YouTube, Censorship, and the American Way of Life

submitted by ageingrockstar from scottritterextra.com

all 4 comments
sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun

[–]kingsmegLiberté, égalité, fraternité 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Interesting behind-the-scenes look at the YouTube method. Makes me wonder how more successful YouTube hosts, like Jimmy Dore, deal with their thoughtcrime division.

[–]welshTerrier2 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

We were taught in our earliest years that freedom of speech, a most cherished American value, meant that anyone had the right to stand on their soapbox in the public square and have their say. Most of us accepted that this right was not absolute. The classic limitation stated that you could not yell "fire" in a crowded theater. We also accepted, at least to some extent, that certain speech could be restricted if it was legitimately deemed to be "hate speech" or if it sought to incite violence.

So, fine ... almost all speech was to be tolerated with a narrow set of exclusions.

But then we introduce private ownership and America capitalism to the town square. "Public" forums such as youtube, twitter, instagram, etc permit "public" discourse but still allow private control over free speech. Therein lies the rub!

I would argue that any forum that permits the public to regularly participate is, by definition, a public forum and no private control over the public's speech should be permitted.

Introducing a profit motive should not change anything. Bribing users to self-limit their content is an affront to the spirit of free speech guaranteed by the Constitution. Such bribes should be illegal. "I will give you money" if you relinquish your freedom to speak out is not consistent with a democratic society and should not be tolerated.

Ultimately, it's clear that capitalism, a system that prioritizes private power over public interest, makes any semblance of democracy impossible.

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The classic limitation stated that you could not yell "fire" in a crowded theater. We also accepted, at least to some extent, that certain speech could be restricted if it was legitimately deemed to be "hate speech" or if it sought to incite violence.

 

It's true that this is the prevailing belief; I just want to note that the prevailing belief is false. The current legal standard, the Brandenburg test, has 3 elements: the speech must be likely to incite imminent unlawful action. There are no laws against "hate speech." The exception for "fighting words" has been successively narrowed to such a degree that it might as well not exist at this point.

[–]ageingrockstar[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What follows is an analysis of what I believe is a representative model of how YouTube uses the allure of monetization to compel YouTube content providers to comply with the need to control content in a manner which keeps the corporate advertisers who make YouTube possible happy. First, a YouTube channel which is exhibiting growth potential finds itself being “toyed” with by the boys and girls at the “Trust and Safety Division.” Let’s say, for instance, one was to upload a two-part documentary about Ukrainian President Zelensky (we’ll call it “Agent Zelensky”) which garnered a quarter-million or more views. The trusty censors at the “Trust and Safety Division” will arbitrarily intervene to “age restrict” the video, which limits drastically the number of views (and, by extension, the potential for monetization.)

The channel owner can, of course, submit an appeal, which, based upon experience, is often granted. But the lesson learned here isn’t that one can win an appeal, but rather that one should avoid getting in a position where one needs to appeal. Self-censorship, it seems, is one of the main ways YouTube controls content.

If a channel is deemed to have serious growth potential (remember—more views equals more mainstream advertisement dollars!), then the channel owner will be contacted by “agents” who make use of “talent scouts” who monitor flagged channels for growth potential. If a channel passes muster, then the agent will provide the channel with an opportunity to earn “easy” income, usually by reading a short advertisement blurb at the start of their podcast. While the amount of money generated in this manner is modest, it is—literally—“easy” money, allowing the recipient to be susceptible to notions of even greater income generation, notions the agent reinforces when discussing the income growth potential of a YouTube channel with the owner.

The money is the drug that blinds most YouTubers into ignoring the process that is actually taking place. By leading the channel owner horse to water, the agent fully expects the money-thirsty channel owner to drink, and drink again. It is at this juncture that the “Trust and Safety Division” team interjects again, usually to demonetize the YouTube channel in question. This is a classic baited trap—lure someone in with the promise and realized potential of income generation, promote the idea of unrealized wealth, and then take it all away, leaving the channel owner frustrated and willing to do what it takes to get back on the money train.