Talk:YouTube moderation

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

YouTube

This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject YouTube To-do:

A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : see list.
Assess : Apply the assessment scale on Unknown-importance YouTube articles + Unassessed YouTube articles
Cleanup : See cleanup listing
Maintain : This WikiProject
Stubs : Category:Stub-Class YouTube articles
Other :
- Substitute {{WikiProject YouTube/Invite Members}} on user talk pages
- Check out edit requests on Talk:List of YouTubers

Freedom of speech

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Left out that it is attacking its user base and abusing its own TOS

There is a growing consensus that YouTube is going way beyond shadow-banning and I suspect they need to be internally audited. Basically, your article is out of date. Revise please. 50.117.139.153 (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source? WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Offensive content in YouTube" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Offensive content in YouTube has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 18 § Offensive content in YouTube until a consensus is reached. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 December 2024

It has been proposed in this section that YouTube moderation be renamed and moved to Criticism of YouTube.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

YouTube moderation → Criticism of YouTube – This article highlights criticism against the platform rather than discussing moderation - the section "Moderators" just talks about the moderators being treated poorly, which is again criticism. Criticism of YouTube is a redirect to Criticism of Google currently but I believe there is enough information for this to be a separate article. jolielover♥talk 14:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The topic of how YouTube moderates gets sustained in-depth coverage from reliable sources (ex: Wired in 2018, Washington Post in 2021, The Guardian today). The fact that the moderators section - which was BOLDLY changed away from that and which I have now restored - is incomplete is true and reflects the current start class status of this article. It is invitation to improve and expand it. Beyond that while much of the coverage present is critical in tone turning the whole article into a coatrack for criticism would be a WP:NPOV issue of its own; where the sourcing speaks less critically or YouTube's decisions our coverge should reflect that (and that is ignoring the fact that not everyone may agree that YouTube did anything wrong in particular moderation decisions). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The title YouTube moderation suggests a page about how the moderation works, which the page doesn't cover; it only covers criticism of YouTube. I agree the page is a bit of a mess right now and needs some more paraphrasing (which I attempted to do, but was reverted), but the current state of it reflects the criticism more than the moderation. I'm not opposed to YouTube moderation being redirected to it, or a more in depth page being created specifically on it IF there is enough information to do so. Again, the moderators section is more criticism of the platform's treatment of the employees. I don't see how the moderators section was boldly changed, the only thing I changed was the title to "treatment of employees" which reflects what is said in the section, more so than the vague "Moderators". I don't see an issue with the rename of the article given other articles such as Criticism of Twitter and Criticism of Google. Yes, not everyone might agree but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be put in the article. YouTube has been criticised for several things and there are several references in the page supporting that. I could disagree with, say, the belief of OJ Simpson being a murderer, but at the end of the day information on it is obviously going to be on his page whether I believe he was innocent or guilty because Wikipedia is not censored. jolielover♥talk 15:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]