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.
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.