Skip to content

As disinformation and hate thrive online, YouTube quietly changed how it moderates content

Technology
39 17 139
  • YouTube, the world's largest video platform, appears to have changed its moderation policies to allow more content that violates its own rules to remain online.

    So I can say the words "uBlock Origin" without getting banned? Right?

  • "Your claim is only valid if you first run this elaborate, long-term experiment that I came up with."

    The world isn’t binary. When someone says less moderation, they don’t mean no moderation. Framing it as all-or-nothing just misrepresents their view to make it easier for you to argue against. CSAM is illegal, so it’s always going to be against the rules - that’s not up to Google and is therefore a moot point.

    As for other content you ideologically oppose, that’s your issue. As long as it’s not advocating violence or breaking the law, I don’t see why they’d be obligated to remove it. You’re free to think they should - but it’s their platform, not yours. If they want to allow that kind of content, they’re allowed to. If you don't like it, don't go there.

    No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying your claim is nonsense and if you want a proof, you can run an experiment. Do it or don't do it, your choice. Just don't expect people who have an experience in running an instance to agree with you.

  • I made some comments on YouTube over the last week about LAPD and Israel, and all of them have been deleted without notice. Not even a warning of "hey you aren't allowed to talk about that" or "you violated a mysterious rule sometime"

    I think people speaking on these subjects should genuinely come together to host their content on a Peertube instance and broadcast it to their Youtube audience, because this is a pretty strong use case. To be able to speak freely about these matters and inform people is pretty serious.

  • I don’t see the issue. This is how it was in the early days and things were infinitely better. I’m convinced that the overly paternalistic moderation that overtook online platforms what was gave power to the alt right in the first place.

    All online spaces could do with less moderation.

    I agree.

    Scumbags want censorship to only be used against those they disagree with.

  • You're either very young, or very dumb. It is known that every low-moderation platform quickly devolves into nazism and/or child porn.

    This person is just looking for an excuse to continuing censoring those he disagrees with.

    He likes the abuse of power because it suits his agendas.

    He doesn't know he's causing more harm than good, though. And I don't expect him to learn.

  • So I can say the words "uBlock Origin" without getting banned? Right?

    No, you can peddle hate speech, if you also make videos on why taxes should be eliminated, and how worker's movements and unions are "negatively affecting the right to work" (according to a former Google employee I knew).

  • I made some comments on YouTube over the last week about LAPD and Israel, and all of them have been deleted without notice. Not even a warning of "hey you aren't allowed to talk about that" or "you violated a mysterious rule sometime"

    It's the YouTube automoderation system.

  • I don’t see the issue. This is how it was in the early days and things were infinitely better. I’m convinced that the overly paternalistic moderation that overtook online platforms what was gave power to the alt right in the first place.

    All online spaces could do with less moderation.

    .

  • "Your claim is only valid if you first run this elaborate, long-term experiment that I came up with."

    The world isn’t binary. When someone says less moderation, they don’t mean no moderation. Framing it as all-or-nothing just misrepresents their view to make it easier for you to argue against. CSAM is illegal, so it’s always going to be against the rules - that’s not up to Google and is therefore a moot point.

    As for other content you ideologically oppose, that’s your issue. As long as it’s not advocating violence or breaking the law, I don’t see why they’d be obligated to remove it. You’re free to think they should - but it’s their platform, not yours. If they want to allow that kind of content, they’re allowed to. If you don't like it, don't go there.

    You can also look into the long, long list of defunct instances because they got defederated by basically everyone because noone wanted to deal with their shit. Hexbear and lemmygrad don't care if they're defederated because they're platforms to themselves, the instances I'm talking about were basically 4chan, kiwifarms, whatever, chuds getting banned on ordinary instances setting up their own and trying again. When that didn't work the instances collapsed as harassing others was their only purpose.

  • I don’t see the issue. This is how it was in the early days and things were infinitely better. I’m convinced that the overly paternalistic moderation that overtook online platforms what was gave power to the alt right in the first place.

    All online spaces could do with less moderation.

    Hello, I was in the "good old days" of the internet. It wasn't the "right-libertarian utopia" that right wingers like to paint it was. Sure people believed in "free speech absolutism", usually until someone whose first "forum" was 4chan, who demanded the same kind of "freedom of speech" they had over there. Also those 4chan bastards were extremely hypocritical with their own "free speech absolutism", as the moment they got doxxed instead of someone they disagreed with, they either backpedalled, just cried like a bitch online, or rarely literally went that they only meant the free speech for themselves. People who actually lived in those days on the interne,t and weren't just heard about it some zoomer internet historian or someone whose first "forum" was an anonymous image board know that 4chan marked the end of the old internet, and marked the beginning of the centralization era (4chan sucked up some traffic from fan forums, similarly to what Facebook did later).

    What actually is happening is that if you also peddle the right kind of economic policies for Google, you get whitelisted for hatespeech, meaning moderators are only allowed to act on your hatespeech after consultation with the higher ups. Talk about uBlockOrigin? Banned! Talk about how fascists are cruel in the comment section? Your comment is insta-deleted without explanation by the YouTube automod system. Demonize trans people? Wanna call "bad" black people n****rs? Want to talk about how all women are whores and deserve all their rights being taken away? Make sure you also bitch about taxes, how artists and other workers are "entitled", and write odes about how we need to "move fast and break things, ask for forgiveness later". Google will be happy to play "heel" for your "face" in case of "censorship", so you can have the facade of a freedom warrior.

  • You can also look into the long, long list of defunct instances because they got defederated by basically everyone because noone wanted to deal with their shit. Hexbear and lemmygrad don't care if they're defederated because they're platforms to themselves, the instances I'm talking about were basically 4chan, kiwifarms, whatever, chuds getting banned on ordinary instances setting up their own and trying again. When that didn't work the instances collapsed as harassing others was their only purpose.

    Nobody is asking for an unmoderated space.

  • Nobody is asking for an unmoderated space.

    Those instances weren't breaking laws. At least not American ones. It is not illegal to be an incivil assclown, but you are going to get thrown out of the bar.

  • Those instances weren't breaking laws. At least not American ones. It is not illegal to be an incivil assclown, but you are going to get thrown out of the bar.

    It’s not a place for incivility that I’m making, either. I just struggle to believe you genuinely don’t understand what people mean when they ask for less moderation or censorship.

  • It’s not a place for incivility that I’m making, either. I just struggle to believe you genuinely don’t understand what people mean when they ask for less moderation or censorship.

    I know what they mean when clutching their frozen peaches. It also never works out as they imagine because paradox of tolerance.

  • I don’t see the issue. This is how it was in the early days and things were infinitely better. I’m convinced that the overly paternalistic moderation that overtook online platforms what was gave power to the alt right in the first place.

    All online spaces could do with less moderation.

    Yep. I'm old enough to remember when online censorship was taboo. It's pathetic how far we have fallen. Now the normies demand it.

  • Yep. I'm old enough to remember when online censorship was taboo. It's pathetic how far we have fallen. Now the normies demand it.

    Its mind boggling that these are the same people who will claim the corporations are oppressing them but in the same breath they ask for seconds. The political tribalism is so great right now that people don’t even realize how contradictory their narratives and views are I guess.

  • Hello, I was in the "good old days" of the internet. It wasn't the "right-libertarian utopia" that right wingers like to paint it was. Sure people believed in "free speech absolutism", usually until someone whose first "forum" was 4chan, who demanded the same kind of "freedom of speech" they had over there. Also those 4chan bastards were extremely hypocritical with their own "free speech absolutism", as the moment they got doxxed instead of someone they disagreed with, they either backpedalled, just cried like a bitch online, or rarely literally went that they only meant the free speech for themselves. People who actually lived in those days on the interne,t and weren't just heard about it some zoomer internet historian or someone whose first "forum" was an anonymous image board know that 4chan marked the end of the old internet, and marked the beginning of the centralization era (4chan sucked up some traffic from fan forums, similarly to what Facebook did later).

    What actually is happening is that if you also peddle the right kind of economic policies for Google, you get whitelisted for hatespeech, meaning moderators are only allowed to act on your hatespeech after consultation with the higher ups. Talk about uBlockOrigin? Banned! Talk about how fascists are cruel in the comment section? Your comment is insta-deleted without explanation by the YouTube automod system. Demonize trans people? Wanna call "bad" black people n****rs? Want to talk about how all women are whores and deserve all their rights being taken away? Make sure you also bitch about taxes, how artists and other workers are "entitled", and write odes about how we need to "move fast and break things, ask for forgiveness later". Google will be happy to play "heel" for your "face" in case of "censorship", so you can have the facade of a freedom warrior.

    This is revisionism of the highest degree. Everyone knows Google et al were very heavy handed at dealing with any dissent with the liberal agenda, for the lack of a better term. Facebook fired Luckey Palmer because he supported Trump! That’s how far the tech industry went to protect left wing views and for the best part of the last decade.

    And no one is being allowed to say any of those words on any major social media. Hell my comment up there that says faggot would have gotten me suspended in all the major social media. So stay grounded and stop making shit up.

  • YouTube, the world's largest video platform, appears to have changed its moderation policies to allow more content that violates its own rules to remain online.

    someone should make a dearrow but for moderation

  • This is revisionism of the highest degree. Everyone knows Google et al were very heavy handed at dealing with any dissent with the liberal agenda, for the lack of a better term. Facebook fired Luckey Palmer because he supported Trump! That’s how far the tech industry went to protect left wing views and for the best part of the last decade.

    And no one is being allowed to say any of those words on any major social media. Hell my comment up there that says faggot would have gotten me suspended in all the major social media. So stay grounded and stop making shit up.

    More and more often I see mainstream social media platforms letting people say slurs. A few days ago I literally say the F-slur on YouTube, while you cannot say "porn".

    Old internet weren't 4chans, kiwifarms-style doxxing forums! Just because some YouTube pseudohistorian said the old internet literally were composed of unmoderated image boards and forums, that doesn't make that true.

  • More and more often I see mainstream social media platforms letting people say slurs. A few days ago I literally say the F-slur on YouTube, while you cannot say "porn".

    Old internet weren't 4chans, kiwifarms-style doxxing forums! Just because some YouTube pseudohistorian said the old internet literally were composed of unmoderated image boards and forums, that doesn't make that true.

    No they weren’t but they sure as fuck weren’t banning people for slurs either except the few really socially unacceptable ones. It was a good balance.

    Also who’s the YouTube historian you cite? Because I was there too and I know exactly how it was. Lemmy has the right amount of moderation imo most of it enforced by users themselves as it should be.

    Also I’d like to add, since you keep bringing it up, that 4chan often had more stringent moderation than other websites because on-topic discussions were strictly enforced. Outside of the adult boards (I forget their name, blue boards was it?) stuff like gore, porn etc was not allowed at all.

    Fuck your paternalistic bullshit is all I have to say. Let people say whatever they want, let society decide what is acceptable or not. Not fucking corporations.

  • Fully remote control your Nissan Leaf (or other modern cars)

    Technology technology
    27
    1
    145 Stimmen
    27 Beiträge
    116 Aufrufe
    B
    Never buy a tesla, Elon and any employee can just watch you, hell if they really wanted they could drive you into on coming traffic for the fun of it. Majority of those accidents were not.
  • How the Rubin Observatory Will Reinvent Astronomy

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    53 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    M
    Giant twice-reflecting mirror of low-expansion borrosilicate covered in pure silver and a giant digital camera with filters.
  • Pornhub is Back in France.

    Technology technology
    33
    1
    311 Stimmen
    33 Beiträge
    131 Aufrufe
    D
    Nordé VPN
  • Is Matrix cooked?

    Technology technology
    54
    100 Stimmen
    54 Beiträge
    146 Aufrufe
    W
    Didn't know it only applied to UWP apps on Windows. That does seem like a pretty big problem then. it is mostly for compatibility reasons. no win32 programs are equipped to handle such granular permissions and sandboxing, they are all made with the assumption that they have access to whatever they need (other than other users' resources and things that require elevation). if Microsoft would have made that limitation to every kind of software, that Windows version would have probably been a failure in popularity because lots of software would have broken. I think S editions of windows is how they tried to go in that direction, with a more drastic way of simply just dropping support for 3rd party win32 programs. I don't still have a Mac readily available to test with but afaik it is any application that uses Apple's packaging format. ok, so if you run linux or windows utils in a compatibility layer, they still have less of a limited access? by which I mean graphical utilities. just tried with firefox, for macos it wanted to give me an .iso file (???) if so, it seems apple is doing roughly the same as microsoft with uwp and the appx format, and linux with flatpak: it's a choice for the user
  • Acute Leukemia Burden Trends and Future Predictions

    Technology technology
    5
    1
    5 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    26 Aufrufe
    G
    Looks like the delay in 2011 was so big the data became available after the 2017 one
  • Meta is now a defense contractor

    Technology technology
    54
    1
    361 Stimmen
    54 Beiträge
    188 Aufrufe
    B
    Best decision ever for a company. The US gov pisses away billions of their taxpayers money and buys all the low quality crap from the MIL without questions.
  • New Cars Don't All Come With Dipsticks Anymore, Here's Why

    Technology technology
    22
    1
    2 Stimmen
    22 Beiträge
    88 Aufrufe
    L
    The U660F transmission in my wife's 2015 Highlander doesn't have a dipstick. Luckily that transmission is solid and easy to service anyway, you just need a skinny funnel to fill it.
  • Audible unveils plans to use AI voices to narrate audiobooks

    Technology technology
    6
    1
    0 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    30 Aufrufe
    fancypantsfire@lemm.eeF
    Ah, I see what you’re saying, I misunderstood and thought you were taking about picking a different book. Indeed, for the worst case scenario a mediocre AI voice could be an improvement!