Skip to content

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

Technology
39 17 1
  • "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.

  • 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.

    That's like bottom of the barrel kind of moderation. Even Kiwifarms has that much of a moderation even if they let people doxx others, but only if they're the wrong kind of people.

    Here's the problem with the whole "free speech absolutism" experience: People don't want to be told that they're wrong, not just when Trump supporters are doing that. You know why Trump is popular? Because people want to be told they're not racist if they have double standards towards "less trustworthy races". Because people want to be told it's okay if they drive their big trucks even to the toilet. Because people want to be told that their home remedies are much better, than vaccines. And people will go as far with this that they'll go after people who don't, often by doxxing or sending threats.

  • 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.

    Well, well, well, it seems like "letting people decide what's okay and what is not" favors hatespeech every time...

  • That's like bottom of the barrel kind of moderation. Even Kiwifarms has that much of a moderation even if they let people doxx others, but only if they're the wrong kind of people.

    Here's the problem with the whole "free speech absolutism" experience: People don't want to be told that they're wrong, not just when Trump supporters are doing that. You know why Trump is popular? Because people want to be told they're not racist if they have double standards towards "less trustworthy races". Because people want to be told it's okay if they drive their big trucks even to the toilet. Because people want to be told that their home remedies are much better, than vaccines. And people will go as far with this that they'll go after people who don't, often by doxxing or sending threats.

    Oh for fucks sake, you keep using the same trite examples of shithole websites instead of looking at the place you’re at. I already told you, lemmy has a pretty good balance and this is where it should be as far as I’m concerned.

    I don’t know what people want to be told, but I can tell you the double standards very much apply to both sides of the aisle. Like this very conversation is proof of that because the modern day American “leftist”simply defines itself in opposition to MAGA.

    But even then I don’t even know why you bring that up because I’m not making an argument in favor of a side. You seem to imply that I do simply because the view I’m advocating for is often shared by the right, and because so much of the left is defined by being in opposition to MAGA then I must be defending MAGA or Trump; I guess the logic is that surely someone who disagrees with them will take every opposing viewpoint at any moment.

    The fact is that heavy centralized moderation simply lends itself so that corporations can enforce whatever are the views of the current government. Which is fine they are in their right to do so, it is a private network after all. But I’m not gonna defend it no matter if it’s left leaning or right leaning because it just doesn’t seat right with me being dictated by a corporation what is correct enough for me to hear and see, and I will always move to the platform that has the least amount of paternalistic attitudes towards its users. Thats it, that’s the bottom line.

    If you prefer heavy moderation and an enforced point of view of the world then that’s fine, there are plenty of social media networks with that approach. Just look at hexbear or r/conservative. No one is taking away your right to be dictated to.

  • Well, well, well, it seems like "letting people decide what's okay and what is not" favors hatespeech every time...

    This “study” is biased by design. But also even if it weren’t , one study does not prove anything. You’d need a lot more evidence than that.

  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Matrix is cooked

    Technology technology
    29
    1
    152 Stimmen
    29 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    jadedblueeyes@programming.devJ
    The Matrix Foundation and Element/New Vector are different orgs, and it's Element with the government contracts
  • 817 Stimmen
    41 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    C
    And then price us out
  • 1 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    A
    If you're a developer, a startup founder, or part of a small team, you've poured countless hours into building your web application. You've perfected the UI, optimized the database, and shipped features your users love. But in the rush to build and deploy, a critical question often gets deferred: is your application secure? For many, the answer is a nervous "I hope so." The reality is that without a proper defense, your application is exposed to a barrage of automated attacks hitting the web every second. Threats like SQL Injection, Cross-Site Scripting (XSS), and Remote Code Execution are not just reserved for large enterprises; they are constant dangers for any application with a public IP address. The Security Barrier: When Cost and Complexity Get in the Way The standard recommendation is to place a Web Application Firewall (WAF) in front of your application. A WAF acts as a protective shield, inspecting incoming traffic and filtering out malicious requests before they can do any damage. It’s a foundational piece of modern web security. So, why doesn't everyone have one? Historically, robust WAFs have been complex and expensive. They required significant budgets, specialized knowledge to configure, and ongoing maintenance, putting them out of reach for students, solo developers, non-profits, and early-stage startups. This has created a dangerous security divide, leaving the most innovative and resource-constrained projects the most vulnerable. But that is changing. Democratizing Security: The Power of a Community WAF Security should be a right, not a privilege. Recognizing this, the landscape is shifting towards more accessible, community-driven tools. The goal is to provide powerful, enterprise-grade protection to everyone, for free. This is the principle behind the HaltDos Community WAF. It's a no-cost, perpetually free Web Application Firewall designed specifically for the community that has been underserved for too long. It’s not a stripped-down trial version; it’s a powerful security tool designed to give you immediate and effective protection against the OWASP Top 10 and other critical web threats. What Can You Actually Do with It? With a community WAF, you can deploy a security layer in minutes that: Blocks Malicious Payloads: Get instant, out-of-the-box protection against common attack patterns like SQLi, XSS, RCE, and more. Stops Bad Bots: Prevent malicious bots from scraping your content, attempting credential stuffing, or spamming your forms. Gives You Visibility: A real-time dashboard shows you exactly who is trying to attack your application and what methods they are using, providing invaluable security intelligence. Allows Customization: You can add your own custom security rules to tailor the protection specifically to your application's logic and technology stack. The best part? It can be deployed virtually anywhere—on-premises, in a private cloud, or with any major cloud provider like AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud. Get Started in Minutes You don't need to be a security guru to use it. The setup is straightforward, and the value is immediate. Protecting the project, you've worked so hard on is no longer a question of budget. Download: Get the free Community WAF from the HaltDos site. Deploy: Follow the simple instructions to set it up with your web server (it’s compatible with Nginx, Apache, and others). Secure: Watch the dashboard as it begins to inspect your traffic and block threats in real-time. Security is a journey, but it must start somewhere. For developers, startups, and anyone running a web application on a tight budget, a community WAF is the perfect first step. It's powerful, it's easy, and it's completely free.
  • Selling Surveillance as Convenience

    Technology technology
    13
    1
    112 Stimmen
    13 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    E
    Trying to get my peers to care about their own privacy is exhausting. I wish their choices don't effect me, but like this article states.. They do in the long run. I will remain stubborn and only compromise rather than give in.
  • 16 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • A Presence-sensing Drive For Securely Storing Secrets

    Technology technology
    9
    1
    18 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    D
    Isn't that arguably the nature of encryption, though? If you lose the key, you're SOL by design.
  • 0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    J
    I deleted the snapchat now.