5 ms·

How does one report videos to Youtube that violate their policies and actually get them to do something about it. It appears one can talk about the Holocaust no

How does one report videos to Youtube that violate their policies and actually get them to do something about it. It appears one can talk about the Holocaust not being real / that people don't get killed in mass shootings in the United States all they want and keep their monitization / Superchats.

minimaxir 8y ago
Unfortunately, that's all you can do. The real remedy is shining sunlight on the policy violations, which is why the journalism is so important.
jstanley 8y ago
What's the problem with videos like you mentioned? Do you think all videos in which people are wrong about things should be taken down? If somebody writes on their blog that they don't think the holocaust is real, should their blog get taken down, or is there something different about it being a video? In my opinion, YouTube has gone much too far towards the side of taking down videos rather than leaving them up. We don't need to be calling for them to be even more strict with removing videos that people don't like. If you don't like it, you don't have to watch it. If your goal in taking down conspiracy theory videos is to kill the conspiracy theory, I think that may actually be counterproductive. If the video stays up and everyone laughs about how stupid it is, nothing bad happens. If the video gets taken down then it just provides them an opportunity to shout about how they're trying to spread the truth but they're being silenced by the establishment.
- JaimeThompson 8y ago
  I think that videos that say kids didn't die in school shootings should not be allowed to make money off of said videos especially when they try to get people riled up to harass the survivors and their parents. Furthermore I expect Google to apply their policies evenly which they don't. If violations of Google ToS are reported they should be taken care of don't you think. It isn't like you can actually debate them on their channels either as they delete comments that don't support them the vast majority of time.
  - MeltySmelty 8y ago
    I bet you're from Europe. Keep your draconian laws over there, please.
  - propogandist 8y ago
    Youtube has made significant efforts to not show ads on content that is deemed unsafe, so those videos generally aren't making any money. You seem to be against people putting out content that don't align with your views, which is something completely different.
    - scrollaway 8y ago
      > You seem to be against people putting out content that don't align with your views Not GP, but I see this a lot as a retort to people who make the claims they did and I tend to call BS on it. I strongly suspect there is an extremely broad library of "content that doesn't align with their views", including an extremely broad spectrum of political views, they would have zero issues with on YouTube. Somehow, climate denialism, antivax content (and other health hazards), holocaust denial, general nazi shit etc are consistently not part of that. Now GP can come in, correct me and tell me that they want everything they ever would disagree with off Youtube for good. But somehow, I suspect they won't. So, tangential to your post but, tell me: why is it that there's such a consistently-easy-to-define line for content that a lot of people think should be kept off various platforms, and why the hell is it that, whenever I see someone defending such content, it's almost always someone who belongs in the category of people who believe in said content, rather than a staunch defender of free speech. I ask this knowing full well there are many people I hold in very high esteem, who legitimately do defend extremely vile shit they disagree with, based on free speech principles. Most of those people I personally know work at the EFF and I've never heard them say much about deplatforming nazis. (could it be because free speech is a government thing, not a youtube thing …)
      - jstanley 8y ago
        > why the hell is it that, whenever I see someone defending such content, it's almost always someone who belongs in the category of people who believe in said content Since nobody here has given any indication that they believe in these ideas, it's probably because you simply assume that anyone defending it believes in it. Possibly also because the concept of not wanting to take down objectionable videos is a "weird" idea, and people who are willing to take weird ideas seriously probably have lots of other weird ideas.
- chipotle_coyote 8y ago
  The counterargument here is that "everyone" doesn't laugh about how stupid these videos are. Many people do, maybe most people, but some go, "Well, yeah, it's kinda crazy and stupid, but it makes you think." Fringe ideologues may upload videos to YouTube in part to hear themselves speak and to preach to the choir, but they also expand their audience and reach. Do you think all videos in which people are wrong about things should be taken down?? Suppose Video A posits "your computer has a little gremlin inside of it and you should shove an oatmeal cookie into the CD slot at least once a month to keep the gremlin happy" and Video B posits "the Jewish-controlled mass media is conspiring to make us believe school shootings are a real thing and you should stockpile weapons for the coming race war." They are both technically "videos in which people are wrong about things," but isn't there a qualitative difference between those two things? Don't you think it's defensible for YouTube to take down Video B without taking down Video A?

minimaxir 8y ago

Unfortunately, that's all you can do. The real remedy is shining sunlight on the policy violations, which is why the journalism is so important.

jstanley 8y ago

What's the problem with videos like you mentioned? Do you think all videos in which people are wrong about things should be taken down? If somebody writes on their blog that they don't think the holocaust is real, should their blog get taken down, or is there something different about it being a video? In my opinion, YouTube has gone much too far towards the side of taking down videos rather than leaving them up. We don't need to be calling for them to be even more strict with removing videos that people don't like. If you don't like it, you don't have to watch it. If your goal in taking down conspiracy theory videos is to kill the conspiracy theory, I think that may actually be counterproductive. If the video stays up and everyone laughs about how stupid it is, nothing bad happens. If the video gets taken down then it just provides them an opportunity to shout about how they're trying to spread the truth but they're being silenced by the establishment.

JaimeThompson 8y ago
I think that videos that say kids didn't die in school shootings should not be allowed to make money off of said videos especially when they try to get people riled up to harass the survivors and their parents. Furthermore I expect Google to apply their policies evenly which they don't. If violations of Google ToS are reported they should be taken care of don't you think. It isn't like you can actually debate them on their channels either as they delete comments that don't support them the vast majority of time.
- MeltySmelty 8y ago
  I bet you're from Europe. Keep your draconian laws over there, please.
- propogandist 8y ago
  Youtube has made significant efforts to not show ads on content that is deemed unsafe, so those videos generally aren't making any money. You seem to be against people putting out content that don't align with your views, which is something completely different.
  - scrollaway 8y ago
    > You seem to be against people putting out content that don't align with your views Not GP, but I see this a lot as a retort to people who make the claims they did and I tend to call BS on it. I strongly suspect there is an extremely broad library of "content that doesn't align with their views", including an extremely broad spectrum of political views, they would have zero issues with on YouTube. Somehow, climate denialism, antivax content (and other health hazards), holocaust denial, general nazi shit etc are consistently not part of that. Now GP can come in, correct me and tell me that they want everything they ever would disagree with off Youtube for good. But somehow, I suspect they won't. So, tangential to your post but, tell me: why is it that there's such a consistently-easy-to-define line for content that a lot of people think should be kept off various platforms, and why the hell is it that, whenever I see someone defending such content, it's almost always someone who belongs in the category of people who believe in said content, rather than a staunch defender of free speech. I ask this knowing full well there are many people I hold in very high esteem, who legitimately do defend extremely vile shit they disagree with, based on free speech principles. Most of those people I personally know work at the EFF and I've never heard them say much about deplatforming nazis. (could it be because free speech is a government thing, not a youtube thing …)
    - jstanley 8y ago
      > why the hell is it that, whenever I see someone defending such content, it's almost always someone who belongs in the category of people who believe in said content Since nobody here has given any indication that they believe in these ideas, it's probably because you simply assume that anyone defending it believes in it. Possibly also because the concept of not wanting to take down objectionable videos is a "weird" idea, and people who are willing to take weird ideas seriously probably have lots of other weird ideas.
chipotle_coyote 8y ago
The counterargument here is that "everyone" doesn't laugh about how stupid these videos are. Many people do, maybe most people, but some go, "Well, yeah, it's kinda crazy and stupid, but it makes you think." Fringe ideologues may upload videos to YouTube in part to hear themselves speak and to preach to the choir, but they also expand their audience and reach. Do you think all videos in which people are wrong about things should be taken down?? Suppose Video A posits "your computer has a little gremlin inside of it and you should shove an oatmeal cookie into the CD slot at least once a month to keep the gremlin happy" and Video B posits "the Jewish-controlled mass media is conspiring to make us believe school shootings are a real thing and you should stockpile weapons for the coming race war." They are both technically "videos in which people are wrong about things," but isn't there a qualitative difference between those two things? Don't you think it's defensible for YouTube to take down Video B without taking down Video A?