Just like with Facebook/Instagram, if your account gets taken over and then banned because the hackers used it for spam/scams, there’s no way to get your account back. There’s an “appeal” button where a robot instantly denies your appeal without any opportunity to provide evidence. It’s not a joke.
Once you’re locked out, you’re fucked. Meta doesn’t give a shit about its users, that’s the only way this business model can work.
Now for me, I try to use Meta products as little as possible. But my partner gets a significant amount of business leads from Instagram, it’s quite lucrative for her, so she took quite a hit when she lost that account and had to start over.
> with Facebook/Instagram, if your account gets taken over and then banned because the hackers used it for spam/scams
Happened to one of my relatives recently. Their (at least 10 years old) Facebook account has been linked by some hacker (I don't know how) with some unknown Instagram account, which then misbehaved, and the FB account was suspended as a result. A message says that the decision can be appealed from the unknown Instagram account to which we never had access and is not anymore linked. Reddit is full of people that had the exact same issue. Drives me crazy the fact that there's absolutely no way to talk to any human to solve this.
> Meta doesn’t give a shit about its users, that’s the only way this business model can work
Heh. Not really. Meta poured tens of billions in the last few years in their VR effort, with almost no results to show. With that money, they could have literally given a few minutes of human customer support to each and every of their users.
The title on HN needs to be updated. Right now it says "YouTube shut down 15 years old audio developer's channel for "reasons""
It can be read as saying the age of the person is 15 years old. But the developer said they had the channel for 15 years, not that they are 15 years old:
"How they are willing to insanely shut down a 15-year-old channel with not a single issue on record, without any warning or question, is beyond crazy." [0]
Done. I had the same issues with it myself when I initially wrote it, but couldn't think of a better wording at the time.
Hopefully it's less confusing now.
Could it be related to them selling a product called Switch? Although unrelated, could match some overzealous Nintendo filter. Who are on a quest against anything emulation recently.
The same can be said of any bureaucracy's function. It isn't your fault that you made an abhorrently stupid decision, you were just following the directive. Not to say it isn't a problem, but that it isn't new.
Thanks for the source of the quote. It's very interesting: Seeing "a computer can never be held accountable" is something where the cynic in me immediately expected "we just solved accountability, boys!", and not "this must never be allowed to happen". Especially from IBM...
On topic: I think our whole current Ad-economy is cancerous-- the decoupling of incentives between platforms and consumers/customers is IMO a bad trend for all of us long term (both sides), and having public attention/sentiment basically permanently on sale is yet another can of worms. I really hope we can learn to deal with this before it ruins our society. On the other hand, there are so many possibilities opening up, and generally just things improving without anyone much noticing, I'll still take unaccountable, capricious corporate overlords any day of the week in exchange. I would not want to live in any other time in the past if I had to make an honest choice.
Maybe the "customer support via HN/twitter" model can save the day here at least for this (as ugly as that whole concept is).
While not the case here, I feel like if some system really does have a lower error rate than humans on some task, then it'd be wrong to rule it out just because it can't be held accountable or punished. To me those are primarily means to reduce mistakes, opposed to requirements or ends onto themselves.
Same happened to oluv, one of the few honest audio review guys. His channel got attacked by scammers, his content stolen and hit with fraudulent IP claims. Youtube has become a cesspool.
The Internet generally has devolved towards the lowest common denominator, which is the cesspool or below. Social media and content sharing sites just concentrate and magnify it.
IMO, good content creators need to go back to self-hosting as their primary location, preferably on a decent host that won't just shut them down though if they make sure they have full control of the domain name at least and a good local/backup copy of everything, getting up and running elsewhere if that host goes tits-up is relatively easy. Then upload to youtube/others as secondary channels, so you can take advantage of the infamous algorithms for exposure, the interaction features¹, and to save bandwidth²³.
Also make sure your identity everywhere is, well, identifiable - so if youtune/InsertIdentityHere goes down someone searching for InsertIdentityHere can easily find the instances hosted on other sharing sites or your central one.
More work of course, but not massively so especially if it is (or is intended to be) a money making channel rather than purely a hobby project, and worth it long-term if take-downs happen.
--------
[1] I would not want to manage public comments and such on a self-hosted instance, fighting spam, hate, and other such issues can become a full-time job.
[2] Essentially using them as CDNs.
[3] You might have to give low quality versions of videos to most public requests to your main site⁴, sending users to yt/other for HD+, perhaps serving ad-free high quality videos direct to those who support you via payment (via Patreon or similar).
[4] And make sure you have appropriate throughput limits⁵ in place so “going viral” doesn't result in a massive bandwidth overage bill.
[5] This could be site-wide, though you could implement finer grained controls, perhaps if a particular item becomes temporarily “too popular” start serving a _really_ low quality version and more obvious links to TY/Vimeo/… until things die down.
This happens all the time in Google Play, how do you protect against random take downs? You have several copies of your dev account or channel. That's it, you become a spammer to defend against the bot that "protects" us from spammers.
What guarantees that final users can't protect themselves against phishing, because who knows if that new name, with completely incompatible history belongs to the same owner or not?
That's a bad advice. Firstly, Google is known to ban developer accounts "by association". They will easily ban all of your copies all at once. Secondly, apps are identified by globally unique package IDs. If one account has claimed an ID, no other account can use it ever again. So even if you do republish your app, you have no way to make your existing users update to that version. It will be considered a different app both by Google Play and Android itself.
Probably even worse for the advice is that client accounts can be associated with a banned developer's account...I remember reading a dumpster-fire of an ASK HN (a tire fire for the people actually effected).
My channel suffered the same fate. I had a few original songs on it and a few original videos on it. Never got a warning or copyright strike or any sort of notice. Just boom shut down.
I am sure this will end up all well in the end for the channel. I also get it why you can't have anything but automated filtering as a first pass on the volume youtube deals, it's absolutely understandable. This, however, might be a learning on youtube's end to include "if filter returns that this channel is literally hitler, but channel is also >xy years old or >subs or >views take it at least for a human consideration before inconvenience". Ultimately it won't render anything new to youtube as a platform, they'll still have to deal with automated and then human appeal process, but at least it will gain some confidence to content creators that the broom isn't all that thick.
Why hire and pay actual humans to moderate and review false takedowns when you can have the free labor of other community platforms (like twitter, hn, reddit) organically raise only the high impact support tickets for you? It is literally jira, but free, IQ 1000
That's shocking, sinevibes is a legit developer in the music/audio space. They made the FX for dreadbox's Typhon synth and several popular FX plugins for Korg logue synths. I'm subscribed to their newsletter and have never received spam. All their youtube channel had were demos of their products, as far as I recall. Like "here's how the dry synth sounds, here's how it sounds with reverb", can't even imagine how an algorithm thought it runs afoul of a spam or scam policy. Probably a mistake, hope it's fixed.
> can't even imagine how an algorithm thought it runs afoul of a spam or scam policy
Could a competitor cause the algorithm to think that, somehow, perhaps by engaging a service that reports the videos, in bulk, repeatedly from a seemingly diverse set of user accounts?
The market is not that nasty, AFAIK. It's all pretty niche. And YT isn't the biggest marketing channel for this segment, I think. The forums have lively discussions of plugins by people that understand and use the stuff, and whose previous contributions you can easily look up.
It doesn't have to be due to "the market". It just takes one channel owner who thinks that sinevibes is unfairly stealing their attention and decides to be staggeringly petty about it.
For those that rely on social media, this is probably the biggest upside to there being social media platforms... not all of them will take you down at once.
Other than that, this is probably because the content owner has a product called "Switch", and they are not as big and mighty as Nintendo. Makes me think that if you are creating a brand or product name, better use a made-up word
Same happened to an app that I published on Play Store, I don't even care that much, I only feel bad for the people that bought the premium version of it. Overall the takeway is that your product is never safe and you shouldn't only rely on these big platforms for marketing/distribution.
It bothers me a lot the ideological hatred for regulations commonly found on HN. This is exactly a showcase why regulations for digital markets/marketplaces need to exist.
We simply cannot trust huge platforms to care about the small to medium developers, people who are essentially powerless against a behemoth like Google or Apple. You get your app taken down, your account locked and the only recourse left would be spending six to seven figures in lawyers while risking losing the case altogether.
Right now you're correct that the only form of recourse users have is to sue the companies, but you're not entirely correct that it takes spending six figures.
You can sue them in San Mateo county and have the case adjudicated in a court which does not allow lawyers for either side and which has the power to compel a Google or a Facebook to reverse an erroneous moderation decision.
Even in countries where the cost to sue is low (mine), it's at lest 20 hours, and low 4-figure at the very least (unless it's against an employer, in that case unions will foot the bill, or against the state/an elected official, an anti-corruption NGO will do it for you)
Google is just egerious on another level, the difference between them is that while Apple might clampdown on some obscure rule (or due to the random reviewer assignment), they're usually at least human and unless in litigation can be reasoned with to an extent.
Google otoh is more like, bot/automated system takes things down and unless you happen to catch the eyes of someone in the particular department of Google you're SHOL because they don't want to give away "security secrets".
Point in case, the Terraria dev losing his Google account while making a Stadia port that couldn't get his account back despite having internal Google contacts (maybe he eventually got it back but not before the damage was done).
The platforms are opaque in their Kafkaesque bureaucratic nonsense.
But equally consistent is the narratives of the deplatformed are presented from one side, 100% victim, 0% responsible.
I know it’s hard when facing a faceless, robotic, powerful enemy - but going full one-side is just playing into the powerless-game framework of the platforms. Step up, own the full spectrum of your choices - and whatever the outcome, it’s more of a learning experience and you’re more empowered - rather than just “right”.
Also engage Black Swan techniques for dealing with abstruse bureaucracies.
Is there a chance the account was taken over by spammers and shutdown before OP ever got a chance to review things? Even if so, I suppose Google should suspend the account.
YouTube is still a big platform, but I notice that they've lost their monopoly on hosting and distributing long-form video as of ~a few years ago. IMO the way to look at it now is that all the major social media platforms are video platforms. X, insta, TikTok, etc. all allow posting long videos directly to the platform.
Youtube still has the monopoly for "outside users". Most other platforms force you to create an account to view the video, even the ones that historically didn't (ahem, twitter).
Imagine you sold a product for general popularion, and wanted to publish a tutorial video somewhere online... except for self-hosting it, youtube is the only viable option, sadly.
There is tremendous friction on mobile for watching TikTok videos without an account. I do not have a TikTok account and have had videos just not work without signing up. Not sure if they have been AB testing this or something because once in a while the video does work.
This is by design.
It tease you with some content, than force you to install app at random interval.
Many Chinese apps do this. I think Meta is doing this now as well
The irony in taking down a channel for spam and deceptice practices, when most YouTube advertisements are exactly that, yet are nearly impossible to get pulled
Always run and advertise your own website. There is no protection against deletion from social media for whatever reason they are going to come up with.
> Can people sue, and seek punitive damages large enough to be punitive to a trillion-dollar company?
If they can, should they be able to? If I run a website I think I should be allowed to decide what content is on there, and taking space in my DB is not a human right. I should be able to just rm -rf / without asking permission. I would be an asshole, but I'm paying the bills and I decide what my site is. I shouldn't even need a TOS that states that I can, I shouldn't have to keep promises I've never made.
The problem here is using YouTube and Google products that are known for these kinds of shutdowns, with no way to get in touch with a human. They are known to censor and remove access to truths they disagree with, and those truths are subject to change.
Instead of trying to change companies we don't support, we should help companies we do support get the traction they need. Educate people and de-google.
Might be moot, but the shutdown email mentions "spam, scam or deceptive practices", not just "reasons".
Without any context about the owner of the channel, the reader has no way to know how unfair the shutdown is.
I understand from the HN thread that the dev is well known and that the shutdown seems unfair - but it's always hard to share the outrage in this situation.
Best of luck to the channel's owner - let's hope the appeal ends up in front of a human being.
Now, let's all go back on youtube, to watch suggested videos about fake news interspersed with ads for crypto scam.
I've had good luck with Firefox, ublock origin, and sponsorblock. Can't remember the last time I saw an ad, automated or otherwise. There's also an extension that changes your default page to "subscriptions" instead of "home." I do recall using the ad blocker to hide the side panel of video recommendations, too. At least for now, youtube really is a free ride for me.
YouTube is notorious for that, though. With that context, this is one more instance, showing that the issue persists. I remember a German youtuber tried to unionize creators through IG Metall, though there doesn't seem to be any news in years so I'm not sure it went anywhere. https://fairtube.info/en/seite/press-coverage-of-fairtube/
I'm astounded by how crap the ads on Youtube now are. Back when the Adcopalypse happened they stated they were going to clean up the ads shown, but now it's just AI generated crap.
I wanted to highlight the irony of youtube closing a channel for "scams", given that about half of the few ads I still see in youtube are for crypto scams, fad diets, fake cancer medecines, etc...
> but it's always hard to share the outrage in this situation
I'm not really sure what makes raging about this so hard for you. Current YouTube practice is equivalent to locking up a citizen for "thievery" and "reasons" without providing any evidence of such at any point.
And sure, few hundreds years ago this course of action would fly. But today we advanced a bit and demand that our justice is a bit more just. I don't see why we should demand less of the corporations. Or do we just accept their role as a pocket of feudalism in modern society? Accepting undemocratic small planned economies of corporations is one thing, accepting customers to be their serfs is another.
How does this make sense when zero percent of uploaded youtube videos are owned by the creators?
It’s not like they are paintings loaned to an art gallery, where the gallery might have some obligations to preserve, return, etc.
From what I understand there’s no liability even if the board of directors decide to shut down Youthbe tomorrow and permanently delete every uploaded video.
> How does this make sense when zero percent of uploaded youtube videos are owned by the creators?
Says who and why should citizens of democratic countries listen to them? YouTube is a staple. If you reach this size, there are gonna be some rules. At least there should be.
> From what I understand there’s no liability even if the board of directors decide to shut down Youthbe tomorrow and permanently delete every uploaded video.
They are welcomed to do that. But deciding to refuse service on arbitrary grounds to one client is something they shouldn't be allowed to do. Otherwise why not ban people because they are Jewish or gay or just at random to sow fear? When you offer your services to the public then you shouldn't be allowed to refuse service to any member of the public without a very good and specific reason.
But even new legislation, assuming it can be rammed through Congress within your lifetime, can’t retroactively apply to uploaded videos which already were copied in fact…?
> Current YouTube practice is equivalent to locking up a citizen for "thievery" and "reasons" without providing any evidence of such at any point.
No, it's not even that remotely, and to equate the two shows massive ignorance.
This is like a book publisher of its own accord (without the government forcing them to) deciding that they do not want to publish your book anymore. Unless you have an explicit and enforceable contract with them that says otherwise then they're well within their rights to stop publishing your book.
If you don't like it then don't use their platform, and if you're using YouTube to host things for your business then it would be a really good idea to have a backup host in place that you can direct users to.
Maybe locking up is wrong analogy. Rather YouTube is just torching everything you've built instead.
> There's no book publisher as big as YouTube/Google
There's nothing as big as YouTube/Google and that's why analogy breaks.
Your analogy with publishers works only if there's relevant competition and there's none. YouTube is analogue to state publisher and others are underground small printers who's main occupation is printing opposition leaflets. There's no competition between YouTube and those entities.
118 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 180 ms ] thread- The AI bot costing billions in development, compute and energy who just banned your account based on a false positive
Once you’re locked out, you’re fucked. Meta doesn’t give a shit about its users, that’s the only way this business model can work.
Now for me, I try to use Meta products as little as possible. But my partner gets a significant amount of business leads from Instagram, it’s quite lucrative for her, so she took quite a hit when she lost that account and had to start over.
Happened to one of my relatives recently. Their (at least 10 years old) Facebook account has been linked by some hacker (I don't know how) with some unknown Instagram account, which then misbehaved, and the FB account was suspended as a result. A message says that the decision can be appealed from the unknown Instagram account to which we never had access and is not anymore linked. Reddit is full of people that had the exact same issue. Drives me crazy the fact that there's absolutely no way to talk to any human to solve this.
Heh. Not really. Meta poured tens of billions in the last few years in their VR effort, with almost no results to show. With that money, they could have literally given a few minutes of human customer support to each and every of their users.
It can be read as saying the age of the person is 15 years old. But the developer said they had the channel for 15 years, not that they are 15 years old:
"How they are willing to insanely shut down a 15-year-old channel with not a single issue on record, without any warning or question, is beyond crazy." [0]
[0]: https://bsky.app/profile/sinevibes.bsky.social/post/3lhbep5p...
Every AI decision becomes a way to shirk responsibility, even more than just automated ones (because then its "your" rule).
Welcome to the brave new world of AI-decision laundering.
Great thought from op.
Horrible implications.
This gives google a lot of “oops, the system did it” leeway.
Sadly the original source was lost in a flood and IBM archives do not have a copy: https://twitter.com/jonty/status/1798170111058264280
Edit: here's a better link https://simonwillison.net/2025/Feb/3/a-computer-can-never-be...
Or is that tweet about the parent post?
On topic: I think our whole current Ad-economy is cancerous-- the decoupling of incentives between platforms and consumers/customers is IMO a bad trend for all of us long term (both sides), and having public attention/sentiment basically permanently on sale is yet another can of worms. I really hope we can learn to deal with this before it ruins our society. On the other hand, there are so many possibilities opening up, and generally just things improving without anyone much noticing, I'll still take unaccountable, capricious corporate overlords any day of the week in exchange. I would not want to live in any other time in the past if I had to make an honest choice.
Maybe the "customer support via HN/twitter" model can save the day here at least for this (as ugly as that whole concept is).
IMO, good content creators need to go back to self-hosting as their primary location, preferably on a decent host that won't just shut them down though if they make sure they have full control of the domain name at least and a good local/backup copy of everything, getting up and running elsewhere if that host goes tits-up is relatively easy. Then upload to youtube/others as secondary channels, so you can take advantage of the infamous algorithms for exposure, the interaction features¹, and to save bandwidth²³.
Also make sure your identity everywhere is, well, identifiable - so if youtune/InsertIdentityHere goes down someone searching for InsertIdentityHere can easily find the instances hosted on other sharing sites or your central one.
More work of course, but not massively so especially if it is (or is intended to be) a money making channel rather than purely a hobby project, and worth it long-term if take-downs happen.
--------
[1] I would not want to manage public comments and such on a self-hosted instance, fighting spam, hate, and other such issues can become a full-time job.
[2] Essentially using them as CDNs.
[3] You might have to give low quality versions of videos to most public requests to your main site⁴, sending users to yt/other for HD+, perhaps serving ad-free high quality videos direct to those who support you via payment (via Patreon or similar).
[4] And make sure you have appropriate throughput limits⁵ in place so “going viral” doesn't result in a massive bandwidth overage bill.
[5] This could be site-wide, though you could implement finer grained controls, perhaps if a particular item becomes temporarily “too popular” start serving a _really_ low quality version and more obvious links to TY/Vimeo/… until things die down.
Have channels with playlists and channels with 1 movie each. Add one of the playlists to the description (that playlist may not contain that movie)
The movies one by one vanish from the playlists and are uploaded again on new channels.
The playlist channels seem to last for a really long time.
Could a competitor cause the algorithm to think that, somehow, perhaps by engaging a service that reports the videos, in bulk, repeatedly from a seemingly diverse set of user accounts?
YouTube have 114 million active channels. A small error rate of 0.001% would kill 1000 channels.
Other than that, this is probably because the content owner has a product called "Switch", and they are not as big and mighty as Nintendo. Makes me think that if you are creating a brand or product name, better use a made-up word
We simply cannot trust huge platforms to care about the small to medium developers, people who are essentially powerless against a behemoth like Google or Apple. You get your app taken down, your account locked and the only recourse left would be spending six to seven figures in lawyers while risking losing the case altogether.
It's disgusting.
You can sue them in San Mateo county and have the case adjudicated in a court which does not allow lawyers for either side and which has the power to compel a Google or a Facebook to reverse an erroneous moderation decision.
https://www.engadget.com/how-small-claims-court-became-metas...
And then you get Meta failing to show up, but asking for a set-aside afterwards because... they failed to show up.
It's aggressive customer contempt. This is someone's livelihood, possibly their entire livelihood, and these bobbleheads treat it like a joke.
Google otoh is more like, bot/automated system takes things down and unless you happen to catch the eyes of someone in the particular department of Google you're SHOL because they don't want to give away "security secrets".
Point in case, the Terraria dev losing his Google account while making a Stadia port that couldn't get his account back despite having internal Google contacts (maybe he eventually got it back but not before the damage was done).
But equally consistent is the narratives of the deplatformed are presented from one side, 100% victim, 0% responsible.
I know it’s hard when facing a faceless, robotic, powerful enemy - but going full one-side is just playing into the powerless-game framework of the platforms. Step up, own the full spectrum of your choices - and whatever the outcome, it’s more of a learning experience and you’re more empowered - rather than just “right”.
Also engage Black Swan techniques for dealing with abstruse bureaucracies.
Imagine you sold a product for general popularion, and wanted to publish a tutorial video somewhere online... except for self-hosting it, youtube is the only viable option, sadly.
Can people sue, and seek punitive damages large enough to be punitive to a trillion-dollar company?
If they can, should they be able to? If I run a website I think I should be allowed to decide what content is on there, and taking space in my DB is not a human right. I should be able to just rm -rf / without asking permission. I would be an asshole, but I'm paying the bills and I decide what my site is. I shouldn't even need a TOS that states that I can, I shouldn't have to keep promises I've never made.
The problem here is using YouTube and Google products that are known for these kinds of shutdowns, with no way to get in touch with a human. They are known to censor and remove access to truths they disagree with, and those truths are subject to change.
Instead of trying to change companies we don't support, we should help companies we do support get the traction they need. Educate people and de-google.
Without any context about the owner of the channel, the reader has no way to know how unfair the shutdown is.
I understand from the HN thread that the dev is well known and that the shutdown seems unfair - but it's always hard to share the outrage in this situation.
Best of luck to the channel's owner - let's hope the appeal ends up in front of a human being.
Now, let's all go back on youtube, to watch suggested videos about fake news interspersed with ads for crypto scam.
Thank FSM for ad blockers and nebula.
I'm not really sure what makes raging about this so hard for you. Current YouTube practice is equivalent to locking up a citizen for "thievery" and "reasons" without providing any evidence of such at any point.
And sure, few hundreds years ago this course of action would fly. But today we advanced a bit and demand that our justice is a bit more just. I don't see why we should demand less of the corporations. Or do we just accept their role as a pocket of feudalism in modern society? Accepting undemocratic small planned economies of corporations is one thing, accepting customers to be their serfs is another.
It’s not like they are paintings loaned to an art gallery, where the gallery might have some obligations to preserve, return, etc.
From what I understand there’s no liability even if the board of directors decide to shut down Youthbe tomorrow and permanently delete every uploaded video.
Says who and why should citizens of democratic countries listen to them? YouTube is a staple. If you reach this size, there are gonna be some rules. At least there should be.
> From what I understand there’s no liability even if the board of directors decide to shut down Youthbe tomorrow and permanently delete every uploaded video.
They are welcomed to do that. But deciding to refuse service on arbitrary grounds to one client is something they shouldn't be allowed to do. Otherwise why not ban people because they are Jewish or gay or just at random to sow fear? When you offer your services to the public then you shouldn't be allowed to refuse service to any member of the public without a very good and specific reason.
The prior comment wasn’t posted randomly in some arbitrary location.
It was in response to a specific comment in a specific location.
Namely:
> but it's always hard to share the outrage in this situation
No, it's not even that remotely, and to equate the two shows massive ignorance.
This is like a book publisher of its own accord (without the government forcing them to) deciding that they do not want to publish your book anymore. Unless you have an explicit and enforceable contract with them that says otherwise then they're well within their rights to stop publishing your book.
If you don't like it then don't use their platform, and if you're using YouTube to host things for your business then it would be a really good idea to have a backup host in place that you can direct users to.
There's no book publisher as big as YouTube/Google but that doesn't break the analogy, and there are plenty of other places you can host video online.
> There's no book publisher as big as YouTube/Google
There's nothing as big as YouTube/Google and that's why analogy breaks.
Your analogy with publishers works only if there's relevant competition and there's none. YouTube is analogue to state publisher and others are underground small printers who's main occupation is printing opposition leaflets. There's no competition between YouTube and those entities.
Like you, I used to believe this. Recent events have me re-examining my assumptions.
Clarification needed indeed: i did not meant "hard to share" because I don't feel empathy for the creator ; I meant "hard" in the sense that:
* I did not know beforehand anything about the creator,
* Neither the post, nor, surprisingly, the HN thread, gave much context about what the creator where accused of
* But the thread was full of outrage ; that I was, unfortunately, not entirely comfortable sharing.
But again, moot point - I completely agree that youtube automated moderation is a living advertisement for human moderation.
Just leave for another platform, especially if you're making content people would actively seek out. Who even watches Youtube at this point?