[shadowgovt]

They haven't banned it; their channel is the first search result on YouTube for the keyword 'PragerU'.

They've flagged it as restricted content so that advertising isn't attached to it, organizations who specifically ask Google "Don't show me restricted content" (such as schools) can't reach it from the networks they control, and auto-recommendation engines are down-sampled on it. Essentially, PragerU is trying to argue that they should have the right to force YouTube to classify their content into the same bucket as "baby shark" videos.

It's a very silly argument from PragerU's side.

[DuskStar]

And at the same time, Google claiming that prageru is "sensitive content" is kind of ridiculous too.

[shadowgovt]

I believe it falls under "Incendiary or demeaning content" (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7354993?hl=en).

Edit: other commenters (https://medium.com/@ephromjosine/okay-prageru-lets-look-at-w...) note that it may very well simply fall under "Mature Subjects" (terror, war, crime, politics).

[DuskStar]

All of those "Mature Subjects" sound like things that kids in schools should very definitely be allowed to access, IMO.

And somehow I'd imagine that CNN's YouTube channel isn't limited in the same way. (Or Fox News, for that matter)

[jessaustin]

sensitive content

Presumably schools don't want their students ogling T&A during study hall. Does that mean students shouldn't see any politics? These are two entirely different things that should be placed in different categories.

[shadowgovt]

I believe it falls under "Incendiary or Demeaning Content" (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7354993?hl=en). And I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of schools consider that inappropriate for e.g. middle or high school (though I certainly haven't taken a poll).

[jessaustin]

I haven't watched anything from Prager in at least a decade, but I'd be surprised if it was anything more "incendiary or demeaning" than "Trump is a great president!" The point stands, that regardless of how many categories they list, the switch that turns off porn shouldn't also turn off political speech. That is a flaw in Youtube, that probably wouldn't exist if they didn't have a monopoly.

[shadowgovt]

"Shouldn't" in what sense? Are they leaving money or users on the table by failing to increase the granularity of the filter?

The core market for the feature is schools, and that group is generally okay with the filter being conservative and low-granularity (read: little thought required for configuration)

[jessaustin]

Money: These videos are playing less than they would have without being restricted, therefore less associated advertising is playing. It's probably not much money on Alphabet's scale.

Users: Somewhere in this nation, there is a high school administrator who consents to students learning about politics. There might even be more than one.

[shadowgovt]

As a private organization, if that's money they want to leave on the table and users they don't choose to serve, that's their right. As you've noted, it's not much at Alphabet's scale.

Another company could pick up the slack. Hell, PragerU could do it. Nothing stopping them from brokering their own ad deals to run prerolls on video they host with their own infrastructure. A few schools might allow access, and many will just black-hole prageru.com in their firewalls.

[Fellshard]

That's a pretty clever way to add immediate framing for anyone viewing the content: conservatism is - by definition, apparently - incendiary and demeaning. Convenient.

[shadowgovt]

Other commenters (https://medium.com/@ephromjosine/okay-prageru-lets-look-at-w...) note it may simply fall under "mature" for dealing with topics of violence, war, and terrorism.

[jessaustin]

From that link:

Mature subjects: Videos that cover specific details about events related to terrorism, war, crime and political conflicts that resulted in death or serious injury, even if no graphic imagery is shown.

. . . .

You can’t post videos on Terrorism, War, Crime, and Politics.

It's interesting that all USA politics is acknowledged to be "political conflicts that resulted in death or serious injury", but somehow I doubt that MSNBC will be held to this standard...

[shadowgovt]

They appear to be. Only a handful of PragerU's videos are marked restricted. A cursory check on https://www.youtube.com/user/msnbcleanforward/videos with restricted mode on and off shows a handful of their videos are also marked restricted, for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZWasc1rC_U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSFQos3XTEQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZWtdFVU904

[joenot443]

I know you keep linking this blog post as if it proves a point, but its argument is tenuous at best.

The crux of the author's case is that PragerU's videos fall into the category of "videos on Terrorism, War, Crime, and Politics."

This is a remarkably wide net to cast. Surely you can think of countless YouTube channels which were not subject to the same scrutiny that Prager was, yet obviously have videos on politics and war.

At the end of the day, Google disagrees with Prager's politics. I don't think it's much more complicated than that.

[shadowgovt]

Under the same Restricted Content scheme, Google also flagged LGBTQ+ videos (https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/4/17424472/youtube-lgbt-demo...). I don't think anyone argues seriously that the company's politics (in general) are at odds with supporting LGBTQ+ causes and people.

It may be worthwhile to ask not what YouTube wants, but what the audience for these features wants. Are PragerU videos restricted because most schools think they're worthy of restriction?