126

YouTube’s Latest Purge Video sharing platform enforces new rules against “extremist content”

Kit Knightly

Image source: activistpost.com

YouTube has just announced they have changed their “community standards” to combat “extremist content” on their platform. This is just the latest step in the war against free speech online.

This move comes as no surprise – the press have been laying the groundwork for this for weeks, even months.

Three weeks ago Buzzfeed reported that YouTube’s monetised chat was “pushing creators to more extreme content”, and just yesterday it was reported that YouTube’s recommend algorithm was “sexualising children”.

You cannot move for stories about how bad YouTube is.

Given that, it comes as no surprise that the mainstream media are celebrating this latest “purge”.The Guardian reported:

YouTube bans videos promoting Nazi ideology

Whilst the Financial Times went with:

YouTube to ban supremacist videos

Both these headlines are wildly inaccurate, deliberately playing the racism/white supremacy angle in the hopes that people will clap along without reading anything else.

Vox was a little more truthful in its headline, reporting:

YouTube finally banned content from neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, and Sandy Hook skeptics

The Independent likewise:

YouTube to delete thousands of accounts after it bans supremacists, conspiracy theorists and other ‘harmful’ users

However, even these headlines – though a touch closer to the whole truth – leave out some really important information (I’m sure entirely by accident).

As much as the media are playing the neo-Nazi/hate speech angle, there’s far more to it than that.

To really dig down into what this means, we need to ignore the media and go straight to the source. This is YouTube’s official statement on the matter, posted on their blog.

The bans, contrary to the media headlines, are not about racism. They are far more incoherent than that – they are about “supremacist content”.

YouTube’s delightfully vague description of which, is as follows:

videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status.

Honestly, almost any video you wanted – that expresses a political position – could be twisted into fitting that description. But it doesn’t end there:

Finally, we will remove content denying that well-documented violent events, like the Holocaust or the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, took place.

What does “well documented” mean? It’s a deliberately ambiguous phrase.

The cited examples, the Holocaust and Sandy Hook, are chosen for shock value – but they are only examples: “Like the holocaust”.

What other examples might there be? The Douma gas attack from last year? The poisoning of Sergei Skripal?

You can’t deny people the right to ask simple questions. “Did that really happen?”, “Is the government telling the truth?”

These are the basic questions of journalism. You can’t simply pass history off as “well documented” and put it beyond question. Don’t let them cite the Holocaust as an example to bully you into silence. Free speech applies to all topics, and all opinions, no matter how “well documented” they are.

In an increasingly fake world, where government actions are routinely narrative-based rather than reality-based, outlawing the ability to simply say “that didn’t happen, you made that up!” is incredibly powerful.

It doesn’t stop at that either, “violent incidents” are just the start. There are other kinds of “harmful content”:

harmful misinformation, such as videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, or claiming the earth is flat

Again, note the use of extreme examples – flat earth and “miracle cures”. It’s manipulation. What they’re talking about is “well documented” science. They mean the big three: Climate change, GM crops and vaccinations. Questioning any of those will become “harmful”.

People will say “obviously people shouldn’t be allowed to question vaccination”, but they’re wrong. People should – people must – be allowed to question everything. That’s what free speech means. Imagine this was seventy years ago, corporate consensus then was that smoking was good for you. Studies saying otherwise would have been described as “harmful misinformation” that were “shaking public confidence in our industry”.

Whether censoring lies or censoring truth, censorship serves the same agenda – protecting authority. What is “harmful content”? Harmful content is anything that attacks the “well documented” official consensus.

For that matter, what is hate speech? The phrase is used half-a-dozen times in the statement, but it can mean all kinds of things.

Critics giving bad reviews to Star Wars: The Last Jedi and the Ghostbusters remake were described as “misogynists” just because the main characters were women. Will poorly reviewing films with a female, or ethnic minority, main character be hate speech too?

This might seem a trivial example, but it hands enormous power to film studios to shut down negative opinions on their films, and Hollywood is a huge propaganda outlet for mainstream ideology. Besides, the triviality is the point.

This blanket term can be applied anywhere and everywhere, and with the increasingly hysterical tone of identity politics, almost anything could be deemed “hate speech”.

As we have said many times, “hate speech” is a term which can mean whatever they want it to mean. YouTube are expanding on that though, creating a whole new category called “almost a bit like hate speech”.

Yes, you don’t even have to actually break the rules anymore:

In addition to removing videos that violate our policies, we also want to reduce the spread of content that comes right up to the line.

See? YouTube will ban channels, or at least suppress creators, who “bump up against the line”.

Meaning, even if you’re incredibly clever, and work seriously hard to keep anything that a dishonest mind could potentially twist into “hate speech” out of your content…they’ll just ban you anyway and claim you “nearly did hate speech”.

Another way they’re combatting all this “dangerous misinformation” is by “boosting authoritative sources”:

For example, if a user is watching a video that comes close to violating our policies, our systems may include more videos from authoritative sources (like top news channels) in the “watch next” panel.

For example, if you watch an alt-news interview with Vanessa Beeley, your next “recommended video” will be a piece of western propaganda mainstream news from a massive corporate interest an authoritative source telling you to ignore everything you just heard, and/or calling Beeley an “apologist for war crimes”.

It’s a beautiful system, really. Very efficient and not-at-all Orwellian.

Don’t worry though, you can still use the platform, as long as Google trusts you [emphasis ours]:

Finally, it’s critical that our monetization systems reward trusted creators who add value to YouTube. We have longstanding advertiser-friendly guidelines that prohibit ads from running on videos that include hateful content and we enforce these rigorously…In the case of hate speech, we are strengthening enforcement of our existing YouTube Partner Program policies. Channels that repeatedly brush up against our hate speech policies will be suspended from the YouTube Partner program, meaning they can’t run ads on their channel or use other monetization features like Super Chat.

See? If you’re a “trusted creator” you still get your ad money. Just don’t break the rules – or even come near breaking the rules – or the money stops.

This is about creating an environment free of hate, and NOT enforcing a state-backed consensus using vague threats to people’s financial well-being. Shame on you for thinking otherwise.

Now, how will YouTube decide which stories “come up to the line” or “spread misinformation” or “hate speech”? How is it determined which users are “trusted creators”?

Well, simply put, the government will tell them. YouTube freely admits to this. Outside of its wishy-washy definitions, its incredibly vague buzzwords, and its platitude filled “reassurances”, the most important part of YouTube’s statement is this:

As we do this, we’re partnering closely with lawmakers and civil society around the globe to limit the spread of violent extremist content online.

“Partnering closely with lawmakers” means “working with the government”, essentially an admission that YouTube (owned by Google, in turn, owned by Alphabet Corp.) will remove any videos the state orders them to remove.

Something we all knew already, but it’s refreshing they’re admitting it.

So, some questions arise:

  • Will this be the death of youtube as any kind of source for alternate information?
  • What will be classified as “conspiracy theories”?
  • What about, for example, people questioning the official story of the Douma “attack”? Or MH17?
  • How long before there is a mass migration to rival platforms?
  • Will those platforms be allowed to exist?

If you know of any good channels that are being shut down, let us know below and we’ll see if we can put together a list.

In the meantime, we suggest migrating to other video platforms, such as d.tube or bitchute. We will be embedding/linking to non-YouTube videos wherever possible. If you have any other alternate platforms to recommend, post them below and we’ll add links to them as well.

Kit Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting. Twice. He used to write for fun, but now he's forced to out of a near-permanent sense of outrage.

Filed under: censorship, featured, free speech, latest

by

Kit Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting. Twice. He used to write for fun, but now he's forced to out of a near-permanent sense of outrage.

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Ian S
Ian S

I just clicked on d.tube.com and bitchute.com and neither responded, with “This site can’t be reached.”

Do others have the same issue? It would be scary if they also have been deplatformed from the global internet protocol!

Admin
Admin
Admin

The link works fine for us, but I’m pinning your comment here for a while, see if anyone else reports the same

threedawgs123
threedawgs123

Most of these ‘so-called’ ‘alternative’ media blogsites are mere CIA collectionsites; this site is no exception!

Jihadi Colin

Good riddance to YouTube. Maybe with their video addiction turned off, people will finally begin reading the written word again. One virtually stopped writing because absolutely nobody reads any longer. I have no sympathy for people with attention spans too short to read a well researched and well written article. If they’re left stranded high and dry by YouTube, that’s all right with me.

mark
mark

Threedawgs – Isn’t that a bit cruel to the hogs?

Seamus Padraig
Seamus Padraig
threedawgs123
threedawgs123

Kill em! In a 100% Corrupt, Inverted-Totalitarian, Police-State Government, at least 3-5% of the citizens, the percent that’s worth a shit, must organize into guerilla armies, and first of all kill and defeat the police/military personnel–the state’s enforcement-defensive component. Then destroy the infrstructure with ease; then kill all the perps, first torturing the top 30-35%. These perps associated with the censorship/propaganda arm of the state would fall in the 30-35% of the perps that need tortuding before being fed-alive-to-hogs. Do it now, or quit commenting, blogging, bitching, whinning.

Admin
Admin
Admin

One thing we DO moderate for is incitements to violence. Anything else in this vein will be removed.

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin

In respect to their age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation, veteran status and intelligence, Off-Guardianistas are clearly superior to On-Guardianistas. Let’s all go to the movies.

Purgatory
Purgatory

In purges Off-Guardian is in close competition with On-Guardian and Youtube:

simply try to write anything critical of the “religion-that-cannot-be-named” and off you go!

Admin
Admin
Admin

Absolutely not true – which is proven by the fact that we also get attacked for being “anti-semitic .”

We are seeing continued attacks from many different directions atm, limiting our outlets and at the same time trying to undermine our – truly free – comments section.

Hopefully you aren’t another example of this.

Yarkob
Yarkob

“simply try to write anything critical of the “religion-that-cannot-be-named” and off you go!”

That is patently untrue. All you need to do is look back through the comments to see that you are talking absolute balls re Off-G.

On-G, of course, but then that’s nothing new. Off-G is a welcome sunlit pasture of free speech compared to Graun et al

Bill Johnson
Bill Johnson

What if you are nearly caught speeding you can get a speeding ticket for doing 29 MPH in a 30 MPH. If you walked passed a house, you can be done for nearly being a burglar. These are the Orwellian standards, you might have to follow in future. It’s like for nearly being a holocaust denier, or nearly a vaccination denier, you’ll be banned from Youtube.

Seamus Padraig
Seamus Padraig

There have been times when I was so mad at somebody that I nearly killed them! I think, perhaps, the government ought to nearly execute me as a punishment.

Bill Johnson
Bill Johnson

Brighteon.com

Rhys Jaggar
Rhys Jaggar

Well, James Corbett has for plenty of time recommended not to use Youtube, as other alternatives exist.

Rather than trying to change closed minds, target what they really care about: advertising revenues. The more people who simply stop using Youtube, the less control they will have to control humanity.

As for questioning vaccination, there is a very simple reason why you should and that is this: human beings’ response to vaccinations are different, sometimes radically so. I worked years ago on a project where HSE regulations dictated we all needed HepB vaccinations. Blood was taken to test our immune responses and two of us had huge titres of antibodies and two had none at all. So there is no simple uniform response to vaccines…..

So blanket statements that vaccines are universally safe are unwise at best, knowingly inaccurate at worst.

If you believe a small percentage of children have adverse reactions to vaccines, well let me tell you something totally acceped by the pharmaceutical industry: very low percentage adverse effects to licensed drugs led to several of them being withdrawn, despite them benefits hundreds of thousands, if not millions of patients. These Idiosyncratic Drug Reactions have been known about for decades so my view is that if chemical drugs can induce adverse reactions in 0.01% to 1 in a million people, then why cannot the same occur during vaccination protocols?

Question This
Question This

Is the link below conspiracy theory, investigative journalism, propaganda, anti-semitism or the truth? I don’t know.

9-11, Trump and the Israeli Connection.

What i do know is this is exactly the sort of thing they don’t want us to see because it questions the narrative they give us. Whats clear is some one took far more time compiling this media than most MSM journalists do there own propaganda.

mark
mark

Oy vey! The truth is anti semitic!! Shut it down!!!

Guy
Guy

Very well done video .Looking forward to part 2 .
Thanks for the link.I have been following the 9/11 event very much along the same lines but this video connects a lot of events that have been scrubbed from the internet.

Question This
Question This

Get part 2 whilst its still available..

9 11, Israel, Trump Connection CASE CLOSED 2

Guy
Guy

Thank you.

Guy
Guy

Should this video not be turned into BitChte or something as it is worth while saving.
I unfortunately do not have the savey to do that .

Question This
Question This

I’m afraid that’s not something i could personally get involved with, I wouldn’t sign up to either utube of bit-tube/bitchute due to their invasion into my privacy. I don’t agree to their T&C’s

However its a fairly simple thing to do , if you have say firefox anyone could use an browser extension like “youtube video & audio downloader” to download from youtube & uploading is relatively simple to another platform, just follow the instructions.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker

With 7+ billion people on the planet, there needs to be control of the masses, otherwise chaos reigns.

The self-appointed governors have decided that social media has created too much chatter, conspiracy, even revolution.

In the real world they enforced smoking bans and allowed cheap booze in the supermarkets which directly let to the closure in the UK of Public Houses, now just places for affluent people to mingle after a “hard day” at the office. This has stopped the working classes from sharing experiences, being unhappy, and revolting against the Establishment (well, until Brexitcame along!)
In the virtual world, they have banned “extreme” political views, de-platformed people like Tommy Robinson, Alex Jones, and many others. These latest measures are yet more tightening of the totalitarian screw.

Returning to my first point. The world has been carved up, but there are still disagreements amongst the controllers. The East is controlled by China. The West by the US. Russia used to control the bit in between.
Now the West is trying to grab the whole control of 7+ billion, a very dangerous project, and to achieve it they must shut up those of us of greater awareness and who are off-message. They have tried for quite a few years, but now they are “upping the anti” against the Truthseekers.

We MUST resist, peacefully, skillfully, audaciously, tenaciously…
Long live OffG.

Richard Wicks
Richard Wicks

With 7+ billion people on the planet, there needs to be control of the masses, otherwise chaos reigns.

Says the person that doesn’t understand a self organizing system…

Nobody wants to live in eternal chaos do they? As a result, they do not. When chaos is created, it’s created externally, like in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Soon it may happen in Venezuela, and Iran.

Guess what you’re not allowed to do anymore? Advocate NOT creating chaos.. The same people creating the chaos are the promoters of censorship. Assad wasn’t gassing his own people. Qaddafi wasn’t about to cause a humanitarian crisis. Saddam Hussein didn’t have a secret weapons of mass destruction program. Maduro WAS elected, and Juan Guido wasn’t, Libya isn’t a threat to the United States, or even Israel.

These TRUTHS scare the mafia that has seized control of our government, and as a result, cowardly vermin like you claims there “needs to be control of the masses”. No – there needs to be consequences for criminals. Criminals run the United States. Most people aren’t criminals, but the people that run the United States certainly are.

KarenEliot
KarenEliot

Good points except you are way off target with the sniping at “cowardly vermin”. It’s perfectly obvious that the earlier comment is ironic.

threedawgs123
threedawgs123

The consequences need to be 100% eradication by violence and subsequent torturing of the top 30-35% of the perps involved with the tyranny of mankind!

Question This
Question This

This is a blatant attempt by political elites (neo-liberals) to take back control of the narrative to maintain control & forward their agenda. The irony is there is no more divisive, harmful, extreme & dangerous political ideology than centrist liberals. Liberals are the greatest threat to all life on this planet with their warmongering, denial of natural processes & cold hard facts!

Liberals even have me doubting the authenticity of global warming, perfectly credible science discredited because liberals push it beyond reason.

So once again we see the MSM winding up the propaganda machine to facilitate censorship & natural freedoms (whats more natural than critical thinking?). Whats so terrifying is how people swallow this in the likes of the Guardian & independent, claiming it protects people from “hate”, that’s when it becomes clear why liberals have adopted the anti-antism & hypocritical ‘mr nice guy’, that is until they get a milkshake in their hands!

Liberals = corrupt, lying, deluded hypocrites…

For the mods; your comments section is much better, but how about a preview (for editing purposes & a text box that can be enlarged by dragging the cursor in one corner so the whole comment can be read before posting.

cheers

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin

The whole comment, however long, is displayed automatically during editing (here at least); the preview function was here, seemed to cause problems, was removed, may return.

Robbobbobin
Robbobbobin

For “during editing” read “during entry”. The preview function was incorporated in an editing function. Getting too late, must horizontalize.

Steve Hayes

YouTube’s policy change sounds very much like the British government’s “Online Harms” White Paper. If it had been in force in 2002/3, it would have censored any dissent from the WMD narrative, which would have been construed as authoritative. The fact that the ruling elites, who all claim to be committed to freedom of expression, are determined to censor any and all dissent from their narratives shows just how sacred they are.

Toby Russell
Toby Russell

Freedom to express authentically who we are and how we contribute to the society/environment around us is such a deeply rooted need, or even part of what it is to be alive, that it cannot be extinguished without extinguishing all life. Life is not robotic. Life cannot be controlled, perfected, fine tuned. One way or the other, this insane control freakery will backfire on the perps.

Excellent article, Kit. Thank you for your continuing high-quality reporting and courage.

Jill
Jill

Dan Dicks of Press for Truth has been demonetised and some of his videos are being removed. Most worrying a video about Pedosexuals and the dangerously young age at which children are being sexualised was removed because it’s content was deemed hateful. Bonkers.

Yarkob
Yarkob

“Most worrying a video about Pedosexuals and the dangerously young age at which children are being sexualised was removed”

one has to ask why that is. If you read the Clinton/Podesta emails on Wikileaks you may get an idea. It has nothing to do with protecting anybody from “harmful content”

Gwyn
Gwyn

”…authoritative sources (like top news channels)…”.

I burst out laughing at this preposterous idea.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker

OffG Admin, can you please stop your site being hijacked by Mucho posting all the myriad of off-topic links? It’s trolling. I would not be surprised if it’s a deliberate attempt to have OffG classified as a conspiracy / fake news site.

Yarkob
Yarkob

“I would not be surprised if it’s a deliberate attempt to have OffG classified as a conspiracy / fake news site.”

^^ this

Question This
Question This

Hmm interesting comment on a article about censorship & free speech! Ban someone in case it puts the site disrepute, really??

An easier way would be add an ignore button so if you don’t like what some one writes just don’t read it!

Trolls, idiots & liars should have the same rights as everyone else, after all the guardian is allowed to publish its bile every day.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker

Deliberate attempts by agent provocateurs to discredit a site and have it shutdown is free speech in your book? Then there will be no sites left for us to comment on!

Question This
Question This

Wait what..

I’m sorry whats your definition of free speech again, only speech that isn’t potentially harmful? Sounds remarkably familiar. Who chooses whats harmful?

Whats the point of existing if you live in fear of not existing? This site is beginning to resemble its nemesis in more ways than I thought. It’s getting very ‘cliquey’ !

Gezzah Potts

We can all see where this is going, and the future is looking pretty bleak from where I’m sitting. All voices challenging the status quo, challenging the Empire must be snuffed out. I see an intensifying of attacks on Independent news sites, and blogs, and any group deemed ‘terrorist’ by, of course, the real terrorists and mass murderers of the World. Just watched a couple clips of Hassan Nasrallah on YouTube before commenting here. How much longer will people like Nasrallah appear on YouTube, or say Roger Waters, or Subcommandante Marcos, or Michael Parenti, for example. They want us all as fully brainwashed automatons, believing whatever the stenographers or Govt tell us. Its like we’re in a room, and the walls are slowly closing in on us, and no one can find the key to get out.

Question This
Question This

You can go to prison now just for looking at a website the establishment label terroorist!

Even the saudis don’t hide the fact they are brutal dictators, so what does it tell you when these neo liberals (our own governments) sell them the means & expertise to enslave & kill its citizens?

You’re right to be very afraid of the future.

Frank Speaker
Frank Speaker

There needs to be a non-US hosted and owned alternative to YouTube ASAP.

Yarkob
Yarkob

but when the DNS root servers are controlled by one party (whoever that may be) having alternatives is only a temporary stop-gap solution..DNS blocking and injection attacks will become the next means by which our alternatives are foiled.

What we need is a public debate around what “freedom of speech” actually means in real terms i.e it’s only the speech you don’t like or want to hear that will need protecting. Most “liberal” minded people can’t get their little heads around that part

Question This
Question This

Like bit-tube or Dtube you mean? But who knows how long they will last, the issue isn’t developing an alternative, its about an alternative with the means & will to resist political interference. You-tube (recently renamed they-tube) is to big & powerful to shut down but being a corporate entity much easier to corrupt.

threedawgs123
threedawgs123

There Should be numerous alternatives to Google, Android, MSN, facebook, etc., etc., etc., etc.,

kevin morris
kevin morris

WHen I grew up many, many years ago, ‘I was taught that sticks and stones may break my bones but names cannot hurt me’. Flying in the face of such folk wisdom, the concept of ‘hate speech’ turns the world of common sense on its head because hate speech is in the eye of the beholder and ignores the motivation of both parties. As if that isn’t corrosive enough of any possibility of conviviality within society, now large corporations are able to use the concept to justify censorship.