33 ms·
YouTube permanently bans Right Wing Watch
- BugsJustFindMe 5y agoYou can solve every problem automatically with algorithms except for algorithms.
- xmasjones 5y agoI believe the popular line whenever someone is censored from social media right now is "they are private company and can do what they want"
- metalliqaz 5y agoyes they can, and as such should be shamed for their poor judgements
- zzzeek 5y agocontinuing from that, the public shaming may have been successful as a Washington Post reporter is tweeting that Youtube has restored RWW: https://twitter.com/GerritD/status/1409608525601443840 https://twitter.com/GerritD/status/1409608525601443840
- HappySweeney 5y agoI don't see any first amendment / free speech talk. Has it been deleted or something?
- MikeUt 5y agoIt only shows up when the bad guys get censored.
- anoonmoose 5y agoIt is not hypocritical to think that something I think is bad should be removed, and something I think is not bad should not be removed.
- MikeUt 5y agoBut it is hypocritical to invoke the first amendment as a defense of private censorship when "bad" things are removed, then completely forget that defense when complaining about "good" things being removed.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ceejayoz 5y agoThey can, and if/when people start claiming this move from YouTube is a First Amendment violation, that's a great counter-point.
- mc32 5y agoIt's not like people didn't warn that this would happen. You need to have principles on your side and back those principles even when "bad" people enjoy those principles. You will not go far if instead of principles you back people because they agree with you on a particular topic.
- BugsJustFindMe 5y agoWell, if the principle is "don't lie", then "expose people who lie" doesn't violate the principle. It remains to be seen, however, whether Google actually has any principles other than making money.
- mc32 5y agoConspiracy theories are the bane of any society. But, the problem is often one does not know in advance if a conspiracy theory is just a crackpot theory or there is something to it. To wit: SARS-CoV-2 lab origin. mRNA vaccine heart inflammation. Both were denounced as conspiracy theories by the CDC and flagged by YT (and other social media) the CDC has revered on both examples.
- BugsJustFindMe 5y agoI agree with all of that. And there's a big difference between e.g. "dismissing lab leak out of hand is wrong because there's a lot of circumstantial evidence of government suppression and coverup", which many people currently say based on available evidence, and "this is definitely a Chinese bioweapons program" which many people also currently say without any factual evidence whatsoever. I worry a lot about people and organizations who lump them together, but I'm fine with silencing the latter. The CDC is a political organization controlled by the executive branch that happens to be staffed partly with people who call themselves scientists[0]. The unwavering faith that people put into political organizations is its own tragic issue. [0] - In the same way that many programmers are terrible at being programmers, many scientists are terrible at being scientists.
- 5y ago
- metalliqaz 5y agoI hope RWW is able to continue on after this. They do important work. This exposes what everyone already knows. YouTube (Google... err... Alphabet) doesn't really have a problem with the conspiracy theories and right wing propaganda. They just don't want the drama. Nutjobs watch for hours and apparently click on advertisements.
- bena 5y agoI don't think it's quite that sinister. Those who spread and consume conspiracy theories have one thing in abundance a lot of people don't: time. They can flag whatever they don't like as offensive or as violating DMCA or whatever third thing. Not just once, not just twice, but all day. And showing a video of someone taking a shit on a sidewalk to show how people are making videos of shitting on the sidewalk is still showing someone taking a shit on the sidewalk. It falls in that realm of "Well, technically, it's against the rules to show people shitting on the sidewalk." So even if they are showing the content to then explain why that content is wrong or bad, they're still technically showing the content. I'd wager that Right Wing Watch gets far more flags and reports than the content creators they show so they can debunk them. And if you're only dealing with reports and flags in a "squeaky wheel gets the grease" kind of way, it'll be a long while before you get to the source, because the fanbase of the source will be overwhelming you with reports and flags on channels with critical content showing the offending content as a demonstration of why it is offensive.
- metalliqaz 5y agoHN prevented me from responding because of the downvote brigade. Anyway the analogy isn't a good match. Shitting on the sidewalk is obscenity, there's no reason to reproduce it without censoring it when discussing it. That's not true of quoting conspiracy theories and propaganda when criticizing it. Context matters greatly.
- bena 5y agoI was just using it as an easy example of something we should all agree is disagreeable without touching anything even remotely resembling a real issue.
- denydenydeny123 5y agoAny site that engages in censorship can never serve as a trusted news source. The onus is always on the reader to engage in critical thinking. You should be able to read "misinformation" and easily discern it as such. You should also be able to read "information" and easily discern as "misinformation" as well as the ability to read "misinformation" and discern it to be factually consistent and potentially correct. Do not trust others where your own brain is needed to figure shit out.
- forbiddenvoid 5y agoI understand your perspective, but your brain is an unreliable editor. I agree that censorship is bad, and that also we have entered an era where private organizations own platforms where potentially they should not be allowed editorial license because of scale.
- aklemm 5y agoThis is quite naive. The fact is people have always been vulnerable to misinformation and someone will always exploit that, and that exploitation will hurt people.
- splitstud 5y agoAnd people have always exploited the power to limit what others are allowed to see and know.
- ssully 5y agoUnfortunately what you describe as "easy" isn't for a lot of people. Spend anytime on Facebook and you will see clearly bogus stories racking up likes/comments and driving people nuts. That is the reality of the situation, and you saying what should be doesn't actually help make that reality true.
- epgui 5y agoAnd to this I will add that neither you, nor I, nor any other intelligent person, is immune to misinformation or disinformation. Knowledge and critical thinking make you more resilient to bullshit, but if you're fed enough of it, it's going to change how your brain is wired.
- jrochkind1 5y ago> Mantyla noted, the deletion of the site’s channel erases a deep, years-long archive of video clips—effectively eliminating a resource for understanding and exposing right-wing extremism. With some warning, I wonder if Aechive Team would have helped back it up to IA
- smoldesu 5y agoRecently, I've just started relentlessly downloading any YouTube videos that I enjoy. I fear for the future of the platform, and the only way for me to reconcile that fear is to relentlessly archive everything I find interesting.
- Ansil849 5y agoWhy is this comment being downvoted? This is absolutely the correct approach to take. If there is content that you value, you need to personally archive a copy, because it may be gone for hundreds of reasons next time you try to access it.
- zimpenfish 5y ago> it may be gone for hundreds of reasons next time you try to access it. And you won't even know which video is gone unless you've taken a copy of your playlist (my favourites playlist is about 25% holes after 10 years.)
- bjustin 5y agoThis is the way to go. Seeing removed videos, which you don't even remember the topics of, in one of my YouTube playlists is so frustrating.
- syshum 5y agoSelf Host is the only way...
- shmageggy 5y agoDid I miss it? What exactly was the policy that they were supposedly violating?
- balls187 5y agoYoutube doesn't typically publish which TOS were violated.
- defaultname 5y agoThey do tell you (broadly at a minimum) what the strike was for. RWW claims that two strikes were levied for videos in April, but give no details on what these strikes were for (details that they do know). It would provide more context on whether this is justified. If RWW is posting content that otherwise would be barred from YouTube (e.g. hate speech, etc) -- effectively rehosting -- it makes sense that it would get strikes. e.g. If you started a "LiveLeak Watch" and reposted gruesome videos under the notion that it's a critique, that would get a ban too.
- Ansil849 5y agoIt's pretty straightforward: conspiracy videos generate a lot of views, which is ultimately profitable for youtube. Videos which point out that the conspiracy videos are garbage have the potential to adversely impact their astronomical view counts and by proxy their profitability. So of course youtube would ban accounts which attempt to undermine their revenue streams. It's despicable, sure, but not at all surprising.
- lobf 5y agoI think it's still pretty surprising...
- TiberiusC 5y agoWhat if the anti-conspiracy videos start spewing conspiracies like in this case?
- geoka9 5y agoThe irony of the GP post being the most upvoted one in the thread.
- modriano 5y ago> Videos which point out that the conspiracy videos are garbage have the potential to adversely impact their astronomical view counts and by proxy their profitability. Do they really though? Is there evidence that there are *any* effective strategies for reducing viewership of mind-rotting extremist content at scale?
- jedimastert 5y agoI would actually disagree. Unless a video has gone specifically out of its way to say so, very often a big debunking video will cause a bump in the original video's views, which is sort of a win win for YT
- Yoric 5y agoWell, I've seen statistics (I don't remember where, sorry), suggesting that deplatforming Daesh worked pretty well. It is my understanding that what the right wing is going through in 2021 is kinda what Muslims have gone through in 2016, with lots of outrage because some visible targets have been taken down, the malicious actors attempting to fan the outrage and get the entire community to protect the actual evil content, the feeling of being singled out for termination, etc.
- pstuart 5y agoIt would be nice to see what was flagged. I'm guessing this was gamed by their opponents.
- pstuart 5y agoI'm going to guess that the downvoters are not fans of RWW. I wonder if they're the same ones who complain about "free speech" violations.
- denydenydeny123 5y agoCritical thinking is the best strategy. Censorship is paternalistic, imperfect, often nefarious and in many subtle ways far worse than having an unreliable brain.
- trts 5y agoIt is a nice sounding claim and I hope you're right. I consider myself a critical thinker, but I'm not sure it's leading to my being more correct or better informed about things. It seems that the deluge of content available today guarantees that whatever view you're even mildly sympathetic toward will get reinforced, and then you are immediately placed on a slope toward the extremes (in terms of other recommended content). One of the few antidotes I've seen to this has been the emergence of long-form podcasting where conversations are still allowed to meander, dwell on minor points, or become boring. It seems harder for people to shill for multiple uninterrupted hours at a time. And yet if you rely on this as a source of information you can't pick very many topics to be informed about given the constraint of time.
- epgui 5y agoAs nice as that sounds, critical thinking is not an emergent property of networks of people. Information pollution is, and we need to start thinking about it in the same way we think about other kinds of pollution. A little bit of garbage here and there is easy to deal with, and that's what critical thinking is for. But given enough garbage, your normal functions (and that of the network you're a part of) will be impaired. You are what you eat, and your brain is what it reads. Feed it enough garbage, and no amount of critical thinking will save you. If your goal is to have a "stable" system that converges towards truth, stability, consensus, and generally progresses over time, you need to have some sort of mechanism to regulate garbage.
- hairofadog 5y agoWell said. When people suggest "critical thinking" as a solution to high-volume and high-visibility disinformation, my guess is they think the problem I'm trying to solve is: "There's so much disinformation, and I just don't know what to think!" when actually the problem is "There's so much disinformation, and my fellow countrymen are acting on it in ways that cause measurable harm to me and to society at large." It's a complex topic. I'm not suggesting that there's an easy answer and I'm not here to sing the praises of censorship, but I find it frustrating to see "think critically" proposed as if it's the simple, obvious solution over and over again.
- emerged 5y agoExcuse me if I doubt they were purely honest good actors themselves. The article and name of the “watchdog” have so much partisan vitriol baked in it’s impossible for me to assume they were much better than their targets.
- rhn_mk1 5y agoIf you have concrete accusations, share them. Otherwise you're no better than a troll.
- afavour 5y agoI have to admit I laughed… I read your message then went go to check the name. “Right Wing Watch”. If anything your message contains more vitriol than their name does, are you sure you’re not projecting?
- squarefoot 5y agoFTA: “And then they found some video from eight years ago, that they flagged, took that down, and that was our third strike,” he explained. “And they took down our entire account.” That is not like the take down algorithm is being triggered by something you just posted, that sounds just like someone deciding to look in your garbage bins to find anything to be used against you. It stinks a lot, and I don't mean the garbage. " ... the deletion of the site’s channel erases a deep, years-long archive of video clips—effectively eliminating a resource for understanding and exposing right-wing extremism." Well, that one is 100% their fault. Never, ever, ever, rely on any other service for keeping data other than your own backups. Especially when the party involved in keeping your data is also the same one who can wipe it from existence if anyone with deep enough pockets or connections says so.
- agentdrtran 5y agoWhat other sites are willing to store and easily distribute years of HD video for free?
- squarefoot 5y agoThey wrote about losing a deep, years-long archive of video clips. That sounds a lot like they had no backups, not just losing the published ones.
- ceejayoz 5y agoThat's not actually what they said. > While Right Wing Watch had essentially moved away from regularly posting its videos to YouTube over the past year, as Mantyla noted, the deletion of the site’s channel erases a deep, years-long archive of video clips—effectively eliminating a resource for understanding and exposing right-wing extremism. Nothing in here says "we lost our only copies of the videos", just that the resource is now gone from the Internet, and that users currently can't get at it.
- squarefoot 5y ago
- tehwebguy 5y agoFor those that haven't seen a RWW video, they don't add commentary to their video content, they simply memorialize extremist right wing messages from politicians and talking heads. That's the point being made here: they are being banned not for copyright reasons (e.g. their act of re-uploading clips) but for the content in those clips. That is, YouTube is banning them for posting (exclusively right wing) extremist content, which they are posting specifically to expose. People who don't watch the handful of national right wing news outlets or the hundreds of local stations likely won't otherwise know what half of the country is being fed daily.
- zephrx1111 5y agoSo how about the left extremists accounts? Is it double standard?
- KittenInABox 5y agoWhy would it be a double standard for "right wing watch" to not repost left wing content? (EDIT: For the record I am all for a "left wing watch" that only reposts influencial left-wing's voices that the posters believes violates terms of service on the website they post on. I just don't understand why "right wing watch" should be expected to do so, or why it's a double standard if they don't.)
- amerine 5y agoWhat left extremists accounts?
- gethoht 5y agololz
- contravariant 5y agoThat's debatable. This is clearly whataboutism though.
- tehwebguy 5y agoI mean no, you're not going to get banned for posting support for universal healthcare, ending the drug war, ending for-profit prisons, etc even though these are extreme left positions in current US politics. If you post misinformation telling people that it's illegal to charge for healthcare and that you can just throw out any medical bills you receive without recourse, or that drug laws are unconstitutional so you can't actually go to jail for them, or that private prisons don't count so you are allowed to break out of them, well yeah you might get banned!
- TeeMassive 5y agoI never understood the idea of "right-wing conspiracies". Those conspiracies used to be "left-wing" less than a decade ago. Big pharma, Iraq WMDs, the Bilderberg, big banks, 9/11, etc. The only thing they have in common is that they are all anti-establishment at core. It seems to me that the Left, who used to be anti-establishment, has now become what it once fought.
- tcmart14 5y agoNope we are still here. Look at the anti-war movement. Full of left wing veterans like myself who are anti-establishment. Its just the democrats who changed. The people who actually were left, didnt. Of course America doesn't have a good basis of what left wing is.
- TeeMassive 5y agoGood on you for sticking to your principles. In my opinion the left and and the right doesn't mean much outside of French politics over the 18th and 19th century. A lot of what was considered left wing is now right wing and vice versa. Now it's more about tribes than principles.
- tick_tock_tick 5y agoBiden is marching us to war with Iran, the very thing people were terrified Trump would do just months ago, and people are cheering him on now. The flip in news reporting and how top Democrats react to what is nearly the same actions is insane.
- tehwebguy 5y agoI think left leaning people see like 90% of elected Democrats, CNN watchers, & people calling themselves "liberal" as the left-most edge of the right wing. "Left leaning" TV networks & Democrat leadership seem to try very hard to never even entertain leftist ideas like universal healthcare, right to housing, etc. They aren't okay with Biden because he's on the left, they're okay with him because he's close enough to center-right IMO.
- RedComet 5y agoThey were banned for hosting right wing content in their own videos, btw.
- wubbert 5y agoThere are certain right-wing conspiracies that they don't want people hearing, even in the context of them being "debunked".
- christophilus 5y agoIt's almost as if each generation of humans has to relearn the lessons of the past.
- boringg 5y agoToo bad you can't just pull a Matrix and upload all those lessons on a quick floppy disk as opposed to 18 years of school (that might be diluted content through political powers).
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- goodpoint 5y agoIn some developed countries history is being taught in decreasing depth and breadth.
- deadalus 5y agoYoutube Alternatives : Centralized : Bitchute, Rumble, DTube, Dailymotion, Vimeo, Vidlii Decentralized : Odysee(LBRY), Peertube
- quenix 5y agoUnfortunately, Bitchute appears to be a complete and total cesspool of conspiracy theories.
- bogwog 5y agoThe first sentence of its Wikipedia page: > BitChute is a video hosting service known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists, and for hosting hate speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitChute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitChute
- efitz 5y agoI know nothing about bitchute, but I am skeptical of the Wikipedia article you cite. This Wikipedia article excerpt seems like editorial, not information. It might be 100% accurate but the spin is so blatant that I don’t trust Wikipedia on this. Similarly, I wouldn’t trust a Wikipedia article about Adolf Hitler if it began “Hitler was one of the most evil men of the 20th century”. Although I believe that statement to be true, there’s too much editorial bias. I want an encyclopedia to tell me unbiased facts and let ME make the moral conclusions. “Conspiracy theories” and “right wing” are labels of opinion, not fact, these days. They don’t inform, they label.
- quenix 5y agoThe claims you mention are backed by eight (8) sources. Additionally, there has been extended discussion on the Wikipedia talk page for this article about this exact "neutrality" issue. You should have a read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BitChute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BitChute
- boringg 5y agoAnyone know what the violations were? I feel like this is an instrumental part of the story that is lacking...
- jedimastert 5y agoIt's very probable that no one does. YouTube is under no obligation (at least from a legal or even policy perspective) to disclose it, and it's possible that it was just marked as "bad" and taken down.
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoBut that just means withdrawal of service under false pretences.
- adrr 5y agoI am very curious what the violations were. As far as I know, right wing watch just posted mashups of right wing personalities and news outlets.
- tptacek 5y agoPresumably the violations are in the original videos that RWW posts. It's not enough for Youtube's current processes to post them under a different context that (hopefully) makes it clear that they're false; presumably Youtube's concern is that they're indistinguishable from the originals.
- rbanffy 5y agoThis would be a good point. Maybe adding commentary and context would make those videos more compliant with the platform rules.
- caeril 5y agoYouTube has a history of banning creators for things they do or say outside of their specific platform. (c.f. Stefan Molyneux) My guess is that since RWW has a pretty active doxxing operation running outside of YouTube, they've decided to take action on that basis. Only a guess, though.
- igravious 5y agohypothesis: Publicly traded corporations are incompatible custodians of platforms that offer reasonable freedom of expression unless bound to do so by law. – debate! (edit: That's a a pretty clumsy and cumbersome sentence but I've gotten my point across I hope.)
- criddell 5y agoDo you think YouTube going private would fix the problem?
- igravious 5y agocounter-hypothesis: corporations which rely on advertising for revenue are (beyond a certain size) incompatible custodians of platforms that offer reasonable freedom of expression unless bound to do so by law. – debate! (edit: That's a a pretty clumsy and cumbersome sentence but I've gotten my point across I hope.)
- criddell 5y agoWhy the size qualifier? And why do you call them custodians? If I own a theater, I get to decide what plays and concerts are presented. Am I a custodian as well?
- hirundo 5y agoAs an extremist on many axis, I object to the use of extremist as a pejorative. I support people and ideas that while extreme, seem right to me. Or even extremely right. I don't support favoring moderate ideas that are right but less right than more extreme versions. If someone isn't extreme about anything, I suspect that they don't think for themselves. To me, not-at-all-an-extremist is mild pejorative. If you don't like it because the politics are wrong, fine, explain that. If you don't like it because the politics are extreme, you haven't yet described why I shouldn't like it.
- lmilcin 5y agoExtremism is used as pejorative because part of its definition is not wanting to take part in any kind of meritocratic discussion and accepting your being outnumbered gives you right to use extreme measures to be heard and/or prove your point. Extremist movements tend to be composed from people that do not listen, do not want to understand the other side and are interested only in furthering their own views. Further, frequently more moderate people (as in being more open to discussion or not accepting extreme measures being used) are being ejected from extremist movements to preserve their extremist nature. This process of polarization is a contest on who can be even more extreme and makes further resolution of the difference in views even more difficult. I object to the idea of extremism. Resolution of any problem requires that people cooperate and extremism thrives on prolonging the problem rather than seeking resolution. (edit: hint, maybe you meant to use word "radical" rather than "extremist". Radical is an extremist sans extreme methods)
- eesmith 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremism#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremism#Criticism > After being accused of extremism, Martin Luther King Jr. criticized the mainstream usage of the term in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, "But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love…Was not Amos an extremist for justice…Was not Martin Luther an extremist…So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?" I think you can see how 'extremism' has been used as pejorative in order to dismiss radicalism. As the Wikipedia entry points out: "When in conflict, the activities of members of low power groups tend to be viewed as more extreme than similar activities committed by members of groups advocating the status quo." Viewed through that lens, if the status quo isn't meritocratic, then doesn't your definition imply extremists actually do have "the right to use extreme measures to be heard and/or prove [their] point"? Quoting Letter From A Birmingham Jail: "If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action."
- fidesomnes 5y agoThey can't ban Left-Wing Conspiracies, there would be no media left.
- TheFreim 5y agoYouTube both bans the "watchdog" and the "right-wing conspiracies" equally now, it seems. Unless they start allowing everyone to use the platform (following the laws of their country, of course) I don't really care that they are now censoring an organization designed to censor other people.
- Aunche 5y ago>In fact, Right Wing Watch’s exposure of Jones’ false and conspiratorial rhetoric was key to YouTube and other social-media platforms eventually removing his channel InfoWars from their sites. This is a classic example of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. They wanted YouTube to cancel these people, so logically, YouTube has to cancel compilations of these people. It doesn't matter that RWW is criticizing them. Otherwise, people can just post the videos while pretending to criticize them. >Notably, many of the right-wing outlets and personalities that Right Wing Watch chronicles are not currently suspended or banned from posting content to YouTube The article frames this as a contradiction when there isn't one. RWW didn't get cancelled for chronicling commentators who didn't get cancelled. They were cancelled for chronicling the cancel-worthy content.
- paulpauper 5y agoYouTube seems perfectly fine with allowing crypto scams to run for hours on end, generating huge profits for scammers. We need an alternative that can generate even 1/4 the audience of YouTube. There are many cloud providers, many car brands, many food stores, many email providers, but just one YouTube.
- draw_down 5y agoWhen “YouTube is a private company, they can allow or disallow who they want” bites back. Cool when it happens to the other guys, sucks when it happens to your team.
- young_unixer 5y agoWell, anti-conspiracy theorists are conspiracy theorists. Makes sense.
- vfclists 5y agoDid they post any Soph videos? I miss Soph.
- syshum 5y agoWell you-tube is a private company, and I have been told repeatably they can do what they want and no one should ever criticize them for it.... If you Advocate for censorship of others, don't expect me have any sympathy for you when the censorship comes for you
- gord288 5y agoThe channel has now been reinstated. Source: https://twitter.com/GerritD/status/1409608525601443840 https://twitter.com/GerritD/status/1409608525601443840
- fouric 5y agoThe article pretty strongly suggests that YouTube is discriminating against RWW due to partisan bias. Given YouTube's record of banning right-wing content, non-partisan content that doesn't adhere to some official narrative (Bret Weinstein's Ivermectin videos, Covid-19 lab leak theories, mRNA vaccine heart inflammation), incredibly inconsistent copyright infringement enforcement, and random demonetization, this claim seems to be a bit of a stretch. If anything, YT appears to be biased the other way.
- dang 5y agoSubsequent ongoing thread: YouTube Reinstates Right Wing Watch - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27668935 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27668935