8 ms·

With YouTube increasingly removing or penalising content without government asking, this regular report is starting to feel out of touch. At least in this year

With YouTube increasingly removing or penalising content without government asking, this regular report is starting to feel out of touch. At least in this year, at least in the US, content being removed for being "disinformation" or having the wrong politics is a bigger problem than government censorship. Where is the report for those takedowns?

gadders 5y ago
Not just removal - suppression in search results as well.
shadowgovt 5y ago
What are some examples of content removed for having the wrong politics?
- blank_dan 5y ago
  “Let’s go Brandon” is an obvious example.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    This "Let's Go Brandon?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9DClYso2FA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9DClYso2FA
- chuckee 5y ago
  American Renaissance's entire channel. That has, as far as I'm aware, never called for violence, or spread misinformation, though I welcome news to the contrary.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    It would appear that they were cut for violating hate speech policies. "We have strict policies prohibiting hate speech on YouTube, and terminate any channel that repeatedly or egregiously violates those policies," said a YouTube spokesperson on the topic. https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/29/21307303/youtube-bans-molyneux-duke-richard-spencer-conduct-hate-speech https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/29/21307303/youtube-bans-mol...
    - chuckee 5y ago
      Yes, that is what Google says, without citing any examples of what the hate speech in question was. This way they can censor any politics they like under the pretense of hate speech.
      - shadowgovt 5y ago
        Wouldn't highlighting specific examples fall prey to Streisand Effect? If they don't want to spread hate speech, they can't name it. On the flip side, I see AmRen acknowledging the ban on their site, but not suggesting the ban was unfounded; only that it stifles speech (indeed, but stifling hate speech is the point of banning it in YouTube's TOS). Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't appear that even the aggrieved party contests the nature of their content.
        chuckee 5y ago
        Not if they include a debunking. Right now we only have their word, which isn't worth much. Though that is a wonderful catch 22 they can use as excuse. We should be content to know only that the banned party was guilty. Of what, exactly, is not our concern. Google broadly and secretly [1] defining hate speech, and removing based on that definition, is exactly the example you asked for: content removed for having the wrong politics. That they won't even tell you the exact politics, but leave you guessing, makes it worse, not better. What might be an entirely factual, dispassionate video, becomes in your mind a foaming-at-the-mouth murderous screed, because all you know about it is that Google (known for being straightforward and trustworthy) called it hate speech. [1] We never get to find out what their interpretation of their stated rules is in practice, only who is guilty of breaking them, and only in the few cases that are high-profile enough for us to learn about.
        amhnews2 5y ago
        They're on a list of splc's hate groups, and are a self-described white supremacist organization. This is pretty far from political differences (there are plenty of alt-right YouTubers, just not that promote a white ethnostate)
colinmhayes 5y ago
I'd say youtube being used to radicalize people is an even bigger problem. When does the report on that come out?
- repsilat 5y ago
  Funny coincidence, I just started watching [1]. In it, Tyler Cowen makes the case that "Big Tech" is underrated, and around 6:30 he talks about the claim that YouTube radicalises people. He doesn't find a compelling case in the academic literature. From a philosophical perspective, though, I'm a liberal -- if someone's videos are "unhealthy" but inside the bounds of the law, I think it's usually good for society for platforms to host them (though the companies shouldn't have a legal obligation to host them, and certainly need not promote them.) Grown-ups are grown-ups. But maybe you're talking about actually criminal radicalization, like telling people to kill others? Not just asking difficult questions about the shape of the Earth? 1: https://vimeo.com/636460268 https://vimeo.com/636460268. You may also be interested in the section after the one on "YouTube radicalization", on the Facebook whistleblower, around 10:30.

gadders 5y ago

Not just removal - suppression in search results as well.

shadowgovt 5y ago

What are some examples of content removed for having the wrong politics?

blank_dan 5y ago
“Let’s go Brandon” is an obvious example.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  This "Let's Go Brandon?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9DClYso2FA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9DClYso2FA
chuckee 5y ago
American Renaissance's entire channel. That has, as far as I'm aware, never called for violence, or spread misinformation, though I welcome news to the contrary.
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  It would appear that they were cut for violating hate speech policies. "We have strict policies prohibiting hate speech on YouTube, and terminate any channel that repeatedly or egregiously violates those policies," said a YouTube spokesperson on the topic. https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/29/21307303/youtube-bans-molyneux-duke-richard-spencer-conduct-hate-speech https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/29/21307303/youtube-bans-mol...
  - chuckee 5y ago
    Yes, that is what Google says, without citing any examples of what the hate speech in question was. This way they can censor any politics they like under the pretense of hate speech.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      Wouldn't highlighting specific examples fall prey to Streisand Effect? If they don't want to spread hate speech, they can't name it. On the flip side, I see AmRen acknowledging the ban on their site, but not suggesting the ban was unfounded; only that it stifles speech (indeed, but stifling hate speech is the point of banning it in YouTube's TOS). Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't appear that even the aggrieved party contests the nature of their content.
      - chuckee 5y ago
        Not if they include a debunking. Right now we only have their word, which isn't worth much. Though that is a wonderful catch 22 they can use as excuse. We should be content to know only that the banned party was guilty. Of what, exactly, is not our concern. Google broadly and secretly [1] defining hate speech, and removing based on that definition, is exactly the example you asked for: content removed for having the wrong politics. That they won't even tell you the exact politics, but leave you guessing, makes it worse, not better. What might be an entirely factual, dispassionate video, becomes in your mind a foaming-at-the-mouth murderous screed, because all you know about it is that Google (known for being straightforward and trustworthy) called it hate speech. [1] We never get to find out what their interpretation of their stated rules is in practice, only who is guilty of breaking them, and only in the few cases that are high-profile enough for us to learn about.
        amhnews2 5y ago
        They're on a list of splc's hate groups, and are a self-described white supremacist organization. This is pretty far from political differences (there are plenty of alt-right YouTubers, just not that promote a white ethnostate)

colinmhayes 5y ago

I'd say youtube being used to radicalize people is an even bigger problem. When does the report on that come out?

repsilat 5y ago
Funny coincidence, I just started watching [1]. In it, Tyler Cowen makes the case that "Big Tech" is underrated, and around 6:30 he talks about the claim that YouTube radicalises people. He doesn't find a compelling case in the academic literature. From a philosophical perspective, though, I'm a liberal -- if someone's videos are "unhealthy" but inside the bounds of the law, I think it's usually good for society for platforms to host them (though the companies shouldn't have a legal obligation to host them, and certainly need not promote them.) Grown-ups are grown-ups. But maybe you're talking about actually criminal radicalization, like telling people to kill others? Not just asking difficult questions about the shape of the Earth? 1: https://vimeo.com/636460268 https://vimeo.com/636460268. You may also be interested in the section after the one on "YouTube radicalization", on the Facebook whistleblower, around 10:30.