Author: aidang220

Censorship on YouTube: Are the Guidelines Even Needed?

aidang220Leave a comment
Image result for youtube censorship

On the topic of issues in digital culture, YouTube censorship has become more prevalent than ever.  This is a process in which the YouTube algorithm demonetizes videos they considered to have harsh language, or something related to hate speech.  This was done to help protect the casual viewer and mostly help the community.  However, this hasn’t been the case as this process has taken revenue from channels due to a couple issues with the algorithm.  Obviously, this is detrimental to content creators as they aren’t allowed to create what they want.  These restrictions create a divide between viewers and creators; as if the algorithm determines that some content isn’t suitable for viewers it gets removed and demonetized.  To investigate this problem more, I did some research.

The first article I looked at was in the New York Times.  They stated that YouTube wanted to remove “videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion,”.  Which in idea is a good idea, as it keeps the space of the platform more accepting for all.  But that does mean that parody type videos can be easily demonetized and taken down for a couple words.  The overall idea that YouTube wants to omit hateful or racist speech is a phenomenal idea but in practice it seems that it doesn’t work as well as they wanted.  Even though the company has stated that there is a “three-strike enforcement system,” which gives the creators more options to improve.  But one must wonder if this violated first amendment rights, with not allowing creators to voice their opinions; even if they happen to be hateful or defined as such, people should be able to voice their opinion and start conversations.

Next, I read an article on Forbes that outlined the same issue.  They talk about how one video was taken down due to violating the hate speech guidelines given by YouTube.  The argument against this is that they believe that “this topic of such medical treatments should be left open for debate.”.  Which is not unreasonable as sparking debate is one of the main reasons for creating content and using the different platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube alike.  They also go into what YouTube’s reasoning for their guidelines are through Dr. Tonya Hansel.  “With the increase in cyberbullying, cyber-based cult recruiting, and online pedophiles, there is a growing need for computer science to help protect the nation’s youth,”, which reflects our society more than anything.  With a stronger emphasis on protecting the youth, rather than what was accepted 10 years ago.  The younger generation of viewers have been raised differently and through that social media and the internet have had to change with the times.  Unfortunately, this has meant that censorship is prevalent to “protect” the youth of the 21st century.  Which doesn’t allow for discussions to happen, instead having less interaction among viewers with mostly views and likes being what matters for YouTube.

Looking more into the issue, I read an article on Newsweek.  This article was on the topic of educational videos being removed for their content.  The author had created a video about the Holocaust and YouTube censored it.  Making it so it so the viewer had to be 18 years old to view the video.  This is confusing as most high school students would need to view a video like this, as in any history class there will be some time they learn about the horrific event.  This could be very well true of videos about other things that relate to education.  Such things as the Rwandan Genocide and even the novel Huckleberry Finn could be considered to go against the algorithm that has been set up.  As they have racism and brutality, even though they are educational materials.  Leading to the question of why do we censor education even if it has some forms of hate, even though in the case of history it is just a sign of the time.  As it was what was accepted during the time, even if its not the same in the 21st century.

Finally, I looked into an article on Vice news.  This article accounts the history of YouTube censorship and how it has created many issues with creators and viewers.  In one case, “Abbas, an award-winning blogger and anti-torture activist, had used the platform to draw attention to police brutality in Egypt, uploading more than a hundred such clips. Although there were rumors that YouTube’s decision had come at the behest of the Egyptian government, the company later told Abbas that it had removed the videos after receiving numerous complaints from other users.”, was suspended due to his content.  As this was controversial to YouTube, they removed it.  But it was about an important issue, so the reasoning behind the suspension is not very valid.  As the content created was to inform and shine a light onto an issue going on in the world.  So, the reasoning behind YouTube censorship is put into question on if its necessary.  As this is the same information that would be put on the news, just on a different platform.

The whole issue of YouTube censorship has only become prevalent in the 21st century due to societal norms and a misguided sense of what’s acceptable.  In many cases YouTube chooses well and doesn’t allow things such as hate speech or racism to be successful on its platform.  But they also choose to just use an algorithm to judge if a video is safe, rather than being viewed.  This was eventually going to cause issue among the users, and it happened very quickly.  Taking away some important information from viewers especially if the censored content happens to be educational in value.  Overall, the whole issue of censorship shouldn’t be an issue as even if the opinion is wildly wrong, it creates discussion among the platform and its users which is beneficial to our society as we can learn from others.

Rise of Skywalker: Why is Star Wars So Decisive

aidang220Leave a comment

When browsing medium.com, I decided to look at reviews and thoughts on the latest Star Wars film.  The Rise of Skywalker marks the end of a nine-film arc and is supposedly the last film in the saga, but that is inevitably not the case; as studios want more revenue.  But one thing that was very apparent in reading multiple reviews is that there is no unanimous decision on if the movie was good or bad.

In the first review I came upon, by Gregory Cameron, he addresses how the film wasn’t perfect, but it was at least enjoyable.  He gives praise to the arc of Kylo Ren and how that was a consistent strength through the trilogy, but he acknowledges that this film seems like “clean up” for the reception of the Last Jedi, rather than a film with a strong narrative.  Overall seeing that this wasn’t as bad as most were making it out to be, but it is far from the strong sendoff many fans had hoped to see.  With under utilization of characters and sloppy narrative, Cameron finds that the movie shouldn’t have received as much critical panning as it did but by no reason is it a perfect film.

The second article I found about this topic wasn’t a review, but rather just someone’s thoughts on the movie.  This is written by Michael St. James, and rather than being a review it focuses on the cultural impact of the franchise.  He addresses that even if its not a phenomenal film, it does mark “The end of a generational run, the penultimate gift of 9 beautifully wrapped presents”.  Something that most readers could probably attest to being part of this journey.  Acknowledging that there have been flops in the franchise, he doesn’t go out to make it seem like Star Wars is perfect; rather he chooses to address the societal impact of the global franchise.

Reading a third article about the topic creates more conversation and that’s what I did.  M.G Sielger, reiterates that this is a flawed film and after a second viewing those flaws are more apparent.  But he does acknowledge the enjoyment that can be gotten out of a flawed movie.  Rather than address what the film did wrong though, he chooses to address the external factors such as studios and directors.  Choosing to address the director change from movies and how like a similar pop culture icon of the last generation, Game of Thrones, also didn’t stick the landing and fumbled at the finish line.  Overall believing that the direction of the sequel trilogy was not strong enough to begin with and the fact the final chapter is at least enjoyable is good.

Finally, I read a review by an account called EveryMovieHasALesson.  In this the author decides to address what the movie’s main messages are and how well they are conveyed.  The first point being “finality” and how the final movie of this 42-year franchise wasn’t a strong final chapter to it.  The second point of “Confronting Fears”, is where the author believes that the film did well.  As the characters feel vulnerable, due to the performances given.  Other than those points, the only other thing addressed is the visuals and composition of the film, which they believe are impeccable; but nothing to be praised as the franchise has always had those strong points.

In my opinion, I agree with these reviews and thoughts on the film.  After my viewing of the film these are valid points of argument and the fact the authors do address the enjoyability of the film is important.  The fact that they also address the cultural impact of these films is important as they have cemented themselves in our society as a flagship for science fiction.  However, nostalgia is not something that the movies should try to go off; as new ideas are always needed and even if they aren’t executed well, they’re welcomed. So seeing this divide among individuals is expected, as it should be with any major film or pop culture franchise.

Martin Luther King Day: The Impact of One Man on a Nation

aidang220Leave a comment

In commemoration of Martin Luther King Day, I read Letter from Birmingham Jail by Dr. King.  This is a letter written by Dr. King during his time of incarceration in the Birmingham jail after a non-violent protest.  It outlines why he was willing to be arrested for his beliefs and how he believed that it was beneficial to the civil rights movement.  He outlines what occurred and why he is in this situation.

In the first part of this letter, King outlines how a nonviolent campaign can still cause direct action and is even necessary to have anything change.  One question posed in King’s letter is from another addressed to him, “Why direct action, why sit-ins, marches, and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?”.  He addresses how it is better to try and negotiate in situations without escalation.  But in most cases, this is the purpose of direct action.  As people need to cause some sort of tension in a community or society to even start the negotiation process.  This is an idea he cites back to Socrates and is still a very prevalent idea in society today.  I agree with King and how he knows that negotiation isn’t possible without a form of direct action, as there needs to be some sort of catalyst to start the conversation.

King also addresses that many have asked questions like “Why didn’t you give the new administration time to act?” as they believe that he should have just waited to act.  But, waiting would just cause the issue to gain less traction and fade away.  So the need to bring up the issue using direct action was necessary to start the conversation and bring up the issues of injustice and prejudice.  Even if it happens to break the law, much like the Hungarian freedom fighters in the time of the Nazi’s, the argument that if it is for the good of society it should be done regardless of consequences.

Overall, Dr. King and his message to us has been and will always be a relevant message to live by.  As injustice against a certain group of people must be countered with direct action.  This will eventually lead to negotiation and a solution to the issue.  This can even be done without using violence, something that King preached and was very adamant about.  Through his example, we have learned to make changes about our society through direct action, even if it controversial.  If we aren’t willing to ask questions or fight for what we believe in, there is no point in trying to move forward as a society.