Byron Dickens

It's an abbreviation that means that you should try to avail yourself of some of the voluminous documentation on the matter that's provided for you. What do you mean "siding with the other guy?" The Lord helps those who help themselves. And so do I. You're not really behaving like somebody who wants help.. You refuse to answer any of the questions that are asked of you and then you seemingly abandon the thread because you're gone for a month.

Despite the fact that it is all either public domain or Creative Commons....

No, not really. I am aware of that. Also galling is that they give no indication of just what part of the video is allegedly "hate speech" and refuse to answer when specifically asked. I am left to guess. So if I guess wrong, change the video and put it back up, that's another strike and I get grounded for a week. Guess wrong too many times and I loose my channel. It's insidious and abusive. Incidentally, nearly everything in that video is either sourced from, or can be found right there on YouTube.

RTFM

It is a matter of zooming. Compare the screenshots. Look at the timeline. You are zoomed all the way in.

I did. If I was a multi billionaire I would sue the [expletive deleted] out of them just on principle.

So I appealed. Their "appeal"process is an absolute joke! You have 800 characters to try to lay out your case. And then it's bam appeal denied and no further recourse. In my case, they didn't even pretend to review it. They could have at least waited till the next day instead of less than an hour later on Thursday night "This is an instrumental piece of music. There's no speech in it. There's no lyrics, there's no vocals, there's no narration, there's no text on the screen. Outside of the title and credits there is not a single word in the whole video! So pray tell, exactly what part of this video violates your policy against hate speech and how? You can't because it doesn't. Anyone with three functioning brain cells will find it quite obvious that this video doesn't "glorify" or "incite" a damn thing. The title is "Doomsday Prophecy ". it uses historical, archival footage to illustrate cataclysmic events of the type that those of an eschatological bent see as signs of the end of the world. You know, floods, earthquakes, war, false prophets, the Antichrist, things of that nature." Less than an hour later, I get an email: "Hi byrondickens, We have reviewed your appeal for the following content: Video: Doomsday Prophecy We reviewed your content carefully, and have confirmed that it violates our hate speech policy. We know this is probably disappointing news, but it's our job to make sure that YouTube is a safe place for all." My response was somewhat impious: "Really? You reviewed my video and came to a decision in less than an hour? [Bovine Excrement]! You are a pack of liars. You didn't review a ***** thing. Exactly what part of my video glorifies or incites "violence against another person or group of people" or "encourages hatred of another person or group of people based on their membership in a protected group?" You won't tell me, because you can't." Now, I'm pretty sure I know what part of the video caused such consternation. Near the end, interspersed with Jim Jones, David Koresh, some hurricane storm surge, riots and burning buildings is probably about two seconds of a certain little Austrian corporal turned political figure of the 1930s/ 1940s giving one of his little talks. One of the signs of the end of the world is supposed to be the coming of the Antichrist. At the time, a lot of people thought that this little Austrian dictator was indeed said Antichrist. Ergo his appearance in the video. Incidentally, I sourced this little two second clip from a movie called Why we Fight - which is available on - wait for it - YouTube. While it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out that his speech was full of hate speech, it's not my hate speech nor am I endorsing it. Far from it! As a matter of fact, my maternal grandmother's maiden name was Grenemeyer. Where do you think that comes from? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count. Her family initially came to the United States somewhere in the early part of the 20th century. So yeah, that little cretin and his ilk could very well have been responsible for the deaths of some of my distant relatives. No wonder I'm a little miffed at their suggestion that I might be endorsing that type of hate speech. What is so insidious about all this is it's basically a joke. They won't tell you whether it was one of their bots that caught you or some little candy ***** Social Justice Warrior wet his panties. They won't tell you which part of your video violated their guidelines allegedly. Nor will they tell you how it did so. Even in response to that direct question. It's like - well it's like Germany in the 1930s and 40s, or Soviet Russia - all somebody has to do is level an accusation against you and it's off to the camp. The charges are so vague and nebulous that you can't really mount a defense. .

I just put thvideo on Vimeo https://vimeo.com/596954839

My complaint isn't so much their policy as that MY VIDEO DOESN'T VIOLATE IT. There is a link to the song on SoundCloud now in my thread. It is also on BandLab.

I'm not really one to mourn the loss of something I never had in the first place....

It's only confusing if you make it confusing.

I agree completely. Just because you have unlimited tracks doesn't mean you have to use them all. Just because you have unlimited effects doesn't mean you have to put all of them on every track. Just because you have unlimited possibilities doesn't mean you have to explore them all. In fact, limits are a necessary condition for creation to even exist at all.

I have never heard of any of these YouTube alternatives. The only one I have heard of is Vimeo. They're the largest and they only have a fraction of YouTube's viewership. So that kinda illustrates my point

Really? The forum censorship bot blotted out my use of the abbreviation for the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei If you wanted any evidence that censorship bots are stupid and have no sense of context: there it is.

Yes, I live in the US. One thing that a lot of people don't understand is that the First Amendment only prevents the government from interfering with your free speech. The whole Bill of Rights is designed to protect the rights of individuals from government interference. Not from other individuals. So Google, as a private entity, can lawfully practice all the censorship they want. Therefore, the common argument in rebuttal to complaints like mine is "if you don't like it, you can always go somewhere else." Problem is: where? There isn't anywhere else. Not as a practical matter. Platforms such as Google/ YouTube and F-Book are so large and so dominant that they constitute virtual monopolies. Their closest "competitors" have only a tiny fraction of the user base. And if any of them get popular enough, Google or F-Book just buy them up. So, while yes there are alternative video platforms, if you want to actually have a chance to reach a sizeable audience there is only one way to go as a practical matter. I would argue that these entities are so large, so dominant and that people are so dependent on them that they are no longer private businesses but public utilities. The electric and water companies aren't allowed to shut off service to a building just because it is the headquarters for the local ***** party no matter how despicable they are. Same principle applies.

Good song and an awesome video.

YouTube's nonsense is absolutely getting out of hand! My video for Doomsday Prophecy got taken down for "hate speech," HATE SPEECH? It's an instrumental you flipping morons! The only words in the whole damn video are the title and the end credits! Am I so unpopular that my very name is hate speech? "Hi byrondickens, Our team has reviewed your content, and, unfortunately, we think it violates our hate speech policy. We've removed the following content from YouTube: Video: Doomsday Prophecy" Well, I think maybe you need to hire some people for your "team" who have at least three functioning brain cells to review videos. The video quite obviously doesn't" glorify" or "incite" anything; it uses historical, archival footage to illustrate events of the type that those of an eschatological bent see as signs of the end of the world.

Now the confectionary posterior morons at YouTube pulled my video. For "hate speech." HATE SPEECH? It's an INSTRUMENTAL, you idiots. Outside the title and end credits, there's not one word in the whole damn thing.

Oh, God! Like getting a text from the bass player 5 minutes before rehearsal saying "I'm not going to make it to practice today. I have a wedding to go to." What? You just found out about this? It came up at the last minute?

Remixed. Reinstated the AWOL low end. SoundCloud for those who might be put off by the video.

Why not? The hottest thing going is 40 year old analog synthesizers or clones/ spinoffs/ reissues thereof. And 40 year old songs are climbing the charts again. Must be something to it....

Hey! This is falling too far down the page! There's still another month left!

No. The staff view is rather rudimentary. Cakewalk is not really intended to be a notation app.

Well, then maybe some education is in order.... Excuse my rant. This is all complex stuff. You can't expect to understand it without putting in some effort.