You also saw this happen in the discussion around Nu.nl, which recently banned climate denial on NUjij ( they explain why here ). As a platform, you should be able to set your own rules, but a platform like YouTube is so big and powerful that it can indeed seem like censorship.
I'm not sure what I would think about this. I don't want content creators to be hit by a ban from the ivory towers of Silicon Valley or Brussels. For example, you can already see fears arising about the upload filter that the EU wants to introduce. But on the other hand: the deliberate sharing of misinformation should not be tolerated either.
Freedom of speech versus freedom of reach
Meanwhile, Pinterest is taking a surprising approach to the spread of anti-vaccination propaganda : you can still post job function email database anti-vaxx images, but Pinterest won't spread them further.
What an idea! Could this be the solution? You can still upload your videos, but you can no longer ride on the algorithm's viral machine .
How do we determine the rules?
These problems and the various solutions make me think. Who decides what is and is not allowed? Where is the boundary? You cannot capture this grey area in an algorithm. Not everything can be captured in rules. Joost Steins Bisschop also managed to capture that nicely in his column :
“In the human mind, the considerations that are not fixed in rules take place. The rich playground for historians, philosophers, ethicists and philosophers of life, among others. They are needed more than ever.”
Ethics is going to become very popular with the big tech companies. Whether or not under pressure from governments, advertisers and last but not least angry viewers.
As you may notice, I myself don't know what the solution is (or if it even exists). I do notice that YouTube is also reaching the limit of what we accept from social media, and it may be heading in the direction of Facebook. I'm curious what you think about YouTube's problems. Or do you perhaps not see a problem?