The YouTube shadowbanning privacy content is fake?
I know the Hated One has complained about it but it may just be a skill issue.
No, we are shadowbanned on YouTube. This should’ve gotten 10M
3 Likes
Probably, mine was more as a joke. But if I put my fake lawyer hat on, I’d assume you’d want plausible deniability that the PIN was not placed there to fool someone (police) into entering it to get them to wipe the device. Reverse psychology does not pass if it’s apparent I meant for them to find it to wipe it. Essentially raising legality of an information hazard conducted by individuals.
1 Like
So not to start drama, but years ago a mentor of sorts once told me that he thinks that shadowbanning is MOSTLY just a persecution complex because in his experience, if a video bombs on YT it also bombs on other platforms like Odysee & PeerTube, showing that it’s not that the algorithm is trying to censor you but you just made a dud video. It happens. They’re not all winners. Rather than cry about it, you just gotta shake it off and keep going.
Maybe it’s confirmation bias but ever since he told me that, I’ve noticed it to be mostly true in most places I look.
That’s not to say it NEVER happens, but more often than not…
2 Likes
Apparently there is a cooldown embedded in the secure element, the longest being 41 days. Afterwards it is locked entirely somehow.
*in the USA
This is an international community, making legal advice even harder XD
2 Likes
I think you need a new mentor, man, at least when it comes to this. I would suggest you look up a disabled person and YT channel named Footless Jo. She had not only been shadow-banned, but also eventually had strikes and then had her entire channel deleted purely for being totally presentable-looking and having an overall positive attitude while discussing life as a below-the-knee amputee.
Merely showing that she lacked a foot was enough for YouTube to decide that their advertiser-based money was at risk if they dared to show that disabled people exist in the world.
It was only because she had amassed a massive audience that her audience “went to war for her” on other, non-Google-owned platforms… that Google was essentially forced to give her her channel back.
Google had made all kinds of wild claims saying she wasn’t safe for children to look at, etc., simply because she was a disabled person. As a disabled person myself I feel her pain.
Disabled life (esp. if you suffer massive daily pain like I do) is plenty difficult without being harassed by a multi-trillion-dollar company. Google could actually easily stand up, do the right thing, and be an advocate for people like me and her. instead they went on the attack against her and against others. Heck, I’m a victim of CSA (google CSA abuse disability if you don’t know what it is). If they were willing to do what they did to her, just imagine me trying to speak out.
Link to vid where Footless Jo discusses the issue:
Respectfully, I think you need to reread my last line:
That’s not to say it NEVER happens, but more often than not…
Specifically I’m referring to people who put out a video about privacy that doesn’t do as well as their other videos and then go “Google must be censoring me because privacy goes against their business interests.” While I see the logic there, 9/10 times (again - not saying it never happens) the simple explanation is they just made a dud video.
It happens to everyone. It happens to me at The New Oil, it happens here on Privacy Guides. I’m sure Techlore, Naomi Brockwell, and others would all say it happens to them, too. Sometimes you misjudge public interest in a thing. Or - more likely - the video itself was somehow flawed - wrong choice of title, wrong choice of thumbnail, etc.
Being a content creator is like, 50% formula and 50% experimentation and getting lucky. There is a formula, but sometimes you guess it wrong. You’d be surprised how often we A/B test a title or thumbnail and go “wow, really? That’s the one that did well? Not the other one?”
This is especially pronounced with smaller creators where they may not have the structure of their videos down yet (looking back on it I have no idea how my earlier videos did well at all, they’re a mess), or they may have poor audio/video quality, or they’re still finding their voice. (Or some smaller creators still don’t have a brand identity and they just upload everything like they’re Louis Rossmann but they don’t have the audience to get away with that yet.)
Again to be crystal clear: I never said it doesn’t happen. I know it does. There’s plenty of studies and anecdotal evidence proving that it is a thing. But I’m talking about in the privacy space specifically, when people put out one or two dud videos and then go “oh YouTube must be censoring me,” in my experience more often than not, it’s more likely that they just need to examine the video closer and investigate “why didn’t this one do as well? Was it a bad topic? Bad presentation? Do I need to get the point sooner? Do I need to tease engagement more often? etc.” We do this with every single PG video - both good and bad - and try to identify where people stop watching, why, what keywords brought people to our video, etc so we know what to avoid next time and what to repeat that worked.
2 Likes