YouTube's Content Hypocrisy

Although it was eventually received well by the people who watched it, YouTube itself did not initially appreciate my documentary about Israel Keyes, which I had to censor in order to get YouTube to allow me to upload it to the ViktoriaEvans YouTube channel.

YouTube also didn’t like my videos on Justin Mohn, or Brian Laundrie. The Laundrie material unfortunately can’t be posted here because it is now lost content, unless it shows up on a hard drive I’ve forgotten about. It was made and refused by YouTube before Murder Pop Magazine existed.

YouTube didn’t like the coverage of the Police Chief who was murdered in Las Vegas by a pair of car thieves, either. This lead us to ask what kind of content does YouTube favor? YouTube doesn’t seem to have a problem with media conglomerates covering these stories; media conglomerates are, in fact, favored by YouTube, and an article that discusses that will be published soon.

First, here’s a small sampling of explicit, graphic, and violent content that’s been allowed to remain up on YouTube, much of it for years, garnering millions of views. Note that Murder Pop’s YouTube content contained nothing remotely like these explicit violations of YouTube’s content policy, under which we have been censored repeatedly.

Murder Pop would never suggest that the newsworthy content should be censored; however, we can’t help but question why our content has seen moderation from YouTube where “Gruesome Crime Scene Photos GRAPHIC!” has not.

As animal lovers who also run the channel RatCity, we question why videos of animal cruelty are allowed when they are a clear violation of YouTube’s policies. Many of these videos are set up; it seems unlikely that a puppy being filmed would be cornered in the foundation of a building by a venomous snake naturally.

We have the same kind of questions about the performative cruelty of prank videos like “Cumming On People Part 4.” What exactly does this add to the YouTube viewer experience that independent journalism takes away from?

YouTube doesn’t seem to have a problem with any of that. What YouTube seems to have a problem with is newsworthy content being shared by independent journalists; a problem with people making videos about taking down child predators; with people attempting to document war crimes (while videos of graphic soldier deaths remain); with music videos police deem offensive; with content on legal firearm silencers which it has since declared were “mistakes”; it has a huge problem correctly applying copyright strikes, even on videos of static.

YouTube also, falsely and in contradiction of actual evidence, believes it can factually determine what is and is not medical misinformation, as it claims it will do “when there is a high public health risk, when there is publicly available guidance from health authorities, and when a topic is prone to misinformation.”

YouTube said that these policies “will apply to specific health conditions, treatments, and substances where content contradicts local health authorities or the World Health Organization (WHO),” including on vaccines and cancer which YouTube has singled out for special focus.

This policy is confusing, since the WHO has changed guidance on vaccines, and the US Preventive Services Task Force’s proposed guidelines on breast cancer screening have been criticized as contradicting the American College of Radiology, which recently recommended that high-risk groups like Black women and Ashkenazi Jewish women get risk assessments by age 25.

The policy will, overall, be interesting to see play out in real time; during the COVID-19 pandemic, local health authorities and the World Health Organization offered competing and contradictory guidance.

This July 10, 2020 article from KARE11, an NBC affiliate in Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota documents contradictions in precautionary health guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic

That is not even taking into consideration times when health authorities explicitly offered guidance at odds with their own guidance. In the earliest days of the COVID pandemic, the CDC told Americans there was no need to wear masks, and the US Surgeon General demanded that Americans, “STOP BUYING MASKS!” in a since deleted tweet.

Following this demand, the same government experts began telling Americans they HAD to wear masks, at which point then-CDC Director Robert Redfield described masks as “the most important, powerful public health tool we have.”

They even claimed that masks would offer more protection against COVID-19 than vaccines would. “The evidence is clear,” his successor, Rochelle Walensky, insisted in November 2021, “masking will reduce your chance of infection by more than 80%.”

They published research to the same effect. “Trust the science,” they said, “the evidence is clear,” after which they began telling Americans that they might not need to wear masks under certain conditions, like if they’re vaccinated, despite having just claimed masks would offer more protection than vaccines.

After the pandemic was declared to be over, the Cochrane Library reviewed the existing body of studies on masks, and decided that the science was inconclusive, suggesting that further studies were needed. The Cochrane Library, also known as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, is the leading database for systematic reviews in health care.

According to the CDC, Cochrane reviews, along with other systematic reviews of studies, are used by CDC to support evidence-based public health practices.

“We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed,” Cochrane said in their report. A similar Cochrane review of COVID-19 vaccines found that studies showed the vaccines were highly effective.

CDC have since voted to recommend that health care providers wear masks of any variety while caring for any patients believed to be contagious, and N95s specifically in cases where patients are infected with novel or emerging pathogens, though both are less effective than an N100 respirator.

Thank God Google will make sure we don’t receive “misinformation” or “disinformation” at odds with what Google, record labels, police from across the globe, copyright trolls, Google’s own mistakes, the gamer Mr. Beast, the CDC and other health authorities declare is, might be, might possibly or potentially be, or might not be true, with or without evidence to support their claims, evidence which may be of extremely poor quality according to the same people they rely on to substantiate evidence for them.

We can all sleep soundly knowing that they’re on the job protecting us from the evils of free speech. They’re experts, after all.