My guess is that MAGA content was getting flagged, and Youtube believes that should be monetizable in modern America.
YouTube relaxes moderation rules to allow more controversial content
Submitted 3 days ago by remington@beehaw.org to technology@beehaw.org
Comments
djsoren19@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
KAtieTot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
Their advertisers are prolly salivating about it, if not behind it.
Maga are great for advertisers, low information & highly susceptible.
dil@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Was rumble the alternative for that, did it start to do well
Megaman_EXE@beehaw.org 3 days ago
The example given in the article already seems concerning. It’s just going to allow misinfo to spread worse.
leviathan@feddit.org 2 days ago
Define Misinformation?
Megaman_EXE@beehaw.org 2 days ago
incorrect or misleading information
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 3 days ago
Good. The Internet was always supposed to be an opportunity to expand the overton window. It’s incredible how much we’ve been allowing tech companies to be censors in the first place, anything that undoes this development is good.
Powderhorn@beehaw.org 3 days ago
Sure, but this is only going to expand the Overton window in one direction. People with facts tend not to be as inflammatory.
BigMacHole@sopuli.xyz 3 days ago
EXACTLY Right! Because there’s NO WAY YouTube will STILL Police things like Trans and Gay while not Policing Nazis and Child Rapists!
Tempus_Fugit@midwest.social 2 days ago
🤣 this will end well. Acceleration to the max!!!
leetnewb@beehaw.org 1 day ago
I watch a sketch comedy group that gets abused by YouTube’s moderation. Some of their stuff leans edgy, but the moderation and demonetization seems pretty arbitrary. There is no viable appeal process or viable alternative platform. Reminds me of how Google controls the Play store and removes open source projects for arbitrary or spurious reasons.
I take less issue with aggressive moderation and more issue with the lack of infrastructure to handle the concept that the first line ai decision might be wrong.
Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 2 days ago
Why does the general attitude on Lemmy seem to lean toward more censorship and silencing of speech rather than less? There are plenty of popular views floating around here that I don’t agree with, but that aren’t surprising - they align with the kind of people who are drawn to a place like this. This one, however, is surprising.
MaggiWuerze@feddit.org 2 days ago
I feel like the issue people her take with this is rather “great, even more Nazi content” then “I want censorship”. YouTube already has an issue with demonetizing content it deems risky for its ad business, like curse words or the mention of violence while allowing inflammatory content that drives engagement
Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 2 days ago
I’d imagine that the inflammatory content in question mostly gets demonetized just the same, so I don’t really see what the issue is. It’s not like a specific kind of content is being treated differently, or is it?
Kichae@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
Because there is zero trust that this won’t be a one-sided liberalization, in favour of the fascists.
ada@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
Why does the general attitude on Lemmy seem to lean toward more censorship and silencing of speech
Because "censorship" in this context is a weasel word. What people complaining about censorship really want, is the ability to be more openly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic etc. What people pushing back against that want is less bigotry.
But because the bigots can't own their bigotry, they hide behind "censorship" and not having enough "free speech".
This is literally youtube saying "The president says that hating on folks is ok, and we will make more money by aligning with that". It's not them taking a stance on free speech, because they still block stuff that costs them money. They still demonetise or block things that are supportive of LGBT folk for the flimsiest of reasons.
This has nothing to do with "censorship" and everything to do with whether or not you are ok with hating on folk or not ok with it.
Kolanaki@pawb.social 2 days ago
Generally, the people I see bitching most about censorship, and being censored, are people with the most disgusting view points possible. Because they don’t seem to understand that censorship is when the government is telling you what you can and can’t say; not a private business or regular people telling a prick to fuck off back to whatever hole they crawled out of after saying some vile bullshit.
Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 2 days ago
Instead of engaging with anything I actually said, you went straight to attacking anyone who even questions this, while subtly implying I’m probably a nazi.
decayedproton@beehaw.org 2 days ago
There are two issues I see here.
The first is that WPA’s (Word Prediction Algorithms) don’t have any insight into topics; they just find probable matches for candidate words based on training texts. In fact the text pasted here, by making transparently irrelevant points, demonstrates its lack of ability to offer value.
The second is that the general attitude in most spaces in general is not strictly in favor of either more censorship or less censorship. Rather, the attitude that most people show is a fear that views they believe to be harmful will be promoted, while views they believe to be helpful will be either censored or placed at a comparative disadvantage. It would be natural for Lemmy communities to have the same attitude as most other humans.
regul@lemm.ee 2 days ago
Censorship of speech is a powerful tool. Why, if you have the true conviction of your beliefs, would you fight with one hand behind your back?
Moreover, I’ve seen no evidence in my lifetime that letting my ideological opponents speak leads to positive results.
Buelldozer@lemmy.today 2 days ago
Censorship of speech is a powerful tool. Why, if you have the true conviction of your beliefs, would you fight with one hand behind your back?
Yes, but have you considered the outcome of everyone doing this?
Moreover, I’ve seen no evidence in my lifetime that letting my ideological opponents speak leads to positive results.
Mmmmm, yes. All ideological opponents should be silenced. This is clearly the way.
Seriously, if this is what you believe then you are clearly stating that you have no interest in a Free Society.
Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 2 days ago
if you have the true conviction of your beliefs
I can sympathize with this.
My personal view is that when you silence speech, you leave people with no other means of influence but violence.
Ulrich@feddit.org 2 days ago
Lemmy (and the fediverse) is largely a liberal platform. Many liberals will actually outright oppose free speech.
SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
i am inclined to agree with everything your robot servant said
Eat_Your_Paisley@lemm.ee 2 days ago
The issue for me isn’t the speech its more how the the videos are pushed, when I go to YouTube I just want to watch videos about cars and old computers I don’t want to see random dumbass’s politics video.
If folks want to listen to Bob from Omaha great, but don’t push it onto me either as recommendation or in that stupid square at the end of videos.
Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 2 days ago
This just sounds so strange to me because, in my case, it works exactly the way you said you wish it did.
Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days ago
In before this creates a safe space for transphobia and bigotry but does nothing to address shit like that one YouTuber that recently got permanently banned because she knocked over a lamp their automated systems flagged it as “child abuse content.”