Reading through the article the appeal process was shown to be highly fuzzy and uncertain even for a group of highly trained legal experts.
This Kafkaesque situation is similar to the way the legal process works inside a totalitarian state like China, where the citizen caught in a sticky legal situation, could not use the appeal and defence mechanisms, because nobody knows what is the actual mechanism.
And similarly the Youtube user has no natural rights or protection, even if the entire misconduct lies with the Youtube copyright strike process.
It is times like this that I start to agree with the way governments have begun to scrutinize Facebook and Google.
Clearly they do have a responsibility beyond a commercial term of service, to provide not just a utility but also to ensure that some degree of fair play, truthfulness, and consistency is applied.
This Kafkaesque situation is similar to the way the legal process works inside a totalitarian state like China, where the citizen caught in a sticky legal situation, could not use the appeal and defence mechanisms, because nobody knows what is the actual mechanism.
And similarly the Youtube user has no natural rights or protection, even if the entire misconduct lies with the Youtube copyright strike process.
It is times like this that I start to agree with the way governments have begun to scrutinize Facebook and Google.
Clearly they do have a responsibility beyond a commercial term of service, to provide not just a utility but also to ensure that some degree of fair play, truthfulness, and consistency is applied.