The YouTube Review System Is (STILL) Completely Broken: Jimquisition Response
In a digital age that was supposed to champion freedom of speech and accessibility of information, it's surprising how much control big tech conglomerates have over the flow of content. YouTube, a video platform under the umbrella of internet giant Google, is a prime example of this phenomenon, and Jim Sterling's latest "Jimquisition" episode provides an alarming case study.
The title of the episode, "How YouTube Censored Michelangelo Because Of Zelda Fan Outrage (The Jimquisition)" encapsulates the bizarre predicament content creators find themselves in. This follows the fallout from the previous video that critiqued The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom, which resulted in an unjustified age restriction slapped onto the video. The so-called "censorship" occurred because the video featured Michelangelo's classic masterpiece, "The Creation of Adam."
One would expect the flagging to be a mistake, rectified by a human reviewer who understands the historical significance of the artwork. But no, there lies the main issue - YouTube's review system, heavily reliant on automated algorithms and bots, seems devoid of human oversight and common sense.
These algorithms are largely undisclosed, and decisions made by them are rarely overturned, leading to a frustratingly opaque system. YouTube's review process has come under fire time and time again for its inaccuracy and apparent lack of human touch. The company usually responds to these criticisms with blanket statements, avoiding direct answers and remaining vague about the specifics of their algorithms.
This type of environment is not only detrimental to the individual creators, who bear the brunt of these haphazard restrictions, but it also hurts the platform itself. It's creating an unsustainable ecosystem that is slowly eroding the quality of content on the platform.
Sterling's incident reaffirms the precarious position many YouTubers find themselves in. With arbitrary rules and obscure algorithms dictating their content's reach, creators are pushed to seek alternative platforms for distribution, even if it means sacrificing the massive audience that YouTube offers. The inherent instability of relying on YouTube as a primary source of income encourages creators to diversify, sometimes leading to a dilution of the content they were originally known for.
Unfortunately, there isn't any other platform that can offer the same level of exposure that YouTube does. Google, its parent company, controls a significant portion of global web traffic, and it's no secret that YouTube videos are given preferential treatment in search results. This monopolistic hold stifles any real competition from emerging.
Thus, creators are caught in limbo: dealing with the unpredictability of YouTube's policies and practices, or attempting to gain traction on a less populated, less controlled platform.
The real solution to this conundrum may well require governmental intervention to level the playing field. However, any such move carries its own set of potential drawbacks, and the outcomes are not guaranteed to be favorable.
As it stands, the YouTube review system remains a precarious realm for creators. Until the company initiates comprehensive reform or a formidable competitor emerges, the internet's vibrant and diverse creator community will continue to walk on eggshells. This is an uncomfortable truth we must confront, and hopefully, instances like Sterling's "Jimquisition" will shine enough light to instigate change.