Can someone help me to understand, is youtube censoring discussion of females in comments?

"

Crackmonster wrote:

As for your information, she herself brought that up in her posts - in fact that was part of her reasoning that women are engineered to act that way for survival of the fittest, therefore men should accept anything and grow up. I merely used her own arguments against her, undermining the validity of her toxicity.

Can't say you are being delightful and pleasant.

"

Ultimately, it is besides the point. It is both true, as well as it is within my rights to express it. And that is the crux of the problem. There is no hatespeak against anyone here, just pointing out issues - in short it's youtube censoring opinions.

When people talk about free speech, they often misunderstand it. Freedom of speech only protect you from government censorship. Your freedom of expression can be controlled or limited for various reasons, by private institutions, and other controlling bodies. Various forms of censorship exist, companies have the ability to decide what speech they will allow on their network.

Some people don't like that. Some people like their Safe Space and Mental Health much more. Free Speech isn’t always Valuable and some people aren't even that fond of it in practice. "Free Speech" as I understand it in theory is a Value, not a Right.

"

Crackmonster wrote:

Can someone explain to me what is happening here, am i missing something obvious?

It's been over a year since YouTube was caught editing comments and chat in real time. Someone working at YT monitoring things doesn't like your perspective.

It doesn't stop at forums and chats, there have been cases where people's text messages to friends and family have been edited or blocked.

As Depeche Mode said - Enjoy the Silence.
https://vimeo.com/197550392


Words like violence
Break the silence
Come crashing in
Into my little world
Painful to me
Pierce right through me
Can't you understand
Oh my little girl

All I ever wanted
All I ever needed
Is here in my arms
Words are very unnecessary
They can only do harm

As for the actual content of what you said - Determining when a reader is being too thin skinned and when the author is just being a jerk is a matter or perspective and background. A good rule of elbow is whether you would make the same commentary in person to a friend or family member you respected. Another one is looking at whether you are generalizing unnecessarily.

Know your audience. Location matters as well - the participants in certain locations expect a certain amount of decorum or freedom to speak freely.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

YT monitoring

Isn't that what Zuckbook does? O-hohohoho.

Yes your comments are being hidden by an algorithm that has determined your commentary, words and phrases are likely to contain inflammatory, potentially hateful intent.

Whether your specific message and intent is to cause harm, sufficient information is available to the algorithm (which probably includes your previous history) to determine that YT is better off without your comment.

Your behaviour is essentially the confrontational equivalent of attending a Trump rally with an "I heart Communists" banner, or a Biden rally with a "4 more years for Trump" badge. You're not going to succeed in engaging in a meaningful exchange of ideas, or be able to influence others into a particular position. It's all just thoughtless screaming at the opponent and all that does is feed anger, resentment and reinforce the concept of an us and them mentality.

The world is no worse off for not seeing your comments, and is honestly probably better off. Not because your position is irrelevant but because the anger it would breed is toxic and benefits nobody. I do not mean you specifically, I mean anyone that engages in similar actions regardless of which position they assume on an issue.

I frequently see people espouse their rights yet infrequently hear people talk about their obligations. Such as, I have the right to free speech, and an obligation to engage with others in a thoughtful and respectful manner.

Picking a fight on the internet is typically as useful as screaming into the wind. When it comes to YT, if you don't like the content of a video then hit the dislike button and move along. Otherwise you're really just wasting your own time.

"

Crackmonster wrote:

.......
Ultimately, it is besides the point. It is both true, as well as it is within my rights to express it. And that is the crux of the problem. There is no hatespeak against anyone here, just pointing out issues - in short it's youtube censoring opinions....

Google could ban you from "everything google" if it felt like it. You could get all your comments anywhere on teh interwebz removed from all google searches, which would leave only Bing and a couple of wacked-up search engines able to retrieve your posts.

They could delete every youtube comment out-of-hand, just because they felt like it. They could, if they didn't mind spending some google-bucks on a harassment lawsuit, but a little poop icon on everything you posted on any Alphabet-owned site.

Your "Rights" don't have a lot of meaning when you're exercising them in someone else's yard. Google/Youtube/Alphabet is a private company. Human Rights, Rights of Free Speech, apply to public, governement, actions. There are some countries, some laws, some regulations, that could act to strengthen those in some privately owned media, particularly those that may receive funding from governments or some such. (Just imagining, don't know the EU laws in that respect) But, by and large...

You don't have any Right to violate anyone else's Rights, like posting something someone doesn't want posted on their private forum. /shrug


And, I understand... You kind of want to continue that conversation since you've been cut-off, right? OK, start a thread about it. Otherwise, the answer to your OP is: Youtube can practically do whatever it feels like doing and giving channel owners whatever tools they wish to control the interactions taking place on their own portion of the website. "Free Speech" rights mean... very little when they're exercised in someone else's living room.

^

I'm not sure this was ever a question of can they, because clearly they can.

I think the main question is should they? Or why? Who should be the gatekeeper? You mention they are private companies, but that's not entirely true. Most are publicly traded, and do have to answer to shareholders and the public interest. In addition they still have to comply with basic laws & rights established around protected classes.

I would even go a step further, that Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are getting very close to a boiling or breaking point. It's too difficult to appear non-biased, when you have biased employees. No company can afford to alienate large percentages of their customers.

That being said I do think that social media platforms are necessary, because our news/print media today is as untrustworthy and biased as I can ever remember. Their credibility is so low.

Hell I remember a few weeks ago, watching a live report at the site of some civil unrest. (I wont mention station or names), The news-person was talking about how calm the protesters were, and about how they were doing things the right way to be heard, all while in the background a massive fire was raging from a building that was ignited, and people were throwing bricks & screaming. I would have laughed it wasnt so entirely fucked up.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

^

I'm not sure this was ever a question of can they, because clearly they can.

I think the main question is should they? Or why? Who should be the gatekeeper?

They should be allowed to control what is present on their own website. They can not be subjected to the "tyranny of the majority" and also be forced to support and pay for that privilege. :)

"

You mention they are private companies, but that's not entirely true. Most are publicly traded, and do have to answer to shareholders and the public interest. In addition they still have to comply with basic laws & rights established around protected classes.

In this case, "public" means controlled or associated with "the public trust" as in a "government entity." A "publicly traded" company is still "privately owned." It's not something that is owned by the entirety of the public, like a government is. (or, perhaps, should be)

"

I would even go a step further, that Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are getting very close to a boiling or breaking point. It's too difficult to appear non-biased, when you have biased employees. No company can afford to alienate large percentages of their customers.

They are running afoul of what every social forum has encountered since the days of the BBS - Inflammatory subject matter eventually...inflames. Why are political, sexual, and religious topics often banned on discussion forums all over the world? Well, these "social media" outlets are finding out "why." Yet, because such things attract huge numbers of people trying to voice their likely inflammatory opinion, they LOVE such juicy discussions. They love them so much they're trying the bravest and most ambitious approach ever attempted by man - "Let's try to moderate political discussions in a completely open forum environment!"

They didn't install the /stupid switch in their software packs... Anything that happens because of that is their fault, IMO. If they can't put out the fires, they should not allow people to play with matches. Simple. Sensible. But doesn't make them as much money...

"

That being said I do think that social media platforms are necessary, because our news/print media today is as untrustworthy and biased as I can ever remember. Their credibility is so low.

I understand the sentiment, but it's just an act of running away from the problem.

People who use someone's ignorance against them for their own purposes or personal enrichment should be charged with fraud. Unfortunately, one supposes, we don't have a formal definition of lying as "intellectual fraud." BUT, since these very biased, yet popular, news outlets are pushing a message to "the masses" they should be more closely scrutinized.

The problem? Once you invite government oversight into the Fourth Estate, you... destroy the reason it is there. The philosophical purpose for its existence is to report the government's actions to the people in, supposedly, an unbiased and truthful manner. If one adds "Government Oversight" to that formula, it's oh-so-very easy to destroy or manipulate by unscrupulous or corrupt governments.

And, privately suing a "news agency" for outright lying is... problematic, too. Imagine how many rich private individuals and companies could just arbitrarily start suing any news agency they wished. In some countries, "frivolous" lawsuits are not heavily discouraged and there is little/no mitigation there or prohibitive laws/fines.

"

Hell I remember a few weeks ago, watching a live report at the site of some civil unrest. (I wont mention station or names), The news-person was talking about how calm the protesters were, and about how they were doing things the right way to be heard, all while in the background a massive fire was raging from a building that was ignited, and people were throwing bricks & screaming. I would have laughed it wasnt so entirely fucked up.

This happens.

Sometimes, it's honest and simple, sometimes it's a more forced and purposeful "oversight." What shouldn't ever be done is... ignoring fires and brick-throwing in a "reporting" episode. Now, if those things were caused by something other than these peaceful protestors, THAT should be mentioned. The public should be made aware of that fact. If some small number of them caused that, that should be known too. IF none caused that and it was Bigfoot? OK, let's see the blurry photos...

Desperation is its own cause, too. Those competing for "idea space" in the minds of the public and who are very enthusiastic about such things can overstep common boundaries and wander into the lands of the fanatic. Everyone loves to see themselves as righteous, but that's the most dangerous flaw of all. When indulged too deeply, it leads to... tyranny. It results in an insidious, destructive, kind of tyranny capable of producing the most horrendous sorts of injustice imaginable.


On the Rights of private ownership and Free Speech -

It's a simple concept. I, being a private individual or even a consenting group of people bound in a common cause, can't be forced to support something I don't want to support. I can't be forced to "say" something in my own "Free Speech." Even though I support "Free Speech," I don't have to allow anyone to scream insults at people from my front-yard. As a group of investors who have pooled their resources in common cause, "I" (we) shouldn't have to devote those shared resources towards supporting someone saying things we don't want to support the "saying of."

If I made a website that had a forum for discussing model aircraft and it was invaded by people who wanted to talk about furry couches, what's my recourse if "Free Speech Rights" are truly universal and all encompassing in scope? Zero.

For that reason, we have to support Youtube and other privately owned companies for their choices in controlling "speech" on their privately owned sits. It may sometimes not suit what we may want to see discussed, but by protecting their private interests we also protect our own. We, because of that protection, can create our own website where we can have open discussions about whatever topics we wish. (Of course, if such things are illegal in our country, that could complicate the whole "free speech" as a Human Right thing. :))

YT comments can be deleted by the uploader but reading those is already a waste of time since 2006.


YT censorship is limited to content creators. Unless you spam comments like a bot they won't enforce comments.

But as content creators there is a drive to have a rose tinted image. There are many triggerwords which demonetize the video when written/said. EG Covid-19/Virus when the pandemic started.

In worse cases you earn yourself a strike. This is not only to related to conspiracy BS but also to stuff like "Hate Speech"/"Harassment policy"

Former is targeting pretty much everything that not in touch with the Woke echo chamber.

Automatic Harassment flags usually happen after flagging waves. Recently there was a german reaction Youtuber who got one of his videos automatically killed for harassment because a then blacklisted word has been detected.

Overall you can expect smaller youtubers to move away from Youtube because of all those automated processes demonetize basically everything.

you are wasting your time

I laugh my ass off,

It' very hard to catch onto that freaking censoring algorithm but i found if i had a post where i used the word women in one part and later in that post said animals it would get deleted. Sometimes, not all the time. I tried putting a neutral statement about women and just put the word animals random after or in some other sentence after. Deleted.


I'm starting to suspect maybe combinations of words are flagged for review and someone just looks them over. Because it didn't delete identical statements. I can't figure it out still, it's quite interesting. Maybe you should just always post a random comment - then edit it after a few minutes. Huehuehue.

I'm telling you guys, this is youtube and it's highly sensitive to any discussion regarding women. I would imagine other touchy subjects in society too. That content creator stuff is shooting way off - i mean they may decide how much censoring they want but it's still youtube-enabled - though i get your point hillbert but many here suggests it was creators sitting around awake 24/7 waiting to delete comments.