Civil society to YouTube: stop helping Russia suppress free speech

[aftbit]

Google wants YouTube to be a place for cat videos and shitty listicals, where people escape from their lives to laugh and be influenced by advertisers. If your content is even remotely confronting, advertisers don't want it, and Google doesn't want it.

We really have nobody to blame but ourselves for this. Sure, video hosting is expensive, and most people can't be bothered to visit more than their default 6 or 7 apps, but we've had a decade of people shouting that from the wings and nobody has managed to fix it yet.

[chongli]

most people can't be bothered to visit more than their default 6 or 7 apps

I don't think it's fair to blame network effects on the user. If you're a popular YouTuber it's very difficult to convince your audience to move to another platform just to see your videos there. What's in it for them? It's much easier for an audience to switch to another video creator than it is for a creator to find a new audience.

In other words, YouTube makes it a viewer's market by commoditizing content producers. This is the exact opposite of the old TV model where networks were king and viewers had to put up with whatever shows they decided to run. Unfortunately, this means it's very hard for content producers to do anything to unseat YouTube's stranglehold on the market.

Google wants YouTube to be a place for cat videos and shitty listicals

I think you're being unfair with this remark though. YouTube has tons and tons of educational and hobby-related content which makes it an incredibly valuable resource for anyone who wants to learn pretty much anything!

[lxgr]

> Google wants YouTube to be a place for cat videos and shitty listicals

Not sure what corner of Youtube the algorithm has been feeding your suggestions with, but I've found higher-quality educational content on Youtube in the last year than I've seen on TV in my entire life, and videos of that kind make up for the majority of my recommendations. (The rest are indeed cat videos, which I happen to also enjoy watching.)

Sure, there's also tons of content I don't care for at all, but I've so far found it pretty easy to just not watch that.

[adamors]

This runs complete opposite to what I’ve seen, YT eventually starts to recommend alt-right gargbage if you start going down the recommended videos rabbithole and you watch anything political or featuring current events.

Other people have also noticed this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right_pipeline

[_heimdall]

Didn't YouTube (and many others) make it clear that they're plenty willing to work with government officials to censor free speech that the officials don't like?

Don't get me wrong, YouTube is well within its rights to decide what content they do and don't want to host and distribute. Its clear that these companies are, in fact, for profit businesses though.

They aren't going to stand behind free speech and wouldn't even touch the idea of "absolute free speech" which is itself a confusing and misunderstood argument that we can somehow have free speech with limitations.

At best, YouTube will inconsistently protect free speech in some areas and censor it in others. The only real answer is for users to go elsewhere, ideally to something they themselves control, if they want to avoid most risks of censorship.

[constantcrying]

Every corporation has to deal with the laws of the country they are operating in.

Most European countries have significant restrictions on what is "free speech", Google will censor those as well to follow local laws.

[jmyeet]

Youtube isn't your friend. It's not going to act in its own interests and those interest will rarely align with yours.

This includes willing cooperation with any government they want to do business with, including Russia. This is one reason why I think China banning Youtube is a policy mistake (for them): they could exert more control over Youtube if they allowed it in mainland China.

I feel like every story like this is like Charlie Brown, Lucy and the football. Just how many times do we need to do a surprised Pikachu face?

Youtube, Meta and Twitter all suppress content related to a certain current Middle East conflict [1] and they do so largely to keep the US State Department happy.

My point here is that this "free speech" and "censorship" tends to get used very selectively by people in a way that oddly coincides with their world view on certain topics. If you're against Youtube censoring anti-Russian content as per this post (as I am) you should also be against suppression of Middle Eastern news and content too yet I so often find a complete double standard here.

Oh and literally nobody is a free speech absolutist (including me, except arguably for Noam Chomsky) yet many pretend to me but again, this tends to be self-serving in a way aligned with their own views on things.

[1]: https://www.hrw.org/report/2023/12/21/metas-broken-promises/...

[pphysch]

> This is one reason why I think China banning Youtube is a policy mistake

China didn't ban YouTube, Google just refused to comply with the strict regulations. So China tried to do exactly what you said, but they can't exactly force YouTube to stay (it would involve a lot more than just seizing local physical assets).

[lupusreal]

> Oh and literally nobody is a free speech absolutist (including me, except arguably for Noam Chomsky) yet many pretend to be

The ACLU used to defend the 1A rights of neonazis and left wingers alike. Wouldn't that qualify them as free speech avsolutists? Or did they not count because they didn't lobby for the legalization of libel?

Either way, I think you're projecting a bit.

[speeder]

People want YouTube to censor Russians in EU but not censor Russians in Russia...

[bee_rider]

Which people? Not everyone has the same opinion.

[ajuc]

People want youtube to censor totalitarian propaganda and allow free speech. It's not surprising when you thing about it.

[superkuh]

Google will do whatever makes them profit. They've made it pretty clear that nothing controversial in any way is allowed on youtube. Best find some place else to distribute information.

[ivan_gammel]

Unfortunately the audience matters. In the internet of platforms indie websites are visited by those who already have good awareness of the cause. The hope is to reach people who watch entertainment content and the bet is that getting YouTube banned will attract some attention to the forbidden content.

[dylan604]

If you are an international company, you play by their rules. If you are dealing with a totalitarian dictator, then expect you're going to have some unsavory rules to contend with and have a PR team ready for any blow back. This is some groups unhappy with mean person in charge being mean.

Civil society would be better if people were not taking advantage of free speech and posting whatever non-sense that gets passed as legit causing chaos and turmoil within the masses.

[medo-bear]

What is Civil Society? Is it Civil in the way North Korea is Democratic? What does Civil Society say about Julian Assange?

[reactDev05]

I'm from Russia and I watch pro Ukraine videos on YouTube without any problems. Yes, it may have blocked some videos, but if it didn't, it could get blocked in Russia completely, and then what? Me and all the other people who wants to see content from other countries won't be able to do that, which will only make things worse.

[ein0p]

Bros, they “suppress free speech” in the US too. Try protesting that maybe?

[yifanl]

From a practical perspective, its easier to demand a US-based company to break non-US laws.

[orloffm]

If anything, YouTube search in Russian context is extremely West-biased. It's impossible to find any original source of Putin saying anything, for example. Yesterday he was talking about Zelensky not being legitimate. The search results are literally: Radio Liberty, some Azerbajani channel, Ukrainian channel called FREEДОМ - obvious pro-western vibes, DW, Ukrainian UNIAN, BBC etc. It's one thing if they were blocking these and only showing goverment propaganda, but it's actually the other way around.

[eimrine]

Anti-Russian channels scattered on Earth anywhere except of Russia are complaining about that right now.

[geodel]

Yeah we need a CivilTube, that will work very well.

[fsflover]

There is PeerTube already.

[geodel]

LOL. Next you will say people setting off firecrackers on 4th July as cities are being set on fire across US.

[nitwit005]

People constantly criticize the US, and no one censors them. You're doing it now.

[Conasg]

Well, the username certainly checks out

[lupusreal]

Russian media may be banned in Europe, but it isn't banned in America. You're not wrong about "civil society" seeming very euphemistic though.

[RobotToaster]

Looking at that site's funders, it's not surprising they don't mention that at all. https://www.accessnow.org/financials/

[kleiba]

Are they shutting down pro-palestine protests or pro-Hamas protests? Is that a distinction worth making?

[ilikehurdles]

Which protests in the US are being shut down for being pro Palestinian? I’ve seen the ones shut down for trespassing, rioting, barricading themselves in spaces they’re trespassing in, indefinitely seizing both private and public property, causing costly damage, or turning violent, but I haven’t seen one shut down for being pro Palestinian. Which ones are those?

[xenospn]

Are we really tho? No one is shutting down protests, they are shutting down encampments that disturb others. They’d do the same for Trump supporters or pro-abortion activists if they just set up camp in the middle of a university.

[tw04]

Whataboutism really has no place in the discussion but is a pretty common and documented Russian tactic to deflect any responsibility.

[megous]

Show me one instance when Google changed anything significant like this (say something that risks it getting blocked in a coutnry with > 100 mil. people) after a simple public appeal.