Ad-pocolypse Part II: Ur a Pedo

I am told that in the hoomun world sequels are generally frowned upon, it appears though (and has been supported by previous "incidents") that YouTube seems to enjoy "going off the beaten path" with its user base. I'm one to wairly slither along after the incessant screeching resulting in whatever human misery is caused by the progressive murder; however, recent events seem to have found a different host to parasitize.

In solemnly close months, YouTube has transformed some fundamental aspects of their community guidelines, with one of these changes being applying the guidelines off-site to anything linked on the YouTube platform. As the creators at YouTube still surmise methodologies to crank-out content and rake in an ever-dwindling revenue in an environment where it seems that more and more restrictions are placed on the natural rights. A recent change to the ad policy however now holds content creators accountable for what is posted in their comment sections, with comments violating guidelines (a funny word for rules) resulting in the video to which they were made on being demonetized. This development comes after many advertisers were shocked to discover that on a platform of 1.5 billion, some individuals were engaging in pedophilic behavior in the comments sections of some videos. According to YouTube, tens of millions of videos have now had their comments sections disabled and over 400 channels have been terminated. In addition to these revelations, it is now starting to come out that some channels have had their ability to have a comments section disabled entierly.

The issue was brought to light as far back as 2017 when parents supposedly began to notice that some videos depicting death and sexually suggestive acts were popping up on YouTube Kids. This lead to a purported system overhaul and changes to safety guidelines; however, on the 17th of February Matt Watson broke a story (via YouTube Premiere no-less) that he had discovered what he called "a soft-core pedophile ring on YouTube" which through some small degree of manipulation one could have the YouTube algorithm provide access to pedophilic content en-mass, something that claimed pedophiles had been using for some time to great success (on their part). The revelation that the algorithm was, in fact, working as intended (providing content in user-generated search bubbles) has lead to AT&T and Epic Games pulling their ad spending from the site.

From this controversy of pedophilic conduct and algorithmic efficiency, YouTube, whose bottom line has come under fire, has resolved to take the ax to numerous channels and introducing the aforementioned comment policy concerning monetization. A crusade against everything seemingly other than the algorithm is now in full swing, leaving many very upset at the platform.

The mantra of "think of the children" is once again entering the limelight, and leading to increasingly restrictive policies which will no doubt be applied in the future to those who are politically dissident. "Thinking of the children" seems oddly reminiscent of many blunders in the way of the preservation of natural rights and liberty. By tugging on the heartstrings of many, the long-term consequences of specific actions, both righteous and unrighteous, remain either un-debated or drowned out by cries of indignation.

A few arguments can be made in favor of doing nothing concerning real change or very little at least. Firstly, it appears YouTube was quite easily able to locate and remove millions of pedophile related content (video or comment) within 48hrs; this, however, will likely do little to please investors and advertisers who would rather a sterile Petri dish. Secondly appears to be the absent parent complex, one that is seemingly omnipresent with parents gleefully abdicating responsibility to third parties who in many ways could care less about their kid and could do nothing near what is required to please many while still being viable. To end on this argumentation, unfortunately for many moral crusaders, being attracted to kids is not illegal (at least not in the United States) and ergo is not legally actionable and while parental instinct and seemingly basic morality might fly in the face of such a revelation, there is no legal argument. Holding the host or publisher of content that is perverted by individuals engaging in the fetishization of children is also impossible as they are protected from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (though the specifics are complex and may vary).

It is important to note that this situation is extremely complex, those of us in the Neurosciences have had quite the ride trying to explain the causes and factors for why pedophilia exists (and no "evil" is not one of them insofar as we know) and why some act (and ergo are criminals) and some do not (and ergo are not). It does beg an entertaining question though, is YouTube's algorithm the real pedophile here? In reality? No, it's but a computer program, but it's a funny prospect.

This essay exists to simply augment the conversation, not define it in its entirety or be its arbiter.