6 ms·
YouTube is really silly to ban PragerU. Although I disagree with maybe 70% of PragerU's content (I listen to their podcast), I find it very informative of the c
by vumgl 7y ago
YouTube is really silly to ban PragerU. Although I disagree with maybe 70% of PragerU's content (I listen to their podcast), I find it very informative of the conservative POV. It also exposes me to ideas that makes me do my own further research. I listen to them regularly; there is much worse content on other places in YouTube.
- shadowgovt 7y agoThey haven't banned it; their channel is the first search result on YouTube for the keyword 'PragerU'. They've flagged it as restricted content so that advertising isn't attached to it, organizations who specifically ask Google "Don't show me restricted content" (such as schools) can't reach it from the networks they control, and auto-recommendation engines are down-sampled on it. Essentially, PragerU is trying to argue that they should have the right to force YouTube to classify their content into the same bucket as "baby shark" videos. It's a very silly argument from PragerU's side.
- DuskStar 7y agoAnd at the same time, Google claiming that prageru is "sensitive content" is kind of ridiculous too.
- shadowgovt 7y agoI believe it falls under "Incendiary or demeaning content" (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7354993?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7354993?hl=en). Edit: other commenters (https://medium.com/@ephromjosine/okay-prageru-lets-look-at-what-videos-youtube-restricted-46351812d4ef https://medium.com/@ephromjosine/okay-prageru-lets-look-at-w...) note that it may very well simply fall under "Mature Subjects" (terror, war, crime, politics).
- DuskStar 7y agoAll of those "Mature Subjects" sound like things that kids in schools should very definitely be allowed to access, IMO. And somehow I'd imagine that CNN's YouTube channel isn't limited in the same way. (Or Fox News, for that matter)
- jessaustin 7y agosensitive content Presumably schools don't want their students ogling T&A during study hall. Does that mean students shouldn't see any politics? These are two entirely different things that should be placed in different categories.
- shadowgovt 7y agoI believe it falls under "Incendiary or Demeaning Content" (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7354993?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7354993?hl=en). And I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of schools consider that inappropriate for e.g. middle or high school (though I certainly haven't taken a poll).
- Fellshard 7y agoThat's a pretty clever way to add immediate framing for anyone viewing the content: conservatism is - by definition, apparently - incendiary and demeaning. Convenient.
- shadowgovt 7y agoOther commenters (https://medium.com/@ephromjosine/okay-prageru-lets-look-at-what-videos-youtube-restricted-46351812d4ef https://medium.com/@ephromjosine/okay-prageru-lets-look-at-w...) note it may simply fall under "mature" for dealing with topics of violence, war, and terrorism.
- joenot443 7y agoI know you keep linking this blog post as if it proves a point, but its argument is tenuous at best. The crux of the author's case is that PragerU's videos fall into the category of "videos on Terrorism, War, Crime, and Politics." This is a remarkably wide net to cast. Surely you can think of countless YouTube channels which were not subject to the same scrutiny that Prager was, yet obviously have videos on politics and war. At the end of the day, Google disagrees with Prager's politics. I don't think it's much more complicated than that.