That doesn't have the reply from ChainPatrol:

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.

Completely ignoring the release dates for the videos is simply amazing.

The database they are comparing to is probably not only youtube videos. So the freebooted or matching video, in their database, has a creation data which is earlier than the 3blue1brown video.

The database they are comparing to does not exist. They are making shit up and spam reporting high view count videos to get the revenue from them.

Why would they trust that date?

Abusing the DMCA to take down videos stealing user funds seems... questionable.

Nice that they are admitting to perjury on twitter like that.

As other threads have pointed out, Google's copyright violation system is a process that's private. It's before the DMCA laws get involved.

So maybe it's a ToS violation?

(This isn't defending the person issuing copyright strikes. Their behavior, right or wrong, just isn't perjury. I think. Good thing I'm not anyone's lawyer.)

Completely agree. It should be on YouTube to do that and not a 3rd party.

How is this failing the most fundamental check: upload date?

Generally a good idea, but there are edge cases that need to be handled for this to work.

A copyrighted video might not be uploaded to YouTube, in which case you'd have to fall back on the video creation date, which would have to be manually added in their DB (e.g. Hollywood produced movies).

You can also have leaks of videos before their official release. Admittedly a rare scenario that should can be accounted for in other ways (i.e. skip this check if before upload).

> A copyrighted video might not be uploaded to YouTube, in which case you'd have to fall back on the video creation date

Correct, but in this case we know there was no earlier video anywhere, so the only conclusion to draw is that they simply weren't checking the date at all. If the only "source" video being compared with the "offending" video had a newer upload date, the claim never should have been allowed to happen. If there's truly some external video with an earlier upload date, compare to that.

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).

Neither does the x.com link if you connect via well-known VPNs.

Great to see a resurgence of a genuinely working Nitter instance. Appreciate this.

A Firefox Add-on to redirect Twitter links to X Cancelled automatically: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/nitter/

(Disclosure: I published this Add-on)

Installed immediately and enabled to run on private windows. Good self-plug :)

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/libredirect/ Might interest you as well

"For anyone who wants to avoid Twitter's toxicity, here is how you get some Twitter content" :)

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.

Thank you!

I was surprised to see this here, because I remembered I recently added 3blue1brown on bsky:

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 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.

> Nitter is not going to be an echo of twitter, it was a proxy for twitter, and it's already dead.

It's not dead, xcancel runs on Nitter.

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."

Xcancel has a pretty large pool, so does poast's instance.

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.

You’re literally posting this on social media. kek

Infringe copyright to read about false infringement.