YouTube asks channel owner to verify phone, permanently overwrites personal info
A YouTube creator reports that verifying their channel with a phone number caused Google to overwrite their account’s personal details with the name of the person paying the phone bill, cutting them off from ad revenue and exposing how fragile creator livelihoods are when tied to a single platform. Commenters dissect how Google likely linked telecom billing records to account identity, question the legality of this under GDPR‑style data rights, and note how hard it is to get such errors fixed through official support. The incident fuels broader criticism of mandatory phone-number verification, opaque KYC and identity checks, and the lack of viable, privacy‑respecting alternatives to YouTube and other big tech ecosystems.
Dependence on YouTube and viability of VTubing
- Many argue “just stop using Google,” but others note VTubers are effectively locked into YouTube or Twitch for reach and income.
- This leads to questioning whether VTubing is a sustainable profession if a single platform can arbitrarily jeopardize livelihoods.
- Some say creators should proactively plan alternative careers; others counter that “quit preemptively” is not realistic and that risk may still be preferable to giving up creative work.
Privacy, platform choice, and abandoning Google
- Several commenters have replaced most Google services with Apple/Microsoft, while others argue privacy differences between big tech firms are overstated due to all being opaque and non‑transparent.
- Mixed anecdotes: Microsoft and Apple are criticized for account lockouts and quality issues, but Apple’s support is seen as materially better than Google’s.
- Some nostalgia for pre‑platform web, piracy/torrent ecosystems, and P2P/federated alternatives that had better UX and privacy.
Phone numbers as identity and data sharing
- Strong criticism of using phone numbers as proof of legal identity or account ownership, especially when the payer differs from the user (family plans, corporate phones, reused numbers).
- Many reference “Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Phone Numbers” and say Google is violating its own documented cautions.
- Surprise and concern that Google (and others) can apparently query telco or verification APIs to map numbers to billing names; telco opt‑out and Verizon’s “identity verification” setting are mentioned.
- Others stress that mandatory phone collection is mainly about spam/bot mitigation but increases SIM‑swap and takeover risks.
Legal and regulatory angles (GDPR, KYC, sanctions)
- For EU/UK users, commenters recommend invoking GDPR rights to correction and threatening legal action; terms of service can’t waive statutory rights.
- Debate over whether platforms could just delete accounts in response; some argue courts would likely reject that if it undermines data rights.
- KYC, tax reporting, and sanctions screening are cited as reasons YouTube/AdSense want a verified legal name for payouts, though the specific implementation is seen as “idiotic.”
Google’s account and support dysfunction
- Confusion around the split ecosystem: Google accounts, YouTube channels (brand vs non‑brand), AdSense, Google Fi/Voice — with opaque, coupled behavior (e.g., profile changes affecting AdSense).
- Many view Google’s support as effectively nonexistent and policy‑driven, with low‑level staff unable to override systems.
- Several note that escalations often only succeed via public outcry on Hacker News/Reddit or by physically visiting an office and persuading staff informally.
Alternatives and self‑hosting limits
- Self‑hosting or building independent streaming sites is discussed but seen as impractical due to discoverability, payment friction, app expectations, transcoding costs, and reliability.
- Some advocate wider refusal to share phone numbers/PII and stronger general data‑protection regulation, but others are pessimistic about collective action.