YouTube accused of CENSORSHIP over controversial new bid to ‘limit’ access to videos
DOWN THE 'TUBE
YouTube accused of
CENSORSHIP over controversial new bid to ‘limit’ access to videos
Google-owned
video site is taking steps to reduce the audience for content deemed
'inappropriate or offensive', but not illegal.
1st September 2017,Updated: 1st September 2017,
YOUTUBE
has been accused of censorship after introducing a controversial new policy
designed to reduce the audience for videos deemed to be "inappropriate or
offensive to some audiences".
The Google-owned video site is
now putting videos into a "limited state" if they are deemed
controversial enough to be considered objectionable, but not hateful,
pornographic or violent enough to be banned altogether.
This policy was announced several months
ago but has come into force in the past week, prompting anger among members of
the YouTube community.
The Sun Online understands
Google and YouTube staff refer to the tactic as "tougher treatment".
One prominent video-maker
slammed the new scheme whilst WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange described the
measures as "economic censorship".
However, YouTube sees it as a
way of maintaining freedom of speech and allowing discussion of controversial
issues without resorting to the wholesale banning of videos.
Videos which are put into a
limited state cannot be embedded on other websites.
They also cannot be easily
published on social media using the usual share buttons and other users cannot
comment on them.
This
is the screen users are shown when they click on a video that has been 'limited'
Crucially, the person who made the video
will no longer receive any payment.
Earlier this week, Julian
Assange wrote: "'Controversial' but contract-legal videos [which break
YouTube's terms and conditions] cannot be liked, embedded or earn [money from
advertising revenue].
"What's interesting about
the new method deployed is that it is a clear attempt at social engineering. It
isn't just turning off the ads.
"It's turning off the
comments, embeds, etc too.
"Everything possible to
strangle the reach without deleting it."
THE ADPOCALYPSE How YouTube
stars joined forces to fight advertising policy change that threatened to ‘tear
the site apart’
Criticism of YouTube's policies
is most acute among people on the right of the political spectrum, who fear
that Silicon Valley is dominated by the left and determined to silence opposing
voices - a claim denied by tech giants like Facebook and Google.
The new YouTube rules were
highlighted this week by Paul Joseph Watson, a globally famous British right
wing YouTuber and editor-at-large of Infowars, who spoke out after saying a
guest on his online show had one of her videos removed after the
appearance.
The black female YouTuber, who
uses the name RedPillBlack, made a video entitled "WTF? Black Lives Matter
Has A List of Demands for White People!" in response to a member of the
activist's group calls for white people to "give up the home you
own to a black or brown family".
The video was part of a series
which features an offensive racial term in its name, which we have decided not
to publish, and criticises the BLM member's statement point by point.
We watched her video and whilst
it's clear that many people might disagree with the political point she is
making, the actual video did not appear to be offensive or gratuitous.
"Some people might watch
the video and think I'm speaking out against black people," she said in
the video.
"But what I'm doing here
is speaking up for black people."
The video was allegedly banned
but later reinstated following a series of tweets from Watson, which you can
see below.
YouTube DELETES a video made by a black
woman decrying BLM's racism.
This needs to be a national news story. twitter.com/RedPillBlack/s…
This needs to be a national news story. twitter.com/RedPillBlack/s…
Hey @TeamYouTube -
why are you silencing a black woman who is speaking out against racism?
Shame on you.
Shame on you.
So YouTube rightly responded to complaints
by restoring @RedPillBlack's video.
Though this proves their flagging system is broken.
Though this proves their flagging system is broken.
On Twitter, the vlogger RedPillBlack wrote:
"What does it mean when a company owned by rich white ppl begins censoring
black people? Is this the white nationalism I should be scared of?"
She added: "They said it
was for harassment and bullying. I literally just read the girl's list [of
demands] out loud."
Reddit users are now building a
record of all the videos which have been put into a limited state.
Many of the videos have clearly
offensive material.
Others discuss controversial,
contested and highly inflammatory scientific theories about the link between
race and intelligence.
Nazi videos featured heavily on
the current list, with Hitler's speeches and even the Nazi national anthem
being limited.
But amongst material that is
clearly shocking and likely to cause grave offence are videos which discuss
political issues such as the migrant crisis using non-extreme language.
You guide to YouTube's
controversial new policy of 'limiting' access to videos
Here is what YouTube has to say about
the scheme on its support page:
Our Community Guidelines prohibit hate speech that either
promotes violence or has the primary purpose of inciting hatred against
individuals or groups based on certain attributes.
YouTube also prohibits content intended to recruit for terrorist
organisations, incite violence, celebrate terrorist attacks or otherwise
promote acts of terrorism.
Some borderline videos, such as those containing inflammatory
religious or supremacist content without a direct call to violence or a primary
purpose of inciting hatred, may not cross these lines for removal.
Following user reports, if our review teams determine that a
video is borderline under our policies, it may have some features disabled.
These videos will remain available on YouTube but will be placed
behind a warning message and some features will be disabled, including
comments, suggested videos and likes. These videos are also not eligible for
ads.
If one of your videos has features disabled, we will send an
email to notify you.
You can appeal the
decision directly from a link in the email or by selecting the 'Appeal' link
next to the video in Video Manager. Having features disabled on a video will
not create a strike on your account.
You can tell a video has been
put into a limited state because you have to click a button to watch it and are
shown the words: "The following content has been identified by the YouTube
community as inappropriate or offensive to some audiences.
"In response to user
reports, we have disabled some features, such as comments, sharing and
suggested videos, because this video contains content that may be inappropriate
or offensive to some audiences."
The Sun Online has learned that
Google has been in contact with members of religious communities to discuss
getting the balance right between censorship and open discussion.
We understand that the
editor of a prominent Jewish newspaper advised the tech giant against simply
blocking videos discussing disturbing subjects, suggesting that the best way to
combat these views is to debate and defeat them in the open.
The new YouTube policy allows
videos to be seen whilst stopping their makers from earning money and
preventing them from easily spreading their message or having it automatically
shown to others through the site's "recommended videos" service.
It is understood that the
intention of the new "limited state" policy is to target content
which is objectionable, but not illegal.
Google uses a team of thousands
of community moderators to police content and decide whether it should be
banned or limited.
Google does employ machine
learning to target videos which are pornographic or depict extremist acts of
violence.
This involves training
computers to look for telltale signs of sex or violence, although Google does
not publically reveal what its machine learning system is looking for.
Theoretically, a good way to
root out porn would be to ask computers to look out for naked flesh or
exaggerated groans, whilst machines could also be taught to recognise ISIS
flags or look out for orange jumpsuits to target extremist vids.
Final decisions on whether to
remove or limit content are taken by humans, who also investigate complaints
from users about videos.
These staff members make their
decisions using strict criteria set out by Google and YouTube.
However, the tech giant does
not make these guidelines public - a strategy intended to stop people making
videos designed to narrowly skirt its rules.
Right-wingers on the internet
believe Silicon Valley is dead set on censoring conservative websites and
channels, taking its cue from over-sensitive members of Generation
Snowflake who are known for taking offence too easily.
At the same time, left-wingers
think the right is spreading hate and must be silenced for the good of society.
The "culture war"
between these two sides shows no signs of abating - and YouTube is the
frontline in this increasingly vicious battle of ideas.
Comments
Post a Comment