YouTube's Moderation Questioned After Banning Accounts For Too Many Emojis

"YouTube has a huge problem right now," argues videogame streamer Markiplier. "People's accounts are being suspended without reason, without provocation, and their appeals to get it back are being denied without explanation."

Engadget revisits "YouTube's occasionally questionable moderation" -- in this case, people being banned simply for using too many emojis (or "emotes") in their comments to videogame-streamer Markiplier during a YouTube-produced choose-your-own-adventure special. The service says it has reinstated legions of Markiplier fans' accounts after they were banned simply for spamming emotes (and not even to a great degree) while voting during a live playthrough of the interactive movie A Heist with Markiplier.

Not all of the accounts have been restored, Markiplier said, but YouTube added that it was "looking into" both why human moderators denied appeals and how it might "prevent this in the future." The change of heart came after Markiplier (aka Mark Fischbach) posted a video illustrating both how trivial the bans were, examples of denied appeals and the consequences for some users.

As he explained, this didn't just kick people out of chat. It affected entire Google accounts -- people lost videos, channel memberships or access to important services they needed, all because they spammed several emotes in one line. He also blasted YouTube for claiming that appeals were carefully reviewed, noting that there was at least one instance where someone succeeded with an appeal, and was almost immediately banned again for seemingly no reason... The incident highlights the complications and limitations of YouTube's approach to moderation. While the sheer size of YouTube virtually mandates some form of automated policing, it's not guaranteed to correctly interpret everything (especially if it's asked to be particularly strict).

Eggs in a basket.

[0100010001010011]

access to important services they needed

I first saw this on Reddit and most of the comments were "But all of my e-mails!" etc. If Google or Facebook up and went private tomorrow or decided to delete any number of accounts there are a lot of people that would be SOL with their online lives.

These are also the same group of people that cry "doxxing!" when you type their username/name into google and the first page is nothing but their accounts. Maybe it's just because we had drilled into our heads "Don't use your real name online" at 14-18.

The internet is a *huge* place. You can absolutely get by without Google (Youtube, etc) and Facebook (Instagram, WhatsApp, etc).

Re:

[paralumina01]

The Internet is huge, but the WWW is small when compared to 10 or 20 years ago.

Re:

[Areyoukiddingme]

The Internet is huge, but the WWW is small when compared to 10 or 20 years ago.

Depends on how you measure it. If you count all the link farms, both blatant and subtle, it's gigantic. It's also useless for doing anything but extract money from Google advertisers.

Re:

[Calydor]

I'm sure I could get by, but when I've used my GMail account to sign up for various services across the internet, getting those services changed to a new email when I don't have access to the old one is going to be REALLY problematic.

I've had my GMail since the early invite-100-friends days. Back when it had 1 GB of storage and that was unimaginably huge for an email account. And in all those years in between I've used GMail as the account I'd sign up with because well, ISP email addresses become a problem

Re:

[c120plus]

Since you understand the problem, when not get your own domain, set up a new email address there and then forward it to your exisiting gmail address? Then slowly move your logins to that new address. This way, when Google locks you out, you lose access to your email backlog (if not saved locally) but can point your mail to a new provider quickly while you sort things out. I've had a few cases of people losing email addresses they used for a decade (not gmail, though) and once that has happened, each of t

Re:

[Calydor]

That is, unfortunately, looking like the way it has to go at this rate. But there are also the stories that have popped up here and there of 'unknown' mail servers being refused left and right because they get suspected of being spam servers. Many years ago I had an account get denied because I signed up with an email provided by my ISP, which was the old telephone monopoly in my country, but the exact domain being used didn't have an attached website. Boom, account denied.

Having to navigate that quagmire w

Re:

[fish_sauce]

How do you go about doing that? Sounds tricky and what if the domain gets taken away because some vindictive person calls the domain host? Is it expensive?

YT losing its way, or becoming more corporate?

[JaredOfEuropa]

What's up with YouTube anyway? Lots of streamers and uploaders complaining that the rules for being demonitized are increasing... it's almost like they want to get rid of certain kinds of popular content creators, and want to be left with what amounts to daytime TV plus a couple of inane "influencers". They've hinted a few times that this is what their advertisers want, but I seriously doubt that: advertisers care primarily about reaching their intended target group, and avoiding being associated with controversial stuff. For the latter, YT could simply implement content tagging i.e. "Game livestream", "Car crashes", "Adult", "Profanity", etc. to denote topics and nature of the content, then advertisers can simply choose which content they do not want to advertise with.

Also: "It affected entire Google accounts -- people lost videos, channel memberships or access to important services they needed", that seems rather heavyhanded on Google's part, but it serves as a stark reminder to those people: don't trust important data to a 3rd party entity who can just revoke your access on a whim (which is the case for pretty much any of these free "important" services).

More corporate? More political.

[Okian Warrior]

What's up with YouTube anyway? Lots of streamers and uploaders complaining that the rules for being demonitized are increasing... it's almost like they want to get rid of certain kinds of popular content creators.

YouTube, Facebook and Twitter will ban any account that mentions the Ukraine whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella for... reasons(*). The CNN whistleblower (Cary Poarch) is fair game. The recent Amy Robach/Epstein whistleblower event caused ABC to fire Ashley Bianco who, it turns out, is *not* the actual whistleblower (...oops!) but making her name public- even though falsely accused - is fair game.

Youtube removed video by Judicial watch discussing Eric Ciaramella.

Oh, and here's [thegatewaypundit.com] Facebook removing coverage of a Trump rally, because it's "clickbait". The article was removed due to the title: "Watch Trump's Minneapolis rally live here!".

(Does that title seem like clickbait to anyone? Also, is clickbait enough reason to censor political rallies? Isn't political speech the most valuable and protected form of speech?)

We're at the point where the major players are simply censoring whatever they feel like, in order to push a political agenda.

(*) Despite Adam Schiff, who accidentally let out an unredacted transcript with the whistleblower's name, and [Fox news reporter] Mollie Hemingway mentioning his name on "Fox News live"

Re:

[Rockoon]

They (Youtube, and Facebook) are also censoring Tim Pool's coverage of Eric Ciaramella, where Tim Pool's coverage is merely commenting on the MSM's coverage...

Eric Ciaramella. The name they dont want known. Eric Ciaramella.

His name is Eric Ciaramella, and big tech doesnt want you to know about him or his history with the CIA and the DNC.

Re:

[EricCiaramella]

They've gone to extreme lengths, and it's really weird. The fact that it's all of the major networks, including Fox, are refusing to say his name while the tech companies are censoring their userbases is what makes it really creepy. If it was just news companies worried about reporting on the wrong person you wouldn't have facebook and youtube mass deleting user videos and comments that mention his name. Everyone doing it at once is downright creepy and has ugly implications.

Re:More corporate? More political.

[lgw]

Eric Ciaramella. The name they dont want known. Eric Ciaramella.

Also of note: Epstein didn't kill himself. Neither did the ABC Epstein story. ABC and CBS have just colluded to fire a whitsleblower who outed the fact that they conspired to silence the Epstein story because of who it would embarrass.

Our mainstream media is a source of national shame at this point. Completely propaganda organs.

Re:

[thereitis]

Two interesting pieces that may fit together:
1. Google's involvement in censoring in China.
2. YouTube's extremely heavy-handed (you might say "Chinese Government Style") approach to policing content.

I'm appalled that they would _permanently_ ban someone from all their Google data, unless the user does something extremely egregious (no, emote spam doesn't count). Google's remedies should be regulated at this point, as clearly they can't do it right.

Re:

[Jenka]

I think the difference here is that The Ukraine Whistle-blower is protected by "Whistle-blower protection Laws" they did everything correctly and the government being bound by those laws is supposed to keep the name secret. This is to encourage whistle-blowers in the future. Outing the whistle-blower is an attempt to punish the behavior. By Law members of the Government should not be revealing the whistle-blowers name as it will have professional and personal consequences that can be quite sever. As

Re: More corporate? More political.

[rmhartman]

The government already told us his name ...

Re: YT losing its way, or becoming more corporate?

[tysonedwards]

Services they needed includes things like the Google Play Store for their Android Phones, the ability to use the activation lock functionality after a device restore, and deactivating Nest Thermostats and WiFi Routers where they had been factory reset and required being re-set up on a new google account. Getting kicked out of the Google Ecosystem is a big deal.

Cage Match!

[Empiric]

We need a Tin Pot Dictator cage match between YouTube emoji-banners and Wikipedia edit reverters.

Re:

[Brett Buck]

Sounds like a natural for the Special Olympics. I got several edits reverted earlier today - when I added some missing commas!

Antitrust action should follow

[Headw1nd]

There is no reason whatsoever that anyone's access to their email accounts or google services should be removed because of anything they did on Youtube, regardless if it was crass, racist, or downright illegal. Can you imagine if someone was banned from office 365 because of something they said on xbox live? The whole thing boggles the mind.

I wouldn't have said this if you asked me last week, but the mere fact that this can happen shows that google needs to be broken up posthaste.

Re:

[esperto]

Or they could just block the account from posting comments for a time or permanently, or better yet, let them post, show the posts to them, but no one else.

yeah but emojis

[kilf]

I would cheerfully ban any user who posted even a single emoji.

Re:

[dissy]

Ok, but in this case the streamer himself was asking the viewers to do it.
He wanted a tally for a binary choice, and asked for red-heart and green-heart in chat.

Taking action within the youtube chat for unwanted spam may be one thing, but this wasn't spam any more than the news letter you signed up for and want to get, even if others may not.

Not to mention even if it was, the issue at hand is the [over]reaction to it with google services being terminated across the board, including paid for g-suite accounts

Re:

[antdude]

What about emoticons? :P

Re:

[grep -v '.*' *]

I try to disable them on my phone keyboard, but STILL somehow occasionally end up looking at a keyboard full of them. Then it takes me a few seconds to return to "normal", and I've tried disabling all of the keyboard options I can find.

I've NEVER going to respond with a stock picture of a dog / cat / ferret / politician doing stupid things -- WHY do I have a prefilled keyboard full of them? Don't Ever Show Them to Me. Ever. EVER. If I really, really wanted to I'll hunt one down and include it mysel

Re:

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

So when are email (and messaging) apps going to permit filtering by emojis?
"This comment violated emoji guidelines and was rejected by the recipient". I WANT.
Blocking forwarded pictures of cats and dogs might be a bit more difficult to implement.

Re:

[Dixie_Flatline]

Ok boomer

Good

[Luthair]

I for one welcome banning the cancer that is twitch chat from spreading.

likely not banned for emojis

[Anonymous Coward]

Undoubtedly, these were accounts that previously made posts that Google didn't agree with (politically etc), but weren't bannable offenses. Banning for "emoji spam" is a clever way to ban people that don't align with their narrative.

So

[Dunbal]

Tell Youtube and Alphabet to fuck off and use BitChute.

First world problems...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just don't use those fucking emojis! Problem solved. Who gives a shit.

I call BS

[fred911]

https://www.youtube.com/static... [youtube.com]

7. Account Termination Policy
YouTube will terminate a user's access to the Service if, under appropriate circumstances, the user is determined to be a repeat infringer.
YouTube reserves the right to decide whether Content violates these Terms of Service for reasons other than copyright infringement, such as, but not limited to, pornography, obscenity, or excessive length. YouTube may at any time, without prior notice and in its sole discretion, remove such Content and/or term

Re:

[Rockoon]

You still think Google follows its policies, in spite of the years now its been provably not doing so?

Re:

[Agent.Nihilist]

Except... they did.

And this wasn't in comments, but in chat. The "spam" was often a single line or less of emoji done at the request of the streamer. You can see it yourself by watching the video( https://youtu.be/aJDB06tm2Rs?t... [youtu.be] has voting happening).

Hundreds were banned, with their entire google account being locked out.

Re:

[Waccoon]

And they don't ban accounts without significant fair warning [three times].

This is the issue. People with no previous strikes are getting insta-banned with no warning.

I don't create content on YouTube, but I have noticed that the service keeps un-subscribing me from channels for no reason and keeps messing around with my preferences. Some channels have been deleted with no explanation. The whole platform is going haywire. I don't think YouTube really understands their own algorithms anymore. To cut costs, almost everything on YouTube is automated, and it doesn't work well at

Re:

[fish_sauce]

An internet friend of mine got permanently suspended from youtube without any warning what so ever. Youtube refuse to tell her what she did wrong so she will most likely repeat it with her new account.
Their nasty practice of not telling people what they did wrong will only cause confusion just like these new rules. Very infuriating. They only gave the link to the rules page. That is not an explanation! That is cold and cruel.

Spamming emojis gets banned?

[Ryzilynt]

Spamming chat channels. How fucking annoying.

I have no sympathy at all.

Are we going to try to protect the first amendment rights of DDoS attackers next?

"Don't spam the chat with dumb shit."

Re:

[Calydor]

The owner of the channel basically said, "Hey guys! Spam some dumb shit to help decide what I do next!"

The people in the channel proceeded to spam some dumb shit like the owner of the channel said they should.

Then everyone got banned.

This wasn't random, drive-by spamming - anyone present in that channel knew there would be heavy spamming because that was a big part of the point.

Re:

[WallyL]

And doing what you're told to do on the Internet has consequences...

Also, I expect the appeals forms to be filled out with lots of, "OK, boomer."

Own your identity

[jbrown.za]

A persons email address is the basis of their online identity, as it is the most common unique identifier and communication channel. While most people view a Gmail address as belonging to them, the truth is that an email address belongs to whoever owns the bit after @. So if you use an address with "@gmail.com", your online identity belongs to Google. While not entirely fool proof, I have registered a domain for my personal email, so that I at least have more control over it.

I think..

[Anonymous Dotter]

This seems like it was a failed experiment on Googles part with YouTube, and they got the answer they were looking for to a new banning strategy. Googles new TOS for YouTube also states that they can terminate an account that's not profitable in a very vague explanation. I've been watching YouTube change activities for the past 2 years, and most have been gauged at demonetization, and removal of accounts. I have this feeling YouTube is trying to dump a lot of people and revenue without causing a severe outr

I was quite upset with YT about that

[Wizardess]

They must have figured out I was using sequences of emojis to send encrypted messages to my nefarious colleagues.
{O,o}