I dont run a YT channel, but "Restrictions: ad suitability," suggests that the video is still available (e.g., via URL), but Google is not recommending it because advertisers don't want to be associated with it because of the corpse in the thumbnail (term?).
Unlisted means (I believe) that a video won't show up in search or in a feed or on the creators page. You can only watch the video if you have a direct link.
I don't know if it's been debunked, but I like the analogy of the Hygiene hypothesis and increased allergies. If you disinfect and sterilize everything you don't train your immune system and are at risk for allergies, but if you don't disinfect and sterilize you get infections, so you need to find a balance.
Same thing here, I think we're heading into the over-sterilization area of the curve, and maybe we should think about what the "food allergy" analogue is for people who grow up never seeing a single controversial idea expressed ever because all their media is sterilized.
Many people want to live in communes or echo chambers. The problem occurs when they force and apply that to others in society, academia and the Internet. The elites will just use them as the ruse to stifle discussion and free thought.
-
I support even grifters to have a platform for their voice.
One's grifter maybe another's leader.
The video is "unlisted", meaning it can be accessed by URL. When you upload a video, you can choose to make it Private (only you can watch it), Unlisted (anyone can watch it if they have the link), or Public (anyone can find it even if you don't have the link). Not sure this qualifies as "censorship" by any definition.
I have a bunch of unlisted videos myself, e.g. "audition tapes" when applying for an acting role. I want the people who I send it to to be able to watch it, but I don't want it to be findable. Nothing nefarious about this.
Hakim did a very good short introduction [0] on defectors in general and how this term is used in our media. In the video, he also briefly brings up Yeonmi Pak's story and how it's changed over time as well as the conflicts of interest of speaking income. The video is more about defectors in general and how defectors are portrayed and presented to us, so he doesn't spend a lot of time on Yeonmi Pak's story.
Self-proclaimed Marxist Hakim denounces escapee from Marxist-inspired hellhole. OK, that is like an imam denouncing an apostate for his apostasy in that it would be more surprising if he did not denounce that person.
Some source criticism goes a long way to make Hakim an unreliable source for statements on Yeonmi Park. She will have enough problems getting used to the idiosyncrasies of the current self-hating western society without more attacks from those who follow the ideology she escaped from.
Who is this Hakim, why is he credible, and why should I listen to him?
A brief Googling gives me the impression he's a patreon-funded social media personality with a rather far-out ideology ("Just your friendly neighborhood Marxist"), and frankly that doesn't inspire confidence. IMHO, people like that are usually "stopped-clocks" at best (as in the expression about being occasionally correct but too unreliable to be trusted).
People often say Odysee is a good alternative but it was acquired by Google so it has the same issue as Youtube. Then there is Rumble but it's a much poorer experience and somewhat of an echo chamber but that seems to be changing as a more diverse group of non-political creators move over there.
> People often say Odysee is a good alternative but it was acquired by Google so it has the same issue as Youtube.
IIRC, Odysee is a somewhat curated interface to some kind of blockchain that can't be censored. So I'm guessing that even if a video is taken down from it, it may still actually be accessible at the lower layer.
IMHO, some kind of active moderation is absolutely required for video/images, given the very real possibility for immoral and illegal content that I absolutely do not want to stumble upon. So Odysee strikes me as about the most permissive tradeoff that can be tolerated.
I suspect upvoters did not attempt to reproduce, which is why everyone saying this is a thing is using a secondary source instead of posting their own screenshots.
The cause is worthwhile but this is just a self promoter who knows that certain sections of the internet are gullible retransmitters for certain memes. Flagging the submission.
Visibility is in general controlled by the uploader, so without evidence that the website was preventing her from changing it, it seems much more likely that she just hit the wrong button and blamed it on Youtube before realizing her mistake.
I would flag this submission for misinformation, but then those ideologically aligned with the tweet would claim even more "censorship" and double down on their incorrectness. This is why dealing with wrong information, lies, and misinformation on the 'net is such a tough nut to crack.
sortof off topic but this woman strikes me as a mouthpiece for rightwing talking points. Not saying its all a lie but some stuff does strike me as embellished
Certain names and phrases have become people's MK-Ultra trigger words. If you want to know what the system is protecting itself against, just watch how people react when confronted with the blacklisted words.