YouTube policy: all criticism is harassment
YouTube is acting against the best interests of its viewers by suppressing dislike information; it is removing a voice from its users and it is protecting big power and big money.
Last week, YouTube announced its intention to hide the dislike counter on videos. Likes will still be displayed but dislikes only visible to creators. This seems to contradict the ostensible reason put forward by YouTube management in a video that it is in part to protect the feelings of creators. They claimed that small creators are subject to concerted campaigns of dislikes. “Apparently, groups of viewers are targeting videos’ dislike button to drive up the count, turning it into something like a game with a visible scoreboard. And it is usually just because they don’t like the creator or what they stand for.”
No, viewers often dislike a video because it is deceptive (a clickbait title that does not honestly reflect the content of the video) or they find the content of the video objectionable. That can be because the creator is saying unpleasant things, encouraging bad behaviour, espousing extreme political or social messages or arguing in bad faith (deceptively or dishonestly). There are very valid reasons why people dislike a video and they can be unconnected to how they might feel about the creator, channel or even political movement that the creator supports. Dislike on social media is a somewhat blunt tool but it is effective. It shows both creator and viewers that you disagree with the video. It does not show that you are targeting a creator.
One of the rules of Social Justice Warriors is that any criticism is harassment. It does not matter how neutral, factual and logical a disagreement is, it will be received by the original speaker (and supporters) as a personal attack. Criticism of speech is equivalent to physical attack. Another rule of SJWs is constant projection. So it is with the any-criticism-is-harassment rule. SJWs or progressives say “the personal is political”. Therefore they cannot divorce an argument from the arguer, which means any argument can be neutralised or contradicted by an onslaught on the personal character of the speaker. The reason SJWs portray criticism as harassment is because they believe that harassment is valid and a proportionate response to any position that opposes them. They do it themselves, therefore they project this on to opponents. Partly it is to deflect criticism, partly it is simply that they cannot understand anyone not harassing opponents – it is the water in which SJWs swim, which they cannot perceive.
Also, the any-criticism-is-harassment line is a perfect way of deplatforming your detractors. Schools, universities, workplaces, social-media companies and now (alarmingly) the police in the UK take a strict anti-bullying stance. All that is required of the subject of criticism to do is to identify as a minority, complain and present criticism as bullying and that subject can have their opponent silenced, deplatformed or arrested. With a single e-mail, a person can eliminate all criticism and destroy another’s career or livelihood.
So far, so expected. But there is more behind YouTube’s decision.
One of the only forms of public dissent on social media is the dislike button. During the social-restriction measures of COVID this has been especially important. At a time when mass media and social media have been relentlessly pushing a fear narrative, exaggerating the danger of COVID and the effectiveness of jabs, one of the few joys left has been visiting YouTube videos on these topics. My own preference (something which others have mentioned doing themselves) is to open a short video from a newspaper or broadcast media channel, immediately pause the video so that one does not have to listen to the lies, click the dislike button and scroll down the comment section. Invariably, the comment section is unremittingly derisive, making fun of the mass media, politicians and their handpicked experts. The mockery, disbelief, insults, cynicism, anger and steadfast opposition towards authority is wonderfully heartening. It completely undermines the message of politicians, experts and journalists who seek to justify restrictions on ordinary life.
Part of that expression of opposition is the dislike count. Such videos are generally highly ratioed – that is, where the dislikes approach or exceed likes. (While you still can) go to a video on COVID restrictions published by a British newspaper or broadcaster; there you can witness ratios of 4:1, 6:1, 10:1 dislikes to likes. It is statistical proof that dissidents are in the majority – at least among those using the like/dislike buttons on that platform. It is a vital expression of resistance. Yes, it does not change any policy but serves as a way of dissidents communicating with each other and gaining encouragement. It also tells the mainstream media that we despise and distrust them.
YouTube is aiming not to protect small creators (make-up channels, book reviewers, bedroom bloggers), it is acting to suppress visible dissent against its political allies (the Whitehouse, Democrat politicians, COVID-exploiting authoritarians), placating its potential enemies (broadcast media, newspapers) and protecting its commercial partners (Disney, Sony, big sport, mega-corporations). YouTube is acting against the best interests of its viewers by suppressing dislike information; it is removing a voice from its users and it is protecting big power and big money. But then it is YouTube and we expect no better of them.
