YouTube Bad Takedowns Continue, Details Behind The Silicon Curtain As Always

Content Moderation

from the nothing-to-see-here dept

At this point, we have built up enough stories on bad YouTube takedowns to fill up a small library. Because of a combination of automated systems that are spectacularly imperfect, the desire by some bad actors to abuse and commit fraud using the notice and takedown system, and a general deference towards the alleged copyright holder over the accused, we have so many stories about this sort of thing that Tim Cushing was able to write the following paragraph on a post tangentially related to all of this thirteen years ago.

The other reason the takedown party is listed is because, sometimes, in rare cases, the takedown isn’t legit. Sometimes it’s just a clerical error. Or maliciousness. Or a faulty algorithm. This way interested parties can contact the party listed if they feel the takedown is in error. Again, this is a rare occurrence, one that has only happened a handful of times. Like here, for example. And here. And here. And here. Oh, there’s also this one. And this other time. Another rarity. Once-in-a-lifetime experience. Well below the expected margin of error. Nothing to see here either. Anomaly. Freak accident. Outlier. In short, it’s a handy way to tell at a glance who took the video down and decide whether or not the takedown might be in error.

Were we to try to duplicate that brilliant bit of writing, and update it to include all of the bad takedowns we’ve written about in the intervening thirteen years, we might find ourselves having constructed a fifty-thousand word paragraph. The point is that the problem with these bad takedowns has continued and, if anything, has gotten worse. Add to that the general lack of transparency by Google in many of these cases and you have people reliant on the platform with channels that appear to survive at the pleasure of a techno-politburo operating behind a silicon curtain.

Take what just happened to the operator of one channel, which was disappeared and then reinstated in days, all without a scintilla of detail as to what the hell happened.

Artemiy Pavlov, the founder of a small but mighty music software brand called Sinevibes, spent more than 15 years building a YouTube channel with all original content to promote his business’ products. Over all those years, he never had any issues with YouTube’s automated content removal system—until Monday, when YouTube, without issuing a single warning, abruptly deleted his entire channel.

“What a ‘nice’ way to start a week!” Pavlov posted on Bluesky. “Our channel on YouTube has been deleted due to ‘spam and deceptive policies.’ Which is the biggest WTF moment in our brand’s history on social platforms. We have only posted demos of our own original products, never anything else….”

There had been no warnings before the channel was shut down. There were no details presented to Pavlov as to what the channel had done to violate the policy described. Google might as well have said: “We’re shutting your channel down because we can.” No chance at corrective action. Just, poof, your channel is gone.

Then, as too often happens with this sort of thing, journalists reached out and, like magic, the channel was reinstated.

Ars saw Pavolov’s post and reached out to YouTube to find out why the channel was targeted for takedown. About three hours later, the channel was suddenly restored. That’s remarkably fast, as YouTube can sometimes take days or weeks to review an appeal. A YouTube spokesperson later confirmed that the Sinevibes channel was reinstated due to the regular appeals process, indicating perhaps that YouTube could see that Sinevibes’ removal was an obvious mistake.

In the email sent to Pavlov notifying him of his channel ban, YouTube admits that it sometimes makes mistakes, while apologizing for the “very upsetting news.” Similarly, in the email confirming his channel had been reinstated, YouTube would only explain that in trying to make YouTube a safe space, “sometimes we make mistakes trying to get it right. We’re sorry for any frustration our mistake caused you.”

That’s simply not good enough. There is a lot of power in the hands of a platform like YouTube, particularly as it relates to small businesses that incorporate the platform into their corporate strategies. Sinevibes is one such company and Pavlov is already pondering decoupling his business from any kind of reliance on YouTube, given the site’s recent demonstration of its own unreliability.

Will Pavlov ever know what actually happened here? Unlikely, I would say, when even outfits like ArsTechnica can’t get a straight answer.

YouTube’s spokesperson, Boot Bullwinkle, did not respond when Ars asked if it was possible to know what content triggered the mistaken channel ban or confirm that Sinevibes had no strikes on record prior to the ban. Bullwinkle would only confirm that YouTube considered this case resolved, then stopped responding.

This isn’t a freaking witch-hunt, people. Were YouTube to disclose what actually happened, it would give some confidence to the rest of the platform’s community that a problem had been identified and that work would be done to limit it from reoccurring. It would also give Pavlov and everyone else an opportunity to understand what occurred and, potentially, take actions that would protect against it happening again. And if that sounds like I’m just spit-balling in the dark, well, what the fuck other choice do I have, given Google’s obfuscation here?

Transparency and good communication go a long way. The silicon curtain approach, on the other hand, will only breed distrust, confusion, and anger.

Filed Under: artemiy pavlov, content moderation, spam, takedowns
Companies: google, sinevibes, youtube