[TheAmazingIdiot]

When people while about getting 'removed from friends list' like Google, YouTube, Facebook, Yahoo, MSN networks...

If it is free, they can do this anytime they like. Your proper answer is to set up your own server and do it yourself. I guess taking it public and getting responses from individuals in that company is your response. Still doesn't mean you shouldn't set up shop in your own right.

</rant=off>

[jamesaguilar]

This is the invariable response, and is, as it always is, wrong. One service provider failing to fulfill your expectations does not mean you should eschew services altogether.

[therandomguy]

Is this equivalent to building your own Disney Land if they ban you from entry?

[ratsbane]

Given the nature of the internet, even that's not a fix. If you set up a server, your ISP could shut you off in response to DMCA demands. I suppose you could find an off-shore server, but nothing's foolproof.

[TheAmazingIdiot]

YouTube does automated dispute handling. They aren't even DMCA complaints. So they have no real burden.

Hosting with The Pirate Bay would seem like an option. They seem to have 'stop shutdowns' stopped pretty well.

[dangrossman]

Only a select group of content companies have access to that system. Everyone else has to file notices to the DMCA agent as anywhere else, and Google has to honor those notices and counternotices or it can be held itself liable for the infringement.

[bdcravens]

Strictly true, but it's an issue of network effect. Let's say you get kicked off of HN. You're free to go start your discussion resource for hackers, right?

[jacquesm]

Apt nick. Even if it is free you can at least expect to be served no worse than the next guy.

[FireBeyond]

To be fair to the parent, he does have a point. You are in no way entitled to the free use of such a service. It's great that it's provided and all, but in the end, there may be some, or no, reason, that they want to pull the plug, on you, on a subset, or the entire service.

"Entitled" blogs, rants and the like (and to be clear, this entry didn't strike me as particularly entitled, but disappointed) are more the act of petulant children.

[jacquesm]

I run an online service that has been going since 1998. There are lots of instances of abusive behaviour there. We have a whole range of ways to deal with these and we feel that as long as users operate within the terms of service that they have a right to participate. Selectively withholding access for capricious reasons would be discriminatory behaviour. On top of that you never know how big a role your free service plays in someone else's life. Banning users / deleting content is a decision that you should not take lightly as a service provider.

[chris_wot]

Its a non monetary transaction. You get to host you video on YouTube, YouTube gets to advertise in your videos.

No money passes hands, but there is a benefit for both sides. It is the video that generates the traffic, I'd consider that the payment.

[ryguytilidie]

You can't be serious. /jawdrop