>>8609373I was unsubbed from Sana and not from Ceres (the only other EN2 I was subbed to).
>>8609751>Did you just imply cover botting them up?While I am not
>>8609373, this is my take:
1. Given that YouTube is an Alphabet company, this is basically bots fighting bots.
Some algorithm is unsubbing people (and possibly banning or restricting accounts) based on their behavior matching some model. That model's details was chosen (trained) to achieve at least 95% of some unknown goal, at least 95% of the time. I say "unknown goal" to mean that we, the users, cannot assume the only goal is "finding bots". Anyway, that last 5% of the time, the result will be a range from of "success less than 95%" all the way down to "backfiring miserably, and pissing off users". Also, I am saying "95% of 95%" not intending to be precise. Those are not the literal numbers, obviously, as I don't work for YouTube. They are stand-ins for the way the company thinks and operates when deploying these kinds of at-scale actions.
2. I would not be shocked to know that Cover has some link to "coordinated inauthentic behavior", as the phrase goes. I cannot prove it, and admit that it's JUST as likely they do not, only that "I would not be shocked". So don't get your nickers in a twist.
My guess is based on experience with some Blackhat SEO a decade ago, and observing that the modern influencer, youtube, and e-celeb world works the same way. If Cover is connected to subscriptions from inauthentic users, my guess is that it is as loosely as possible. For example, contracting an outside firm for vaguely-stated "marketing services". Cover would never be told specifically how these subscriptions show up, so that Cover can maintain plausible deniability.
Again: Just a guess. I am not leveling a specific accusation against Cover. I am sharing my sense of the ecosystem, and how common this kind of thing is.
