The issue with YouTube’s age restriction and censorship (Patreon)

Under our two latest videos the discussion about censorship has been vibrant. One of the things pointed out was that we are after all on a private platform, and that YouTube is trying to meet the requirements of youth protection across multiple legislations worldwide. Pertinent to our problems as the regulation of our type content for youth protection in our main areas of viewership, Europe and North America, does provide for exceptions to the over 13 age segment. Here is my answer to that:

It’s a reasonable position from the legislative position. However, YouTube is not just another private company providing a service.

They have used Google’ dominant position in online advertising to establish a virtual monopoly on online free to air video publishing. Hence, in 2023 the only viable route to reach an audience is via YouTube - at least for mid to long format video.

Usually such monopolies are either broken up or curtailed by antitrust action - like the Edison Trust that held the US movie industry hostage 1900-1920, and its successor the NBC/Marconi conglomerate that controlled the airwaves of US radio broadcasting until the early thirties. There are signs that this will happen to YouTube as well. Both the US and EU legislators and regulators are exploring this.

However, in difference to the early twentieth century examples, Google / Alphabet is far more dominant on a global level. As a result they have been able to protect their monopolies on search and video publishing by outspending by a factor of many anyone trying to scratch them in lobbying and legal action.

For the case at hand this is pertinent. YouTube should be treated like a satellite provider. Across the world they are legally barred from editorial content providing, and forced to provide their services at equal rates and conditions to content providers. The legal onerous to comply with regulation like youth protection is then shifted to the content provider.

To be fair, this is also one of the things putting the breaks on legislators’ efforts to regulate YouTube. The question of how a state regulator shall monitor and regulate for instance youth protection by individual content creators in the age of the citizen journalist, and living room media producers is not an easy one to answer. Shifting that responsibility to Alphabet and Meta has been the response until now.

Our case highlights the problems with that. The regulators and we as societies are not only concerned with protection. We have a societal interest in giving access to education and information - two areas of the media world that requires a different, more diverse, and more complex handling to safeguard three of the pillars of democracy: freedom of the press (free speech), individual protection against harassment and persecution, and free access to information and education.

So far, in case after case both Alphabet and Meta have failed miserably on all accounts by either under-reacting to transgressions against those freedoms, or over regulating, putting themselves in transgression of those freedoms.

The combination of financial self interest and being the guardian of to-democracy essential social freedoms obviously creates a conflict of interest that we should not allow, and must not accept.

Finally, I would like to thank you all here at the TimeGhost Army, for it is your membership that allows us to push through despite these issues.

Your Spartacus