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.
> 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...
How can a minor (who cannot sign a contract) be punished (legally) for not adhering to a ToS?
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.
Oh, I actually meant you shouldn't be able to exclude an adult based on them violating the ToS when they were a minor.
Many of the folks here have tried Degoogling with less success.
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.