Now that the alphabet soup community is feeling the pinch of YouTube’s censorship, suppression, and demonetization, they decided it was time to fight back. Yes, select YouTubers are now suing the company for discrimination.
BBC News is reporting that Amp Somers, Chase Ross, Lindsay Amer, Bria Kam, and Chrissy Chambers are all suing YouTube for suppressing their reach and discoverability, as well as hampering their potential ad revenue by demonetizing LGBTQ content. They also claimed that YouTube wasn’t doing enough to censor content featuring “hate speech”.
They’re hoping to get a trial by jury in the state of California.
BBC requested a response from YouTube regarding the claims, and spokesperson Alex Joseph told them…
“Our policies have no notion of sexual orientation or gender identity and our systems do not restrict or demonetise videos based on these factors or the inclusion of terms like ‘gay’ or ‘transgender’,”
“In addition, we have strong policies prohibiting hate speech and we quickly remove content that violates our policies and terminate accounts that do so repeatedly.”
The BBC did point out that YouTube doesn’t run ads on sex toys, videos about fetishes, or stimulation devices. However, they attempted to justify YouTube’s decisions by claiming that the demonetization, blocks, and channel restrictions were “automated”, writing…
“YouTube’s ad-placement and content moderation decisions are mostly made by algorithms, which can struggle with the intricacies and nuance of human life.
“YouTube does not place ads on videos about sex toys, as per its policies. But can its algorithms tell the difference between a “marital aid” and a prosthetic penis designed for a transgender man?
“How accurately can its machines distinguish between sexual content and sexuality content?”
All of this is baloney.
YouTube’s algorithms are fed parameters made by humans, as indicated in the documents part of the Project Veritas leak.
Human programmers have a hand in all of the algorithm bans, suppression, censorship, and terminations. We recently did an article on one set of rules fed into the Twiddler algorithm to suppress or reduce channels based on a 40-page list of keywords to prevent content creators from showing up in searches for terms like “crisis actor”, and “fake shootings”, and “Colgate”.
In other words, if content is being demonetized, terminated, or extricated from the platform, it’s because YouTube’s content curators don’t want it there. In some rare cases and with enough media blowback, someone at YouTube will address the issue and restore the content. But otherwise, if content is being censored on YouTube, according to the documents, it’s because they want it censored.
But more importantly, I wonder how many Leftists and Centrists™ will run to the defense of the LGBTQIA+ plaintiffs in supporting their complaints, and how many will hit them with the classic line… “Youtube is a private corporation. They don’t have to abide by free speech laws!”?
(Thanks for the news tip ennis)