Youtube is now setting videos into a “limited state” if they are considered questionable enough to be deemed objectionable, but not offensive, pornographic or violent enough to be banned altogether.
This policy was published several months ago but has evolved into a force in the past week, provoking anger among members of the YouTube community.
The community knows Google and YouTube staff refer to the tactic as “tougher treatment”.
One outstanding video-maker pushed the new scheme whilst WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange called the measures as “economic censorship”.
However, YouTube views it as a way of affirming freedom of speech and allowing treatment of controversial issues without resorting to the total banning of videos.
Videos which are put into an inadequate state cannot be set on other websites.
They also cannot be clearly published on common media using the usual share pins and other users cannot comment on them.
Crucially, the user who made the video will no longer take any payment.
Earlier this week, Julian Assange wrote: “‘Controversial’ but contract-legal videos which break YouTube’s terms and conditions cannot be shared, embedded or earn money from advertising revenue.
“What’s impressive about the new method stationed is that it is a clear attempt at social engineering. It isn’t just spinning off the ads.
“It’s spinning off the comments, embeds, etc too.
“Everything likely to strangle the reach without deleting it.”
Criticism of YouTube’s policies is most important to people on the right of the executive spectrum, who fear that Silicon Valley is controlled by the left and determined to silence opposing voices a claim denied by tech giants like Facebook and Google.
The new YouTube laws were highlighted this week by Paul Joseph Watson, a globally famous British right wing YouTuber and editor-at-large of Infowars, who talked out after saying a guest on his online program had one of her videos raised after the appearance.
Take your time to comment on this article.