Porn Bombing: A New Tactic to Force Your Critics Off Youtube
January 26, 2025 2:24 PM Subscribe
Unless you roam the "shady underbelly" of the Internet looking for information on "get rich quick" schemes, you probably have never heard of Danny de Hek, also known as "The Crypto Ponzi Scheme Avenger" on Youtube, Facebook, and other social channels.
A few days ago, (21-JAN-2025) de Hek's Youtube channel as terminated for policy violations. Normally this was not newsworthy. What was interesting, however, was the tactics used. Basically de Hek interviews alleged scheme runners over Zoom with hard questions, and live streams such on Youtube. However, in some of the recent interviews, the interviewee, exposed his own rearend. In another interview, a third-party displayed explicit material. Youtube then flagged the video and issued a strike, before de Hek can edit/blur the offending footage.
According the de Hek as reported by BehindMLM, one interviewee, with a large online following publicly urged her supporters to report de Hek's channel.
De Hek also claimed that he lost his Zoom and Facebook accounts recently, and his other Internet presence, such as his website and X account are under DDOS attack. Two of his previous podcasts hosted by Buzzsprout were mass reported for "harmful content", and despite his objections, were ultimately removed.
De Hek's Youtube channel was ultimately reinstated as of 25-JAN-2025, but this raises interesting questions on Youtube's reporting system, and how it can be abused to silence citizen journalism.
A few days ago, (21-JAN-2025) de Hek's Youtube channel as terminated for policy violations. Normally this was not newsworthy. What was interesting, however, was the tactics used. Basically de Hek interviews alleged scheme runners over Zoom with hard questions, and live streams such on Youtube. However, in some of the recent interviews, the interviewee, exposed his own rearend. In another interview, a third-party displayed explicit material. Youtube then flagged the video and issued a strike, before de Hek can edit/blur the offending footage.
According the de Hek as reported by BehindMLM, one interviewee, with a large online following publicly urged her supporters to report de Hek's channel.
De Hek also claimed that he lost his Zoom and Facebook accounts recently, and his other Internet presence, such as his website and X account are under DDOS attack. Two of his previous podcasts hosted by Buzzsprout were mass reported for "harmful content", and despite his objections, were ultimately removed.
De Hek's Youtube channel was ultimately reinstated as of 25-JAN-2025, but this raises interesting questions on Youtube's reporting system, and how it can be abused to silence citizen journalism.
I don't know this person and can't comment on the specific story, but:
- this is a tactic that only works if the recipient is livestreaming with an untrustworthy other party. Which is not a situation a lot of people find themselves in, and certainly you don't livestream video by accident
- content moderation is really proving to be one of the toughest questions of our time, huh
posted by LSK at 3:18 PM on January 26 [20 favorites]
- this is a tactic that only works if the recipient is livestreaming with an untrustworthy other party. Which is not a situation a lot of people find themselves in, and certainly you don't livestream video by accident
- content moderation is really proving to be one of the toughest questions of our time, huh
posted by LSK at 3:18 PM on January 26 [20 favorites]
It really seems like the walls are closing in on any kind of useful content on the big tech platforms
de Hek is essentially at war with scammers, so it is not surprising that the scammers are fighting back by exploiting the levers available to them. Livestreaming his stuff to YouTube is essentially what enables that particular vector. Capture it, edit out the objectionable content, then upload it to YouTube. For DDoS stuff, he'll have to partner with CloudFare or Imperva. As for the Buzzsprout stuff, he'll have to find another podcast host.
It's never going to be easy to take on crimey people with no ethics.
posted by grumpybear69 at 3:19 PM on January 26 [12 favorites]
de Hek is essentially at war with scammers, so it is not surprising that the scammers are fighting back by exploiting the levers available to them. Livestreaming his stuff to YouTube is essentially what enables that particular vector. Capture it, edit out the objectionable content, then upload it to YouTube. For DDoS stuff, he'll have to partner with CloudFare or Imperva. As for the Buzzsprout stuff, he'll have to find another podcast host.
It's never going to be easy to take on crimey people with no ethics.
posted by grumpybear69 at 3:19 PM on January 26 [12 favorites]
Or if he wants to keep livestreaming, there has to be a way to insert a delay between the capture and the broadcast, possibly involving a second laptop. And then someone else could blur stuff out or bleep stuff out or just put up a "TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES" splash screen.
posted by grumpybear69 at 3:21 PM on January 26 [3 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 3:21 PM on January 26 [3 favorites]
… but this raises interesting questions on Youtube's reporting system, and how it can be abused to silence citizen journalism.
Does it, though? Anyone with even a rudimentary acquaintance with YouTube channels knows that enforcement is pathologically capricious and seemingly unmanaged (by humans, anyway) allowing very easy manipulation by griefers and brigades.
posted by Thorzdad at 3:21 PM on January 26 [11 favorites]
Does it, though? Anyone with even a rudimentary acquaintance with YouTube channels knows that enforcement is pathologically capricious and seemingly unmanaged (by humans, anyway) allowing very easy manipulation by griefers and brigades.
posted by Thorzdad at 3:21 PM on January 26 [11 favorites]
Example number ∞-1 that proper moderation requires effort, so it doesn't happen until there's a big enough of a stink. (this applies to YT and perhaps the streamer, yay)
Betting the scammers would refuse interview if not for it being live.
posted by Enturbulated at 3:22 PM on January 26 [2 favorites]
Betting the scammers would refuse interview if not for it being live.
posted by Enturbulated at 3:22 PM on January 26 [2 favorites]
There are a few YouTubers being sued or threatened with legal action for reviewing or commenting on a product. Not sure how successful a tactic this is - I’d never have heard of this product or this company until hearing about the kerfuffle. The Streisand effect in action perhaps. On the upside, I think I’ve watched all of Mend It Mark’s videos now, find them oddly fascinating.
posted by ElasticParrot at 4:06 PM on January 26
posted by ElasticParrot at 4:06 PM on January 26
Hey everybody, lets invent a fair process by which decisions about punitive actions are made, which would require each side to get a full hearing, maybe with professional advocates helping them, and judges who are neutral to make the decisions, with a full appeals process and clear, shared, written regulations...
posted by amtho at 4:12 PM on January 26 [2 favorites]
posted by amtho at 4:12 PM on January 26 [2 favorites]
The guy needs a 7-second standard broadcast delay, which builds up a reserve by extending natural pauses in an interview, and then when you hit the button, it'll just not transmit that chunk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_delay
posted by bookbook at 4:44 PM on January 26 [7 favorites]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_delay
posted by bookbook at 4:44 PM on January 26 [7 favorites]
This reminds me of the rumours that went around a decade or so ago, that young people taking videos of themselves in various states of undress were playing a Disney film when they did so. The soundtrack of the video would be a popular song from the film, and the characters would be plainly visible.
The idea was that if someone unscrupulous came into possession of the video, and tried to put it online for "revenge porn" (a name that I still think we haven't fully unpacked, although I'm not the one to do it), they would find the media immediately struck down by the most powerful copyright protection regime on the planet.
I have no idea how common this practice was, nor how effective. It could have been pure rumour, a work of fiction to make us all feel the frisson of the setup and then think "Aha! How clever!" at the end. But this very much seems like its equal, and opposite.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 4:48 PM on January 26 [5 favorites]
The idea was that if someone unscrupulous came into possession of the video, and tried to put it online for "revenge porn" (a name that I still think we haven't fully unpacked, although I'm not the one to do it), they would find the media immediately struck down by the most powerful copyright protection regime on the planet.
I have no idea how common this practice was, nor how effective. It could have been pure rumour, a work of fiction to make us all feel the frisson of the setup and then think "Aha! How clever!" at the end. But this very much seems like its equal, and opposite.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 4:48 PM on January 26 [5 favorites]
Cops have also used Disney music to prevent people from sharing videos of them.
More benignly, Mel and Sue on the Great British Bake-Off used profanity to ensure that footage of contestants crying would not be broadcast.
posted by mbrubeck at 5:02 PM on January 26 [12 favorites]
More benignly, Mel and Sue on the Great British Bake-Off used profanity to ensure that footage of contestants crying would not be broadcast.
posted by mbrubeck at 5:02 PM on January 26 [12 favorites]
Capitalism has not yet been able to identify a vector of profit for content moderation. Moderation-as-a-Service providers find that businesses cut their moderation budget first, above all others. MetaFilter pays moderators to exist and it is a perilous duty in all regards, as the gray clearly indicates, and MeFi is not A Bastion of Capitalistic Success – probably a compliment, definitely not insult. It's worth considering the link between 'moderation is not valued as a business input' and 'do businesses value the output of curators differently from the costs of curators?'.
posted by Callisto Prime at 5:05 PM on January 26 [6 favorites]
posted by Callisto Prime at 5:05 PM on January 26 [6 favorites]
Isn't this why networks run on a slight delay? So a censor can whack a button when something inconvenient gets displayed?
Props to citizen journalists, for the most part, but if this is the tactics your interviews are going to use, you're going to have to step up your game. Time delays, censors, etc. and don't livestream if you don't have absolute control over what's going to be displayed.
I can't say I disagree entirely with some of the tactics employed to get these interviews removed - with a bit of imagination, some of what works for evil can be used for good, too. I would love to see someone show Peter Doocy the chocolate starfish during an interview.
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 8:10 PM on January 26 [3 favorites]
Props to citizen journalists, for the most part, but if this is the tactics your interviews are going to use, you're going to have to step up your game. Time delays, censors, etc. and don't livestream if you don't have absolute control over what's going to be displayed.
I can't say I disagree entirely with some of the tactics employed to get these interviews removed - with a bit of imagination, some of what works for evil can be used for good, too. I would love to see someone show Peter Doocy the chocolate starfish during an interview.
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 8:10 PM on January 26 [3 favorites]
Shout out to our New Zealand people: what do you know about Danny de Hek? I ask because looking around a bit just super briefly ... his thing seems like a pretty chaotic scene altogether.
re Youtube, if they found him to be a big subscriber draw, I think they'd initiate a very personal relationship indeed, and support him via moderation, etc., so he's either too little to be of interest, a known quantity that they have issues with (or worry about issues with -- litigation, etc.), or they'd just rather he Not. All moderation is not equal on YT, to say the least!
At any rate, everyone knows the best moderators are from down under. (warning: sound!)
posted by taz at 11:52 PM on January 26 [2 favorites]
re Youtube, if they found him to be a big subscriber draw, I think they'd initiate a very personal relationship indeed, and support him via moderation, etc., so he's either too little to be of interest, a known quantity that they have issues with (or worry about issues with -- litigation, etc.), or they'd just rather he Not. All moderation is not equal on YT, to say the least!
At any rate, everyone knows the best moderators are from down under. (warning: sound!)
posted by taz at 11:52 PM on January 26 [2 favorites]
Capitalism has not yet been able to identify a vector of profit for content moderation.
They have hope in AI.
Computers sucking so much electrical power one being built on the outskirts of a 288K home city turns out can power the same 288K homes. (Per state public radio).
Will it work? Odds are better than the kind of censoring of just matching fingerprints. If they make it to 'honor the laws of the land' then the next wave of this FPP theme will be states passing laws that are the ones that never get prosecuted so they never get challenged.
Federal law about AI following law. Want to hobble AI - start rabble rousing for such a federal law with stiff penalties. Because right now who goes to jail if an AI breaks the law?
posted by rough ashlar at 12:58 AM on January 28
They have hope in AI.
Computers sucking so much electrical power one being built on the outskirts of a 288K home city turns out can power the same 288K homes. (Per state public radio).
Will it work? Odds are better than the kind of censoring of just matching fingerprints. If they make it to 'honor the laws of the land' then the next wave of this FPP theme will be states passing laws that are the ones that never get prosecuted so they never get challenged.
Federal law about AI following law. Want to hobble AI - start rabble rousing for such a federal law with stiff penalties. Because right now who goes to jail if an AI breaks the law?
posted by rough ashlar at 12:58 AM on January 28
« Older Return of the Tabs | Oyster blood could hold key to fighting... Newer »
posted by Jon_Evil at 3:10 PM on January 26 [10 favorites]