I used to think content moderation was just about removing hate speech, then I saw the 'Bellingcat' YouTube takedowns

Honestly, I was fine with platforms taking down clear threats. But last month, YouTube removed over 200 videos from Bellingcat, a group that does open-source war crime investigations, for 'graphic content'. That's not hate speech, it's evidence. It tipped me off that the real goal isn't safety, it's sanitizing the feed for advertisers. Has anyone else seen a legit news source get hit like this for just showing reality?

3 comments

3 Comments

hannaht291mo ago

Wow, this is so real. My buddy runs a small true crime podcast, the educational kind, and he did an episode on a cold case using old, blurry news photos. His whole channel got slapped with an age restriction for "disturbing content," which basically buried it. It was just factual reporting, but like @nina_clark said, there's no room for context anymore. The bots just see something dark and nuke it so the whole platform feels like a shiny, happy mall. It makes you wonder what important stories we're missing because they're not "ad-friendly.

the_julia1mo ago

Ugh, my friend runs a small history channel. He posted a clip from a WW2 documentary, just soldiers walking through a bombed out city, nothing gory. Got flagged for "violent content" and demonetized. He had to appeal twice. It's exactly this, they're scrubbing anything that might make an ad look bad next to it, truth be damned.

nina_clark1mo ago

Isn't it crazy how far this goes? Like @the_julia said, it's all about the ads. I've seen nature docs get flagged for "animal violence" when a lion just looks at a gazelle. A museum channel had a demonetized video about ancient pottery because some shards "looked like weapons." The system isn't looking for context, it's just cleaning the whole house with a bleach bomb so no advertiser ever gets a sad feeling.