5 ms·

YouTube restricts access to conservative radio host's videos

69 points by Thorondor 10y ago

sattoshi 10y ago
Big business and big politics will always have each others' backs. Otherwise they wouldn't have been allowed to get this big in the first place. Follow the money!
_rpd 10y ago
> But more than 15 videos are “restricted” on YouTube, a development PragerU announced this month. This means the clips don’t show up for those who have turned on filtering—say, a parent shielding their children from explicit videos. They've just been classified as 'restricted'. Only parents of young children use this. This is completely fine.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  No it's not fine, I've watched a few of those videos and there is nothing there that should be restricted for young children, there wasn't anything even that controversial just a different political view. Since restricted videos can be managed as part of the G-Suite (can be either done via account or more commonly network level blocking) organizations such as workplaces and schools can and often do block them this isn't some parental control that is rarely used. This type of restriction where YouTube is redirected to restrict.youtube.com (https://support.google.com/a/answer/6214622 https://support.google.com/a/answer/6214622) is actually fairly common in many places, and it can be done transparently so you don't even notice it. So yeah this is not fine, and this is a big problem.
- Terr_ 10y ago
  > This is completely fine. Completely fine? So if all videos from Side A are normal, and all videos from Side B are "age restricted"... I don't think "separate but equal" really applies.
andrewclunn 10y ago
Algorithm justice is mob justice, plain and simple.
- jjawssd 10y ago
  Is it really so simple? What is algorithm justice, really?
  - andrewclunn 10y ago
    A form of justice concerned only with the aggregate, and ignorant to its own ignorance of anything beyond the scope of its immediate vision / data scrappers.
redthrowaway 10y ago
I doubt anyone at Youtube is explicitly seeking out conservative views to censor. But they have created a system whereby flagging videos you disagree with is rewarded, and an effective way to ensure others don't see them. That won't end well.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  YouTube is an advertising supported media outlet ope my seeking to become a megaTV channel. Marginalizing controversial content so that users who haven't affirmatively opted out of filtering don't encounter is not something that is likely to work out badly for them.
  - emp_zealoth 10y ago
    You sure? Once they drive all the channels with actual content out who is going to go on youtube? I literally watch Dota 2 channels, AvE, EEV, other technical channels and most of them had issues recently. Those channels don't even dabble in controversial content... Take channels like that away and all you've got left is drama, reactions and contentless shitposting
  - WildUtah 10y ago
    A free democracy has a natural way to handle the development of a culture of hate and censorship against a minority. The minority develops its own video sharing sites and its own advertising networks and its own publishing houses. Since we're talking about a free democracy, those new explicitly minority outlets cannot be censored. This isn't the first time this has happened. Abolitionists, anarchists, communists, pornographers, homosexuals, and others have had to do what conservatives now have to do in the face of a majority culture that chooses to hate and censor them. They'll be fine, maybe even stronger for the experience. And it has a cool Hacker News perspective. It's certainly good for the startups that will be serving the new market.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tdb7893 10y ago
This is obviously just some people flagging it, I think a conversation about the algorithm might be interesting but this obviously isn't some purposeful censorship.
- Steko 10y ago
  Appears to have started with 21 videos and then YT reexamined them and cleared 6 and kept 15 restricted so maybe more than just the algorithm.
  - tdb7893 10y ago
    That makes more sense. The article doesn't mention that at all and makes it sound just algorithmic
jfaucett 10y ago
This shouldn't be surprising to anyone envolved with social media. This type of thing has been going on for the last couple of years. The most recent high profile event was when Twitter banned Milo Yiannopoulos for bigoted comments which his followers posted. [1] But it is often the case that this type of thing occurs because of a flagging algorithm. However, I would still defend Youtube's right as a company to act as it chooses. If people dislike Youtube's behaviour they can leave the platform, and if enough so choose Youtube will feel the free market forces acting just like any other company would. This does highlight an overal issue I've noticed recently, namely, a growing tendency for people to not be capable of rational discussion. And if someone presents a differing viewpoint, many people and companies alike respond in an outraged and overblown PC manner. To see something along these lines that is actually going on in Canada right now check out Jordan B Petersons videos on youtube. [2] I really could not believe what's happening to this very intelligent man is real until I saw it for myself. Anyway, I wish people could just calm down with the emotional outbursts and have rational debate to come to conclusions about specific issues or even agreements to disagree. 1. https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/twitter-just-permanently-suspended-conservative-writer-milo?utm_term=.hsMagAK9v#.kyR2MmNLg https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/twitter-just-permanen... 2. https://www.youtube.com/user/JordanPetersonVideos/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/JordanPetersonVideos/videos
- SixSigma 10y ago
  That would be a nice and believable if Google wasn't a major investor in Clinton and Schmidt wasn't balls deep in the Clinton machine http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228 http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundati... http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-19/clinton-bets-on-tech-strategy-to-defeat-trump http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-19/clinto... http://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-working-for-hillary-clinton-campaign/ http://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-working... http://freebeacon.com/politics/podesta-linked-googles-executive-chairman-cheryl-mills-robby-mook/ http://freebeacon.com/politics/podesta-linked-googles-execut...
  - 10y ago
nercht12 10y ago
I'm not so much disturbed by the "censoring" of Youtube as I am the inability for people to create suitable alternatives. (By "inability" I don't mean lack of skill or frameworks, mind you.)
Aloha 10y ago
I believe freedom of speech is sacrosanct, but in the end, if you own the means of delivery, it in the end can be construed as your speech. So, The one who controls the press, also controls the speech - if you want absolute freedom, you need to build your own press. I just wish the social media companies didnt keep trying to present themselves and neutral players in this - as if they were just a 'platform'.

69 points by Thorondor 10y ago

Big business and big politics will always have each others' backs. Otherwise they wouldn't have been allowed to get this big in the first place. Follow the money!

_rpd 10y ago

> But more than 15 videos are “restricted” on YouTube, a development PragerU announced this month. This means the clips don’t show up for those who have turned on filtering—say, a parent shielding their children from explicit videos. They've just been classified as 'restricted'. Only parents of young children use this. This is completely fine.

dogma1138 10y ago
No it's not fine, I've watched a few of those videos and there is nothing there that should be restricted for young children, there wasn't anything even that controversial just a different political view. Since restricted videos can be managed as part of the G-Suite (can be either done via account or more commonly network level blocking) organizations such as workplaces and schools can and often do block them this isn't some parental control that is rarely used. This type of restriction where YouTube is redirected to restrict.youtube.com (https://support.google.com/a/answer/6214622 https://support.google.com/a/answer/6214622) is actually fairly common in many places, and it can be done transparently so you don't even notice it. So yeah this is not fine, and this is a big problem.
Terr_ 10y ago
> This is completely fine. Completely fine? So if all videos from Side A are normal, and all videos from Side B are "age restricted"... I don't think "separate but equal" really applies.

andrewclunn 10y ago

Algorithm justice is mob justice, plain and simple.

jjawssd 10y ago
Is it really so simple? What is algorithm justice, really?
- andrewclunn 10y ago
  A form of justice concerned only with the aggregate, and ignorant to its own ignorance of anything beyond the scope of its immediate vision / data scrappers.

redthrowaway 10y ago

I doubt anyone at Youtube is explicitly seeking out conservative views to censor. But they have created a system whereby flagging videos you disagree with is rewarded, and an effective way to ensure others don't see them. That won't end well.

dragonwriter 10y ago
YouTube is an advertising supported media outlet ope my seeking to become a megaTV channel. Marginalizing controversial content so that users who haven't affirmatively opted out of filtering don't encounter is not something that is likely to work out badly for them.
- emp_zealoth 10y ago
  You sure? Once they drive all the channels with actual content out who is going to go on youtube? I literally watch Dota 2 channels, AvE, EEV, other technical channels and most of them had issues recently. Those channels don't even dabble in controversial content... Take channels like that away and all you've got left is drama, reactions and contentless shitposting
- WildUtah 10y ago
  A free democracy has a natural way to handle the development of a culture of hate and censorship against a minority. The minority develops its own video sharing sites and its own advertising networks and its own publishing houses. Since we're talking about a free democracy, those new explicitly minority outlets cannot be censored. This isn't the first time this has happened. Abolitionists, anarchists, communists, pornographers, homosexuals, and others have had to do what conservatives now have to do in the face of a majority culture that chooses to hate and censor them. They'll be fine, maybe even stronger for the experience. And it has a cool Hacker News perspective. It's certainly good for the startups that will be serving the new market.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

tdb7893 10y ago

This is obviously just some people flagging it, I think a conversation about the algorithm might be interesting but this obviously isn't some purposeful censorship.

Steko 10y ago
Appears to have started with 21 videos and then YT reexamined them and cleared 6 and kept 15 restricted so maybe more than just the algorithm.
- tdb7893 10y ago
  That makes more sense. The article doesn't mention that at all and makes it sound just algorithmic

jfaucett 10y ago

This shouldn't be surprising to anyone envolved with social media. This type of thing has been going on for the last couple of years. The most recent high profile event was when Twitter banned Milo Yiannopoulos for bigoted comments which his followers posted. [1] But it is often the case that this type of thing occurs because of a flagging algorithm. However, I would still defend Youtube's right as a company to act as it chooses. If people dislike Youtube's behaviour they can leave the platform, and if enough so choose Youtube will feel the free market forces acting just like any other company would. This does highlight an overal issue I've noticed recently, namely, a growing tendency for people to not be capable of rational discussion. And if someone presents a differing viewpoint, many people and companies alike respond in an outraged and overblown PC manner. To see something along these lines that is actually going on in Canada right now check out Jordan B Petersons videos on youtube. [2] I really could not believe what's happening to this very intelligent man is real until I saw it for myself. Anyway, I wish people could just calm down with the emotional outbursts and have rational debate to come to conclusions about specific issues or even agreements to disagree. 1. https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/twitter-just-permanently-suspended-conservative-writer-milo?utm_term=.hsMagAK9v#.kyR2MmNLg https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/twitter-just-permanen... 2. https://www.youtube.com/user/JordanPetersonVideos/videos https://www.youtube.com/user/JordanPetersonVideos/videos

SixSigma 10y ago
That would be a nice and believable if Google wasn't a major investor in Clinton and Schmidt wasn't balls deep in the Clinton machine http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228 http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundati... http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-19/clinton-bets-on-tech-strategy-to-defeat-trump http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-19/clinto... http://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-working-for-hillary-clinton-campaign/ http://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-working... http://freebeacon.com/politics/podesta-linked-googles-executive-chairman-cheryl-mills-robby-mook/ http://freebeacon.com/politics/podesta-linked-googles-execut...
- 10y ago

nercht12 10y ago

I'm not so much disturbed by the "censoring" of Youtube as I am the inability for people to create suitable alternatives. (By "inability" I don't mean lack of skill or frameworks, mind you.)

Aloha 10y ago

I believe freedom of speech is sacrosanct, but in the end, if you own the means of delivery, it in the end can be construed as your speech. So, The one who controls the press, also controls the speech - if you want absolute freedom, you need to build your own press. I just wish the social media companies didnt keep trying to present themselves and neutral players in this - as if they were just a 'platform'.