BigCliveDotCom back from temporary YouTube ban - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 26, 2024, 12:10:47 am
content: BigCliveDotCom is apparently back from a temporary YouTube ban.This is what he says about it, in a recent YouTube video description:QuoteSource of quote (N.B. I've watched a lot of that video, and didn't seem to find any mention of the ban, but it could be in the parts I didn't watch):Edited, in response to replay #16 and added new 6th option "Other, please reply below":https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/bigclivedotcom-back-from-temporary-youtube-ban/msg5557079/#msg5557079

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 26, 2024, 07:50:08 am
content: YouTube are pussies

author: factory
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 27, 2024, 07:07:11 pm
content: Quote from: MK14 on June 26, 2024, 12:10:47 amThe comments to that video mention the ban numerous times and the banned video is still available on his Odysee channel.David

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 27, 2024, 07:30:12 pm
content: Quote from: factory on June 27, 2024, 07:07:11 pmThanks.Yes, here it is (linked for others, possible convenience):https://odysee.com/@bigclivedotcom:0d/beard-fire:bWow!Warning, warning warning. Do not watch it, unless you are at least 95 years old, wearing a crash helmet, and are not suffering from any imminent medical conditions or weaknesses.Possible sarcasm in previous paragraph.I actually voted 'yes', in this threads poll. As I thought it could be risky to younger people, so I gave YouTube the benefit of the doubt.But, firstly, I think YouTube are far too heavy handed. They should have temporarily suspended the offending video, and then peacefully discussed the situation with BigClive, in order to come to a conclusion.Then after the discussions, the video can either be reinstated, have adult only mode enabled, or be edited/toned down, enough to keep YouTube happy.Forcefully banning the YouTuber, even if only a temporary ban, seems rather far fetched.Now I've seen it, it doesn't seem much or possibly even any worse, than perhaps one hundred or more 'bad' scenes, throughout BigClives video collections.Such as Lithium battery fires/explosions, drinking or tasting things, that could be harmful, promoting beverages, electronically blowing up components (I suspect and vaguely remember), etc.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 27, 2024, 07:56:26 pm
content: I suspect it is mostly automated, a few Karens report a video and the ban-bot swings the ban-hammer, if the video owner appeals some sleepy intern at google, that doesn't understand much, might spend a few seconds watching before flipping coin on whether to deny the appeal..afaict google just needs to pretend they care so they avoid shitstorms and advertisers leaving

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2024, 09:26:10 am
content: Quote from: langwadt on June 27, 2024, 07:56:26 pmI think this is probably how it works. If a bunch of people rain reports on a channel then Youtube just bans the videos. Shawn Woods Mousetrap Monday videos have been the target of complaints for showing traps killing mice and rats so he can no longer show that. In the meanwhile many other channels do it without a problem. It is "mob justice".

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2024, 09:55:08 am
content: This is likely due to the claim that Youtube is only hosting content and does not create it.They are essentially a provider and therefore not responsible to approve/disapprove of content by themselves.Unless someone complains. Then they need to act. And business-wise it makes sense to overreact to avoid fines, or worse, risk a change in regulations.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2024, 09:58:18 am
content: Quote from: soldar on June 28, 2024, 09:26:10 amThat is sad. Because important technique videos, within electronics/engineering, DIY and other areas, could be disrupted, stopped, by the mechanism(s), you are describing. Because there can be some, who disagree, sometimes strongly with some of the things.E.g. A video, showing the potentially, significant, violent and sometimes very dangerous, explosions/flames or similar, when a way too cheap, mostly or fully non-fused, multimeter, is connected to a very powerful, high voltage source. Going bang, very dramatically.As it is an important safety alert video, for upcoming electronics hobbyists/professionals, both as to why the very cheap multimeters can be dangerous, and why it is best to take great care when working on powerful mains voltages.But some people may worry that such videos can encourage, dangerous experiments, by some.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2024, 10:03:22 am
content: Quote from: Ranayna on June 28, 2024, 09:55:08 amBut there needs to be a balance. The real world, is not 100% white(as in the colour white, no connection to humans)/clean/disinfected/virus-free/crime-free/100%-perfect/golden/beautiful everywhere, in all parts of the world, in every corner of everything.E.g. Those rodent videos, can be helpful, to anyone who has such a problem.As I see it. BigClive was just showing some of his personality, and having some fun, creating nice entertainment for us. I'm rather disappointed, if we can't show a bit of personality, playfulness, fun etc. That could make things too strict and regimented.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2024, 10:04:46 am
content: Quote from: Ranayna on June 28, 2024, 09:55:08 amthey only need to act if it is outright illegal, or if it's a complain about copyrights

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2024, 11:02:24 am
content: Quoteunder who's jurisdiction?

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2024, 11:15:39 am
content: Quote from: themadhippy on June 28, 2024, 11:02:24 amGood question.But I suppose as long as it is the legitimate laws of the land, for the countries involved, it should be good.Edit: Toned down my response.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2024, 04:38:29 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on June 28, 2024, 11:02:24 amI think I can better explain my feelings about this, without going too political now, so here it is:TV (which YouTube is a sort of partial, modern equivalent), in the old days (at least, here in the UK, although I suspect other countries, had varying, but somewhat similar systems in place, as well). We had the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation, who still exist, of course), with some kind of censorship, as to what we were or were not, allowed to watch. Which also, varied, depending on the time of day (when children were more or less likely to be watching, e.g. a 9 PM threshold/watershed, after which, things can get worse).N.B. I'm no expert on the precise details on how this censorship mechanism worked, so take what I say, as being extremely rough.But at least, it was a country wide, implemented/voted-in/decided/controlled/owned, body. Who set lines in the sand, as to how bad (violence, sexual stuff, etc), things could go.So it was sort of fair and reasonable, and could both sometimes allow, fairly/somewhat political/violent/different/sexual/problematic stuff through, onto the TV (Cinemas/Video-Tapes etc, were controlled by a similar or identical mechanism).Whereas now, it seems the (analogy)YouTube TV channel, is controlled by a company. That company is largely based in a different country, is highly motivated by adverts and profit. They (the company), can also be extremely secretive as to exactly what is and is not allowed.This would seem to be a significantly bad, downward step.E.g. The company could decide to politically bias the content. So, content which promotes their views, could be given lots of promotion, but content that is against their political views, could be blocked (possibly silently), and/or only rarely presented to users.So in summary, I don't think it is a good thing. Such choices (what is and is not allowed to be shown), should be chosen by society as a whole, who can elect suitable governing bodies, along with rules and laws, to keep things in shape.Not some, who knows what, at the top of these (often) giant technological companies. Who may not have our (the users), best interests at heart, and be far from neutral about stuff, including important political things.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2024, 05:26:46 pm
content: Quote from: MK14 on June 28, 2024, 04:38:29 pmIf I believe a company does not have by best interests, I am free to choose another company.Sure, the sheer popularity of the monopolistic faceless behemoth that is YouTube can make it challenging to find an alternative platform that reaches the same audience. But if you really wanted to get your unrestricted content out there, there are many other ways to do it.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2024, 05:48:40 pm
content: Quote from: Andy Chee on June 28, 2024, 05:26:46 pmI agree, that if they refuse to show/allow, what we consider reasonable content, such as the one highlighted in this thread. We are free to choose another 'YouTube' provider, who does share our values.But, on the other hand, it could be harmful to society. If they allow, their own political leanings, and that causes the wrong (as regards the true/real view of the voting population of a country) person to get elected.I.e. Incidents, such as these:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandalBut also, allowing (other peoples) copyrighted material, excessively violent/sexual/problematic content. Could be harmful to society.It is a bit like saying the Microsoft Windows operating system situation (such as regards, privacy of your data, who owns your data, etc), is ok, because we could install other operating systems, on the computer.But the problem is, Microsoft, get their money, as part of what you pay to buy a new computer, in most cases, so you don't really have a choice.Similarly, YouTube effectively has a monopoly on that part of the video market. A YouTuber, with perhaps millions of subscribers and billions of views on YouTube. Would probably lose a massive percentage of their revenue and viewer quantity, if they abandoned YouTube entirely and moved to other platform(s).I.e. It is arguably not viable for a successful YouTuber, to leave YouTube for another of the similar offerings. If they still want to make at least some money and get a reasonably large number of people, watching their videos.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2024, 06:51:17 pm
content: Quote from: MK14 on June 28, 2024, 05:48:40 pmMany Linux users have complained about this very issue over the decades, and were able to successfully obtain a refund credit from Microsoft.QuoteYes, getting an established creator and audience to transition to an alternative platform is pretty much impossible (unless the platform goes bankrupt itself).However, that seems to be a separate issue to your beef with company policies.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2024, 07:10:39 pm
content: He didn't sing his beard, he singed it.This nitpicking post is as important as that ban was.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2024, 07:25:54 pm
content: Quote from: Andy Chee on June 28, 2024, 06:51:17 pmIt is a separate issue, but it was in response to what you said, here:Quote from: Andy Chee on June 28, 2024, 05:26:46 pmI.e. Because of the huge market share YouTube has. Users (viewers) and/or YouTube creators, are not really free, to choose another platform.Analogy:Let's create an imaginary world.There is only one car available on the market, no others. No rail, buses or airplanes etc.The Mord Model T 1, NicroSoftCars, which can be any colour you want, yes any, with absolutely no limitations whatsoever, except it has to be the colour black.The only known alternative in this factitious world, is walking or bicycles.So if you want to travel, perhaps 150 miles, each way, in a single day, and have time to enjoy the event/venue/meetup etc. You realistically need a car.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2024, 07:29:58 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on June 28, 2024, 07:10:39 pmI'm sorry, you're right. I misspelled singed.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2024, 07:34:21 pm
content: Quote from: MK14 on June 28, 2024, 07:29:58 pmYou did, but more importantly, you missed my point: I do not believe for a second anybody misunderstood the poll as in claiming that BigClivesang(because of the typo); I believe everybody understood that it was about setting his beard on fire for a second or two.Similarly, the ban had no meaning, other than stop BigClive from posting videos for a week or so.Meaningless nitpicking, meaningless ban.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 28, 2024, 07:46:48 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on June 28, 2024, 07:34:21 pmI did notice, and understood, that as what you meant. But thanks for clarifying/confirming it, anyway.I'm a bit of a spelling/grammar fanatic (only a bit), so hate to have errors, in any of my threads or posts.Their (YouTube/Google/Alphabet) system of banning, even if temporary, seems to be rather heavy handed and big brother like.Imagine if on this forum, I was banned, for 7 days, because of accidentally making that spelling mistake.It would be mayhem, and perhaps make a lot of people leave the forum.I think YouTube, should give creators, the benefit of the doubt, and assume they are a nice, peaceful, sensible/reasonable entity/individual, who has just (possibly) made a slight mistake or error of judgement. Perhaps it is the unknown to us, people who made the original complaint(s), that are at fault.Maybe even an automated AI, problematic/bad video content detector at play?It is not at all clear. Except that I remember in some of BigClives videos, he starts off by saying a fairly innocuous word, such as, "this item is used with drugs", then saying something like "I just used the D word, so bang goes my monetization for this video".Then he peacefully makes a (usually) enjoyable video.I'm sort of glad, he is NOT intimidated, by the occasional demonetization of videos, just because he mentions one of the 'banned' words. Because it increases the broadness of the videos he makes.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2024, 12:11:21 am
content: Quote from: MK14 on June 28, 2024, 07:46:48 pmI can understand why the general ban-hammer is more or less automated, the amount of new content on YT every day is enormous.But to me it makes no sense that creators with more than a decade of content and sometimes +million subscribers doesn't get at least some leewayor human attention before a ban

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2024, 12:27:57 am
content: Quote from: langwadt on June 29, 2024, 12:11:21 amSince, as I seem to have picked up, Google are somewhat secretive, about the real business accounts, as in, they reportedly just supply, perhaps barely above the legal minimum amount and probably get fancy waged accountants and lawyers, to come up with ever more clever ways, of hiding the true picture, from competitors and others.Which is sort of fair enough, as it is both legally right to do that, and morally right, given that some other businesses, also do similar.So, I'm not sure if it is because YouTube (Google) needs very low actual costs, as they get limited revenue, per actual YouTube view.Or if it is because of excessive cost cutting on YouTube (Googles) part?Consider this forum, as an analogy.If it needed to employ full time, paid staff, in offices, to handle all enquiries, and moderator/administrator activities. It probably wouldn't be economically viable.So, given that the revenue streams, are probably not that different, and YouTube (Google), is perhaps N times bigger, than this forum. It also, would perhaps struggle, to pay for a full sized, moderator/administrator team, to handle all such events.You're right, when a YouTuber is big enough, it should then allow YouTube to be able to economically deal with it.One thing that comes to mind. Maybe for the first couple of strikes, since there is not going to be a permanent ban, yet. YouTube consider it good enough to allow the automated systems to deal with it.But if/when the final strike occurs, then, if the channel is big enough, human intervention can take place, as an automated permanent banning system, would be a much more serious affair, if it sometimes gets it wrong.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2024, 01:36:18 am
content: It's easy to get upset that a company like Alphabet has so much control, indeed censorship, over what people may say and what they may watch. As well as the fact that control is used capriciously, giving the appearance of hypocrisy. I suppose you are destined not to please everyone once you operate at the massive scale that YouTube does, but there are some real injustices to how it operates.A recent example is how some channels and videos are made age-restricted, based simply on politically unfavored facts and opinions. This is clearly an abuse; I'm not even sure why YouTube implements age-restriction, since porn is against their TOS. A darker possible motive is that age-restricting a video requires you to sign in, so that those watching those videos become easier to monitor.Another sleazy thing that YouTube does is the "fact check information panel" that floats above the entire video. What gives them the incredible chutzpah to presume to be an authority over anything?

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2024, 03:25:47 am
content: Quote from: helius on June 29, 2024, 01:36:18 amAlthough I very much like and agree, with the rest of your post. My understanding and recollection, is that YouTube did the "fact check information panel", in response to concerns by some, about random people and sources, doing Covid videos, which gave misleading information (compared to the official government sources), or even conspiracy stories, such as Covid is a lie, look at these empty hospitals, don't bother wearing a mask or taking any precautions.Which meant that some (arguably vulnerable people), listened to the very bad advice and in same cases became ill with Covid, and subsequently passed away, from it.Forcing (in real terms), YouTube to act, or if they didn't, risking angry Governments, penalizing YouTube and imposing massive fines and changes (new laws), that could badly affect YouTube.I think there were also complaints about so many conspiracy, Flat-Earth and other dubious claims videos on YouTube. So they decided to clamp down on such channels.E.g. When new 5G mobile phone masts, were 'violently' destroyed by fire (and perhaps other means), over health fears surrounding 5G. Stirred up, with dubious (typically) YouTubers, who seemed to be anti-establishment, trouble-makers, attention-grabbers, scam-merchants and similar (something on those lines anyway).I think one such person, made these YouTube videos, claiming LED street lights, were secret spy devices, but which could emit powerful (something, rf?), which killed all the birds in an area (again, something on those lines, I can't remember the exact details).He would even make YouTube teardown videos, of those LED street lights, with somewhat wild claims, by pointing to sections of it and claiming weird ideas as what they were doing.E.g. (I can't remember exactly, so take this extremely roughly), pointing to a likely SMPS (or something), then claiming it was an rf death ray thing, which was killing birds, in the street. Then we had thread(s) on here, debunking those dubious claims and even explaining that the device(s) shown, are way too small to have the effects, he was claiming, even if they were not what they appeared to be.So in summary, I agree with YouTube doing that. But, such a mechanism is rather open to possible abuse. So really an independent (of Google etc), non-profit making (possibly government) agency, should be deciding what needs to be censored (or whatever it should be called), in that way.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2024, 08:41:32 am
content: Quote from: langwadt on June 29, 2024, 12:11:21 amDo you realize how expensive a few minutes of competent human attention is, compared to a second of computer work? Why would they spend money on a content provider who isn't going anywhere else anyway?

author: m98
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2024, 12:22:46 pm
content: Difficult topic. I guess the vast majority of his audience just gets the humour, but realistically, what could be a one-word summary of “setting your own beard on fire”? Self-harm. Everyone agrees how dangerous/deadly some of those "TikTok"-challenges can get, and how much it can damage the reputation of a platform. So its very understandable they want none of that.

author: iMo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2024, 01:00:32 pm
content: Frankly, I doubt a child or a teen would set his own beard on fire..On the other hand, the more bizarre the content the more views.. That is today's reality..

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2024, 02:03:19 pm
content: The poll is missing "It was plain stupid on his side" voting option.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2024, 03:02:42 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on June 29, 2024, 02:03:19 pmYou're right.The forum originally, only seemed to let me set 5 answers, and I couldn't find a method of increasing it. On the other hand, you could argue I wasted some of the answers, with joke/gag options.When I later edited the original post, strangely a 6th poll answer, that was blank, but I could fill in, had appeared.Until now, I haven't done forum polls here, for a rather long time, so maybe don't know the ropes well enough yet.I don't want to add any more answers, at this late stage (a generic 'OTHER' seemed ok though, because it wasn't an answer as such, for the voting, in real terms), as it would confuse the voting patterns.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2024, 03:22:30 pm
content: Quote from: m98 on June 29, 2024, 12:22:46 pmQuote from: iMo on June 29, 2024, 01:00:32 pmQuote from: Bud on June 29, 2024, 02:03:19 pmAnswering all 3 posts, at the same time. Which essentially seem to boil down to, what if people who watch the video, end up taking similar actions and leading to (possibly self) harm.Take the following video of his, as an example:It seems to have 6.4 million views, at the moment.So, who knows out of those up to 6.4 million people (probably fewer in practice, as some might watch it multiple times), will correctly heed its advice, to play safe with dangerous stuff.But some of its viewers, could end up ignoring or misunderstanding the advice, and end up doing their own similar experiments. With potentially (excuse the pun), extremely dangerous outcomes.I think at the end of the day. If you worry about what a (hopefully) tiny minority may do, by completely misusing a good video, and what harm they may cause. Just about all YouTube videos and perhaps all TV and cinema, would have to completely stop.I.e. What Video (YouTube/TV/Cinema etc), could be considered absolutely 100.000000000% safe, for all of the around 7 billion Earths human occupants?Let's consider, 1 hour of a totally silent, black screen, with zero sound and no description details and blank title.What if one or more of the viewers, does some harm to themselves, out of the sheer potential boredom, such a video, may cause.A soldering video, they could burn themselves or others, with the soldering iron.A 1.5 volt AA battery lighting a small bulb. They could accidentally swallow the battery, bulb or hurt themselves with the wire.Video of someone peacefully and gently reading a book. A (rare) person could get highly upset, because they didn't succeed in ever learning to read, so they get into a rather upset state, and cause some damage.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2024, 04:50:34 pm
content: Yet, I still think this is funny.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2024, 06:24:54 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on June 29, 2024, 04:50:34 pmThanks, that is funny.The following video, in effect, makes fun of anyone who is not an EEVblog forum member, along with the knowledge, that often gives/implies.It probably wouldn't be in the best of tastes, these days, as it is not especially politically correct (as regards technical people, of sorts, rather than other factors).

author: Sal Ammoniac
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2024, 06:49:51 pm
content: Quote from: MK14 on June 29, 2024, 03:22:30 pm

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2024, 07:09:35 pm
content: Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on June 29, 2024, 06:49:51 pmWhen I was much younger, books were telling children, how to take batteries apart (or at least showing their insides), and getting them to put stuff in their mouths, in a worrying way. See here (I think I remember that exact picture from a book, a very long time ago):Politically correct, modern standards, would probably insist on trying to prosecute or sue, the publisher, if someone tried to promote such educational things these days.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2024, 07:34:09 pm
content: Quote from: MK14 on June 29, 2024, 03:22:30 pmLook, I do not give a fyck if Big Clive self harms himself, or about "Save the children" mentality. That was not my point. I was talking about common sense. From common sense perspective who would try setting his beard on fire? What kind of idiot one has to be to do this. This is why I said "Plain" stupidity.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2024, 07:53:56 pm
content: Fire is unpredictable, as a teen we used to light farts all the time. But sometimes the flame would travel to lint on clothes, and then your clothes and then "something else" are on fire... which can be pretty horrifying, unexpected. Hair can be extra flammable with oil "beard oil" or product in it as well.I think it was a bonehead move.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 29, 2024, 10:19:30 pm
content: Quote from: iMo on June 29, 2024, 01:00:32 pmI would have too, but that's underestimating the stupidity of people. Not only a teen may try that, but probably lots of adults as well.And I'm not for censoring such content just because of that, either. Because the underlying issue is much deeper, and people don't get better by just being ignorant of things that could be dangerous.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2024, 02:59:14 am
content: Quote from: Bud on June 29, 2024, 07:34:09 pmBut BigClive is trying to make fun, educational, entertaining videos, which people will watch.He could have safely pointed the camera at the freshly painted wall (if it had been), and recorded it safely drying for 5 hours, continuously. There are even people who will watch such things (I suspect). But I bet most people in this thread, would NOT watch such a video, if BigClive made it.What he did, is a bit crazy. But on the other hand, it shows some of his real life personality at play. It let's learn more about the real life BigClive, still playing and having fun, many decades after childhood.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2024, 03:05:17 am
content: Here we go, a paint drying video. I was expecting it to have a few hundred views or perhaps a thousand or so.Yet it seems to have 1.7 million views, along with 8,900 comments.Wow!Information overload detoxification, or get to sleep videos, maybe a keep babies/pets happy video. I wonder what the motivations, of those 1.7 million views were?

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2024, 03:28:03 am
content: Quote from: Bud on June 29, 2024, 07:34:09 pmI have a question for you. To clarify the situation. By the way, it is your opinion, and I'm perfectly fine, that we can all have differing opinions, about different things. So, no criticism of you.Given that you see the video (beard singed) as "Plain" stupidity.Are you happy for BigClive to have such videos, as part of his YouTube collection (and you are perfectly free to never watch it), or are you, so unhappy about it, that you want such a video, banned/removed/deleted/gone?

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2024, 04:23:52 am
content: After seeing Electroboom fuck around with an energized MOT and jumper wires, I fully expect him to die soon. That is the stupidest move, no doubt about it.I don't think he's been banned on youtube.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2024, 04:48:46 am
content: Quote from: floobydust on June 30, 2024, 04:23:52 amPhotonicinduction, was arguably similar. While it was regularly, active.He/they seemed to do things, fairly safely. But some of the stuff they did, was more messing around silliness, such as (made up example), "What will happen to this 115V lightbulb, if I give it 10,000 volts, from this giant transformer?", sort of videos.

author: factory
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2024, 12:24:41 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on June 29, 2024, 07:34:09 pmFrom the comments on the video, there are a few mentions of this being a method used for trimming beards.David

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2024, 01:03:06 pm
content: A few comments = replies by the video creator?It looks more like he is taking the piss in the comments as well as the video.Really if this is what he's been driven to, it looks like a case of audience capture. Ditto Electroboom and his stupid stunts.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2024, 01:20:01 pm
content: This doesn't seem completely 100% fair. I found the following fire/Beard related YouTube/Short, which seems to be much more frightening and harmful to the person, than BigClive's Beard fire singe short. Where the person may have accidentally got hurt as well.https://www.youtube.com/shorts/EQSHihBbdBcEDIT: I suppose, BigClive's Video Short, could be argued, that it is too similar to the concepts of self-harm, where as, the video in this post, was apparently an accident. So, perhaps not a valid example.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2024, 02:10:48 pm
content: Pay extra note to the gap-toothed grin at the end. I very much think it was in the same vein of absurd humor as the Hale&Pace microwaved kitten sketch, or Jukka Tilsa's Zärpä comics. Not as good, though, but in the same vein.

author: factory
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2024, 06:58:42 pm
content: Quote from: helius on June 30, 2024, 01:03:06 pmThere are comments from other users, not just BigClive himself.David

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2024, 07:34:16 pm
content: Quote from: Bud on June 29, 2024, 07:34:09 pmCommon sense may suggest not to do this, but then you see someone do it successfully and you wonder - if they can do it, and it plainly works, what's the problem?I think you underestimate how persuasive these things can be, even to those that might normally be aware it is daft. What's the worst that could happen? A few singed hairs? Sure, worth a try then. Of course, they might have used some beard oil but either the instructions (if read) for those won't say "Don't set your beard alight while using this product" because, well, who would? Or they do explicitly say that and then folks like you lay into them for being woke and over the top on 'safety' stuff that no-one would sensibly do anyway. Can't win.

author: armandine2
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2024, 08:24:32 pm
content: ... a unintentional borderline humorous electronics video - that is hard on the audience

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2024, 08:59:27 pm
content: Quote from: MK14 on June 29, 2024, 07:09:35 pmhttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=432777.0;attach=2297997;imageQuoteI always read and hear of batteries being referred to as cells or packs having "single" cells.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 30, 2024, 09:33:27 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on June 30, 2024, 07:34:16 pmIncidentally, I believe a video I posted in another thread was taken down for similar reasons:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/electric-fence/msg5515438/#msg5515438Fortunately the video has been uploaded multiple times:

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2024, 12:14:17 am
content: But such videos (Electric Fences, or Van de Graaff generators and similar), can be important and useful, because they teach people how electricity works. Also, by seeing their lively reactions, people learning from such videos, are much more likely to remember the importance of playing safe with high voltages.In other words, it perhaps could be argued, that by banning/deleting such videos on YouTube. It maybe risking vital safety information/lessons (such as for the dangers of high voltages), from being missed by some people.I'm not happy that they deleted that video, you mentioned. Although I'd prefer to know the exact details of the complaints about it, and let YouTube explain why they took that video down. Before blaming YouTube or accusing them of making a mistake (although me saying that is hypocritical, as I made this thread, which does just that).E.g. Perhaps it was taken down for different reasons, such as a copyright claim/dispute.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2024, 07:27:22 am
content: QuoteNot sure that works. Firstly, without knowing about such stuff it would be easy to think they are faking. Forget you know about electricity and insulators and grounds, and it certainly looks very faked for the lulz.Next, it's actually showing that a 10kV electric fence is perfectly safe if a little 'jolty'. So how much safer would be, say, 400V three-phase supply, or the plainly weedy 240V plug. Maybe a practical joke on some unsuspecting sibling is in order.I don't see how you can ban them, though. Once you go down that route it tends to be a ratchet that more and more stuff trips over.

author: Daixiwen
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2024, 07:36:05 am
content: Quote from: MK14 on June 30, 2024, 03:05:17 amThere is a theory on that.... People fall asleep while watching YouTube and the algorithm can't distinguish between viewers that are asleep and those that are very interested in the video and want to watch it in its entirety. If you fall asleep every night with Youtube, the algorithm will suggest to you more and more very long videos thinking you are interested, and will self reinforce those suggestions.The Spiffing Brit made a video about that and how some creators are using it to make more money:I don't know how and if Google will fix this one day, but as long as the advertisers (who are the only ones loosing here) don't complain they have no reason to.

author: Ranayna
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 01, 2024, 08:21:17 am
content: If i am not logged in, after around an hour or so, playback stops if i do not interact with the browser.Though that maybe only happens with videos that are classified as music.