― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 6 October 2006 18:55 (seventeen years ago) link
― Konal Doddz (blueski), Friday, 6 October 2006 19:07 (seventeen years ago) link
― GILLY'S BAGG'EAR VANCE OF COUPARI (Ex Leon), Friday, 6 October 2006 19:10 (seventeen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 6 October 2006 19:13 (seventeen years ago) link
― 0xDOX0RNUTX0RX0RSDABITFIELDXOR^0xDEADBEEFDEADBEEF00001 (donut), Friday, 6 October 2006 19:24 (seventeen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 9 October 2006 19:28 (seventeen years ago) link
Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) announced today that it has agreed to acquire YouTube, the consumer media company for people to watch and share original videos through a Web experience, for $1.65 billion in a stock-for-stock transaction. Following the acquisition, YouTube will operate independently to preserve its successful brand and passionate community.
The acquisition combines one of the largest and fastest growing online video entertainment communities with Google's expertise in organizing information and creating new models for advertising on the Internet. The combined companies will focus on providing a better, more comprehensive experience for users interested in uploading, watching and sharing videos, and will offer new opportunities for professional content owners to distribute their work to reach a vast new audience.
"The YouTube team has built an exciting and powerful media platform that complements Google's mission to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful,” said Eric Schmidt, Chief Executive Officer of Google. “Our companies share similar values; we both always put our users first and are committed to innovating to improve their experience. Together, we are natural partners to offer a compelling media entertainment service to users, content owners and advertisers.”
“Our community has played a vital role in changing the way that people consume media, creating a new clip culture. By joining forces with Google, we can benefit from its global reach and technology leadership to deliver a more comprehensive entertainment experience for our users and to create new opportunities for our partners,” said Chad Hurley, CEO and Co-Founder of YouTube. “I’m confident that with this partnership we’ll have the flexibility and resources needed to pursue our goal of building the next-generation platform for serving media worldwide.”
When the acquisition is complete, YouTube will retain its distinct brand identity, strengthening and complementing Google’s own fast-growing video business. YouTube will continue to be based in San Bruno, CA, and all YouTube employees will remain with the company. With Google’s technology, advertiser relationships and global reach, YouTube will continue to build on its success as one of the world's most popular services for video entertainment.
The number of Google shares to be issued in the transaction will be determined based on the 30-day average closing price two trading days prior to the completion of the acquisition. Both companies have approved the transaction, which is subject to customary closing conditions and is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2006.
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 9 October 2006 19:29 (seventeen years ago) link
― stet (stet), Monday, 9 October 2006 19:34 (seventeen years ago) link
― jhoshea megafauna (scoopsnoodle), Monday, 9 October 2006 19:41 (seventeen years ago) link
― milo z (mlp), Monday, 9 October 2006 19:43 (seventeen years ago) link
Yeah, that seems pretty crazy. I mean, YouTube definatley has brand recognition, but its only been around for a year. It seems it could dissapear for a lot cheaper than 1.6 bil.
― researching ur life (grady), Monday, 9 October 2006 19:45 (seventeen years ago) link
(This post was for the benefit of the Pinefox. The Pinefox will never click on this thread).
― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Monday, 9 October 2006 19:53 (seventeen years ago) link
― chakra khan chakra khan (sanskrit), Monday, 9 October 2006 20:13 (seventeen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 9 October 2006 20:14 (seventeen years ago) link
― chakra khan chakra khan (sanskrit), Monday, 9 October 2006 20:16 (seventeen years ago) link
― jhoshea megafauna (scoopsnoodle), Monday, 9 October 2006 20:17 (seventeen years ago) link
― stet (stet), Monday, 9 October 2006 20:19 (seventeen years ago) link
― Ed (dali), Monday, 9 October 2006 21:03 (seventeen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 9 October 2006 21:07 (seventeen years ago) link
I still have no idea how it YouTube actually makes any money though.
― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 9 October 2006 21:54 (seventeen years ago) link
Still this is nuts.
― Super Cub (Debito), Monday, 9 October 2006 21:57 (seventeen years ago) link
― stet (stet), Monday, 9 October 2006 22:08 (seventeen years ago) link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCVxQ_3Ejkg
― ▒█▄█ ▄▄▄ ▒█▄█ , Tuesday, 10 October 2006 15:21 (seventeen years ago) link
― ath (ath), Tuesday, 10 October 2006 15:32 (seventeen years ago) link
― jhoshea megafauna (scoopsnoodle), Tuesday, 10 October 2006 17:18 (seventeen years ago) link
― always crashing in other people's cars (kenan), Tuesday, 10 October 2006 17:28 (seventeen years ago) link
― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Tuesday, 10 October 2006 17:32 (seventeen years ago) link
― always crashing in other people's cars (kenan), Tuesday, 10 October 2006 17:34 (seventeen years ago) link
― ▒█▄█ ▄▄▄ ▒█▄█ , Tuesday, 10 October 2006 17:45 (seventeen years ago) link
― ath (ath), Tuesday, 10 October 2006 18:01 (seventeen years ago) link
in other words, for free. and their stock went up as soon as they did it. This cost Google absolutely $0.00 in real terms. You gotta love ImaginaryFutureCash, Bezos and Schmidt, owning and operating tomorrow's treasury presses since 2000.
― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Tuesday, 10 October 2006 18:05 (seventeen years ago) link
With a market cap of 129.86B, Google gave away 1/79th of itself to an entity that rose to prominence on that craptacular Lazy Sunday skit. I realize a billion and half dollars to Google is peanuts, but that's stock that could have been granted to keep employees happy or converted into cash reserves.
― ▒█▄█ ▄▄▄ ▒█▄█ , Tuesday, 10 October 2006 19:45 (seventeen years ago) link
― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Tuesday, 10 October 2006 19:57 (seventeen years ago) link
a) the investors in Youtube can just sell the Google stock for market value (admittedly not all at once)b) if Google paid cash they would have to raise that cash by either selling more stock or raising debt. Either way the stock price would change to compensate.
― webber (webber), Wednesday, 11 October 2006 05:07 (seventeen years ago) link
(from slashdot)
― Koogy Yonderboy (koogs), Friday, 13 October 2006 15:10 (seventeen years ago) link
― TOMBOT (TOMBOT), Friday, 13 October 2006 15:23 (seventeen years ago) link
― Rufus 3000 (Mr Noodles), Friday, 13 October 2006 18:52 (seventeen years ago) link
In the months preceding the sale of YouTube the complaints from copyright owners began to mount at a ferocious pace. Small content owners and big were lodging official takedown notices only to see their works almost immediately reappear. These issues had to be disclosed to the suitors who were sniffing around like Google but Yahoo was deep in the process as well. (News Corp inquired but since Myspace knew they were a big source of Youtube's traffic they quickly choked on the 9 digit price tag.) While the search giants had serious interest, the suitors kept stumbling over the potential enormous copyright infringement claims that were mounting.
Youtube knew they had an issue and had offered a straight revenue share deal if the complainants would call off the dogs and give them time. The media companies quickly rejected this path for two reasons. First off Youtube wasn't making any money and was fuzzy about how they would generate revenue in the future. But more important the media companies view is that there was a mountain of past infringement that Youtube had engaged in and built their business on and they felt they deserved some of this accumulated value. And who could blame them. In spite of the media "user generated" puff pieces it was clear to all involved that they generated that content by hooking up their TV tuner cards to their PCs.
It didn't take a team of Harvard trained investment bankers to come up with the obvious solution and that is to set aside a portion of the buyout offer to deal with copyright issues. It's not uncommon in transactions to have holdbacks to deal with liabilities and Youtube knew they had a big one. So the parties (including venture capital firm Sequoia Capital) agreed to earmark a portion of the purchase price to pay for settlements and/or hire attorneys to fight claims. Nearly 500 million of the 1.65 billion purchase price is not being disbursed to shareholders but instead held in escrow.
While this seemed good on paper Google attorneys were still uncomfortable with the enormous possible legal claims and speculated that maybe even 500 million may not be enough - remember were talking about hundreds of thousands of possible copyright infringements. Youtube attorneys emphasized the DMCA safe harbor provisions and pointed to the 3 full timers dedicated to dealing with takedown notices, but couldn't get G comfortable. Google wasn't worried about the small guys, but the big guys were a significant impediment to a sale. They could swing settlement numbers widely in one direction or another. So the decision was made to negotiate settlements with some of the largest music and film companies. If they could get to a good place with these companies they could get confidence from attorneys and the ever important "fairness opinion" from the bankers involved that this was a sane purchase.
Armed with this kitty of money Youtube approached the media companies with an open checkbook to buy peace. The media companies smelled a transaction when Youtube radically changed their initial 'revenue sharing' offer to one laden with cash. But even they didn't predict Google would pay such an exorbitant amount for Youtube so when Youtube started talking in multiples of tens of millions of dollars the media companies believed this to be fair and would lock in a nice Q3/Q4. [Note to self: Buy calls on media companies just prior to Q3/Q4 earnings calls.] The major labels got wind that their counterparts were in heated discussions so they used a now common trick a "most favored nation" clause to assure that if if a comparable company negotiated a better deal that they would also receive that benefit. It's a clever ploy to avoid anti-trust issues and gives them the benefit of securing the best negotiating company. They negotiated about 50 million for each major media company to be paid from the Google buyout monies.
The media companies had their typical challenges. Specifically, how to get money from Youtube without being required to give any to the talent (musicians and actors)? If monies were received as part of a license to Youtube then they would contractually obligated to share a substantial portion of the proceeds with others. For example most record label contracts call for artists to get 50% of all license deals. It was decided the media companies would receive an equity position as an investor in Youtube which Google would buy from them. This shelters all the up front monies from any royalty demands by allowing them to classify it as gains from an investment position. A few savvy agents might complain about receiving nothing and get a token amount, but most will be unaware of what transpired.
Since everyone was reaching into Google's wallet, the big G wants to make sure the Youtube purchase was a wise one. Youtube's value is predicated on it's traffic and market leadership which Google needs to keep. If they simply agreed to remove all unauthorized content and saddle the user experience with ads Youtube would quickly be a skeleton of its prior self. Users would quickly move to competing sites. The media companies had 50 million reasons to want to help. Google needed a two pronged strategy which you see unfolding now.
The first request was a simple one and that was an agreement to look the other way for the next 6 months or so while copyright infringement continues to flourish. This standstill is cloaked in language about building tools to help manage the content and track royalties, some of which is true but also G knows that every day they can operate in the shadows of copyright law is another day that Youtube can grow. It should be noted that Google video is a capable Youtube competitor with the ONE big difference being a much more sincere effort to not post unauthorized works - and Google fully appreciates what a difference that makes. So you can continue to find movie clips, tv show segments and just about every music video on Youtube today.
The second request was to pile some lawsuits on competitors to slow them down and lock in Youtube's position. As Google looked at it they bought a 6 month exclusive on widespread video copyright infringement. Universal obliged and sued two capable Youtube clones Bolt and Grouper. This has several effects. First, it puts enormous pressure on all the other video sites to clamp down on the laissez-faire content posting that is prevalent. If Google is agreeing to remove unauthorized content they want the rest of the industry doing the same thing. Secondly it shuts off the flow of venture capital investments into video firms. Without capital these firms can't build the data centers and pay for the bandwidth required for these upside down businesses.
There are some interesting chapters yet to unfold. One is how much of this will become public. Google is required by the SEC to disclose material financial developments at their company. Working in Google's advantage is their enormous market capitalization and revenues will give them considerable leeway to claim that a 50 million transaction is not significant to their business. If the other video sites have the wherewithal to put up a legal fight any decent attorney will demand access to Youtube acquisition documents. Expect a claim of collusion between Google and the media companies as a defense strategy.
Infringement lawsuits will be served on Youtube and the new proud parent Google in the coming months. Google will respond with two paths: an expensive legal fight or a quick and easy settlement with most choosing the latter. Are there any larger copyright holders such as music publishers, movie studios, or unlicensed record label EMI that put up a fight rather than accepting the check? We'll have to watch and find out.
― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 19:41 (seventeen years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 19:47 (seventeen years ago) link
― FACTS: I'M A WAITER (TOMBOT), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 19:59 (seventeen years ago) link
― FACTS: I'M A WAITER (TOMBOT), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 20:02 (seventeen years ago) link
I hope artists throw a class action lawsuit at them.
― a.b. (alanbanana), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 05:40 (seventeen years ago) link
― Ste (Fuzzy), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 09:34 (seventeen years ago) link
Good piece: thanks very much for posting it.
― sean gramophone (Sean M), Wednesday, 1 November 2006 10:31 (seventeen years ago) link
The media companies had their typical challenges. Specifically, how to get money from Youtube without being required to give any to the talent (musicians and actors)?
― researching ur life (grady), Thursday, 2 November 2006 00:37 (seventeen years ago) link
― Scorpion Tea (Dick Butkus), Thursday, 2 November 2006 00:39 (seventeen years ago) link
i have no idea which youtube thread to revive so this will do
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8061979.stm
Video-sharing website YouTube has removed hundreds of pornographic videos which were uploaded in what is believed to be a planned attack.The material was uploaded under names of famous teenage celebrities such as Hannah Montana and Jonas Brothers.Many started with footage of children's videos before groups of adults performing graphic sex acts appeared on screen.YouTube owner Google said it was aware and addressing the problem.Disturbing videosThe BBC was made aware that scores of sexually explicit and inappropriate material was uploaded.In one video titled Jonas Brother Live On Stage, a user posted a comment saying: "I'm 12 years old and what is this?"Under other uploaded videos, online users posted comments such as: "Take the tags off, you'll get us caught." Another said: "Your gonna kill us all!"As the disturbing videos were being uploaded, many viewers added them to their favourites and rated them highly.The BBC's interactive reporter Siobhan Courtney contacted Flonty, one user believed to have uploaded some of the pornographic material videos.His profile states that he is 21 and from Germany.He said: "I did it because YouTube keeps deleting music. It was part of a 4Chan raid."4Chan is an organised group that describes itself on its website as the "home of the sickest, strangest, and most horrifying stuff on the internet"."Anything and everything can, and usually does, happen here. We have our very own unique culture, and there is no group quite like us anywhere out there," it says.Community guidelinesWhen asked if he was concerned that children can freely watch such inappropriate material on YouTube, Flonty replied: "Children will find inappropriate material around the internet anyway."This kind of raid showed how easy it is to upload porn to a website that millions of people browse on a daily basis".Google spokesman Scott Rubin told BBC News: "We are aware of the slew of pornographic videos that were uploaded."We are addressing them as we would any video that violates our community guidelines."In addition, any account we discover that has been set up specifically to attack YouTube will be disabled."
The material was uploaded under names of famous teenage celebrities such as Hannah Montana and Jonas Brothers.
Many started with footage of children's videos before groups of adults performing graphic sex acts appeared on screen.
YouTube owner Google said it was aware and addressing the problem.
Disturbing videos
The BBC was made aware that scores of sexually explicit and inappropriate material was uploaded.
In one video titled Jonas Brother Live On Stage, a user posted a comment saying: "I'm 12 years old and what is this?"
Under other uploaded videos, online users posted comments such as: "Take the tags off, you'll get us caught." Another said: "Your gonna kill us all!"
As the disturbing videos were being uploaded, many viewers added them to their favourites and rated them highly.
The BBC's interactive reporter Siobhan Courtney contacted Flonty, one user believed to have uploaded some of the pornographic material videos.
His profile states that he is 21 and from Germany.
He said: "I did it because YouTube keeps deleting music. It was part of a 4Chan raid."
4Chan is an organised group that describes itself on its website as the "home of the sickest, strangest, and most horrifying stuff on the internet".
"Anything and everything can, and usually does, happen here. We have our very own unique culture, and there is no group quite like us anywhere out there," it says.
Community guidelines
When asked if he was concerned that children can freely watch such inappropriate material on YouTube, Flonty replied: "Children will find inappropriate material around the internet anyway.
"This kind of raid showed how easy it is to upload porn to a website that millions of people browse on a daily basis".
Google spokesman Scott Rubin told BBC News: "We are aware of the slew of pornographic videos that were uploaded.
"We are addressing them as we would any video that violates our community guidelines.
"In addition, any account we discover that has been set up specifically to attack YouTube will be disabled."
― pfunkboy (Herman G. Neuname), Thursday, 21 May 2009 19:16 (fourteen years ago) link
DISTURBING
― cool app (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 21 May 2009 19:19 (fourteen years ago) link
http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/03/broadcast-yourself.html
Thursday, March 18, 2010Broadcast Yourself
Around the globe, YouTube has become a metaphor for the democratizing power of the Internet and information. YouTube gives unknown performers, filmmakers, and artists new ways to promote their work to a global audience and rise to worldwide fame; makes it possible for political candidates and elected officials to interact with the public in new ways; enables first-hand reporting from war zones and from inside repressive regimes; and lets students of all ages and backgrounds audit classes at leading universities.
Yet YouTube and sites like it will cease to exist in their current form if Viacom and others have their way in their lawsuits against YouTube.
In their opening briefs in the Viacom vs. YouTube lawsuit (which have been made public today), Viacom and plaintiffs claim that YouTube doesn't do enough to keep their copyrighted material off the site. We ask the judge to rule that the safe harbors in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the "DMCA") protect YouTube from the plaintiffs' claims. Congress enacted the DMCA to benefit the public by permitting open platforms like YouTube to flourish on the Web. It gives online services protection from copyright liability if they remove unauthorized content once they’re on notice of its existence on the site.
With some minor exceptions, all videos are automatically copyrighted from the moment they are created, regardless of who creates them. This means all videos on YouTube are copyrighted -- from Charlie Bit My Finger, to the video of your cat playing the piano and the video you took at your cousin’s wedding. The issue in this lawsuit is not whether a video is copyrighted, but whether it's authorized to be on the site. The DMCA (and common sense) recognizes that content owners, not service providers like YouTube, are in the best position to know whether a specific video is authorized to be on an Internet hosting service.
Because content owners large and small use YouTube in so many different ways, determining a particular copyright holder’s preference or a particular uploader’s authority over a given video on YouTube is difficult at best. And in this case, it was made even harder by Viacom’s own practices.
For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.
Viacom's efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.
Given Viacom’s own actions, there is no way YouTube could ever have known which Viacom content was and was not authorized to be on the site. But Viacom thinks YouTube should somehow have figured it out. The legal rule that Viacom seeks would require YouTube -- and every Web platform -- to investigate and police all content users upload, and would subject those web sites to crushing liability if they get it wrong.
Viacom’s brief misconstrues isolated lines from a handful of emails produced in this case to try to show that YouTube was founded with bad intentions, and asks the judge to believe that, even though Viacom tried repeatedly to buy YouTube, YouTube is like Napster or Grokster.
Nothing could be further from the truth. YouTube has long been a leader in providing media companies with 21st century tools to control, distribute, and make money from their content online. Working in cooperation with rights holders, our Content ID system scans over 100 years worth of video every day and lets rights holders choose whether to block, leave up, or monetize those videos. Over 1,000 media companies are now using Content ID -- including every major U.S. network broadcaster, movie studio, and record label -- and the majority of those companies choose to make money from user uploaded clips rather than block them. This is a true win-win that reflects our long-standing commitment to working with rights holders to give them the choices they want, while advancing YouTube as a platform for creativity.
We look forward to defending YouTube, and upholding the balance that Congress struck in the DMCA to protect the rights of copyright holders, the progress of technological innovation, and the public interest in free expression.
Posted by Zahavah Levine, YouTube Chief Counsel
― Johnny Fever, Friday, 19 March 2010 11:24 (fourteen years ago) link
About time:
We want YouTube to be the best place to upload video. Without question, the number one requested feature by our creators is to upload videos longer than 10 minutes. We’ve heard you, and today we’re pleased to announce that we’ve increased the upload limit to 15 minutes.We encourage you to take full advantage of this new time limit by making a video of your “15 minutes of fame.” Imagine that this video is all the world will ever know about you: what would you want to communicate? What will be the enduring stamp you’ve left on us all? Tag your video with “yt15minutes,” upload it by Wednesday, August 4, and we’ll select a handful of people to truly gain their 15 minutes of fame by featuring them on the YouTube homepage in a future spotlight.In the meantime, you may wonder “why now?” -- the upload limit for non-partners has been 10 minutes for years. Well, we’ve spent significant resources on creating and improving our state-of-the-art Content ID system and many other powerful tools for copyright owners. Now, all of the major U.S. movie studios, music labels and over 1,000 other global partners use Content ID to manage their content on YouTube. Because of the success of these ongoing technological efforts, we are able to increase the upload limit today. We will continue our strong commitment to provide advanced technology and tools to protect the rights of small and large copyright owners worldwide. We’ll also do everything we can to release incremental improvements like this one that benefit our video creators. One final note: if you’re uploading a video that was previously rejected for being too long, you’ll have to go into “My Videos” and delete it before attempting to upload it again. Thanks and happy uploading!
We encourage you to take full advantage of this new time limit by making a video of your “15 minutes of fame.” Imagine that this video is all the world will ever know about you: what would you want to communicate? What will be the enduring stamp you’ve left on us all? Tag your video with “yt15minutes,” upload it by Wednesday, August 4, and we’ll select a handful of people to truly gain their 15 minutes of fame by featuring them on the YouTube homepage in a future spotlight.
In the meantime, you may wonder “why now?” -- the upload limit for non-partners has been 10 minutes for years. Well, we’ve spent significant resources on creating and improving our state-of-the-art Content ID system and many other powerful tools for copyright owners. Now, all of the major U.S. movie studios, music labels and over 1,000 other global partners use Content ID to manage their content on YouTube. Because of the success of these ongoing technological efforts, we are able to increase the upload limit today. We will continue our strong commitment to provide advanced technology and tools to protect the rights of small and large copyright owners worldwide. We’ll also do everything we can to release incremental improvements like this one that benefit our video creators.
One final note: if you’re uploading a video that was previously rejected for being too long, you’ll have to go into “My Videos” and delete it before attempting to upload it again. Thanks and happy uploading!
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 29 July 2010 18:51 (thirteen years ago) link
that's cool and all but man does vimeo rule
― titchyschneiderhouserules (s1ocki), Thursday, 29 July 2010 18:52 (thirteen years ago) link
Don't really know much about it, what's their limit? Or is there a limit?
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 29 July 2010 18:53 (thirteen years ago) link
the only limit is YOUR IMAGINATION
― titchyschneiderhouserules (s1ocki), Thursday, 29 July 2010 18:54 (thirteen years ago) link
S1OCEPTION
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 29 July 2010 18:55 (thirteen years ago) link
actually i think it's a file size limit, but i've seen hour-long clips up there
― titchyschneiderhouserules (s1ocki), Thursday, 29 July 2010 18:55 (thirteen years ago) link
much better interface and HD encoding too
in other words my verdict is "vimeo... imo!"
So what's up with this trying to get me to use my Google+ name as my youtube channel name? All like "are you sure you don't want to use your real name for your youtube account?" Multiple prompts and shit. This is irritating.
― how's life, Tuesday, 25 June 2013 11:05 (ten years ago) link
goddamnit google do you have to fucking change everything all the time
― j., Friday, 21 February 2014 07:53 (ten years ago) link
are they getting a lot more aggressive about switching people back to their google+ identities?
― j., Thursday, 27 March 2014 22:57 (ten years ago) link
I think so too. Really annoying.
― qwop zapatos (abanana), Thursday, 27 March 2014 23:37 (ten years ago) link
hate it. What a mess, considering how Googles original simplicity was what made it popular, imo, Google + and now Youtube have become messy shitty things.
I've given in and tried to remove my original youtube channel, and re subscribed to all my old subscribers on my google+/youtube account because it just kept defaulted to that account. Very annoying.
But it's just rubbish, I can't change the channel name I have to make a new channel if I want a channel that isn't a persons name. Too many settings menus blah blah blah, just awful work.
― Drop soap, not bombs (Ste), Friday, 28 March 2014 09:27 (ten years ago) link
i upgraded a bunch of shit on my computer and now my new firefox's adblock doesn't work right on youtube, i never realized what a garbage site it is to use when you have to watch the ads or even let them load : /
― j., Friday, 27 June 2014 05:36 (nine years ago) link
Yeah the shock of using the net sans adblock after a long period of time with it is almost chastening.
― tsrobodo, Friday, 27 June 2014 09:37 (nine years ago) link
youtube is down!!
it's been so long since i noticed a good ol fashioned widespread internet outage
― j., Wednesday, 17 October 2018 02:26 (five years ago) link
I dream of youtube being downUnfortunately it’s still up for me
― F# A# (∞), Wednesday, 17 October 2018 02:46 (five years ago) link
no you missed it
everything is back to normal now
sad
― j., Wednesday, 17 October 2018 02:49 (five years ago) link
so today I got an email that my content was taken down for violating one of their policies. it wasn't a video - they took down my entire Favorites Playlist. Not mentioning what the exact violation was or even the video(s) that violated it. but none of the content on my Favorites was created by me. it's other people's videos.
I have the most vanilla favorites list, nothing remotely sketch favorited - most controversial thing might be the Manowar songs I have on there. they allow an appeal, but how can I even appeal without knowing what video they're talking about? and if someone else made the video, why didn't you take their video down, which is usually what's done, which would then remove it from my favorite list? why am I being blamed as if I'm the content creator?
10 years of a favorites list now gone in seconds.
― stank viola (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 5 October 2022 20:57 (one year ago) link
they denied my appeal in seconds, no other way to contact them. now ten years worth of things I curated gone with no way to get them back.
"deletes account"
― stank viola (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 5 October 2022 21:09 (one year ago) link
That's really bizarre!
― a superficial sheeb of intelligence (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Wednesday, 5 October 2022 21:33 (one year ago) link
because they literally have no email you can send other than product related issues, I faxed them to ask wtf.
some of those videos are short funny videos where I have no clue how they were titled and I'll probably never find again without help.
― stank viola (Neanderthal), Wednesday, 5 October 2022 21:41 (one year ago) link
cursory Google search reveals this has been happening to tons of people for the last few years, with Youtube getting complaints about a video, and taking action against not just the video itself, but playlist it appears in, as if that person was the content creator themselves.
― stank viola (Neanderthal), Thursday, 6 October 2022 03:40 (one year ago) link