Google Promises To Bury "Questionable" Content On YouTube

Tyler Durden's picture

The issue of filtering out content that advocates or glorifies terrorism on widely-used media sites like Alphabet’s YouTube has come under renewed scrutiny since authorities learned that 23-year-old Salman Abedi was radicalized after watching videos of an American preacher posted on the site. So unsurprisingly, barely two weeks after UK Prime Minister Theresa May accused tech companies of providing a “safe space” for extremist content, Google’s General Counsel Kent Walker has revealed four new measures the company is taking to censor its users.

The biggest change? Questionable content that doesn’t explicitly meet the grounds for removal under the YouTube's terms of use will now be buried, as the New York Times noted, while the site also plans to enhance its abilities to automatically filter out content that does meet these standards.

These videos will now come with a warning, be banned from featuring adds or collecting advertising revenue, or be recommended, endorsed, or commented on. Users will still be able to find the content once the policy goes into effect, but it will eliminate one of the most prominent means of transmission – sharing over social media networks like Twitter and the messaging app Telegram.

"...we will be taking a tougher stance on videos that do not clearly violate our policies — for example, videos that contain inflammatory religious or supremacist content. In future these will appear behind an interstitial warning and they will not be monetised, recommended or eligible for comments or user endorsements. That means these videos will have less engagement and be harder to find. We think this strikes the right balance between free expression and access to information without promoting extremely offensive viewpoints."

As noted by NYT, figuring out how to censor extremist content while taking precautions not to trod too heavily on free speech has been a longstanding problem for YouTube.

“Google has created a thriving video platform that appeals to people with a wide range of interests. But it has also become a magnet for extremist groups that can reach a wide audience for their racist or intolerant views. Google has long wrestled with how to curb that type of content while not inhibiting the freedom that makes YouTube popular.”

The company also said it will launch a new social-intervention program that relies on the “power of targeted online advertising” to reach out to impressionable terrorist recruits, and redirect them toward anti-terrorist content.

In addition to devoting more engineering resources to technology that automatically filters out questionable content, the company said it would also add more manpower to its “trusted flagger” program, though it neglected to explain what qualifies someone as a “trusted flagger” (from what we can tell the program involves partnerships with select NGOs).

While we recognize the political pressure that the company is under to seem like it's doing something about terorrism, we hope YouTube doesn’t repeat its mistakes from September 2016, when it sparked a backlash after deeming posts by YouTube personality Philip DeFranco to be “inappropriate for advertising," offering only a vague explanation as to why.

Perhaps the company could offer to hire people from a truly diverse range of backgrounds and political persuasions to try and prevent a repeat of this incident. Though given the state of today’s discourse – where leftists accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being a hateful racist – we worry that relying at all on human judgment could be a mistake.

Especially if these flaggers are academics. Because the political climate on US college campuses, as students at Evergreen State in Olympia, Wash. recently demonstrated, is grossly intolerant of viewpoints that don’t jive with their ultraprogressive orthodoxies.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Haus-Targaryen's picture

Seriously fuck youtube/google. 

FullHedge's picture

Remember when there was no internet police? Those were the days.

svayambhu108's picture

2004 / peak internet 

I like javascript 

But seriously, fuck dynamic content

Creepy_Azz_Crackaah's picture

ANY content not praising Hillary(!), Big Government, and the all powerful State is QUESTIONABLE!


Now off to re-education camp for you.

JoeSexPack's picture

Youtube has buried all kinds of vids they don't like for years.

Searching 'star spangled banner' or 'national anthem' shows Beyonce, Whitney Houston, Lady Gaga, Jennifer Hudson & more.

Then search Carrie Underwood's version, which is not shown on 1st search, despite having millions more hits than most.

Same for Jessica Simpson & God Bless America.

They don't fit the PC pattern: too pale, straight, Christian & hot.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

YouTube's search algorithm has sucked balls forever. While I think venality is definitely involved, there is also a heavy dose of incompetence.

BullyBearish's picture

'bout time for a "freedom" competitor to XewTube...

Future Jim's picture

Notice how Youtube's tyranny grows as its monopoly status grows. I'm sure it's just a coincidence. Google has neither the competence nor the ethics to judge what is appropriate. It's not even close.

Creative_Destruct's picture

Creeping censorship and control by the elites "for our own good" continues apace.

" 'Emergencies' have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded "

-F.A. Hayek

el buitre's picture

"Google has neither the competence nor the ethics to judge what is appropriate."

But they can kick any question of appropriateness up to their CEO, Satan, their decider.  Ever check out Eric Schmidt?  Creepy.

AllOfGood's picture

I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do...

E-Knight's picture

This 'soft banning'/ 'shadow banning' has been around for a LONG time on google/youtube. Even facebook does it. If you post right wing stuff it often gets soft banned (ie it isnt deleted, just no one else sees it)

Look it up. Then don't use those terrible sites.

Schmuck Raker's picture

"...a new social-intervention program..."

The Central Scrutinizer will be most pleased.

GUS100CORRINA's picture

Google Promises To Bury "Questionable" Content On YouTube

My response: Who defines "Questionable"? Is this the beginning of the censoring process that allows MSM to define the NARATIVE they want to present even though it is a lie?


Cruel Joke's picture

Joogle style digital book burning. Assholes.

HRClinton's picture

Remember when All In The Family was on TV? Those were the days. 

migra's picture

Goerge Orwell would be proud of Google.

el buitre's picture

"Remember when there was no internet police? Those were the days."

Free heroin.  An introductory offer until they set the hook.

omniversling's picture

Google, YT owned by 'Alphabet'.


'Alphabet'? Isn't that the BASIS of language/communication?

Missappropriate the very word that describes the ciphers of languange as the name of your control corporation. Is that a claim on language itself?

'We own all your words™'

(random thoughts from the trenches)

Laddie's picture

Google Changes Algorithm to Bury Holohoax Denial Sites
Search Engine Land:

Several days after Google put a search ranking change into place, the first page of results for “did the holocaust happen” now appears to be entirely free of denial sites.

The algorithm change happened earlier this week. As we covered, it caused the Stormfront denial site that was ranking tops for that search to slip to the second spot, bumped behind the authoritative US Holocaust Memorial Museum site. Now Stormfront is entirely gone while USHMM remains:

I wonder how long information such as this will be legal in the USSA? You see "hate speech" = TRUTH.
Both of these books, authored by PhDs were banned by Amazon, you can read them for free here, while it is still legal that is... .

GOOGLE's Schmidt wants algorithms to censor Internet for 'hate speech'

Google’s AI Hasn’t Passed Its Biggest Test Yet: Hunting Hate

Google's Sergey Brin got into America under the special privilege for Soviet Jews immigration law. Which was introduced into the US Senate by Jewish Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)

It should be noted that a representative from Google’s new 1984-style internet political dissent suppression program, Jigsaw, will be at the ADL conference as well. Expect nasty things to happen to our 1st Amendment right to criticize Jews following this gathering of high power Jews and NGO collaborators.

The Great Shutdown: Google's Jigzaw

GOOGLE Launches News 'Fact Check'

Ikiru's picture

Google, Twitter, and Facebook are all swinging the doors wide open to fierce competition as they alienate hundreds of millions of customers with censorship, liberal politics and deep state support. Some smaller companies are already emerging, but it's just the beginning.

halcyon's picture

Hey, I have a perfect idea: let's burn all the evil videos in a bonfire on an open square.

Oh, wait....


Too-Big-to-Bail's picture

The more important question is questionable content to whom?

FullHedge's picture

Does the question even need to be asked? The left will want to bury anything centre-right.

11b40's picture

My question is, how many radical terroists web sites have been monetized?  Sounds like this is more a way of censoring speech the Chosenites disagree with than speech that incites violence from foreign terrorists.

Frito's picture

The Post Modernist neo-Marxists will immediately "abuse" this feature (like it wasn't designed for that purpose to begin with) to attempt to silence the speech of "nazi's" (being anyone who disagrees with them, even slightly). This has already been seen with demonetization and will continue to accelerate with these measures. Viable alternatives must be found and supported, this is beginning to happen now, hopefully it is not too late. The battle for the Internet must not be lost.

Creative_Destruct's picture

"...questionable content to whom?"

The elites will pose the questions to what they choose and so define what is questionable. No matter what they call it, it will effectively be censorship.

Ban KKiller's picture

Don't the camel fuckers have their own versions? Oh, right, no workers....

jmthomas1987's picture

Then they might as well shut the site down.  People can only watch so many cat or baby videos.

Unknown Rider's picture

Per Breitbart: another example of corporations deciding what is acceptable speech.

Mikeyyy's picture

Sorta like ZH and the commenters above criticizing Shakespeare in the park?  You're all hypocrites.

Got The Wrong No's picture

You still being here shows that ZH is extremely tolerant. 

TePikoElPozo's picture

Finally they will be taking down those videos of muslim women being stoned to death

Sparehead's picture

Maybe, but I suspect their top priority will be any "racist" or "X-phobic" videos that don't suit the globalist agenda.

HRClinton's picture

Will they allow Sharia Cliterectomies?

Vilfredo Pareto's picture

What is inflammatory religious or extremist content?  Saying all illegal immigrants should be subject immigration law?  Advocating for a border wall?   Mark Dice annoying the heck out of libturds?


Saying that you believe marriage is between a man and a woman and a chic with a dick is not a woman?

roisaber's picture

Yeah, nothing deradicalizes me quite like a smiling kikess holding a little yidlet when I want to watch "Shut it Down"

Sparehead's picture

And now they just need to tack back to "Sovereign Citizens" or some other essentially nonexistant threat.

copperthumb's picture

the next person to start a web-based video hosting site without retard censorship policies will be the first trillionaire. Just watch blow a hole in the back of Twitter's dominance. It's time to switch anyway. 

quesnay's picture - supposedly. Haven't tried it.

translator zero's picture


It is based on blockchain => not run by anybody, impossible to censor.

translator zero's picture

And in general - not just videos:

Also blockchain based.

BeerMe's picture

The big problem is they don't have the media behind them.

shimmy's picture

Can't wait to read the fallout from this when this libtard corporation starts to do this shit to anything from the alt right.

MEFOBILLS's picture

Quote from Robert David Steele:

Eric Schmidt is organizing a massive censorship and propaganda program behind the scenes. AdRoll has just illegally and without due process deprived Alex Jones of over $3M a year in ad revenue by asserting, without evidence and without legal process (and in violation of existing contracts) that Alex Jones is a purveyor of fake news that also targets demographic segments and slanders politicians. I have recommended to Alex that he engage Brendan Sullivan and Danny Sheehan and roll out an immediate $1 billion lawsuit against AdRoll and its co-conspirators Facebook, Google, Redditt, Twitter, YouTube, and Wikipedia.

Paypal bans Brother Nathaniel


The Goyim know, shut it down:

Aubiekong's picture

Easy solution...  Any company you see advertising on YouTube dont buy their service or product.  Find their email address and send them a nice note saying since you advertise on YouTube I will not buy anything from you.  There is only one thing they care about and that is money...

bamawatson's picture

yes sir ! yes sir ! yes sir!

do it

please continue your mission sir

NoWayJose's picture

I have buried questionable search engines on my browser!