"
Hello! This was a false positive in our systems at
@ChainPatrol
. We are retracting the takedown request, and will conduct a full post-mortem to ensure this does not happen again.
We have been combatting a huge volume of fake YouTube videos that are attempting to steal user funds. Unfortunately, in our mission to protect users from scams, false positives (very) occasionally slip through.
We are actively working to reduce how often this happens, because it's never our intent to flag legitimate videos. We're very sorry about this! Will keep you posted on the takedown retraction.
"
This seems like a huge abuse of the copyright system to me. It sounds to me like ChainPatrol doesn't actually have any IP to protect, but they are instead deputizing YouTube's copyright system to fight what they deem to be crypto scams. Absolutely wild if true.
There are lots of “companies” like this. Don’t think about buying this apologetic do-gooder tone, it’s an id claim troll trying to cover his ass after touching something they can get face punched for by the whole internet. Which the internet should do anyway. Imagine what it did and continues to do to channels no one cares about that much. These parasites don’t deserve to exist, regardless of the official stance.
You can definitely use your IP to take down scams.
If someone is using your name or your company's name to scam people, it is in your interest to save your name and provide people assurance that they can do business with your name.
> We have been combatting a huge volume of fake YouTube videos that are attempting to steal user funds. Unfortunately, in our mission to protect users from scams, false positives (very) occasionally slip through.
So did ChainPatrol have the video taken down for copyright infringement or for "attempting to steal user funds"? Did ChainPatrol have to file an actual DMCA takedown notice to take down 3Blue1Brown's video? If so, would this not be perjury?
DMCA’s perjury provision is completely toothless; it might as well not be there. It doesn’t even require you affirm a copyright violation, just that you act on behalf of the rightsholder.
This is a perfect example of how ineffective it is.
IIRC the only perjury penalty to DMCA filers is if they are acting on behalf of some copyright they know they don't own or aren't authorized to protect.
Haha, they see themselves as ‘good cops,’ deciding what content is acceptable and what isn’t. It’s not even about copyright—it’s about what they think is good for users and what isn’t.
And in the process of playing ‘police’ they end up taking down one of the best videos explaining how Bitcoin works.
They probably should've consulted with a lawyer before making that statement. It sounds like a footgun that would help any prospective litigant build a case against you.
This is par for the course in crypto communities. There are multiple competing Bitcoin subreddits, mainly because each one decides which info to censor because they don't like a particular coin/fork/tech.
There aren't that many channels with over 5M subscribers. 3Blue1Brown is 706th in the world. It's insane to me that YouTube still doesn't have a manual sanity check for claims against their top ~1000 channels or so. That couldn't possibly cost much, and it would fix a PR problem that hits so often you can use it as a calendar.
The reason they don't is because they've made their own version of the DMCA takedown system but my understanding is that that system/law gives the strongest liability safe harbor if the platform just takes things down in response to takedown requests without taking any steps to validate them. The weaselly lawyer approved version is to just let the claimant and the poster duke it out with counter responses etc and just be passive.
So the big-name channel gets a personal response. What about the many non-famous channels that ChainPatrol must have made false claims against? How many strikes or false claims does ChainPatrol get before they are permanently booted off YouTube and all their revenue streams get taken from them?
I think https://chainpatrol.io/ is fake. Look at things like the "legal terms." To make a DCMA (US Law) counterclaim, they want "a statement that you consent to the jurisdiction of the Province of Ontario." [0]
If you are unsatisfied with our services, please email us at [EMAIL ADDRESS] and we will address your concerns in a prompt and timely manner. [0]
This seems to be a new shakedown racket of a business. "Subscribe for our services, or be victim to our shoddy automated takedown notices". Not too dissimilar to online ID protection services, that simultaneously sell your information
That doesn't make much sense, at least in this particular case. ChainPartrol's website describes themselves as "Real-time Brand Protection for Leading Web3 Companies", so it's unlikely that youtube creators would subscribe to such a service. Maybe if they were issuing takedown request for other "Web3 Companies" this allegation would have some merit, but that's not what happened here.
It's common for one set of scammers to target another, to take their competitors out. So it's quite possible for them to be abusing the copyright system to take-out scamming competitors.
You need to name and shame… and also have enough influence to have your post rise against the sea of garbage out there.
Most people’s post wouldn’t get looked at at all, 3blue1brown is fortunate to have such a large audience so that his complaint gets looked at by a human.
Unless they're compensating the entirety of the Youtuber's lost revenue, this is worth as much as a granny tech support scammer claiming they were really planning to help out granny fix her computer.
This company is basically an extreme nobody and has like 1-3 likes on their posts. It is absurd how imbalanced the power is with regard to automation and copyright strikes.
There's nothing absurd about it, our society is not built about making people with a lot of likes comfortable, it's built around making people who own stuff comfortable.
A common thing scammers do is copy material from other sites that the scammer's victims are familiar with and trust. The scammers put that material in their own sites to try to trick the victims into thinking that are on the site they trust.
Good morning, isn’t it? This goes for years, happens to every youtuber from time to time. And if they are tiny and have no creators community, they often just swallow the “demonetization” fact.
The system intentionally does not require scrutiny.
Youtube implemented this system as part of a lawsuit with Viacom who was going to take them to the cleaners. Putting all the power in the hands of the people making the claim was intentional.
If someone's video gets taken down incorrectly and then later put back up, Google does not care, someone else's video got the ad slots anyway. There's more content on Youtube uploaded every second than can be watched.
From their home page, it looks like their stated goal is to remove brand impersonation materials. Lookalike websites, social media compromises, malicious links, etc. They allege to work with registrars, contribute to blocklists and take down scam content. True brand impersonation of this ilk almost always includes copyright infringement.
Sure it's possible that the company is a truly malicious actor that has a fake website and does not actually submit any valid claims, while working alongside the top brands in the industry to tear down that same industry. Personally though, I think it's more likely the company is a startup rushing to grab profits, has bad algorithms that come up with a lot of false positives, and is generally a bull in a china shop. Not that that's excusable, but being sloppy and taking shortcuts that hurt people is a bit different from being a "copyright hit company" where hurting people is the company's entire raison d'etre. The former calls for better regulation; the latter calls for being stamped out.
I don't know if you've tried to consume any crypto-related content on YouTube recently, but YouTube has a major problem with fake "live streams" from "Elon Musk" and other prominent crypto figures who promise they'll "double your crypto for a limited time" if you just send it to them within the next ten minutes. Someone's gotta fight that, on behalf of both the scam victims and the impersonated brands, because YouTube themselves don't give a shit.
If you and your company are responsible for attempting to take legitimate things down either purposely or though incompetence, you should at least be publicly identifiable and accountable.
I think a good baseline might be that you need to deposit say $1M and then when oops, you accidentally made a bogus claim it's OK that $1M is split between the victim of your oopsy and Youtube for their trouble - you just pay $1M to get back into the game. Outfits like this could explain to their investors that while their technology does sometimes have little goofs that cost a few billion dollars per year, once they invent perfect AI they can scale infinitely and make that back easily, so if you invest $10Bn of your fiat currency today, in 18 months they can 100% guarantee nothing in particular, wow.
This works for actual creators, who are occasionally slightly inconvenienced but handsomely rewarded when that occurs, for Youtube, who get paid each time these "rare" mistakes happen, and for the companies "innovating" by making up nonsense and taking people's money. Just as well the "investment" goes to a Youtuber as to some random office park or an ad firm.
I don't think so, since YouTube is operating their extrajudicial "go the extra mile for copyright holders" copyright claim system. It isn't required by law and this is what's being abused, not plain DMCA claims. For regular claimants, the regular (and free) DMCA system would still be in effect.
The bonus is that filing fraudulent DMCA claims has real legal repercussions under the law. I don't know if there's any real consequence for lying about copyright ownership to Google under their made-up claim system.
Nah, I'd expect under this model insurance would become readily available. Insurers live on the margins, so even though it would cost a lot of money if you crash that boring mid-range car into somebody's house, the insurer doesn't charge you a lot of money to insure you against that risk, they're betting that on average you're not going to do that. As a safeguard they probably don't insure kids who just got bought a Ferrari as their first car, or anybody who has just done time for crashing their car into a house on purpose, but mostly they're just playing the numbers.
That's already the status quo, random nobodies with their art ripped off by OpenAI or some content mill on YouTube don't have the benefit of hiring companies to perform takedowns.
Wouldn't this mean that the only people able to make claims in the first place are people with $1M to spare? It might deter aggressive claims, but also prevent individuals from making claims on violations of their copyrights.
Wouldn't this keep anyone without a spare million from making copyright claims, and incentivise YouTube to encourage these "mistakes" since they get paid for them?
Just a friendly heads up. Anyone who wants to avoid Twitter, since it has become so toxic, can use the domain xcancel.com in place of twitter.com or x.com. like so:
Hello! This was a false positive in our systems at
@ChainPatrol
. We are retracting the takedown request, and will conduct a full post-mortem to ensure this does not happen again.
We have been combatting a huge volume of fake YouTube videos that are attempting to steal user funds. Unfortunately, in our mission to protect users from scams, false positives (very) occasionally slip through.
We are actively working to reduce how often this happens, because it's never our intent to flag legitimate videos. We're very sorry about this! Will keep you posted on the takedown retraction.
The original Twitter link doesn't show any replies either. Maybe it does if you're signed in, but I no longer have a Twitter account (and nor do most people).
Not a great idea to post nitter links any more in public forums. The (very few) instances that are left are using small pools of private accounts, and get saturated to uselessness quickly. And especially to big forums like this, that have been known to take down fairly robust sites.
Don't kill what's left of nitter in order to make a pointless statement about twitter being "toxic."
...but he only posted this to Twitter. Not his own blog, nor bsky, not to his Patreon, or to Reddit - only Twitter. Nitter is always just going to be an echo of Twitter. Discord and Reddit and HN and a personal blog serve different purposes. Bsky and Mastodon and the rest (including Threads) are doomed to never become the next Twitter unless we can get people to start changing their habits.
I think just not engaging with content on Twitter is far more likely to produce that outcome than consuming the content on Nitter.
> Nitter is always just going to be an echo of Twitter.
Nitter is not going to be an echo of twitter, it was a proxy for twitter, and it's already dead.
> Bsky and Mastodon and the rest (including Threads) are doomed to never become the next Twitter unless we can get people to start changing their habits.
Why should anyone be concerned about that? None of the above have shown themselves to be any better stewards of anything than twitter has. They're all objectively mediocre options, (including twitter) and personally identifying with any of them is silly.
Unfortunately some companies and content creators still post there. It's a good way to find what the subject is about to identify external sources. So you can participate in less toxic discussions like on HN.
I don't think using the service alternately is a good idea. Just don't use it. Twitter has always been known for being toxic. Now the baby troll leads it .. I could never sell my soul like that.
Just don't use any social media. You'll be more healthy and secure.
It's deeply haunting to think about how badly AI is going to mess up the world over the next few years. Today, it's YouTube videos. Later, it will be a rejection of the insurance claim for a kid's life-saving surgery.
If you're in a position of influence in an organization that's losing its marbles over AI, please, at the very least encourage others to pump the brakes and think.
If there was ever a time to speak up when you know implementing something will lead to a likely disaster, it's now.
UnitedHealthcare is already using AI to deny claims, and reportedly I've heard that 90% of the AI denials that are appealed end up approved when it gets to a human.
If only this had to do with AI. This has been going on for many years, long before LLMs. These are simple scammers. Many a good article has been written about the way these scams work. With or without AI, their claims are entirely bogus, they have never needed AI to pretend to have a claim, and nothing has changed in that regard.
One of the reasons that copyright processes are so biased towards traditional rightsholders and against individual creators is that the latter group is simultaneously captive to the platform and unorganized/decentralized; YouTube needs licenses and goodwill from, say, Universal, far more than it needs 3blue1brown individually.
And the incentives for rectifying this are skewed: video platforms simply need to address individual cases with influential creators just reactively enough so that collective action isn't incentivized; that's far cheaper, and far easier to not need to coordinate with traditional rightsholders, than addressing the problem systematically.
If we believe that the vision of being an independent content creator is important to humanity - and I think it's becoming vital as "a way to distinguish myself" that folks are able to dream about from an early age - then we need to seriously work to protect it. Not everybody will get their "big break" but we can at the very least start having conversations about protecting creators from an AI-driven DMCA bot arbitrarily destroying their career through automated channel-disabling rules.
The state of content producers (including app developers) on the internet today is the same as that of factory workers in the industrial revolution. Everyone's work is immediately replaceable with that of someone else, who is more than willing to step in to take the spot. Workers solved that with unions that can coordinate the workers' actions.
In concrete terms, a content-creators union might act as a middleman who is able to make all the contents from all its members simultaneously and immediately unavailable on the targeted platforms until some agreement is met or either side gives up.
While the presence of an algorithm that "auto-scabs" makes a full-fledged strike fundamentally difficult, a threat of a coordinated campaign where large creators encourage users to install ad blockers and go off-site for donations, rather than buying superchats/subscriptions on platform, might be meaningful enough to compel achievable asks like copyright strike reform.
The explicit goal of copyright is to promote art work. Copyright intends to accomplish this by promising each artist a profitable monopoly over the result of their work. The thinking is that even though an artist isn't paid directly for their labor, they can compel society to pretend their art is a singular object and sell it over and over again as a good. This is why pretentious gallery people refer to paintings and sculptures as individual "works", as if labor itself can be counted with integers. It isn't the instance of art (the copy) they are referring to as "a work": it is the abstract unit of labor and the copyright monopoly (the exclusive right to make another copy) that defines its domain.
Because copyright redefines art as a good, each artist must invest their labor to create "a work". Only then can they leverage copyright to (hopefully) profit from their investment. This is already counterproductive, because the only prospective artists who are free to work are those who can afford the upfront investment of their own labor. Profit from this investment is nowhere near guaranteed, particularly today when the overwhelming majority of publishing goes through a tiny number of corporations.
The most significant problem, though, is the monopoly itself. For copyright to function, an artist must be able to monopolize their "work": not the original copy they made, but the labor itself. In order to do so, the copyright holder must be able to prevent any work that intersects with their own. What this means is that copyright is made of incompatibility. Anyone who wants to collaborate with a work must have explicit permission; otherwise their own labor is illegal by virtue of the presence of someone else's existing work. Copyright demands that the labor of one individual be incompatible with the other.
This incompatibility is what copyright is truly used for. We use copyright to destroy fraudulent copy. We use copyright to fill moats of incompatibility; and drown competition from those who seek to collaborate competitively.
Copyright has been a bad idea from its very inception, but in today's world - where copy itself is practically free, and collaboration requires nearly zero coordination - copyright has become the foundation of the most significant and damaging parts of our society. It's time to start over.
The clear-headed perspective would be to assume that a YouTube channel could disappear at any minute and there is little recourse unless an attorney is hired. It's their ball and their game. What rule that does not exist today could exist tomorrow.
I wish Youtube etc would blacklist requests by these companies, but am not optimistic. Curation seems like the path here, but it seems difficult. (See also the recent Kagi thread here, highlighting how being able to curate which sites appear on your search results is a big deal)
I agree, but the economics currently don't favor YouTube caring enough to solve this sort of problem
In fact, everything aligns to incentivize them not to care: making the barrier to make a successful claim higher and the larger rights-holders start to cause problems; the cost of seriously adjudicating claims is substantial and may well be unsustainable.
The consequences of bad policy are also quite low for them: most channels that will get hit unjustly have too small an audience to be heard; fixing problems for the larger creators is one-off enough that it's simply cost efficient to squash those when they happen; any bad publicity doesn't seem to be sufficient enough to cause a siginficant drop in either viewers or content creators willing to stick with the platform.... in fact I expect most content creators so unjustly hit this way would simply swallow the indignity and loss and continue p YouTube.
I don't know the laws or agreements at play here, but it seems like some sort of class action suit, if feasible, would be the only way to scale these complaints into something that YouTube management might take seriously.
YouTube doesn't have to adjudicate anything. They just have to demote the known bad actors to using the real DMCA process rather than their own system. They can still make a claim under penalty of perjury with a takedown but that won't count as a strike.
I would think Youtube would care enough about content creators with large number of subscribers (3blue1brown has 6.8M) to have a human review takedown notices against those channels.
The problem is not YouTube, but the law. The DMCA requires that online service providers (YouTube, Reddit, etc.) comply immediately with any takedown request and without question, so long as it meets sufficient conditions.
YouTube's copyright system has little to do with DMCA. Music right holders managed forced YouTube to implement a copyright claim system that explicitly didn't involve DMCA takedown requests. As a result any protection that DMCA provides to recipients of takedown requests don't apply to YouTube copyright claims.
In effect, the YouTube copyright system is a purely "voluntary" system for taking down copyright content, that goes way beyond the DMCA. It's basically designed to ensure theres no possible repercussions for issuers of copyright claims, even claims clearly made in bad faith.
The system is broken; if youtube (etc) do not respond to DMCA takedown requests on time, their service may be taken down - and back when YT was new and people were uploading movies and whatnot left right and center, they were very close to that. The consequences for YT for not taking something down vs invalid takedowns are much worse and more direct.
I wouldn't have issue if this were simply running the DMCA process. But the YouTube process goes well beyond that. DMCA also allows for the content creator to issue a counter-notice and, as I understand it, that starts a clock and the party filling the takedown has 14 days to file a suit or the original takedown is reversed.
Naturally, that's not the process YouTube follows including, again as I understand it, the assignment of revenues, etc. with only their internal dispute process mattering.
Contrary to this, I'd like to see 3blue1brown actually get two more strikes and get deleted per YouTube "3 strikes" policy.
Imagine the furor and outrage of that. One of the most popular, meaningful, and impactful channels done in by YouTube's (and the DMCA's) ridiculous policy [1].
The public outcry from this might motivate real policy changes both within Google and other FANNG companies as well as with lawmakers.
Until a big channel gets stricken, this will continue to plague smaller creators with no recourse. We need a symbolic gesture of this magnitude to effectuate real change.
[1] And it's not like YouTube would actually delete their data or we wouldn't have a way to restore it. This is such an important channel that there's no way it wouldn't be restored by Google or archivists.
I love 3blue1brown and have followed the channel for years. One of my absolute favorite content creators.
But I think you're vastly overestimate how popular he is compared to other channels that have gotten copyright strikes, or how much YouTube/Google care.
I also don't love YouTube's policy, but are you so confident there's a better policy out there?
> Contrary to this, I'd like to see 3blue1brown actually get two more strikes and get deleted per YouTube "3 strikes" policy.
> Imagine the furor and outrage of that.
Nothing will happen. Nobody cares about relatively small groups of geeks. People will write angry posts at Youtube, but there's nothing anybody can do.
For example, RZX Archive channel (that hosted replays of ZX Spectrum games) was taken down by fake copyright strikes. Its author died several years ago, so nobody could fix that.
I agree with the gp. If we want a change we shouldn’t play by the rules. Also flagging our comments doesn’t do anything cause we don’t earn money here, and that is our leverage - you can’t do anything with us.
We should create a community-driven abusive botnet that slaps projects like this back, and slaps hard. Because there’s no laws here. No one cares. No order, everything by the word of someone large enough. People should not be afraid of taking law in their hands when there is no law for all practical purposes. And using methods that are available and effective.
I do not claim this is a general, or perfect solution. I don't think there is one. I'm doing what I can, which is a good enough move, given the details of the situation.
You have to think of YouTube and other platforms as a mechanism for distribution, not a source of truth.
If you're a creator it's essential to have your own place on the web were you can host and publish anything without fear that it will be taken down for any reason — even accidentally.
As it becomes cheap to automate both creating takedown requests and processing requests, the volume of spam requests is going to skyrocket and it seems likely there will be more false positives.
I agree in principle with diversifying your online presence, but as a practical solution it doesn’t solve the problem. It would be like if someone came to you about a termite problem in their house and you told them the solution was to have multiple houses. At best that is a defense mechanism not a solution.
Your analogy doesn't match my statement. I am saying there should be a canonical location for what you create that is on a URL that you own. Everything else is distribution.
You built a house on someone else's land, and then they tore it down. Build a house on your own land, as small as that land may be. From there you can create roads, bridges, tunnels to other people's land. On the web land is infinite. You can make your own land.
If a content creator hosts their own videos and then Youtube nukes their channel, they're still going to be hurt by it since Youtube is often the bulk of their audience. The other sharing platforms (even if they aren't video focused) are also going to be able to nuke your distribution channel, so the creator is no better that way. Maybe an email list? Heh.
I don't know the last time I actually went to someone's website for video content. Maybe a business, for instructional videos? But those are either inset Youtube videos or are actually annoying to watch.
If the advice is for people to not depend on revenue from their content creation, that might be a fair point. But I feel like the effort of saying that might be better aimed at telling the hosting platforms to not be asses.
(Then again, I don't believe that large social media platforms can be effectively moderated -- so I'm not much help here either. I have no clue how the content creation industry would fit into that world.)
This is not just an information preservation problem. It's a problem with the creators who depend on YouTube ad revenue to fund to create content like this suddenly and unpredictably losing that revenue stream.
It only makes it slightly more difficult. People will just ask cloudflare (et al.) to take it down, and they will obey. Keeping anything online in the face of opposition is very very difficult.
This is the way. Channels are channels, you must have a robust web of mechanisms to reach out to your network to maintain it, with no single points of failure.
And if you're a reader/listener/viewer you need to have somewhere to save things you enjoy or find useful. Make a habit of saving everything you want to keep to hardware you own.
Readit News
" Hello! This was a false positive in our systems at @ChainPatrol . We are retracting the takedown request, and will conduct a full post-mortem to ensure this does not happen again.
We have been combatting a huge volume of fake YouTube videos that are attempting to steal user funds. Unfortunately, in our mission to protect users from scams, false positives (very) occasionally slip through.
We are actively working to reduce how often this happens, because it's never our intent to flag legitimate videos. We're very sorry about this! Will keep you posted on the takedown retraction. "
Dead Comment
If someone is using your name or your company's name to scam people, it is in your interest to save your name and provide people assurance that they can do business with your name.
So did ChainPatrol have the video taken down for copyright infringement or for "attempting to steal user funds"? Did ChainPatrol have to file an actual DMCA takedown notice to take down 3Blue1Brown's video? If so, would this not be perjury?
This is a perfect example of how ineffective it is.
Probably not. Youtube has their own system which is not DMCA claim based.
IIRC the only perjury penalty to DMCA filers is if they are acting on behalf of some copyright they know they don't own or aren't authorized to protect.
And in the process of playing ‘police’ they end up taking down one of the best videos explaining how Bitcoin works.
If you are unsatisfied with our services, please email us at [EMAIL ADDRESS] and we will address your concerns in a prompt and timely manner. [0]
0. https://chainpatrol.io/legal/terms
See also "Fake AI law firms are sending fake DMCA threats to generate fake SEO gains"
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/04/fake-ai-law-firms-ar...
(I first thought that you redacted in your post)
But according to many replies to that tweet, they were actually working on behalf of actual copyright infringers.
Not sure what to believe.
Most people’s post wouldn’t get looked at at all, 3blue1brown is fortunate to have such a large audience so that his complaint gets looked at by a human.
This will continue happening to smaller channels and creators, and they will continue to have their content stolen.
Pure evil.
Youtube implemented this system as part of a lawsuit with Viacom who was going to take them to the cleaners. Putting all the power in the hands of the people making the claim was intentional.
If someone's video gets taken down incorrectly and then later put back up, Google does not care, someone else's video got the ad slots anyway. There's more content on Youtube uploaded every second than can be watched.
Sure it's possible that the company is a truly malicious actor that has a fake website and does not actually submit any valid claims, while working alongside the top brands in the industry to tear down that same industry. Personally though, I think it's more likely the company is a startup rushing to grab profits, has bad algorithms that come up with a lot of false positives, and is generally a bull in a china shop. Not that that's excusable, but being sloppy and taking shortcuts that hurt people is a bit different from being a "copyright hit company" where hurting people is the company's entire raison d'etre. The former calls for better regulation; the latter calls for being stamped out.
I don't know if you've tried to consume any crypto-related content on YouTube recently, but YouTube has a major problem with fake "live streams" from "Elon Musk" and other prominent crypto figures who promise they'll "double your crypto for a limited time" if you just send it to them within the next ten minutes. Someone's gotta fight that, on behalf of both the scam victims and the impersonated brands, because YouTube themselves don't give a shit.
Dead Comment
This works for actual creators, who are occasionally slightly inconvenienced but handsomely rewarded when that occurs, for Youtube, who get paid each time these "rare" mistakes happen, and for the companies "innovating" by making up nonsense and taking people's money. Just as well the "investment" goes to a Youtuber as to some random office park or an ad firm.
This is a license to rip off the copyrights of anyone without a million dollars in cash.
The bonus is that filing fraudulent DMCA claims has real legal repercussions under the law. I don't know if there's any real consequence for lying about copyright ownership to Google under their made-up claim system.
I like that system.
It would be accessible to the common person, but for a mega company making bulk fraudulent claims, it becomes expensive.
https://xcancel.com/3blue1brown/status/1876291319955398799
This links to independent Nitter to provide a full thread.
Hello! This was a false positive in our systems at @ChainPatrol . We are retracting the takedown request, and will conduct a full post-mortem to ensure this does not happen again.
We have been combatting a huge volume of fake YouTube videos that are attempting to steal user funds. Unfortunately, in our mission to protect users from scams, false positives (very) occasionally slip through.
We are actively working to reduce how often this happens, because it's never our intent to flag legitimate videos. We're very sorry about this! Will keep you posted on the takedown retraction.
Don't kill what's left of nitter in order to make a pointless statement about twitter being "toxic."
(Disclosure: I published this Add-on)
Deleted Comment
https://bsky.app/profile/3blue1brown.bsky.social
...but he only posted this to Twitter. Not his own blog, nor bsky, not to his Patreon, or to Reddit - only Twitter. Nitter is always just going to be an echo of Twitter. Discord and Reddit and HN and a personal blog serve different purposes. Bsky and Mastodon and the rest (including Threads) are doomed to never become the next Twitter unless we can get people to start changing their habits.
I think just not engaging with content on Twitter is far more likely to produce that outcome than consuming the content on Nitter.
Nitter is not going to be an echo of twitter, it was a proxy for twitter, and it's already dead.
> Bsky and Mastodon and the rest (including Threads) are doomed to never become the next Twitter unless we can get people to start changing their habits.
Why should anyone be concerned about that? None of the above have shown themselves to be any better stewards of anything than twitter has. They're all objectively mediocre options, (including twitter) and personally identifying with any of them is silly.
Deleted Comment
Just don't use any social media. You'll be more healthy and secure.
Dead Comment
If you're in a position of influence in an organization that's losing its marbles over AI, please, at the very least encourage others to pump the brakes and think.
If there was ever a time to speak up when you know implementing something will lead to a likely disaster, it's now.
According to this article, it's been happening for a while now: https://www.statnews.com/2023/03/13/medicare-advantage-plans...
Sugggest search query: Youtube copyright fake claim revenue scam.
And the incentives for rectifying this are skewed: video platforms simply need to address individual cases with influential creators just reactively enough so that collective action isn't incentivized; that's far cheaper, and far easier to not need to coordinate with traditional rightsholders, than addressing the problem systematically.
If we believe that the vision of being an independent content creator is important to humanity - and I think it's becoming vital as "a way to distinguish myself" that folks are able to dream about from an early age - then we need to seriously work to protect it. Not everybody will get their "big break" but we can at the very least start having conversations about protecting creators from an AI-driven DMCA bot arbitrarily destroying their career through automated channel-disabling rules.
In concrete terms, a content-creators union might act as a middleman who is able to make all the contents from all its members simultaneously and immediately unavailable on the targeted platforms until some agreement is met or either side gives up.
The explicit goal of copyright is to promote art work. Copyright intends to accomplish this by promising each artist a profitable monopoly over the result of their work. The thinking is that even though an artist isn't paid directly for their labor, they can compel society to pretend their art is a singular object and sell it over and over again as a good. This is why pretentious gallery people refer to paintings and sculptures as individual "works", as if labor itself can be counted with integers. It isn't the instance of art (the copy) they are referring to as "a work": it is the abstract unit of labor and the copyright monopoly (the exclusive right to make another copy) that defines its domain.
Because copyright redefines art as a good, each artist must invest their labor to create "a work". Only then can they leverage copyright to (hopefully) profit from their investment. This is already counterproductive, because the only prospective artists who are free to work are those who can afford the upfront investment of their own labor. Profit from this investment is nowhere near guaranteed, particularly today when the overwhelming majority of publishing goes through a tiny number of corporations.
The most significant problem, though, is the monopoly itself. For copyright to function, an artist must be able to monopolize their "work": not the original copy they made, but the labor itself. In order to do so, the copyright holder must be able to prevent any work that intersects with their own. What this means is that copyright is made of incompatibility. Anyone who wants to collaborate with a work must have explicit permission; otherwise their own labor is illegal by virtue of the presence of someone else's existing work. Copyright demands that the labor of one individual be incompatible with the other.
This incompatibility is what copyright is truly used for. We use copyright to destroy fraudulent copy. We use copyright to fill moats of incompatibility; and drown competition from those who seek to collaborate competitively.
Copyright has been a bad idea from its very inception, but in today's world - where copy itself is practically free, and collaboration requires nearly zero coordination - copyright has become the foundation of the most significant and damaging parts of our society. It's time to start over.
In fact, everything aligns to incentivize them not to care: making the barrier to make a successful claim higher and the larger rights-holders start to cause problems; the cost of seriously adjudicating claims is substantial and may well be unsustainable.
The consequences of bad policy are also quite low for them: most channels that will get hit unjustly have too small an audience to be heard; fixing problems for the larger creators is one-off enough that it's simply cost efficient to squash those when they happen; any bad publicity doesn't seem to be sufficient enough to cause a siginficant drop in either viewers or content creators willing to stick with the platform.... in fact I expect most content creators so unjustly hit this way would simply swallow the indignity and loss and continue p YouTube.
I don't know the laws or agreements at play here, but it seems like some sort of class action suit, if feasible, would be the only way to scale these complaints into something that YouTube management might take seriously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_...
In effect, the YouTube copyright system is a purely "voluntary" system for taking down copyright content, that goes way beyond the DMCA. It's basically designed to ensure theres no possible repercussions for issuers of copyright claims, even claims clearly made in bad faith.
Naturally, that's not the process YouTube follows including, again as I understand it, the assignment of revenues, etc. with only their internal dispute process mattering.
There's a `report abuse` button on the right of that page. I used it. (Category: Bullying and Harassment)
Taking down their github isn't even impactful, and forcing github to be a court is playing games instead of using real courts.
Imagine the furor and outrage of that. One of the most popular, meaningful, and impactful channels done in by YouTube's (and the DMCA's) ridiculous policy [1].
The public outcry from this might motivate real policy changes both within Google and other FANNG companies as well as with lawmakers.
Until a big channel gets stricken, this will continue to plague smaller creators with no recourse. We need a symbolic gesture of this magnitude to effectuate real change.
[1] And it's not like YouTube would actually delete their data or we wouldn't have a way to restore it. This is such an important channel that there's no way it wouldn't be restored by Google or archivists.
But I think you're vastly overestimate how popular he is compared to other channels that have gotten copyright strikes, or how much YouTube/Google care.
I also don't love YouTube's policy, but are you so confident there's a better policy out there?
Does the "3 strikes" policy apply to large channels that bring in a lot of views and ad revenue?
Nothing will happen. Nobody cares about relatively small groups of geeks. People will write angry posts at Youtube, but there's nothing anybody can do.
For example, RZX Archive channel (that hosted replays of ZX Spectrum games) was taken down by fake copyright strikes. Its author died several years ago, so nobody could fix that.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
We should create a community-driven abusive botnet that slaps projects like this back, and slaps hard. Because there’s no laws here. No one cares. No order, everything by the word of someone large enough. People should not be afraid of taking law in their hands when there is no law for all practical purposes. And using methods that are available and effective.
If you're a creator it's essential to have your own place on the web were you can host and publish anything without fear that it will be taken down for any reason — even accidentally.
As it becomes cheap to automate both creating takedown requests and processing requests, the volume of spam requests is going to skyrocket and it seems likely there will be more false positives.
You built a house on someone else's land, and then they tore it down. Build a house on your own land, as small as that land may be. From there you can create roads, bridges, tunnels to other people's land. On the web land is infinite. You can make your own land.
I don't know the last time I actually went to someone's website for video content. Maybe a business, for instructional videos? But those are either inset Youtube videos or are actually annoying to watch.
If the advice is for people to not depend on revenue from their content creation, that might be a fair point. But I feel like the effort of saying that might be better aimed at telling the hosting platforms to not be asses.
(Then again, I don't believe that large social media platforms can be effectively moderated -- so I'm not much help here either. I have no clue how the content creation industry would fit into that world.)
Replace publisher with newspaper, encyclopedias, etc...
They clearly have responsibility for the content they distribute.
So the source of truth is just some guy’s long tail GoDaddy-hosted blog?