Once Again: Content Moderation Often Mistakes Reporting On Bad Behavior With Celebrating Bad Behavior

from the and-it-will-always-do-so dept

On Monday, the Twitter account Right Wing Watch -- which is famous for highlighting some of the nuttier nonsense said by Republicans -- announced that its YouTube account had been permanently banned.

As you can see, that ban was initially put in place over a claim that the videos violated YouTube's Community Guidelines. RWW appealed, and was told that YouTube had "decided to keep your account suspended" even after the appeal.

This sort of thing happens all the time, of course. For over a decade, we've highlighted how demands that social media take down "terrorist" content resulted in the company shutting down accounts that tracked evidence of war crimes. Because the very same videos that might serve as terrorist propaganda can also serve as an archive and evidence of war crimes.

In short, context matters, and that context goes way beyond the content of a video.

And this seems to be the same sort of case. Lots of people (including, somewhat ironically, the Right Wing Watch account itself) have been demanding that social media websites be more aggressive in moderating the accounts of conspiracy theorists and propagandists peddling nonsense about elections and the pandemic and the like. But, in highlighting the examples of extremists promoting that nonsense, RWW is showing the same content itself.

Not surprisingly, after this story started going viral, YouTube said it had been a mistake and reinstated the account:

“Right Wing Watch’s YouTube channel was mistakenly suspended, but upon further review, has now been reinstated,” a YouTube spokesperson told The Daily Beast on Monday afternoon. The social-media site also suggested that the issue was a mistake due to high volume of content and that they attempted to move quickly to undo the ban.

Right Wing Watch also confirmed that YouTube informed the site on Monday afternoon that their channel was back online.

“We are glad that by reinstating our account, YouTube recognizes our position that there is a world of difference between reporting on offensive activities and committing them,” Right Wing Watch director Adele Stan said in a statement after the reinstatement. “Without the ability to accurately portray dangerous behavior, meaningful journalism and public education about that behavior would cease to exist.”

And, indeed, it is true that there is a world of difference, but the important point is that it's not easy to tell that difference when you're a content moderation reviewer just looking at the content. They won't have the context, and it's almost impossible to get them the proper context in an easy to understand manner. Someone not familiar with the RWW account is not going to understand what it's doing without understanding a much wider context in which that account operates.

And, this is just one of many, many, many reasons why content moderation at scale is impossible to do well.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: content moderation, reporting, right wing watch
Companies: youtube


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Thread


  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    David Longfellow, 29 Jun 2021 @ 10:27am

    This makes me laugh...

    Censors get censored. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2021 @ 10:36am

      Re: This makes me laugh...

      RWW are "censors," huh?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 29 Jun 2021 @ 11:23am

        Re: Re: This makes me laugh...

        That seems to be one of the newer 'conservative' arguments, that fact-checking someone is no different than stopping them from talking entirely.

        Gotta say as arguments go it's a strange one, I mean why would a person/group be so against fact checking what they say, it's not like truth has anything to fear from someone verifying it or anything...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2021 @ 12:34pm

          Re: Re: Re: This makes me laugh...

          Well, when you are preaching the holy gospel of right wing politics, fact checking is blasphemy, and prevents conversion of the heathen.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2021 @ 12:48pm

          Re: Re: Re: This makes me laugh...

          It's all part of the new hard-right view of free-speech, which to them means the freedom to say what they want, be heard and not be questioned. While preventing anyone else from saying anything, of course.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          icon
          Koby (profile), 29 Jun 2021 @ 12:49pm

          Re: Re: Re: This makes me laugh...

          It was much more than just fact checking. They were actively calling for speakers to be deplatformed. RWW got roasted on twitter, with everyone pointing out that they got censored after calling for others to be censored. The irony here was off the charts.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2021 @ 1:31pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes me laugh...

            Ahem. The topic is RWW and YouTube.

            Not twitter and a hypocrite calling others hypocrites.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2021 @ 1:52pm

            They were actively calling for speakers to be deplatformed.

            So what? I could call for you to be banned from Techdirt, Twitter, and that tiny forum for Mongolian basket weaving you visit at 2:47am on the third Tuesday of every month, but that doesn’t mean anyone has to listen.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2021 @ 3:25pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes me laugh...

            They were actively calling for speakers to be deplatformed.

            Koby: We conservatives all need to gather our 2-A arms and ammo, attack the capitol, and kill all the libtards.

            RWW: Here's conservative Koby actively encouraging a violent attack on our capitol, maybe <insert social media company here> should suspend his account.

            Can you see the difference in what RWW is doing by calling for others to be "censored" vs actually being "censored?"

            If you can not see the difference, then maybe, just maybe, the problem is with you.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              sumgai (profile), 29 Jun 2021 @ 8:14pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes me laugh...

              If you can not see the difference, then maybe, just maybe, the problem is with you.

              That's pretty large of you, giving him that undeserved benefit of the doubt.

              In point of fact, Koby has always been capable of rational thought, he's just being obstinate for his own personal shits and grins. Personally, I consider him to be our token Demosthenes, going up against a collective Locke. And failing at it as we should expect. But he keeps coming back, so either he has a damnably thick skin, an even thicker skull, or he's really a high-bandwidth individual on par with any other malicious genius you might encounter in this wide, wide world. (You can pick any two, but not all three.)

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Talmyr, 30 Jun 2021 @ 7:11am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes me laugh...

                Wasn't "Demosthenes" the reasonable sibling who 'lived forever'?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  sumgai (profile), 30 Jun 2021 @ 1:53pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes me laugh...

                  According to my readings, Locke was the mild-mannered one who countered the "more strident" speech of Demosthenes. Both were very well reasoned, but Demosthenes seemed to go for the "shout 'em down" approach.

                  Koby is hoping to keep hammering at us, and that we'll eventually give up out of sheer frustration. Were I him, I wouldn't take much of that to the bank. ;)

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2021 @ 3:22pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes me laugh...

                    Koby is hoping to keep hammering at us, and that we'll eventually give up out of sheer frustration

                    There are more of us than of him.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 1 Jul 2021 @ 3:14am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes me laugh...

                    "Koby is hoping to keep hammering at us, and that we'll eventually give up out of sheer frustration."

                    Well, if he thinks he'll succeed where Baghdad Bob failed after ten+ years then he's welcome to try. The only thing he really succeeds at is giving us all advance warning of the bullshit peddled by the alt-right.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 30 Jun 2021 @ 12:02am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: This makes me laugh...

            "They were actively calling for speakers to be deplatformed."

            Which is an exercise of free speech, and does not mean anyone has to listen to take action as a result.

            Are you arguing against free speech again?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 30 Jun 2021 @ 1:57am

      Re: This makes me laugh...

      "Censors get censored."

      Fact-checking is today, in the eyes of the alt-right, "censorship", apparently.

      When that's what you lead with, whatever else you had to say can safely be ignored as nonsense.

      I guess you're letting your own side off the hook because their "fact-checking" isn't based on actual facts?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2021 @ 10:36am

    Once again, "But for the bad publicity being generated" RWW would not have been reinstated. They even lampshaded, "we get out stuff from these other accounts. Ban us, ban them too."

    Sure, content moderation at scale is difficult. But when the court of public appeal serves as the Supreme Court of Moderation, it means that it wasn't just the moderators that failed, but the appeals judges fell down on their job too.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2021 @ 11:08am

      Re:

      The appeals judges have no better knowledge than other moderators. They are being given the difficult task of rating bars in a town at the other end of the country without having the time to visit or even do a Google search.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2021 @ 3:26pm

      Re:

      But when the court of public appeal serves as the Supreme Court of Moderation, it means that it wasn't just the moderators that failed, but the appeals judges fell down on their job too.

      Welp, you can always go create your own fucking community, with it's own fucking standards, and post all the fucking bullshit you want. There's nothing stopping you guys apart from wanting to force everyone else to listen.

      Go where people actually want to hear what you have to say. You really should consider that some folks don't find that what you nuts are peddling is worth watching.

      I don't go to a Trump rally to spread my word to those simple minded rubes. Why don't you self-entitled jerks reciprocate?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Koby (profile), 29 Jun 2021 @ 10:38am

    Unqualified to Moderate

    Similar to the problem of expressing sarcasm on internet written forums, it appears more and more that platforms are having problems with the "context" problem. Someone merely retelling a story of what someone else did, in an effort to bring others up to speed, is viewed as offering support and approval of the original event, and perhaps even equated as performing the original event. At least in the eyes of the platform moderation system.

    Combined with the explosion of content, it seems to me that noone outside of a sub-community is in a position to understand the context, short of hiring full time employees specifically assigned to gadfly particular subgroups. A daunting task that automated systems will probably never be able to understand.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2021 @ 11:11am

      Re: Unqualified to Moderate

      For videos, especially conspiracy theories and supremacist politics, there is always BitChute. They moderate very differently to YouTube.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2021 @ 1:33pm

      Re: Baby steps

      Correct: moderation at scale will always be a failure.

      Incorrect: wrong thread to post in.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2021 @ 3:29pm

      Re: Unqualified to Moderate

      Combined with the explosion of content, it seems to me that noone outside of a sub-community is in a position to understand the context, short of hiring full time employees specifically assigned to gadfly particular subgroups

      What you mean is that only people who buy into your bullshit should be allowed to decide whether it stays up or down.

      Listen Koby, I'm guessing no one told you, or the whiny fucks like you, that life just isn't fair. There's no such thing as 'fair and balanced' with respect to facts, and I see no reason to entertain or give equal time to the functional equivalent of 'flat-earthers' when I know goddamn well that the fucking planet is round.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Coffee U (profile), 29 Jun 2021 @ 11:04am

    Reasoning like cops.

    "they attempted to move quickly to undo the ban." - evidence that they deserved the ban?

    Is this kind of like cops. "Suspect appeared nervous, thus giving me the probably cause to search the vehicle." "Suspect appeared too calm, thus giving me probably cause to search the vehicle."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 29 Jun 2021 @ 12:03pm

    Translation, interpretation

    Understanding what is said with what is meant, and by WHOM is saying it.
    Its like a lair, telling the truth and no one believes them.
    Then the person who we subscribe to tell us the truth, Lies.
    The hard thing to see, is when something created, gets built over mnay times.
    Like burying the truth, little things on top, eventually Hide it and make things harder and harder to see.
    How many specks on a window, until you cant see out of it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2021 @ 12:17pm

    Easy Ban

    Come on Mike, that was an easy one.

    Considering there is this major "anti-conservative" bias in moderation on social media, the fact that their account had the words "Right Wing" as part of their title, it was a no brainer that they should be "censored."

    It's like you haven't been following along this whole time.

    amirite?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Samuel Abram (profile), 29 Jun 2021 @ 12:57pm

      Re: Easy Ban

      Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
      Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
      Con: LOL no…no not those views
      Me: So…deregulation?
      Con: Haha no not those views either
      Me: Which views, exactly?
      Con: Oh, you know the ones

      (All credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence.)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rocky, 29 Jun 2021 @ 3:48pm

      Re: Easy Ban

      Considering there is this major "anti-conservative" bias in moderation on social media

      If you really want to equate conservatives with bullshitters, racists, liars and conspiracy nuts - there certainly is a major "anti-conservative" bias in moderation.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      ECA (profile), 29 Jun 2021 @ 4:14pm

      Re: Easy Ban

      well lets see.
      Blame the president? Wrong person, go look up your state and fed representatives FIRST.
      Have you told them your opinion? Did they ever reply?
      Did you add reasoning and Facts to your comments?

      Deregulation means?
      8 hour work days, Gone.
      Over time, GONE.
      Social security, GONE
      OHSA, gone.
      Over time? GONE.
      Min wage? GONE.
      These are all social constructs built by the Fed. want to get rid of a few? GO FOR IT, IN YOUR STATE FIRST. Watch all the manufacturing come over and treat you like 1920's 16 hour workers, 7 days per week. AND OSHA cant help you.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Toom1275 (profile), 29 Jun 2021 @ 8:17pm

      Re: Easy Ban

      Considering there is this major "anti-conservative" bias in moderation on social media,

      [Asserts facts in direct contradiction to every piece of evidence in existence]

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2021 @ 12:12am

      Re: Easy Ban

      Wow, Poe'd into a hidden comment.

      I thought that the 'amirite?' would have sufficed for people to realize that I was being sarcastic without using a sarc tag.

      I guess with the all regular distractors here, I need to be more straight forward in my sarcasm.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 30 Jun 2021 @ 12:52am

        Re: Re: Easy Ban

        Word to the wise - satire is dead. There's no story The Onion can publish that isn't being reflected in what some people are actually doing or saying. So, there's no point trying to do it on an anonymous message board.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2021 @ 11:57am

        Re: Re: Easy Ban

        Just babble a bit about how Trump is bad, and it pretty much won't matter what else you say here, you'll be fine.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 30 Jun 2021 @ 2:11am

      Re: Easy Ban

      "Considering there is this major "anti-bigot" bias in moderation on social media..."

      Fixed That For You.

      I guess we'll just have to remind the shitwit brigade of the "alt-right" that being a nazi, racist or bigot doesn't mean you're a "conservative". It just means you're an asshole not welcome in any major social groups.

      But hey, there's an easier and more appropriate answer to you people getting thrown out of social platforms than insisting the government should remove the property owner's ability to evict you for being an asshole.
      Just stop being an asshole. It really is that simple.

      And if that's beyond you then you just need to understand that the people you're trying to be an asshole to aren't obligated to host you.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2021 @ 1:02pm

    Bit of a contradiction they have going on there. They demand the deletion of this content, because they say it's dangerous, yet post copies of it themselves to expose it.

    So, does the content need to be hidden because it's so dangerous, or does it need to be exposed? It can't be both.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 29 Jun 2021 @ 1:13pm

      Re:

      As the article itself notes there's just a bit of a difference between someone posting content with the goal of presenting it as a good thing and someone posting it to point out why it's very much not a good thing.

      If someone posts a video talking about the health benefits from drinking a refreshing glass of bleach every morning and I post a clip from that video with a comment telling people to absolutely not do that the video may be the same but the context means the intended message is anything but.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Toom1275 (profile), 29 Jun 2021 @ 8:19pm

        Re: Re:

        Most people don't post pictures of My Lai to celebrate it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2021 @ 4:09am

        Re: Re:

        But as the article also notes, the moderation algorithms can't parse that context so without human review the choice is between banning it all or not.

        Or I suppose they could insert the warning to absolutely not do that, if thats what would make all the difference. Like Twitter used to do to Trumps lies.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 29 Jun 2021 @ 1:55pm

      It needs to be exposed in the context of why it’s dangerous. Someone saying “gays are abominations” in and of itself isn’t dangerous per se, but the actions that belief can justify are often harmful to gay people. Unless you’re on the side of people who want the right to harm gay people without consequence or remorse, exposing that speech and explaining its potential for harm is a goddamn good thing to do.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2021 @ 2:34pm

      Re:

      Yeah. Like how history books talking about Nazis and Neo-Nazis are basically the same thing.

      Fucking moron.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rocky, 29 Jun 2021 @ 3:49pm

      Re:

      Bit of a contradiction they have going on there.

      Only if you are a stupid simpleton that can't grasp the concept of context.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 30 Jun 2021 @ 12:11am

      Re:

      Ah, so the current tactic is to pretend that context doesn't matter?

      You should talk to the History Channel right now, since obviously all their documentaries about World War 2 are promoting Nazism since they include all those shots of Hitler. Then go for all the news channels, since obviously when they were showing footage of 9/11 they were promoting terrorism, by your standard.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2021 @ 3:46am

        Re: Re:

        Historical documentaries, especially about WW2, are are often very careful about showing original footage or even direct quotes, but thats more likely for fear of someone being offended over something Hitler & co said than being mistaken for promoting it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 30 Jun 2021 @ 2:25am

      Re:

      "Bit of a contradiction they have going on there. They demand the deletion of this content, because they say it's dangerous, yet post copies of it themselves to expose it."

      No more so than that history books can describe world war 2 in detail without necessarily calling for another Holocaust. If you see this as a contradiction then I'm compelled to point out the handle of a 12-lb sledge hammer sticking out of the shattered remains of your sense of logic.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 29 Jun 2021 @ 4:37pm

    Funny how so many of these are "fixed" only after public outcry.
    One does wonder how many of the mistakes are never fixed because the victim isn't able to generate enough public notice.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 30 Jun 2021 @ 2:27am

      Re:

      "One does wonder how many of the mistakes are never fixed because the victim isn't able to generate enough public notice."

      That's the flip side of Youtube's moderation practices, and why there are relatively popular alternatives who don't apply quite as trigger-happy moderation algorithms.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 29 Jun 2021 @ 6:42pm

    "Right Wing Watch's YouTube channel was banned by the AI that now runs Google. Said AI also denied their appeal. We were perfectly fine with this and we really don't care what the AI does as long as we don't have to actually do any work. However, once the story went viral, we poked one of our interns and told them to go fix this before we get any more bad publicity. Rest assured that we will make zero changes because of this and it's certain to happen again in the future because we can't be bothered to pay humans to actually get involved in such things, unless it's making us look bad on a national level."

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2021 @ 2:41am

      Re:

      and it's certain to happen again in the future because we can't be bothered to pay humans to actually get involved in such things,

      And that tell me that you do not understand the problems of scale when moderating a site that has a significant part of the human race posting on it. The example that make the news are easy to decide, once you have some associated context. however as part of thousands of decision made per hour, without context, getting it right becomes much more difficult, and needs algorithms to deal with problems.

      Insisting on human review of appeals is the same as insisting on human moderation, and calling for smaller sites is not a solution, because the same decision have to be made and would require even more effort because of an uneven time spread and volume variations on every site.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2021 @ 4:37am

        Re: Re:

        Then whats the point of having an appeal function at all if appeals just get automatically rejected?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Rekrul, 30 Jun 2021 @ 6:18pm

        Re: Re:

        And that tell me that you do not understand the problems of scale when moderating a site that has a significant part of the human race posting on it.

        I understand that effectively managing and moderating a huge business requires significant investment, and I also understand that Google doesn't even want to try.

        Insisting on human review of appeals is the same as insisting on human moderation

        Google won't even take the bare minimum steps to improve their process.

        A couple years ago, out of the blue, I received an mailed that I had been banned from posting comments on YouTube due to violating their community guidelines regarding spam/advertising. I have NEVER posted any kind of ad, nor have I ever posted spam. What triggered this? I have no idea because they didn't bother to reference what comments they were referring to. The only thing I can figure is that the night before I had posted comments on about 10-15 videos from the same channel. I had just stumbled across the channel (retro games), watched a bunch of the videos and posted my nostalgic thoughts on some of them. Nothing controversial or inflammatory, just talking about old games from the 80s. All the comments were unique and on-topic for the video they were posted to.

        How hard would it be for Google to add a feature where when a complaint is lodged or the spam filter triggered, links to the offending comments are logged and sent to the user if official action is taken? It would be all automated. The notification email would say "You have been banned because of these comments..." and then you would know exactly what they had a problem with. But they can't be bothered to do that.

        In my case, I filed an appeal denying that I had posted any spam and naturally it was denied. I posted on the help forum and someone there said that they couldn't make any promises, but that they would "ping" a Google employee about this. A week later, I got an email saying that upon closer inspection, they decided that I did not violate their community standards and my account was re-instated. No apology, no explanation of what triggered it, nothing.

        Another thing, when this happened, I went to my channel's dashboard and it said I had NO strikes for either copyright (I've never posted videos publicly) or violating community guidelines.

        So for some mysterious reason I got permanently banned even though I had done nothing wrong and I had no strikes of any kind, my appeal was denied and the ban would have been permanent if someone hadn't agreed to bring it to Google's attention.

        If Google wants the benefits of running hugely popular sites, they should be willing to invest the time and money into making sure that they're managed effectively, rather than just letting AI make all the decisions and only getting involved when there's negative publicity.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 1 Jul 2021 @ 3:33am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I understand that effectively managing and moderating a huge business requires significant investment, and I also understand that Google doesn't even want to try.

          How many people with a common approach to moderation, would be required to moderate all conversations in all bars and cafes in the U.S. as that is near the scale of the problem of moderating YouTube.

          The bit of YouTube that you can look at is a cup of sand from the beach of sand that is YouTube. Where you look at a grain of sand, the YouTube moderation effort has a truck load of sand to look at.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Rekrul, 6 Jul 2021 @ 12:40pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            How many people with a common approach to moderation, would be required to moderate all conversations in all bars and cafes in the U.S. as that is near the scale of the problem of moderating YouTube.

            Now imagine if all bars and cafes were completely automated so that when you had a legitimate problem, there was nobody you could complain to.

            Say you get food poisoning at a cafe from bad seafood, you fill out the automated complaint form demanding compensation for your time and suffering. and it comes back "After careful review we have determined that your food was fine. Denied." And that's the end of your options. Unless you can get national media attention and make the company look bad.

            When you run a business that interacts with the public, you have to actually deal with the public on occasion.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 6 Jul 2021 @ 11:13pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              That's not really a good comparison. First of all, food poisoning is something that's way less common than copyrights related complaints, and it really is in the venue's best interests to deal with. It's a very serious issue that could potentially lead to serious illness or even death. Your venue gets a single one of these cases, you may well need to look into your practices (and the government will look into them if you fails to take proper precautions) because it's a fundamentally damaging thing to your business. If a restaurant gets a reputation for people getting sick when they eat there, they won't have many customers.

              On the other hand copyright violations are not something a social media platform is concerned about on a business level. YouTube are bombarded with huge numbers of complaints every day, some fake, some not, and it's impossible for them to hire enough people to deal with them to any degree of accuracy, so they have to automate it. People will come to YouTube whether or not they deal with them accurately, and nobody's placed in danger except for a few poor souls who have decided to based their entire business around that single service supplier and are having problems with complaints..

              They could be better at dealing with complaints that need more than an automated process to properly examine, but there's absolutely nothing to compare them to a single venue restaurant.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    sumgai (profile), 29 Jun 2021 @ 8:02pm

    Once Again: Content Moderation Often Mistakes Reporting On Bad Behavior With Celebrating Bad Behavior

    Ouch! That my my head explode. I'd've rather that the headline read:

    Once Again: Content Moderation Often Mistakenly Equates Reporting On Bad Behavior With Celebrating Bad Behavior

    Much less time to parse and understand that latter iteration, doncha think?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 30 Jun 2021 @ 6:27am

    The social-media site also suggested that the issue was a mistake due to high volume of content and that they attempted to move quickly to undo the ban.

    Well someone slipped up and exposed one of the variables measured by the banning/review algorithms. Whoever said that will probably lose their jobs or be delegated to a non-public position. One of the greatewst sins in content moderation is to let anyone see behind the curtain.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    techflaws (profile), 30 Jun 2021 @ 8:55am

    And, indeed, it is true that there is a world of difference, but the
    important point is that it's not easy to tell that difference when
    you're a content moderation reviewer just looking at the content.

    But we can certainly rest assured the moderators who banned RWW also banned each and all referenced media from that channel. Right?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 30 Jun 2021 @ 9:15am

      Re:

      And another strong challenger for funniest of the week appears only halfway through it, truly a strong week for hilarity so far, I look forward to seeing what people can come up with to top what's already put forth before the weeks end.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat

Warning: include(/home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/includes/right_column/rc_promo_discord_chat.inc): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/includes/right_column/rc_module_promo.inc on line 8

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/includes/right_column/rc_promo_discord_chat.inc' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/share/pear:/home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395:/home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/..') in /home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/includes/right_column/rc_module_promo.inc on line 8

Warning: include(/home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/includes/right_column/rc_promo_jq_chat.inc): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/includes/right_column/rc_module_promo.inc on line 8

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/includes/right_column/rc_promo_jq_chat.inc' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/share/pear:/home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395:/home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/..') in /home/beta6/deploy/itasca_20201215-3691-c395/includes/right_column/rc_module_promo.inc on line 8
Recent Stories
.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.