YouTube relaxes moderation rules to allow more controversial content. Videos are allowed if "freedom of expression value may outweigh harm risk"
Technology
67
Beiträge
48
Kommentatoren
311
Aufrufe
-
Good. I don't really care about youtube, but less censorship is always a good thing.
How can you people say you respect science when you support silencing any criticism of it? That's not science. That's religion.
That said, this criteria clearly only exists to protect "influencers" who make youtube a proportional amount of money. If you have a channel with very little traffic and you say something controversial, you'd better believe your "freedom of expression value" will not be high enough to outweigh the corporation's perceived "harm risk."
It's likely going to be selective censorship, i.e. Nazi cunts stay, criticism of said Nazi cunts will go.
-
It's likely going to be selective censorship, i.e. Nazi cunts stay, criticism of said Nazi cunts will go.
You must be living in a bubble if you truly believe that.
-
I still wouldn't trust Google not to nuke my channel on a whim even in spite of those relaxed moderation rules. What's stopping a little bribe from the right company or political party from causing them to backpedal or even tighten their grip further?
This is why one should at least mirror their content to PeerTube or a similar alternative platform like that even if they're not going to just outright post future content to said alternative and give up on YT altogether.
I agree. We've seen enough times in the past where a creator would get a strike from a video several years old because the rules changes. Anyone legit should be careful.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Wait what??? This came out of nowhere ??
YouTube not cracking down on free speech??
-
How long before Google locks YT down to loading only on Chrome, and only on Windows, Mac, ChromeOS, or Android, and only without ad blockers of any kind, including hardware ad blockers like PiHole being implemented anywhere, and straight-up blocking it from loading at all on non-Chrome browsers (to also include other Chromium browsers) and on Linux or iOS, and enforcing TPM2 and SecureBoot mandates for authentication, and blocking downloading and re-uploading of YT vids, using DRM?
Basically, I wouldn't put it above them to ensure their video platform only runs on their browser, and only on hardware that they deem worthy of running it, even if it means somehow implementing a Vanguard-style rootkit. Something else I wouldn't put it past Google to try, is completely discontinuing the YT browser client and fully locking the API down to the official app, and still implementing a Vanguard-style rootkit on that.
they are working on it
- https://sh.itjust.works/post/2147959
- https://monero.town/post/989081
- https://lemmy.ml/post/2546109
- https://github.com/chromium/chromium/pull/187
don't worry, they didn't abandon it. they have continued development hidden from sight in the android version of the chromium engine
-
This post did not contain any content.
Moderators were previously told to remove videos if one-quarter or more of the content violated YouTube policies. Now, that limit has been increased to half.
This seems like alien speak to me. They announce that shit, someone read it, and then repeated it in an article. But what does it mean?
Can you have 6 contents and make 2 really crazy? Can you tell people to commit violence for 5 minutes and then review a game for 6 minutes? Is there a dude with tvtropes open going through and marking the contents of content?
-
This post did not contain any content.
"Free speech" under capitalism means the freedom to promote fascism, rascism, misogyny, homophobia, genocide, etc...
But if you post half a second of a Disney movie, your account will be permanently deleted.
-
Moderators were previously told to remove videos if one-quarter or more of the content violated YouTube policies. Now, that limit has been increased to half.
This seems like alien speak to me. They announce that shit, someone read it, and then repeated it in an article. But what does it mean?
Can you have 6 contents and make 2 really crazy? Can you tell people to commit violence for 5 minutes and then review a game for 6 minutes? Is there a dude with tvtropes open going through and marking the contents of content?
It depends on who is being targeted.
If you make a video calling for attacks on women, palestinians, gay people, etc., that's all good!
If you talk about taxing rich people, that's extreme violence. Immediate ban.
-
Intention: YouTubers can stop with the whole self censoring shit.
Example: Unaliving; PDF file; grape; etc.
Reality: Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and other right wing grifters receive zero censorship while YouTubers still have to self censor to receive monetization.
Intention: YouTubers can stop with the whole self censoring shit.
lol. that's not the intention.
-
Do people still have to say unalive?
Censorship is goddamn stupid.
They should just tag content & let people decide what to filter.Yes but that's not really a problem like the overwhelming fascism.
-
It depends on who is being targeted.
If you make a video calling for attacks on women, palestinians, gay people, etc., that's all good!
If you talk about taxing rich people, that's extreme violence. Immediate ban.
Believe it or not, straight to jail.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Great, now that 50% of a video can be a direct call for genocide, does that at LEAST mean I can use ONE instance of a "bad" word or speak of "icky" things like death and drug abuse without being demonized?
-
This sucks but I think this will lead to a Youtube exodus and other platforms like Peertube will creator and user base will grow
How many people have even heard of peertube?
-
This post did not contain any content.
I like freedom of speech but it seems like it would be pretty difficult to weigh those things against one another. what is the metric that they have in common? I don't know that there is one
-
I agree. We've seen enough times in the past where a creator would get a strike from a video several years old because the rules changes. Anyone legit should be careful.
Slope's Game Room is about to lose his channel over 'hate speech' that isn't even his. One more reason for me to not post any future video content to YT if I ever seriously get into making vids and instead just posting everything to PeerTube where it at least isn't in danger of getting nuked because Google got pissed at me.
Update: he got to keep his channel. Still one more reason to not put any future content on YT should I pick up video content creation though.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Introducing: Pay More, Say More
Surely this can't become deeply problematic for the social fabric.
-
This post did not contain any content.
At least true crime youtubers won't have to bleep half their videos anymore /s
-
Moderators were previously told to remove videos if one-quarter or more of the content violated YouTube policies. Now, that limit has been increased to half.
This seems like alien speak to me. They announce that shit, someone read it, and then repeated it in an article. But what does it mean?
Can you have 6 contents and make 2 really crazy? Can you tell people to commit violence for 5 minutes and then review a game for 6 minutes? Is there a dude with tvtropes open going through and marking the contents of content?
I've worked for TnS at a different company.
I would guess it is likely per video, or they have multiple types of review going over it on a per video basis and then also maybe the channel as a whole?
So you could have half of any video contain the violating content, and it would be clear.
-
Intention: YouTubers can stop with the whole self censoring shit.
Example: Unaliving; PDF file; grape; etc.
Reality: Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and other right wing grifters receive zero censorship while YouTubers still have to self censor to receive monetization.
Actual reality: Right-wing grifters are already on a "whitelist", as long as they also talk about lower taxes, lessening regulations and worker's protections, and also got popular enough. Source: knew a former moderator for Google.
-
Do people still have to say unalive?
Censorship is goddamn stupid.
They should just tag content & let people decide what to filter.People have literally never had to say that.
First off it was Tiktok, not YouTube, that started the "unalived" trend, but even then make no mistake, "killed," "murdered," "died," etc has never been banned on tiktok either.
What has been happening is that videos (on tiktok) with "potentially divisive content" are not being promoted by tiktok. You video will not get removed just for saying the word "killed" and will still be fully available for viewing by your followers, it just won't be promoted on the For You page for strangers.
And it's fine if you still object to this, but we have to stop conflating the two. Not being promoting is not the same thing as being censored.
Edit: I don't know who downvoted this or why, but I'm right
