It was instantly and automatically flagged, removed and a strike placed against me for going against community guidelines. I had 40 characters to appeal, but it is automated since the response was instantaneous. There are other videos of kids dumping water on each other ... even when both are in the tub. An email asking what guideline I violated to youtube support has gone unanswered.
To me, if Youtube is automatically, instantly flagging my video, there is no reason they cannot automatically flag and remove the videos in Matt Watson's video, especially if they are public and are attracting a wide range of comments.
Don't get me wrong, it's Youtube's pool, so their rules. They can choose the content they want.
But then you think they can apply the algorithm more broadly? Wouldn't that just risk many more false positives and irate users?
No. As I said, their rules. I have no idea if it is a false positive since I cannot get an answer as to what guideline was violated. I could have violated one of their guidelines.
Youtube doesn't owe me anything ... I use their service for free with unlisted videos to share with family. They make no money off the videos.
My point was if they can flag something like my video, I am sure they can flag the ones given as examples attracting the other people.
I can understand your point that false positives would generate more upset content creators who do make their videos public and would like ads run against them.
The first is a mere process of comparison, while the latter requires quite a few levels of subjective abstraction.
I feel you. Many of my videos have been flagged for copyright violations due to background music, but since they are unlisted and only for sharing among family, I'm ok with it.
There have been a couple of times they have muted a whole video for a snippet of music, but I've never had a video removed for music.
If you posted them publicly so Google could properly monetize them, they'd be "Featured videos of the month!" in a pedo group.
Isn't this punishing the users more than punishing YouTube? I get how these kind of videos would be banned in a country like Saudi Arabia, but in the USA, or much of Europe? Yes, CP should be disallowed, but kids playing in a pool adequately covered?
As I sort of alluded to already, giving other services an incentive to exist, or incentivizating more self-hosting, I see as a virtue anyhow. YouTube shouldn't be The Video Site On The Internet.
Other services may or may not fill the huge created gap, but what’s to say they won’t be subject to the same regulations as YouTube? Anyways, the politicians would probably take a huge fall if they did this, voters don’t often buy “its for your own good” arguments.
Given everything else YouTube already does, I seriously, no sarcasm, don't see this as a particularly problematic solution. As ceejayoz pointed out, there's some thorny consent issues involved here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19209766 (ceejayoz' point isn't much larger than my summary of it, but I wanted to give credit. I think it's a good point.)
Sometimes scale brings things like this. I have to admit giving a smaller, specialty service a niche to exist in doesn't exactly bother me, either.