 100% enforcement, and costs can be cut by doing as little as it takes to make users not complain. So there are always going to be cases where a corporation didn't notice a violation. And why shouldn't a paying customer (one of their advertisers) be able to prioritize YouTube's attention on a previously un-noticed violation? If YouTube wanted to promise us that they wouldn't do that, they'd put a self-binding to that effect in the ToS. YouTube, like all corporations, is an evil genie that starts off by telling you a bounded list of ways in which it won't screw you. You still have to assume it'll screw you in every way not mentioned in the list.
But it is interesting to me that Grammarly can pay YouTube to terminate creators that weren't already violating the ToS in some way. Because that sets a precedent for the ToS not limiting YouTube's behavior — of YouTube not abiding by the precommitments they have made, of not caring about the negative PR consequences of doing so. Which really means that — to the degree that this is a structural issue rather than a "renegade" actor — there is no reason to believe that YouTube will hold to any of its own precommitments in the future. Like, say, its precommitment to pay content creators.
Grammarly is not paying for this. Grammarly is not involved or even concerned in any way. This is not even a "hack" but rather trying to use Grammarly for something it was not designed for, and showing it does not work for that. "Ok, duh, and thank you for your interest in Grammarly..."
The plagiarism check is for self-checking, as in users making sure they did not miss any quotations and references in their work, and thus it does not even attempt to defeat any plagiarism enforcement counter-measures. It's not an enforcement tool.
The plagiarism check is for self-checking, as in users making sure they did not miss any quotations and references in their work, and thus it does not even attempt to defeat any plagiarism enforcement counter-measures. It's not an enforcement tool.
We continued our discussion in this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29933516#29947146
It is refreshing to see someone who diagnoses the issue here correctly.
The root problem people are complaining about is the moderation policies, and the truth is that services like Facebook et al are simply too large to be effectively moderated. Appealing to (US ideas of) free speech would propose that the solution to bad moderation is no moderation whatsoever (speech restrictions must be content-neutral, and moderation by definition is not content-neutral)--and I think most people would rapidly find that no moderation is worse than bad moderation.
The most effective solution is to do what ought to have been done a decade ago and prevent further social media consolidation and consider breaking up the current oligopoly of social media.
The root problem people are complaining about is the moderation policies, and the truth is that services like Facebook et al are simply too large to be effectively moderated. Appealing to (US ideas of) free speech would propose that the solution to bad moderation is no moderation whatsoever (speech restrictions must be content-neutral, and moderation by definition is not content-neutral)--and I think most people would rapidly find that no moderation is worse than bad moderation.
The most effective solution is to do what ought to have been done a decade ago and prevent further social media consolidation and consider breaking up the current oligopoly of social media.
I favour no moderation but with spam detection.
Less moderation might be a good middle ground
Less moderation might be a good middle ground
That's one route - that I also favour - but my favourite idea would be to give everyone access to the tools that FB et al use for moderation. If I don't want to see porn/politics/bots/cussing/sport/K-pop… then I want to be able to choose that, not the platform. They have all this data and the ability to shape the feed, give me that power. No need to stomp on free speech, no need to clumsily moderate.
Of course, people with power rarely like to share it, and they certainly don't want a free flow of information that they don't control. There's the rub.
Of course, people with power rarely like to share it, and they certainly don't want a free flow of information that they don't control. There's the rub.
> If I don't want to see porn/politics/bots/cussing/sport/K-pop… then I want to be able to choose that, not the platform.
This would certainly be a welcome feature, but it doesn't really solve the problem.
Suppose you want to see adult content, politics and cussing but you don't want to see bots. Nobody wants to see bots. Then their broken algorithm calls someone a bot who is not. Well, they're blocked from everyone, because nobody wants to see bots. That's the same as the status quo.
The problem is that there is a trade off between false positives and false negatives. If they tune the thing to get rid of 100% of actual bots, it's going to false positive 98% of real humans. But if they do anything less than this, there will be actual bots and people will give them a hard time about it.
And not just people, the government. The current government has explicitly stated that they want them to censor more stuff. And the current government is pursuing an antitrust case against them. So their incentive is to turn up the false positives and screw over whoever that happens to screw over in order to appease them.
The argument has been made that this is actually a First Amendment violation because of the state action: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1363175977531150338
This would certainly be a welcome feature, but it doesn't really solve the problem.
Suppose you want to see adult content, politics and cussing but you don't want to see bots. Nobody wants to see bots. Then their broken algorithm calls someone a bot who is not. Well, they're blocked from everyone, because nobody wants to see bots. That's the same as the status quo.
The problem is that there is a trade off between false positives and false negatives. If they tune the thing to get rid of 100% of actual bots, it's going to false positive 98% of real humans. But if they do anything less than this, there will be actual bots and people will give them a hard time about it.
And not just people, the government. The current government has explicitly stated that they want them to censor more stuff. And the current government is pursuing an antitrust case against them. So their incentive is to turn up the false positives and screw over whoever that happens to screw over in order to appease them.
The argument has been made that this is actually a First Amendment violation because of the state action: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1363175977531150338
> The argument has been made that this is actually a First Amendment violation because of the state action: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1363175977531150338
The argument has been made, but not successfully. The thing is, threatening to pass a (flagrantly unconstitutional) law if companies don't do something isn't enough of a direct tie by itself to make someone a state actor. Especially when those countries from time to time ask Congress to pass such a law.
The argument has been made, but not successfully. The thing is, threatening to pass a (flagrantly unconstitutional) law if companies don't do something isn't enough of a direct tie by itself to make someone a state actor. Especially when those countries from time to time ask Congress to pass such a law.
What would likely pass constitutional muster and get these companies to pay attention is the threat to either revoke Section 230 or modify it so that its protections are conditional rather than absolute.
The constitution has nothing to say on the matter of holding them responsible for the libelous, defamatory, harassing, terrorist, etc. content they fail to moderate away every day.
The constitution has nothing to say on the matter of holding them responsible for the libelous, defamatory, harassing, terrorist, etc. content they fail to moderate away every day.
The world without §230 offers two possibilities: no moderation (with all the ills that brings), or moderation tuned to have a 0% false negative rate--and as a result a rather high false positive rate. Most likely, social media companies will choose the latter over the former. And given that about half [1] the people who complain about the current state of moderation think it's too heavy-handed, I think they'll be even less thrilled than they are now to have false positive rates skyrocket.
[1] I suspect it's actually a fair bit more than half, given the semi-frequent occurrences of cases like this article that no one really wants to defend.
[1] I suspect it's actually a fair bit more than half, given the semi-frequent occurrences of cases like this article that no one really wants to defend.
Why would they choose the latter when it's the most expensive option?
Also, outright revocation of 230 is just one option. Companies at Facebook/Twitter/Reddit scale would do nearly anything to keep that protection since moderation at that scale simply is not possible. This gives an inroad to all kinds of regulation.
Alternatively, your second scenario happens, and it likely leads to the destruction of large, centralized social media, and a proliferation of decentralized, hard-to-sue alternatives. This too, is a win.
Also, outright revocation of 230 is just one option. Companies at Facebook/Twitter/Reddit scale would do nearly anything to keep that protection since moderation at that scale simply is not possible. This gives an inroad to all kinds of regulation.
Alternatively, your second scenario happens, and it likely leads to the destruction of large, centralized social media, and a proliferation of decentralized, hard-to-sue alternatives. This too, is a win.
Now you're getting into the details of the potential retaliation when that isn't really the point.
If a company is discriminating on the basis of race and government officials tell them to stop, there is no constitutional problem there, even if it comes with an implied threat of enforcement or new legislation, because passing a law against discrimination on the basis of race is not a constitutional violation. The government can directly punish that behavior so there is no problem to indirectly or implicitly punish it.
If a company is allowing protected speech the government doesn't like and government officials tell them to stop, that's different. Because it would be unconstitutional for them to pass a law saying the same thing. And there are many other ways the government can punish a business, e.g. by breaking them up. So the implied threat is, censor or we'll break you up, or mess with Section 230, or some other thing you won't like. It's coercing them to do the thing the government isn't allowed to coerce them to do, under threat of adverse regulation that the same government could withdraw in response to compliance.
What the adverse regulation is doesn't matter. It doesn't even have to be specified. The problem is the direction to do something the government isn't allowed to make them do.
If a company is discriminating on the basis of race and government officials tell them to stop, there is no constitutional problem there, even if it comes with an implied threat of enforcement or new legislation, because passing a law against discrimination on the basis of race is not a constitutional violation. The government can directly punish that behavior so there is no problem to indirectly or implicitly punish it.
If a company is allowing protected speech the government doesn't like and government officials tell them to stop, that's different. Because it would be unconstitutional for them to pass a law saying the same thing. And there are many other ways the government can punish a business, e.g. by breaking them up. So the implied threat is, censor or we'll break you up, or mess with Section 230, or some other thing you won't like. It's coercing them to do the thing the government isn't allowed to coerce them to do, under threat of adverse regulation that the same government could withdraw in response to compliance.
What the adverse regulation is doesn't matter. It doesn't even have to be specified. The problem is the direction to do something the government isn't allowed to make them do.
> Nobody wants to see bots. Then their broken algorithm calls someone a bot who is not. Well, they're blocked from everyone, because nobody wants to see bots. That's the same as the status quo.
I want to see some bots but not others, but still, I want the choice to be mine. That's the most important thing to me, choice, because it leads to control.
Aside from that, I don't mind their broken algorithm because:
a) The perfect is the enemy of the good
b) We agreed that I get to choose (whether I see bots and which bots/kind-of-bots I see)
For instance, why can I not given some kind of confidence level? Surely their algorithm gives a score, so then I could say "If you think someone is >= 75% likely to be a bot, don't show me them, otherwise, do".
I want to see some bots but not others, but still, I want the choice to be mine. That's the most important thing to me, choice, because it leads to control.
Aside from that, I don't mind their broken algorithm because:
a) The perfect is the enemy of the good
b) We agreed that I get to choose (whether I see bots and which bots/kind-of-bots I see)
For instance, why can I not given some kind of confidence level? Surely their algorithm gives a score, so then I could say "If you think someone is >= 75% likely to be a bot, don't show me them, otherwise, do".
Far to often nowadays I'll hear people defend communications-companies based on the idea that they can censor whatever they want because they're private entities. Mostly though, that idea is only true for them when they feel that their ideological opponents are being censored. Framing companies like google as new public squares is spot on.
And as you say, free speech is an ideology, and in my opinion this should be repeated. It is a culture and a mindset, not just laws, laws being downstreams from culture anyway. If you do not wish for it to apply in all those areas, in my opinion, you do not defend it at all.
And as you say, free speech is an ideology, and in my opinion this should be repeated. It is a culture and a mindset, not just laws, laws being downstreams from culture anyway. If you do not wish for it to apply in all those areas, in my opinion, you do not defend it at all.
It’s hard to argue that companies should be forced to allow things they don’t want on their platforms
Yes, because the concept of free speech has never implied that you're entitled to have other entities hear or repeat your speech nor is there any principle that compels someone else to listen to or repeat what you're saying. If you want that to be the case, that's certainly your prerogative, but that's a different concept from any mainstream definition of free speech I've come across.
Yes, because the concept of free speech has never implied that you're entitled to have other entities hear or repeat your speech nor is there any principle that compels someone else to listen to or repeat what you're saying. If you want that to be the case, that's certainly your prerogative, but that's a different concept from any mainstream definition of free speech I've come across.
(tangent) kind of interesting how it resembles a small town in that way. Its a problem those of us in bigger suburbs or cities wouldn't recognize but, once you get stereotyped in some way -- any way -- it can become difficult or impossbile to escape. As the internet is even bigger than a large city -- its the whole world -- you'd naively think it would be even more proressive. In that sense these little fiefdom's provide a regression in addition to the features they provide.
I'd go one step further. It resembles a company town, not just a small town. You want email? Better go with one of the big providers, because those big providers flag self-hosting as spam. You want video hosting? Better go with youtube, because nothing else will have enough of an audience to make it worthwhile. Find something out about the boss's friend? (Or the Grammarly plagiarism checker?) Good luck walking to the next town, because the boss owns everything in town.
[deleted]
Why is that not a free speech issue? It is not a legal issue of course, but removal of critical opinions very much qualifies to be a violation of the principle.
Because it's basically never been a thing there. Facebook, Twitter, Google - all of these platforms can and do remove things from their platforms for whatever reason they feel like. There's nothing we can do about it, there is no free speech there and acting indignant like they're eroding some right that you previously had is just pointless.
It'd be like complaining that you can't get sushi at McDonalds anymore. You couldn't ever do that, McDonalds haven't indicated that they would offer this and we all know it's not going to happen.
It'd be like complaining that you can't get sushi at McDonalds anymore. You couldn't ever do that, McDonalds haven't indicated that they would offer this and we all know it's not going to happen.
Maybe their network effect monopoly means that they are essentially a public service and maybe our basic concepts of free speech should apply to all public services.
I am obviously not talking about our current legal framework, but proposing the idea that the concepts and reason for free speech are meaningful enough to transcend that framework.
I am obviously not talking about our current legal framework, but proposing the idea that the concepts and reason for free speech are meaningful enough to transcend that framework.
There's no "anymore" in these complaints though. There's just the complaint.
It's not "my parents started beating me while they in the past didn't", it's just "parents are beating me." Or "google is suppressing my speech."
Past actions of the involved entities do not invalidate the complaint. Likewise, "the grocery store next door doesn't sell sushi" is a legit complaint for the afflicted regardless of whether sushi was sold in the past or not. (Coincidentally, my go-to store just stopped selling sushi a week or two ago)
It's not "my parents started beating me while they in the past didn't", it's just "parents are beating me." Or "google is suppressing my speech."
Past actions of the involved entities do not invalidate the complaint. Likewise, "the grocery store next door doesn't sell sushi" is a legit complaint for the afflicted regardless of whether sushi was sold in the past or not. (Coincidentally, my go-to store just stopped selling sushi a week or two ago)
> But it's unfair to block a guy that talked about a real flaw in Grammarly's plagiarism checker, at least pretend that you allow free speech and take down that video for a random reason specified in your ToS.
See italicised section, it suggests there's a promise of free speech on Google that are somehow reneging on. I am just saying that this is a mistake, and now loads of people seem to be mad at the idea that I'm attacking "free speech". One of the reasons I thought it shouldn't be here is that it's fairly complex topic that IMO is orthogonal to the case in question because it raises all sorts of thorny side-issues that distract from the main thing: someone got booted from Google quite unfairly.
See italicised section, it suggests there's a promise of free speech on Google that are somehow reneging on. I am just saying that this is a mistake, and now loads of people seem to be mad at the idea that I'm attacking "free speech". One of the reasons I thought it shouldn't be here is that it's fairly complex topic that IMO is orthogonal to the case in question because it raises all sorts of thorny side-issues that distract from the main thing: someone got booted from Google quite unfairly.
[deleted]
The (US) constitutional protections on speech constrain the actions of US governments; those constraints don't extend to private companies and individuals.
And "principles" are things you can adopt and agree with as you see fit. They are not law. Not everyone takes an absolutist position that "free speech" is a principle we should all be defending to the last ditch.
And "principles" are things you can adopt and agree with as you see fit. They are not law. Not everyone takes an absolutist position that "free speech" is a principle we should all be defending to the last ditch.
It's still fair to call this a violation of free speech -- even if the company has no legal obligation not to do it -- and therefore give them shit about it. As a customer. Who can take their business elsewhere.
And if the customer can't take their business elsewhere, it appears we have arrived at the underlying problem.
And if the customer can't take their business elsewhere, it appears we have arrived at the underlying problem.
> It's still fair to call this a violation of free speech
You can call it a violation of rock and roll, if you like. Normally, "violate" is something you do the law, or a contract, or an agreement. You can't normally "violate" a principle that you haven't declared your adherence to, just because someone else adheres to it.
You can call it a violation of rock and roll, if you like. Normally, "violate" is something you do the law, or a contract, or an agreement. You can't normally "violate" a principle that you haven't declared your adherence to, just because someone else adheres to it.
> Normally, "violate" is something you do the law, or a contract, or an agreement. You can't normally "violate" a principle that you haven't declared your adherence to, just because someone else adheres to it.
If you're a vegan libertarian who refuses to patronize agricultural conglomerates engaged in factory farming because it's a violation of the non-aggression principle, your argument for them not being in violation of it is that they never agreed to it?
It's not the company's principle, it's the customer's. The company is violating it so the customer is offended and is willing to take their business elsewhere. And to publicly condemn the company over it so others do the same. This is how the free market is supposed to work.
If a company is charging 6000% margins, you don't say "well I guess there's no law against it," you stop patronizing that company. And if you can't, the market is broken.
If you're a vegan libertarian who refuses to patronize agricultural conglomerates engaged in factory farming because it's a violation of the non-aggression principle, your argument for them not being in violation of it is that they never agreed to it?
It's not the company's principle, it's the customer's. The company is violating it so the customer is offended and is willing to take their business elsewhere. And to publicly condemn the company over it so others do the same. This is how the free market is supposed to work.
If a company is charging 6000% margins, you don't say "well I guess there's no law against it," you stop patronizing that company. And if you can't, the market is broken.
> If you're a vegan libertarian who refuses to patronize agricultural conglomerates engaged in factory farming because it's a violation of the non-aggression principle, your argument for them not being in violation of it is that they never agreed to it?
You make your point well.
However I don't know what this "non-aggression principle" is. That kind of "violation" doesn't seem to be like violating the terms of an agreement; it seems more like "violating my personal space".
I mean, I can set up whatever "principles" I like, and start accusing others of violating them. That's not like violating the terms of a law or agreement. It's a different use of the word "violate".
You make your point well.
However I don't know what this "non-aggression principle" is. That kind of "violation" doesn't seem to be like violating the terms of an agreement; it seems more like "violating my personal space".
I mean, I can set up whatever "principles" I like, and start accusing others of violating them. That's not like violating the terms of a law or agreement. It's a different use of the word "violate".
> However I don't know what this "non-aggression principle" is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
Often summarized as "don't hurt people and don't take their stuff."
Kind of used it on purpose because vegans would want to apply it to animals and then there would be a debate about whether it should be etc., when that doesn't really matter here -- the vegan libertarian is perfectly entitled to consider factory farms a violation of the principle and use that to condemn them and refuse to patronize them.
> That kind of "violation" doesn't seem to be like violating the terms of an agreement; it seems more like "violating my personal space".
We're getting caught up on the semantics of the word "violate." Someone could just as easily accuse the company of not supporting free speech and end up in the same place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
Often summarized as "don't hurt people and don't take their stuff."
Kind of used it on purpose because vegans would want to apply it to animals and then there would be a debate about whether it should be etc., when that doesn't really matter here -- the vegan libertarian is perfectly entitled to consider factory farms a violation of the principle and use that to condemn them and refuse to patronize them.
> That kind of "violation" doesn't seem to be like violating the terms of an agreement; it seems more like "violating my personal space".
We're getting caught up on the semantics of the word "violate." Someone could just as easily accuse the company of not supporting free speech and end up in the same place.
The federal laws, much less the constitution, are the bare minimum in the USA. For example, most states have at least one statute saying companies can't fire employees over some forms of political speech.
So while your statement is true, it is not the discussion-stopper that most people seem to think it is.
So while your statement is true, it is not the discussion-stopper that most people seem to think it is.
Unregulated monopolies do not have to uphold constitutional rights.
The phone company used to be regulated so even if you were a hated Republican they still had to provide phone service to you if you lived in their service area. Those days are over and monopolies in practice will never be redefined again as "legal monopolies".
The phone company used to be regulated so even if you were a hated Republican they still had to provide phone service to you if you lived in their service area. Those days are over and monopolies in practice will never be redefined again as "legal monopolies".
It is definitely a free speech issue but not in the legal and constitutional sense that you're thinking of.
Regardless of the situation you're in, you have the ability to say, "I should have the right to free speech in this situation." Whether this belief will be validated in the reality of the situation is an entirely different matter.
Regardless of the situation you're in, you have the ability to say, "I should have the right to free speech in this situation." Whether this belief will be validated in the reality of the situation is an entirely different matter.
On the contrary, that is exactly the sense I was thinking of. My point was that considering this in terms of an erosion of your free speech doesn't make sense because there's no expectation of free speech in places like Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc. There is an expectation that as long as you adhere to TOS you'll be allowed to continue to use a platform, however.
I just thought it was a mistake in this case to get into a broader debate about free speech online, what should be allowed, how it needs to account for various countries' conflicting laws, etc. Because that's a huge issue, it's probably not what was intended by the original commenter and we have a much more narrow and clearly defined issue we can focus on (being kicked off despite adhering to TOS).
I just thought it was a mistake in this case to get into a broader debate about free speech online, what should be allowed, how it needs to account for various countries' conflicting laws, etc. Because that's a huge issue, it's probably not what was intended by the original commenter and we have a much more narrow and clearly defined issue we can focus on (being kicked off despite adhering to TOS).
> I should have the right to free speech
That's a legitimate opinion.
I am of the view that rights are things that are granted by some authority, not something you acquire by simply existing. I envy the USA their constitutional protections on speech. But unless Google has made a grant of free speech rights on their platform, no such rights exist.
That's a legitimate opinion.
I am of the view that rights are things that are granted by some authority, not something you acquire by simply existing. I envy the USA their constitutional protections on speech. But unless Google has made a grant of free speech rights on their platform, no such rights exist.
> I am of the view that rights are things that are granted by some authority, not something you acquire by simply existing.
That's an interesting view, and not one that is supported by the US Constitution.
> First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This doesn't state that either Congress or the Constitution is granting the freedom of speech, or the right to assemble peacably, but rather states that Congress may not make a law that abridges those rights. The right
> Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Again, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures is something that exists before the Constitution. It isn't something that is granted by the Constitution, but a pre-existing right that may not be violated.
> Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This is the most direct counter-argument, that rights exist outside of the enumerated rights. That some rights are explicitly enumerated may not be used to imply that those are the only rights that exist. If the Constitution and authorities derived from the Constitution were the source of rights, then there couldn't be rights that exist outside of them. But instead, the Constitution states that there exist rights outside of those mentioned, so they must have been pre-existing rights.
That's an interesting view, and not one that is supported by the US Constitution.
> First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This doesn't state that either Congress or the Constitution is granting the freedom of speech, or the right to assemble peacably, but rather states that Congress may not make a law that abridges those rights. The right
> Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Again, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures is something that exists before the Constitution. It isn't something that is granted by the Constitution, but a pre-existing right that may not be violated.
> Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This is the most direct counter-argument, that rights exist outside of the enumerated rights. That some rights are explicitly enumerated may not be used to imply that those are the only rights that exist. If the Constitution and authorities derived from the Constitution were the source of rights, then there couldn't be rights that exist outside of them. But instead, the Constitution states that there exist rights outside of those mentioned, so they must have been pre-existing rights.
The US Constitution says those things, no doubt. But I'm not a USAian. Similar claims appear in the UN and European declarations of Human Rights. Whatever those documents say, I just don't think rights are things that exist objectively, independent of their declaration in some document.
yes, had you read/quoted my entire comment you'd realize that your point is exactly equivalent to my point
Well "free speech" is a concept, context can be "${country_constitution_str}" or as in "humanitarian values"
The idea that companies should be allowed to trample all over basic freedoms because they're not the government has to be the most capitalist idea ever.
What basic freedom are these companies trampling? I dislike them as much as the next person, but it's been clear from the start that they operate their little fiefdoms as they see fit and we should be under no illusions that we have no rights there.
If we want to fight for a change to the various laws in various countries, then that is a conversation I would be very willing to have. But let's not pretend that any of these companies have ever offered their services as a place where you can exercise whatever version of free-speech laws your country has.
Interestingly the places that tout "free speech" as a feature tend to descend into pretty grim places full of racism, anti-semitism, conspiracy theories and more besides (hello, 8chan/kun!).
If we want to fight for a change to the various laws in various countries, then that is a conversation I would be very willing to have. But let's not pretend that any of these companies have ever offered their services as a place where you can exercise whatever version of free-speech laws your country has.
Interestingly the places that tout "free speech" as a feature tend to descend into pretty grim places full of racism, anti-semitism, conspiracy theories and more besides (hello, 8chan/kun!).
Have you considered why those places become grim places? Does free speech lead to those ideas? That would be quite a out-there conclusion. Rather, those people can only express themselves on forums like that, they are banned on all the other mediums. If free speech was set as a standard on all mediums, those people would express themselves evenly on facebook, youtube and the chans, rather than being penned into fringe spaces like the chans. I think that society should be more clear about the stance on this, either their speech is banned throughout society, and free speech isn't quite what it used to be, or their speech is tolerated throughout society, and free speech remains.
I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you saying that we should either ban racist speech outright (let's assume for argument that the speech in question is unquestionably, disgustingly racist), or else permit it in all spaces? Clearly there should be spaces where racism shouldn't be tolerated, but banning it outright seems like a bridge too far, and could make martyrs of those who defy such rules.
They become grim because the conflict is asymmetric.
Slinging insults, hate, disinformation, or just posting plain nonsense is easy. Explaining how things work properly takes a lot of effort and is hard. Eg, saying "The moon landings were a hoax" is easy. Explaining why that makes no sense, and how exactly humans did land on the Moon takes a good amount longer.
There's also that the valuable, accomplished people in a community are a scarce resource. What would you prefer the resident rocket scientist to do, provide useful information for the community on something new going on, or try to reason with the newly arrived conspiracy theorist?
Slinging insults, hate, disinformation, or just posting plain nonsense is easy. Explaining how things work properly takes a lot of effort and is hard. Eg, saying "The moon landings were a hoax" is easy. Explaining why that makes no sense, and how exactly humans did land on the Moon takes a good amount longer.
There's also that the valuable, accomplished people in a community are a scarce resource. What would you prefer the resident rocket scientist to do, provide useful information for the community on something new going on, or try to reason with the newly arrived conspiracy theorist?
If your space is the only one that doesn't have regular witch hunts, you're going to end up with a lot of witches.
Reddit and Twitter very much touted free speech 10 years ago and didn't have this issue (unless you want looking for it). And Google and FB effectively allowed whatever but didn't talk about it, until 2015 or so.
1. Tout free speech to great success and become a dominant platform
2. Get advertiser and political blowback
3. Ban unpopular speech
4. Now "free speech" platforms only have unpopular content
As a tangent, pre 2010, the best argument I had with conspiracy nuts was "if all this shit you're saying is true, then why is the government / corporations not trying to silence you, like you say they are doing to all the people involved." Can't use that anymore.
1. Tout free speech to great success and become a dominant platform
2. Get advertiser and political blowback
3. Ban unpopular speech
4. Now "free speech" platforms only have unpopular content
As a tangent, pre 2010, the best argument I had with conspiracy nuts was "if all this shit you're saying is true, then why is the government / corporations not trying to silence you, like you say they are doing to all the people involved." Can't use that anymore.
Did that strategy ever work with conspiracy nuts? In my experience that argument was always met with a response that wove an even more elaborate conspiracy. Like the government/corporations/illuminati deliberately allow just enough people to talk about it unless they get too close, or something similar.
Unfortunately I think this strategy is doomed, it relies on people who have rejected reality to use basic common sense. I don't even know if there is a good strategy to calm a conspiracy nut, thankfully I don't really talk to such people.
Unfortunately I think this strategy is doomed, it relies on people who have rejected reality to use basic common sense. I don't even know if there is a good strategy to calm a conspiracy nut, thankfully I don't really talk to such people.
You're not arguing with them, but with everyone else in the room. Now the conspiracy nut would just say "but they do try to silence us" and he would be right.
"What basic freedom are these companies trampling?"
Freedom of speech
Freedom of speech
Honestly this reminds me of a friend who sincerely answered "Because America" when I asked a related question. It didn't really mean anything and it was a naive misunderstanding the situation. In this case you misunderstand your relationship with these companies. Despite what you think about whatever law or amendment ...
But nonetheless in this case it seems they removed someone who _didn't_ violate TOS, which bodes rather badly for the all of us because it means we are subject to the whims of whoever possesses the banhammer at any given time.
And with that I'm out. I cannot deal with this thread any more.
You do not have a right of free speech on Google's platforms.
But nonetheless in this case it seems they removed someone who _didn't_ violate TOS, which bodes rather badly for the all of us because it means we are subject to the whims of whoever possesses the banhammer at any given time.
And with that I'm out. I cannot deal with this thread any more.
Capitalism is an economic system that works best in a free market without monopolies. I believe the word you're looking for is corporatism, where huge companies have subsumed the role of government (e.g. controlling speech).
The fact that it doesn't work in practice doesn't mean the notion of allowing companies to do whatever they want isn't capitalist.
The things propping up these companies are laws.
The way you break a network effect is adversarial interoperability. You build a new (ideally open) network by bootstrapping from the old one. But companies use the DMCA and CFAA and other laws to stop competitors from doing that, so it doesn't happen.
The way you break a network effect is adversarial interoperability. You build a new (ideally open) network by bootstrapping from the old one. But companies use the DMCA and CFAA and other laws to stop competitors from doing that, so it doesn't happen.
I absolutely disagree. But we had this debate over and over and over again. It would be great if you could stop rehashing is debate once more.
I some twist of irony, this comment is against the HN TOS. So please stop.
I some twist of irony, this comment is against the HN TOS. So please stop.
First, Grammarly has nothing to do with this suspension or any problem with the videos in question.
Second, this is not a flaw or a hack but an unsuccessful attempt to use Grammarly for an UNINTENDED purpose. Grammarly is not meant for anti-plagiarism enforcement. Grammarly aims to help users avoid accidental or unintentional plagiarism by highlighting parts that may need to be cited. So it does not attempt to deal with any plagiarisms enforcement countermeasures - if someone is deliberately masking plagiarism, it's definitely not unintentional or accidental. It's trivial to overcome these particular counter-measures but that's just not what Grammarly is for.
Second, this is not a flaw or a hack but an unsuccessful attempt to use Grammarly for an UNINTENDED purpose. Grammarly is not meant for anti-plagiarism enforcement. Grammarly aims to help users avoid accidental or unintentional plagiarism by highlighting parts that may need to be cited. So it does not attempt to deal with any plagiarisms enforcement countermeasures - if someone is deliberately masking plagiarism, it's definitely not unintentional or accidental. It's trivial to overcome these particular counter-measures but that's just not what Grammarly is for.
Grammarly has a separate plagiarism checker https://www.grammarly.com/plagiarism-checker which was in my report
Oleksandre, you got an official response that this is by design. I explained why. This is a landing page, not a separate product, and the description of the plagiarism feature clearly states it's not for policing:
"...Our free plagiarism check will tell you whether or not your text contains duplicate content. Our Premium plagiarism check highlights passages that require citations and gives you the resources you need to properly credit your sources."
"...Our free plagiarism check will tell you whether or not your text contains duplicate content. Our Premium plagiarism check highlights passages that require citations and gives you the resources you need to properly credit your sources."
We continued our discussion in this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29933516#29947146
[deleted]
Thanks for your support!
For those wanting a more honest alternative to Grammarly, LanguageTool[1] is open source and quite good.
That said, I am not a power user and my English is just passable, so your mileage may vary.
[1] https://languagetool.org
That said, I am not a power user and my English is just passable, so your mileage may vary.
[1] https://languagetool.org
I've been using LanguageTool over Grammarly for the past few years, and love it. Granted, I just use it occasionally, and it's possible that Grammarly is a tad better - but it's more than enough for my needs.
It's not as good as grammarly, but it will definitely help and isn't that hard to run. My tricks to run it on a cheap digital ocean server
0. Use the docker version
1. use maxsize memory flag to keep the memory under control
2. set up a cron job to kill/restart it in the middle of the night, every night.
3. use a reverse proxy to hide the address at least a little bit
0. Use the docker version
1. use maxsize memory flag to keep the memory under control
2. set up a cron job to kill/restart it in the middle of the night, every night.
3. use a reverse proxy to hide the address at least a little bit
Thanks for the pointer! I've been looking for a Grammarly alternative for ages now.
Their product is both ridiculously overpriced for what you get ($30/month, last I looked, for a spelling/grammar checker along the lines of what MS Word provides), a massive privacy/security violation (you have to send everything you type for the service to do its job; no corporate IT with a pulse would be okay with this), and worst of all, it's buggy as hell. Last time I tried it, it refused to work on HN even though this is a bog standard text field, and I spent a ton of time trying to get it to stop correcting things that didn't need corrected.
Their product is both ridiculously overpriced for what you get ($30/month, last I looked, for a spelling/grammar checker along the lines of what MS Word provides), a massive privacy/security violation (you have to send everything you type for the service to do its job; no corporate IT with a pulse would be okay with this), and worst of all, it's buggy as hell. Last time I tried it, it refused to work on HN even though this is a bog standard text field, and I spent a ton of time trying to get it to stop correcting things that didn't need corrected.
Thank you! If this tool works as good as Grammarly, I will cancel Grammarly subscription.
I second this. JetBrains IDEs use LanguageTool under the hood via the Grazie plugin [0]. I haven't used Grammarly ever since Grazie was introduced.
Check Settings → Natural Languages → Grammar → Rules for all available grammar rules.
[0] https://plugins.jetbrains.com/plugin/12175-grazie
Check Settings → Natural Languages → Grammar → Rules for all available grammar rules.
[0] https://plugins.jetbrains.com/plugin/12175-grazie
Thanks. It’s good to see that it’s released under a LGPL license: https://github.com/languagetool-org/languagetool
Another alternative I've been using for some time: https://grammica.com
More honest in what way?
A Grammarly team member but posting own thoughts to clarify some things.
First, Grammarly has nothing to do with this suspension and does not have any problem with the videos in question, just as mentioned in the official HackerOne response.
Second, this is not a hack or even a flaw. It is an attempt to use Grammarly for a NON-INTENDED purpose, that predictably did not work. Grammarly is not meant for anti-plagiarism policy enforcement. Grammarly aims to help users avoid accidental or unintentional plagiarism by highlighting parts that may need to be cited. So it does not attempt to deal with any plagiarism enforcement countermeasures. If someone is deliberately masking plagiarism with these countermeasures, it's definitely NOT unintentional or accidental and a whole different issue altogether, so Grammarly does not get involved with this, by design. Bypassing the tool that is designed to HELP YOU avoid getting in trouble with accidental plagiarism is not a hack but more like "bypassing" your wifi by putting your own router in a microwave - defeating the purpose rather than defeating security. So Grammarly does not care about these videos (although I think presenting this as a hack or a flaw is a little unfair).
Finally, Youtube's automated (I'm guessing) blocking often does strange things. My account was once blocked for supposedly violating Sony's video game copyright. The video in question was me driving a car on a race track, in real life. It got unblocked within a week or two, though.
First, Grammarly has nothing to do with this suspension and does not have any problem with the videos in question, just as mentioned in the official HackerOne response.
Second, this is not a hack or even a flaw. It is an attempt to use Grammarly for a NON-INTENDED purpose, that predictably did not work. Grammarly is not meant for anti-plagiarism policy enforcement. Grammarly aims to help users avoid accidental or unintentional plagiarism by highlighting parts that may need to be cited. So it does not attempt to deal with any plagiarism enforcement countermeasures. If someone is deliberately masking plagiarism with these countermeasures, it's definitely NOT unintentional or accidental and a whole different issue altogether, so Grammarly does not get involved with this, by design. Bypassing the tool that is designed to HELP YOU avoid getting in trouble with accidental plagiarism is not a hack but more like "bypassing" your wifi by putting your own router in a microwave - defeating the purpose rather than defeating security. So Grammarly does not care about these videos (although I think presenting this as a hack or a flaw is a little unfair).
Finally, Youtube's automated (I'm guessing) blocking often does strange things. My account was once blocked for supposedly violating Sony's video game copyright. The video in question was me driving a car on a race track, in real life. It got unblocked within a week or two, though.
The product that he is talking about it specifically their plagiarism checker[1]
Their own documentation says the product is also for teachers to enforce rules.
This poster keeps making the same incorrect claims in multiple places in this thread, even after the original author clarifed it to him.
[1] https://www.grammarly.com/plagiarism-checker
Their own documentation says the product is also for teachers to enforce rules.
This poster keeps making the same incorrect claims in multiple places in this thread, even after the original author clarifed it to him.
[1] https://www.grammarly.com/plagiarism-checker
There is no separate product - it is a feature of the main product. Please point out where documentation says it's for enforcement because that will need to be corrected. It can help teachers educate students about plagiarism but it's not meant for enforcement. It's a student tool.
Here is the text from the linked landing page describing the plagiarism checker feature (emphasis mine):
Our free plagiarism check will tell you whether or not your text contains duplicate content. Our Premium plagiarism check highlights passages that require citations and gives you the resources you need to properly credit your sources.
This makes it quite clear that is an authoring tool, not policing tool. Plagiarism masking is not addressed by design. It's a trivial thing to code if there was a need but the company made a decision to stay out of plagiarism enforcement (at least for now).
Here is the text from the linked landing page describing the plagiarism checker feature (emphasis mine):
Our free plagiarism check will tell you whether or not your text contains duplicate content. Our Premium plagiarism check highlights passages that require citations and gives you the resources you need to properly credit your sources.
This makes it quite clear that is an authoring tool, not policing tool. Plagiarism masking is not addressed by design. It's a trivial thing to code if there was a need but the company made a decision to stay out of plagiarism enforcement (at least for now).
From the page linked
> "Who Benefits from Grammarly’s Plagiarism Checker? Whether you’re a student writing an essay, a teacher grading papers, or a writer working on original content for the web, a plagiarism scan will not only save you time, but also help you avoid writing mistakes." ( emphasis mine)
Grammarly Sales has always sold it to academic institutions and teachers, it is must be news to them it is not meant for policing.
The four customers highlighted (Arizona State University, University of Phoenix, California State University, Ashford University ) on the page are all education institutions who most certainly use it for policing.
Also it is product and not feature because it is sold standalone and does not depend on license to their more well known grammar checking product to work.
> "Who Benefits from Grammarly’s Plagiarism Checker? Whether you’re a student writing an essay, a teacher grading papers, or a writer working on original content for the web, a plagiarism scan will not only save you time, but also help you avoid writing mistakes." ( emphasis mine)
Grammarly Sales has always sold it to academic institutions and teachers, it is must be news to them it is not meant for policing.
The four customers highlighted (Arizona State University, University of Phoenix, California State University, Ashford University ) on the page are all education institutions who most certainly use it for policing.
Also it is product and not feature because it is sold standalone and does not depend on license to their more well known grammar checking product to work.
Universities license Grammarly primarily for their students, but instructors also can use it as an aid to educate students about the importance of citing sources. The plagiarism checker is a feature of the main product and cannot be licensed without the main product. These are verifiable facts.
In any case, Grammarly does not include a number of plagiarism policy enforcement features intentionally and by design, due to its focus on supporting authors rather than policing. Any insinuation of otherwise is false.
Please stop pretending to know more about the plans and intentions of a company than the company itself and posting falsehoods.
In any case, Grammarly does not include a number of plagiarism policy enforcement features intentionally and by design, due to its focus on supporting authors rather than policing. Any insinuation of otherwise is false.
Please stop pretending to know more about the plans and intentions of a company than the company itself and posting falsehoods.
Thanks for your detailed answer. Let me post my thoughts:
1. 3 years ago I conducted research on almost all online tools which check for plagiarism with free access or using a trial account. Tool, located with URL https://www.grammarly.com/plagiarism-checker was one of them because "Grammarly’s plagiarism checker can detect plagiarism from billions of web pages as well as from ProQuest’s academic databases."
2. I repeat research half a year ago and discovered, that at least 3 plagiarism checkers already have fixed the issue I described in my report, but not Grammarly.
3. I posted a case on HackerOne https://hackerone.com/reports/1282282 with the weakness type "Business Logic Errors", and did not mention "security" or "privacy".
4. Please, read again (and also look between the lines) everything that is described in the section "Impact" and my answer about the impact of the reported behavior.
5. You already have a software reviews company in your customers (I didn't know it while published my report). Imagine, that they will decide to automate plagiarism checking for all the reviews, and somebody starts to use the method I described. I will not continue this topic.
6. I posted a case to HackerOne with the intent to warn against this behavior.
7. After your team decided not to track this report as a security or major product issue, I asked permission to publish my report and got it.
8. My videos about it were on youtube for 4 months, but on Jan 5 youtube changed their ToS and on Jan 7 my channel was suspended.
So, I will try to appeal again to @TeamYouTube about my channel using your answer "Grammarly does not have any problem with the videos in question, just as mentioned in the official HackerOne response.", but think it will be a hard process.
1. 3 years ago I conducted research on almost all online tools which check for plagiarism with free access or using a trial account. Tool, located with URL https://www.grammarly.com/plagiarism-checker was one of them because "Grammarly’s plagiarism checker can detect plagiarism from billions of web pages as well as from ProQuest’s academic databases."
2. I repeat research half a year ago and discovered, that at least 3 plagiarism checkers already have fixed the issue I described in my report, but not Grammarly.
3. I posted a case on HackerOne https://hackerone.com/reports/1282282 with the weakness type "Business Logic Errors", and did not mention "security" or "privacy".
4. Please, read again (and also look between the lines) everything that is described in the section "Impact" and my answer about the impact of the reported behavior.
5. You already have a software reviews company in your customers (I didn't know it while published my report). Imagine, that they will decide to automate plagiarism checking for all the reviews, and somebody starts to use the method I described. I will not continue this topic.
6. I posted a case to HackerOne with the intent to warn against this behavior.
7. After your team decided not to track this report as a security or major product issue, I asked permission to publish my report and got it.
8. My videos about it were on youtube for 4 months, but on Jan 5 youtube changed their ToS and on Jan 7 my channel was suspended.
So, I will try to appeal again to @TeamYouTube about my channel using your answer "Grammarly does not have any problem with the videos in question, just as mentioned in the official HackerOne response.", but think it will be a hard process.
Yes, please feel free to mention that to Youtube. If it helps, I can get the company (Grammarly) to officially confirm that the videos are not a problem if Youtube needs a confirmation.
But I am absolutely certain this is by design, and that's why there was no change. It's not a policing tool but an authoring tool. What you described in #5 is not an intended use of the product and is a violation of TOS.
But I am absolutely certain this is by design, and that's why there was no change. It's not a policing tool but an authoring tool. What you described in #5 is not an intended use of the product and is a violation of TOS.
For the whole picture, please show where in the Grammarly's ToS it is forbidden to use Grammarly as a policing tool
And what about checking student papers for plagiarism by teachers as part of the https://www.grammarly.com/edu product? I found an article that clearly describes how to use Gramarly to check student work for plagiarism https://rasmussen.libanswers.com/faculty/faq/270050
It looks like a policing tool, isn't it? Is this a violation of ToS?
It's not forbidden, but it will not work for this purpose as well as a purpose-built enforcement tool. For example, if two students submit the same paper, Grammarly will not flag it, also by design. Faculty still benefits a lot from this because a lot of plagiarism is unintentional or "lazy" - as in students not citing sources, due to ignorance or laziness, rather than students intentionally committing academic dishonesty.
If you don't mind, it would be great if Grammarly's official Twitter account would confirm for @teamyoutube your words in my post, as they stopped noticing my messages to them...
Your explanation of how you position this tool clears up our dispute. My case (in which the possible impact was described) is relevant if your clients use it as a policing tool.
Your explanation of how you position this tool clears up our dispute. My case (in which the possible impact was described) is relevant if your clients use it as a policing tool.
What tweet do you need Grammarly to respond to with the confirmation?
Exactly what you wrote, with some context, something like "We officially confirm that these videos are not a problem for Grammarly, not about hacking and demonstrated behavior not affect the security and privacy of our product", nothing else. Thanks!
I do not think just tweeting at Youtube out of nowhere will work or is even appropriate (it would spam the feeds of a massive number of people). If you have a Twitter conversation with Youtube, I can probably have Grammarly chime in with a confirmation that it's not hacking. So please give me a link to such a conversation.
Oh, sorry, I meant replying to a tweet that linked to the current post on HN https://twitter.com/evilksandr/status/1479507618066571268
But in this thread, when I involved my friend (with whom we made several ЕdТech startups and who was also had a channel suspension issue), I had a conversation with @TeamYouTube https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1479514052984549385
But in this thread, when I involved my friend (with whom we made several ЕdТech startups and who was also had a channel suspension issue), I had a conversation with @TeamYouTube https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1479514052984549385
Still waiting for your help, Max... really hope that this will help to reinstate my channel
Thanks, I saw the confirmation tweet from @Grammarly
Finally, after Grammarly's tweet and second appeal my channel was unsuspended. I think, help from maxltv was a key point in this process, so thanks again!
Once again. It would be great if you confirm from Grammarly's twitter account that my videos are not a problem. If this is the only reason for the suspension of my channel I hope it helps to reinstate the channel.
I agree with you, I don't think the bug report was a security issue or even a bug. It's like telling Google that searching for bananas returns pictures of apples and reporting it as a vulnerability because self-driving cars might use the Google results as training data.
I'm assuming plagiarism checks are do ne serverside - do you save any logs/information about plagiarism check results for a user, possibly under a TTL?
Youtube does not allow "instructional hacking" videos. This is a TOS / community guidelines [0] violation. This ban has nothing to do with their advertiser.
[0] - https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964?hl=en
[0] - https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801964?hl=en
The video was published after Grammarly representatives identified the case as "The described behavior is a functionality limitation that does not affect the security and privacy of our product", disclosed the case and gave me permission to publish my research results. More details here https://hackerone.com/reports/1282282 .
Аlso there in the files you can find the original videos that were published on my channel.
How would google's automated system for detecting hacking instruction videos know that grammarly doesn't consider something hacking and gave you permission to publish? You're posting something that looks like an exploit, and linking to multiple places that strongly resemble instructions for how to exploit a system, one of which is actively advertising "hiring hackers" and absolutely loaded with keywords and phrases that are going to trigger the algorithm.
Ok, I agree with the keywords (not with content, which Grammarly mentioned as "not affect the security and privacy of our product"). But YT algorithm has been thinking about that 4 months after I published these videos and terminated my account (without any strikes) 2 days after YT terms was changed https://www.youtube.com/t/terms
In the community guidelines, they note:
> We may terminate your channel or account for repeated violations of the Community Guidelines or Terms of Service. We may also terminate your channel or account after a single case of severe abuse, or when the channel is dedicated to a policy violation.
And for their purposes your posts include linked content. You have a channel that only posts videos that the algorithm likely flags as hacking instructions, and you've linked to a site that very likely has been flagged by the algorithm multiple times. The recent change in the YT terms of service likely coincides with a minor patch to YT's moderation algorithm which pushed your videos over the detection threshold.
> We may terminate your channel or account for repeated violations of the Community Guidelines or Terms of Service. We may also terminate your channel or account after a single case of severe abuse, or when the channel is dedicated to a policy violation.
And for their purposes your posts include linked content. You have a channel that only posts videos that the algorithm likely flags as hacking instructions, and you've linked to a site that very likely has been flagged by the algorithm multiple times. The recent change in the YT terms of service likely coincides with a minor patch to YT's moderation algorithm which pushed your videos over the detection threshold.
This explanation looks quite convincing.
What was the title and description of the videos on your channel?
Have you lost access to the associated Gmail account too?
Thinking I might have too many eggs in one basket.
Thinking I might have too many eggs in one basket.
Similar.
I have 40-person-viewed yt page with several videos (dashcam footages). One of the videos got blocked (someone reported it) and I had to appeal. Things went well as I specified no bad language, blood, anything even remotely 'bad', but I do wonder if things could have been worse.
A few days ago there was an hn comment thread referring Gmail backups. I tried one of the processes, failed (it went very tech for me), but I did set up some rules to send messages from certain people to another account....just in case I need them.
Yesterday, I actually did need one of them - a message from over 10yrs ago - the presentation of which saved me several 'conversations', at work.
I'm now considering removing all the videos uploaded, some of them more than 10 years old. Not worth the risk of an account ban.
Really good idea for primary account which related with gmail.
For anyone interested here is a test you can do on https://www.grammarly.com/plagiarism-checker
Will be detected as plagiarism
> But with ahab the question assumed a modified aspect. considering that with two legs man is but a hobbling wight in all times of danger; considering that the pursuit of whales is always under great and extraordinary difficulties; that every individual moment, indeed, then comprises a peril; under these circumstances is it wise for any maimed man to enter a whale-boat in the hunt? As a general thing, the joint-owners of the Pequod must have plainly thought not.
Won't be detected as plagiarism
> But with аhаb thе quеstiоn аssumеd а mоdifiеd аspесt. соnsidеring thаt with twо lеgs mаn is but а hоbbling wight in аll timеs оf dаngеr; соnsidеring thаt thе pursuit оf whаlеs is аlwаys undеr grеаt аnd еxtrаоrdinаry diffiсultiеs; thаt еvеry individuаl mоmеnt, indееd, thеn соmprisеs а pеril; undеr thеsе сirсumstаnсеs is it wisе fоr аny mаimеd mаn tо еntеr а whаlе-bоаt in thе hunt? аs а gеnеrаl thing, thе jоint-оwnеrs оf thе Pеquоd must hаvе plаinly thоught nоt.
Will be detected as plagiarism
> But with ahab the question assumed a modified aspect. considering that with two legs man is but a hobbling wight in all times of danger; considering that the pursuit of whales is always under great and extraordinary difficulties; that every individual moment, indeed, then comprises a peril; under these circumstances is it wise for any maimed man to enter a whale-boat in the hunt? As a general thing, the joint-owners of the Pequod must have plainly thought not.
Won't be detected as plagiarism
> But with аhаb thе quеstiоn аssumеd а mоdifiеd аspесt. соnsidеring thаt with twо lеgs mаn is but а hоbbling wight in аll timеs оf dаngеr; соnsidеring thаt thе pursuit оf whаlеs is аlwаys undеr grеаt аnd еxtrаоrdinаry diffiсultiеs; thаt еvеry individuаl mоmеnt, indееd, thеn соmprisеs а pеril; undеr thеsе сirсumstаnсеs is it wisе fоr аny mаimеd mаn tо еntеr а whаlе-bоаt in thе hunt? аs а gеnеrаl thing, thе jоint-оwnеrs оf thе Pеquоd must hаvе plаinly thоught nоt.
"The described behavior is a functionality limitation that does not affect the security and privacy of our product" they said.
It's a nice find, but I still fail to see how it is a vulnerability or a security issue.
I posted a case to HackerOne with the intent to warn against this behavior and with the weakness type "Business Logic Errors". Please, read in my report section "Impact" and my answer about the potentional impact of the reported behavior.
But, as maxltv clarified, it's not a policing tool but an authoring tool and described use of the product violate their TOS. My case is relevant if clients use it as a policing tool.
But, as maxltv clarified, it's not a policing tool but an authoring tool and described use of the product violate their TOS. My case is relevant if clients use it as a policing tool.
We continued our discussion in this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29933516#29947146
I wonder how much money Grammarly have spent with youtube.
I read somewhere they are among their top 10 advertisers. So this is not a good look for YouTube.
Hope someone from Google chimes in because this is a PR disaster in the making
Hope someone from Google chimes in because this is a PR disaster in the making
What do you mean a PR disaster, something people get upset about on Twitter for 3 days and then forget?
Unless Google deletes the articles about the incident from its index (and hey, it's possible), then the internet doesn't forget. Instead it just slowly builds personal and political opposition against them.
Or are you saying we just should be quite and let them do what they want?
Or are you saying we just should be quite and let them do what they want?
How many "PR disasters" have Google had? If you google "google scandal", how many pop up? Have people stopped using Google because of those scandals? What makes this particular scandal stand up amongst those?
I don't think that I have ever seen a single ad for Grammarly on Youtube. Well, Google proably knows that I don't live in an English speaking country.
I do see Grammarly ads if I search things like "practice or practise" because I write English every work day.
Well, I use Firefox account containers and auto cookie delete everywhere. So Youtube knows little about me writing English.
Many people outside the English-speaking world will never see those adds. Your search bubble is not others.
Despite that, even in the search bubbles containing Grammarly I doubt closing an account with 3 videos will do any significant PR damage to anyone.
So what where the videos about? Grammarly storing everything the user writes??? Selling it to others???
I do see Grammarly ads if I search things like "practice or practise" because I write English every work day.
Well, I use Firefox account containers and auto cookie delete everywhere. So Youtube knows little about me writing English.
Many people outside the English-speaking world will never see those adds. Your search bubble is not others.
Despite that, even in the search bubbles containing Grammarly I doubt closing an account with 3 videos will do any significant PR damage to anyone.
So what where the videos about? Grammarly storing everything the user writes??? Selling it to others???
"Many people outside the English-speaking world will never see those adds. Your search bubble is not others."
I am a Czech and I see them all the damn time. Maybe because I consume a lot of English content.
I am a Czech and I see them all the damn time. Maybe because I consume a lot of English content.
I generally don't use Youtube a lot and because I never log in they have no profile for me. So they show me random household ads based on location. Very poorly targeted, 90% completely uninteresting stuff. They even don't know my mother tongue :)
> because I never log in they have no profile for me
Oh I wish this was true
Oh I wish this was true
What I find funny is that YouTube knows who I am and where I live (English-speaking Canada), but every now and then I go through a short time period (a few days) where most of the ads are in French (for Canada).
I think the importance of this is being grossly overstated.
That would be irrelevant in this case. Grammarly has no issues with the videos, as the company stated in the official responses on HackerOne.
Grammarly's plagiarism self-check is to help its users avoid accidental or unintentional plagiarism by highlighting text that may need citations. If a user is using countermeasures to mask plagiarism, it's not accidental or unintentional, so Grammarly stays out of it. Grammarly is NOT a plagiarism policy enforcement tool.
Grammarly's plagiarism self-check is to help its users avoid accidental or unintentional plagiarism by highlighting text that may need citations. If a user is using countermeasures to mask plagiarism, it's not accidental or unintentional, so Grammarly stays out of it. Grammarly is NOT a plagiarism policy enforcement tool.
We continued our discussion in this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29933516#29947146
Them and that...insurance company. They absolutely bombaaaarded me with ads and I literally never thought of them when I went shopping for car insurance a year back. Money well spent, you annoying turds!
Geniune question. Why don't you use Ad-blocker ? my life on the internet turned around when I started using it around 5-6 years ago.
I do, but YouTube constantly finds a way around it. I've been running Adblock Plus and Ghostery Lite, but YouTube ads have poked their way through again.
I use UBlock Origin and I have NEVER watched an advert ever as far as I can remember.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa...
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-origin/cjpa...
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin...
I don't use Chrome anymore, just Safari. I agree that uBlock Origin is best!
And I wonder that Grammarly didn't pay me even a penny for this issue I published in their Bug Bounty channel on the HackerOne.
I also wonder how many users they have.
I also wonder how many paid users they have.
Seems like the starting price is USD $12/mo, which IIRC, costs more than my Office 365 Personal subscription.
Seems like the starting price is USD $12/mo, which IIRC, costs more than my Office 365 Personal subscription.
In what sense? Ridiculously few or overwhelmingly many?
Honest question of someone using mostly local free software (as not in the cloud, as in free speech, not beer) and not living in an English-speaking country.
Honest question of someone using mostly local free software (as not in the cloud, as in free speech, not beer) and not living in an English-speaking country.
What do you mean? How can a number be ridiculous/overwhelming when you don't know it yet?
I believe most of their users are academicians - students writing their thesis. And I don't think a lot of them pay for its license themselves. It's their institute which purchases the license.
Why does everyone think youtube owes them something? Yall gotta stop using that service.
Is your backup or contingency using something like PeerTube?
Publish those videos on odysee.com then.
I got an error message page from Twtter trying to follow the link; https://birdsite.xanny.family/evilksandr/status/147950761806... works.
This seems to be standard practice, for years?
YouTube's ban on “hacking techniques” threatens to shut down infosec YouTube
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20350306 (Jul 2019)
YouTube is taking down educational hacking videos
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21251609 (Oct 2019)
YouTube's ban on “hacking techniques” threatens to shut down infosec YouTube
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20350306 (Jul 2019)
YouTube is taking down educational hacking videos
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21251609 (Oct 2019)
Meanwhile, the video where Trevor Jacob appears to intentionally crash his plane is still up on Youtube, albeit demonetized
So I got really scared and deleted all my YouTube videos from the green revolution in Teheran. I reposted them there from inside contacts who had no YouTube access. But now it looks like Google is even more dangerous than the Persian secret services.
They constantly update their ToS, but in order to protect themselves from lawsuits
I swear to goodness sometimes it seems like the search for the decentralized Internet / Web 3.0 tech is being powered primarily by outrage from google and PayPal’s behavior specifically. They are the negative PR royal couple for centralized control gone wrong on the Internet.
I think Grammarly is a CIA front, or a front for some foreign intelligence.
Founded by three Ukrainians -- none of whom speak English as a first language -- that can read and analyze any text you write and is chock full of security vulnerabilities. Color me skeptical.
Founded by three Ukrainians -- none of whom speak English as a first language -- that can read and analyze any text you write and is chock full of security vulnerabilities. Color me skeptical.
Youtube is not a place to "rock the boat" or question popular orthodoxy.
I did not even expect that my post here will raise such a storm and collect so many comments and reactions. Thank you all for your support, I hope it helps to reinstate my channel.
Days since last Kafkaesque account ban by Google/Apple/Amazon/Paypal: 0
When are we going to start regulating them?
When are we going to start regulating them?
Post on other platform. You’ll get more votes purely from the fact that you were censored by Google.
I wonder if we'll see a backlash against "plagiarism" being considered cheating? Parallel in some ways to using a calculator.
It's called surveillance capitalism for a reason. Remember it's also totalitarianism, you don't have free speech when using free services. (libre vs. free)
Edit: Of course lack of free speech is what Trumpists complain about, too. I say the same although I would use free speech for very different content.
Edit: Of course lack of free speech is what Trumpists complain about, too. I say the same although I would use free speech for very different content.
And yet YouTube has no problem monetizing channels that call the Holocaust a hoax.
Can you name one?
Welcome to YouTube support. Please submit your issue and wait for the community to upvote it enough until a real person at a large corporation actually reads it and clicks a button.
Thanks for using YouTube support.
Thanks for using YouTube support.
it seems to be true (
[deleted]