Whenever you read "we have reviewed" translate that to be "we used an automated process and no humans to reply to you."

Inhuman-ops

Isn't the conventional wisdom now YouTube can ban or show whatever they please.

Yes. But, as the dominant player in the market (with over 75% of the online video platform marketshare), should they?

Governments tend to put additional restrictions on the biggest players, and perhaps YouTube should be the subject of such a restriction.

Exactly -- I'm not sure why people seem convinced that YouTube should be legally compelled to provide free video hosting for anyone. Surely HN people should be aware how much that costs.

If one feels that YouTube is abusing a monopoly position, then one should be in favor of breaking up YouTube. Period.

I think in general people believe that freedom of association in business is a much more limited right than the other freedoms enshrined in the first amendment- particularly regarding not associating with people that you find disagreeable.

You cannot deny business to someone because of their race or ethnicity, and generally people think this is a good thing.

Legal theories aside, I think people feel that it is unjust when a monopoly or near-monopoly business acts in a manner discriminatory to one group or another.

The government has more than just 'breaking up a company' in their toolbelt for handling companies with dominant marketshares. It's not a black and white situation.

People can complain about something, without believing it is illegal, and without already having a legislative or other solution for the problem ready.

If nothing else, it informs others about Youtube censorship - even the most radical libertarians are pro-informed consumers.

It may be practical fact, but its is not any sort of wisdom. They claim to have rules and are expected to follow their own rules.

But that's a bit like the legal system. A government or civil case against you may be completely unwarranted, but it likely will cost you time and resources (and connections to powerful people) to fight.

Nowadays we are digital serfs living off the properties owned by megacorporations. They have made it increasingly difficult to live outside their ecosystem and run your own email server (your messages will end up in spam) or host your own website (NAT/Cloudflare DDoS etc).

Do I think YouTube is needlessly censoring creators? Yes.

Do I think that YouTube should be forced to allow content on their platform that they don't want? No.

Do I think the monopoly of cloud providers (AWS, GCP, etc) should be allowed to censor content they don't want? No.

The solution here is finding a hosting provider to host your own content. IPFS is a great alternative, and LBRY has proven to be pretty open-minded.

People go to YT because of the discovery algorithm.

Weird, cause most of the items they recommend to me are absolute clickbait garbage.

That doesn't contradict the previous message. Most people enjoy clickbait garbage. In fact, one could argue that Tik Tok's success is based on that?

Fair enough... but for those that don't their recommendation engine is garbage.

I agree with you. Unfortunately I don't think we're in a majority.

The account https://www.youtube.com/c/OliverResslerFilms/videos has been restored in the meantime.

So, fuel for another documentary >:)

This topic really needs a good documentary. It should scare the hell out of people.

If you build up a library of your creations, your email, your communications, whatever, and the masters can just flip a switch and make it all unavailable to you (and the rest of the world), then you are really putting yourself at risk by using those services.

Often it seems "AI" just makes mistakes. Whether that's the case or not, the dispute "resolution" phase is almost universally a joke - a preprogrammed NO response.

This is not reasonable, and it ultimately should fall under consumer protection or other standards.

One more reason not to use a single email address for multiple services. Violation of terms of services in one of them can be catastrophic, like in the article, the author's google account gets deleted with just warning.