Political censorship of videos on YouTube

[Kidlicious]

Educational videos with a conservative bias are being censored on YouTube, which is owned by Google. It looks like what is happening is a bunch of little liberal idiots are flagging useful videos as having violence or sexual content and Google uses an algorithm to censor the videos.

The biggest problem here, IMO, is that this isn't covered by the leftist media. No one gives a **** but conservatives. How many people want to live is this kind of dystopia?

http://fortune.com/2016/10/21/youtube-prageru/

Might be mobile site

[Aeson]

People are free to turn restricted mode off if they want to view the videos. So it's not even an issue.

Ignoring that ... given the sheer number of videos that YouTube hosts, the number of users, and the amount of time required to verify any feed-back (given video length, which can be hours long in some cases) they have to rely on algorithms working off user feed-back. Sure there will be false-positives, but they can be addressed through customer support.

It doesn't equate to censorship unless they can be shown to consistently deny (after reviewing) certain types of speech, and even then they have every right to censor what is on their site as a private business.

[kentonio]

Yeah. Youtube get abused all the time for this kind of crap because people have the bizarre idea that they actually gives a rats ass about your oh so important stream of consciousness rants or cat videos. Also they're a private company anyway, so they can basically do whatever the **** they want. Don't like it? Start a ConservaTube.

[Kidlicious]

People are free to turn restricted mode off if they want to view the videos. So it's not even an issue.

Ignoring that ... given the sheer number of videos that YouTube hosts, the number of users, and the amount of time required to verify any feed-back (given video length, which can be hours long in some cases) they have to rely on algorithms working off user feed-back. Sure there will be false-positives, but they can be addressed through customer support.

It doesn't equate to censorship unless they can be shown to consistently deny (after reviewing) certain types of speech, and even then they have every right to censor what is on their site as a private business.

Actually it is censorship. Telling their customers that videos contain violence or sexual content is also lying, unless you assume that the average person is going to make themselves familiar with the censorship process.

But my issue isn't with Google. I'm really commenting on society here.

[Kidlicious]

Yeah. Youtube get abused all the time for this kind of crap because people have the bizarre idea that they actually gives a rats ass about your oh so important stream of consciousness rants or cat videos. Also they're a private company anyway, so they can basically do whatever the **** they want. Don't like it? Start a ConservaTube.

Sure, they can't block the content from people viewing it. That's not the issue. The issue is they are saying it has sexual content or violence and only conservatives care that they are lying.

[kentonio]

Sure, they can't block the content from people viewing it. That's not the issue. The issue is they are saying it has sexual content or violence and only conservatives care that they are lying.

Youtube have 300 hours of content uploaded to their service EVERY MINUTE. You really think they have time to get involved in some bull**** about whether a video is liberal or conservative? If there's a big enough media fuss made, they'll put out some statement, but otherwise they really do have better things to do than try and officiate in the latest round of online ****** wars.

[Kidlicious]

Youtube have 300 hours of content uploaded to their service EVERY MINUTE. You really think they have time to get involved in some bull**** about whether a video is liberal or conservative? If there's a big enough media fuss made, they'll put out some statement, but otherwise they really do have better things to do than try and officiate in the latest round of online ****** wars.

A corporation like that has a civic duty to protect access to information. They are like a library. How would you like it if the library put a parental advisory on educational books with a liberal bias? I'll tell you what, I wouldn't stand for it.

[Kidlicious]

This also should be viewed in the wider context. We have a bunch of SJWs on every US campus screaming for safe spaces, but what they really aim to do is shut up anyone who disagrees with them. We also have a biased media which does whatever it can to help one political party and hurt the other. And we have a political climate where mostly liberals are socially and economically isolating those who disagree with them.

[kentonio]

A corporation like that has a civic duty to protect access to information. They are like a library. How would you like it if the library put a parental advisory on educational books with a liberal bias? I'll tell you what, I wouldn't stand for it.

No they aren't like a library. No they don't have a civil duty to do anything. They're a giant corporation who have a responsibility to make profit for their shareholders and very little else.

[Kidlicious]

No they aren't like a library. No they don't have a civil duty to do anything. They're a giant corporation who have a responsibility to make profit for their shareholders and very little else.

They have a virtual monopoly. They control information. Yes they do have a civic responsibility. So do their shareholders.

[kentonio]

They have a virtual monopoly. They control information. Yes they do have a civic responsibility. So do their shareholders.

They don't care. They also aren't censoring based on political opinion, even though they have every right to if they so choose.

Let's say though, just for the sake of argument, that they should have a duty to ensure flagged video is actually in breach of terms and not just being flagged by political opponents. How exactly do you suggest they achieve that? Given that they receive as I said 300 hours of new content every minute?

[Kidlicious]

They don't care. They also aren't censoring based on political opinion, even though they have every right to if they so choose.

Let's say though, just for the sake of argument, that they should have a duty to ensure flagged video is actually in breach of terms and not just being flagged by political opponents. How exactly do you suggest they achieve that? Given that they receive as I said 300 hours of new content every minute?

"They don't care" is irrelevant, and not a logical argument.

Yes they are censoring based on polical opinion. Are you saying the little twerps flagging it actually believe that the videos contain inappropriate sexual content or violence?

The solution to this problem is obvious. YouTube is aware of what is happening here. All they have to do is override the censorship.

[kentonio]

Yes they are censoring based on polical opinion. Are you saying the little twerps flagging it actually believe that the videos contain inappropriate sexual content or violence?

Those 'little twerps' don't work for Youtube. Youtube are 'censoring' based on an algorithm system and manual reporting system that tries to prevent sexual or overtly violent content from being displayed. If people are misusing that reporting system for political reasons, then that is an abuse of Youtube's systems.

The solution to this problem is obvious. YouTube is aware of what is happening here. All they have to do is override the censorship.

Override how? So no-one should be allowed to flag innappropriate content? So you'd be happy if kids could watch hardcore porn and decapitation videos on Youtube, just as long as they can also watch conservative videos?

[Kidlicious]

Those 'little twerps' don't work for Youtube. Youtube are 'censoring' based on an algorithm system and manual reporting system that tries to prevent sexual or overtly violent content from being displayed. If people are misusing that reporting system for political reasons, then that is an abuse of Youtube's systems.



Override how? So no-one should be allowed to flag innappropriate content? So you'd be happy if kids could watch hardcore porn and decapitation videos on Youtube, just as long as they can also watch conservative videos?

Well there you go. It took you what, 4 posts to start simulating BK?

Yes, they have to censor educational videos to prevent kids from seeing porn!

[kentonio]

Well there you go. It took you what, 4 posts to start simulating BK?

Yes, they have to censor educational videos to prevent kids from seeing porn!

I'm trying to get you to understand that from a technical standpoint this has nothing to do with what the actual content is, and is purely a question of how the system works. Content is just content. When a video is uploaded Youtube have no idea whatsoever whether its graphic violence, a cat video, hardcore porn, or some nerd talking about politics.

How are they expected to check 400 hours of new content every minute? Does that sound even vaguely possible? No, they end up being reliant on user tagging, and once something has been tagged (which will happen many thousands of times an hour) what then? Should a Youtube employee sit and watch a 3 hour video just to double check whether someone has broken a particular condition of use?

This is one of those times when you should be really careful what you wish for. A free internet comes with some things we might not like, but it's sure as hell better than the alternative.