{"id":14114,"date":"2022-02-17T00:55:01","date_gmt":"2022-02-17T00:55:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/02\/17\/content-moderation-case-study-youtube-doubles-down-on-questionable-graphic-content-enforcement-before-reversing-course-2020\/"},"modified":"2022-02-17T00:55:01","modified_gmt":"2022-02-17T00:55:01","slug":"content-moderation-case-study-youtube-doubles-down-on-questionable-graphic-content-enforcement-before-reversing-course-2020","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/02\/17\/content-moderation-case-study-youtube-doubles-down-on-questionable-graphic-content-enforcement-before-reversing-course-2020\/","title":{"rendered":"Content Moderation Case Study: YouTube Doubles Down On Questionable ‘graphic Content’ Enforcement Before Reversing Course (2020)"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

\n

from the moderation-road-rage<\/i> dept<\/h3>\n

\nSummary:<\/strong>\n<\/p>\n

\nYouTube creators have frequently complained about the opaque and frustrating nature of the platform\u2019s appeals process for videos that are restricted or removed for violating its Community Guidelines. Beyond simply removing content, these takedowns can be severely damaging to creators, as they can result in \u201cstrikes\u201d against a channel. Strikes incur\u00a0temporary restrictions<\/a>\u00a0on the user\u2019s ability to upload content and use other site features, and enough strikes can ultimately lead to permanent channel suspension.\n<\/p>\n

\nCreators can appeal these strikes, but many complain that the response to appeals is inconsistent, and that rejections are deemed \u201cfinal\u201d without providing insight into the decision-making process or any further recourse. One such incident in 2020 involving high-profile creators drew widespread attention online and resulted in a rare apology and reversal of course by YouTube.\n<\/p>\n

\n<\/a>\n<\/div>\n

\nOn August 24, 2020, YouTube creator MoistCr1TiKaL (aka Charlie White, who also uses the handle penguinz0), who at the time had nearly six-million subscribers,\u00a0posted a video<\/a>\u00a0in which he reacted to a viral 2014 clip of a supposed \u201croad rage\u201d incident involving people dressed as popular animated characters. The authenticity of the original video is\u00a0unverified<\/a>\u00a0and many viewers suspect it was staged for comedic purposes, as the supposed \u201cviolence\u201d it portrays appears to be fake, and the target of the \u201cattack\u201d appears uninjured. Soon after posting his reaction video, White\u00a0received a strike<\/a>\u00a0for \u201cgraphic content with intent to shock\u201d and the video was removed. On September 1, White revealed on Twitter that he had appealed the strike, but\u00a0the appeal was rejected<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n

\n<\/a>\n<\/div>\n

\nWhite then posted a video\u00a0expressing his anger<\/a>\u00a0at the situation, and pointed out that another high-profile YouTube creator, Markiplier (aka Mark Fischbach), had posted his own reaction to the same viral video nearly four years earlier but had not received a strike. Fischbach agreed with White and asked YouTube to address the inconsistency. To the surprise of both creators, YouTube responded by\u00a0issuing a strike to Fischbach\u2019s video as well<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n

\n<\/a>\n<\/div>\n

\nThe incident resulted in widespread backlash online, and the proliferation of the #AnswerUsYouTube hashtag on Twitter, with fans of both creators demanding a reversal of the strikes and\/or more clarity on how the platform makes these enforcement decisions.\n<\/p>\n

\nCompany considerations:<\/strong>\n<\/p>\n

    \n
  • If erroneous strikes are inevitable given the volume of content being moderated, what are the necessary elements of an appeals process to ensure creators have adequate recourse and receive satisfactory explanations for final decisions?<\/li>\n
  • What are the conditions under which off-platform attention to a content moderation decision should result in further manual review and potential reversals outside the normal appeals process?<\/li>\n
  • How can similar consideration be afforded to creators who face erroneous strikes and rejected appeals, but do not have large audiences who will put off-platform pressure on the company?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    \nIssue considerations:<\/strong>\n<\/p>\n

      \n
    • How can companies balance the desire to directly respond to controversies involving highly popular creators with the desire to employ consistent, equitable processes for all creators?<\/li>\n
    • How should platforms harmonize their enforcement decisions when they are alerted to clear contradictions between the decisions on similar pieces of content?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      \nResolution:<\/strong>\n<\/p>\n

      \nOn September 2, a few hours after Fischbach announced his strike and White expressed his shock at that decision, the TeamYouTube Twitter account\u00a0replied to White<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0to Fischbach<\/a>\u00a0with an apology, stating that it had restored both videos and reversed both strikes and calling the initial decision \u201can over-enforcement of our policies.\u201d Both creators\u00a0expressed<\/a>\u00a0their\u00a0appreciation<\/a>\u00a0for the reversal, while also noting that they hope the company makes changes to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future. Since such reversals by YouTube are\u00a0quite rare<\/a>, and apologies even rarer, the story sparked\u00a0widespread coverage<\/a>\u00a0in a\u00a0variety<\/a>\u00a0of\u00a0outlets<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n

      \n<\/a>\n<\/div>\n

      \nOriginally posted to the Trust and Safety Foundation<\/a> website.<\/em>\n<\/p>\n

      \n
      \"Hide<\/p>\n
      \n

      Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

      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 \u2014 especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.<\/p>\n

      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<\/a>. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise \u2014 and every little bit helps. Thank you.<\/p>\n

      \u2013The Techdirt Team<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

      Filed Under: case study<\/a>, content moderation<\/a>, enforcement<\/a>, road rage<\/a>
      Companies:       youtube<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n