I disagree. I mean why else would the divorce rate be so high?
What?
A high divorce rate directly correlates to an increase in violation/disregard of wedding vows. For that matter, divorce is a literal violation of those vows. "Until death do us part" and all that.
ETA:
Last week, he started going on about "taking scalps" before nothing happened, which leads me to believe he figured he could just buy the service again. Had other channels been terminated, that might have drawn attention and dispelled that plausible deniability -- which is why, I think, we started seeing so many more "old-fashioned" flaggings, where the videos are demonetized (or age-restricted) and the uploaders have a right to appeal (which seem to be succeeding regularly and going through quickly). If the clips channel was open and shut, its appeal wouldn't have still been open - that's my read, anyways.
Something I never see discussed or addressed by
any content platform is what they do post-appeal to the accounts that made the bogus (or overridden) report.
I'm sure the raw data is tracked -- no company can resist the allure of generating and collecting all available data at all times. They know how many reports every account submits, and they know the outcome of every report (rejected as invalid, accepted as valid but no direct action taken, accepted as valid and direct action was taken, appealed post-action and upheld on review, appealed post-action and reversed on review, etc.). They should also be able to easily compute how many reports you issue per minute watched, per video watched, per subscriber you have, etc. It could easily be used to indicate malicious mass-flagging (if you report 100 of a user's videos but haven't even watched 50 minutes of their uploaded footage, it should be obvious to anyone you're being malicious). And why would a channel with a million subs suddenly fancy itself a "youtube policeman"? Shouldn't they be uploading content instead of submitting endless reports?
You never hear anything from YT, Twitter, FB, or any of them really ... do they calculate "trust" or "reliability" factors over time? Do they take reports more seriously from long-time accounts that rarely (if ever) submit reports? Do they take reports by high-sub/view count accounts more seriously than those from "nobodies"? What about report accuracy? There's a difference between someone who reports 10 violations that prove true and someone who reports 10 violations where only 1 proves true. Do both accounts get trusted equally? What about appeal success? A successful appeal on any of these platforms means the original reporter wasted some of the company's time and money (paying a grunt to review something a second time, overrule the first review, etc.). Do successful appeals reduce the overall "trust" rating of a given account's reports?
There's a lot of shit you can determine programmatically here that can help prevent abuse, even by the "big boys." If your reports have a 99% success rate (out of every 100 reports resulting in action being taken, only one ends up being reversed on appeal), your reports should automatically have much more weight than someone who's got a 10% success rate. Or, rather, the shittier your "success" rate on reports, the less your reports should be trusted, or even reviewed at all. I think below a certain level you shouldn't even be listened to at all because you're obviously random, unreliable, full of shit, or being vindictive.
But they never talk about that kind of metric. They never even bring that shit up. I've never once heard any company at all talk about whether they start to silently ignore people who make excessive and/or consistently bogus reports or institute any other kind of punishment. Sometimes there may be allusions to abusing the report system buried in the TOS somewhere, but I've never heard of somebody getting banned or otherwise punished for endless misuse of the report system.
View attachment 8922706
This is the man fucking your wife Quartering
Well, one of them, anyway

.