This article is a critical case study about the part of the YouTube community that misuses the flagging system to get videos and other users deleted because of gay content. “Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor.[1]” Because the censor in this case is (part of) the community that is being censored, you could speak of it as self-censorship.
After explaining how the flagging system works, how it got introduced and YouTube’s standpoint towards misuse, the article will elaborate on how this system is misused towards the LGBT [2] community. Followed by their strategies and reactions towards this phenomenon. And ending with a conclusion about the YouTube flagging system.
1. Introducing Video Flagging on YouTube
YouTube [3] is an online platform where anyone can post videos. The feature of moderating video content by the use of video flagging was announced on August 11th, 2005 [4] on the companies’ blog. Moderating other users is a feature that was announced in a blogpost5 on December 14th, 2005 where YouTube introduced the ability to block/report other users.
1.1 Video Flagging
Video flagging is one of the options given to users to react/ respond to any video on YouTube. The others being: share it, favorite it, add to your playlist, comment on it either in text or with a video response and rate it. None of these options, with the exception of ‘flagging’ and ‘commenting’, are moderated by the YouTube staff. In the beginning there were five reasons the user was asked to choose from when flagging a video. More than two years later [6], these were changed into six categories (adding ‘spam’), containing 17 different reasons [7]. After a video has been flagged, it will be reviewed by the YouTube staff or, as they say on their blog:
“We will aggressively monitor these submissions and respond as quickly as we can.” [8]
Two blogposts [9, 10] in October address and explain how the flagging system works.
“How Flagging Works
(…) A video gets ‘flagged’ by a user clicking on the ‘flag as inappropriate’ [this later changed into 'flag'] link located below each video. Once a video is flagged, it is sent into a queue for our customer support team to review. Videos are NEVER automatically removed simply because they’ve been flagged. Every single flagged video is reviewed by someone at YouTube who then determines if the video contains material that is against our terms of use. You may have noticed that sometimes you’re asked to login or register to verify your age because the video you’re attempting to view may contain content that is inappropriate for some users. Sometimes flagged videos that we review do abide by our terms of use, but are not quite appropriate for all YouTube users. This could be due to a number of things – profanity, violence, adult content etc. Although they still abide by our terms of use, you can think of these videos as ‘R’ rated.
There are thousands of videos that are flagged for review every single day, and since we’re still a small company with an even smaller team of people reviewing videos we do admittedly make mistakes at times. Occasionally a video gets flagged and we accidentally take it down, or mark it as inappropriate. We’re doing everything we can to diminish that margin of error but we would be lying if we said it’s a 100% fail proof system. (…)” [11]
The fact that it is not an automated process is again being mentioned on November 6th, 2007. When they write about the improvements they’ve made in the flagging system to make “the video flagging system consistent, fair and less mysterious.”[12]
“When users flag a video, it is reviewed by real-life humans at YouTube who check to see if the video should be removed, age-restricted or left alone.” [13]
1.2 YouTube’s standpoint towards misuse
On June 24th, 2006 YouTube commented on a bug in their comment code that was being exploited by several users. Maryrose of The YouTube Team explains the situation, apologizes, addresses the users in question and explains a part of the YouTube philosophy:
“(…) To all of our users who have been abusing comments with flagrant spamming, hate speech and other malicious activities – this behavior will simply not be tolerated on our site. If you engage in such activity be forewarned your account will be deleted and you will be permanently banned without warning. YouTube is a place for everyone to express themselves. It is meant to be a creative, entertaining and democratic environment. Let’s not allow a few bad apples spoil the bunch.” [14]
Maryrose and Mia of the YouTube staff join together on October 19th with a blogpost directed at the YouTube community. In which they address the subject of discrimination towards “sexual orientation or weight or looks or skin color [15]” in comments, without using the word ‘discrimination’ specifically. YouTube makes it quite clear on their blog, they wish to be a democratic environment where everyone is accepted. Recently however they’ve softened up by making changes in their policy enforcement. As of April 16, 2008 they’re working with “strikes that expire [16]” and “muting accounts” instead of banning users permanently and deleting accounts.
2. F(l)agging gay content on YouTube
“Thousands of videos are flagged each day, and though we don’t break down specific metrics regarding
what content is flagged, the assumption that ‘LGBT content is routinely subject to flagging by users,
while similar content depicting straight characters/individuals does not get flagged,’ seems anecdotal
and is not supported by what we observe on the site. YouTube is, and always has been, a forum for free
expression. To be clear, our community is made up of millions of people across the world and is diverse
racially, ethnically, politically, religiously as well as in terms of sexual orientation.” [17]
This written respond from YouTube’s marketing manager, Jenny Nielson, to AfterEllen.com shows that they
actually downplay the issue of ‘fagging’. The term ‘fagging’ in this context, is used by the user ‘Grimace’ who
posted a video called “Flagged or Fagged?18″ on January 25, 2007. In this video Grimace and CrazyStacey present a few videoclips from YouTube, while asking the question whether these videos were “fairly flagged or unfairly fagged.” Grimace himself explains the term ‘fagged’ as: “flagged on the basis of homosexual content.” This definition is used with the further use of the term ‘fagging’ in this article. An ironic sidenote is that ‘flagging’ has a whole other meaning [19] within the LGBT community, where ‘flagging’ means carrying a colored handkerchief from your pocket. And the different ways of doing this indicates that you’re gay and what’s your type.
After a video has been f(l)agged and the YouTube staff agrees with you, the video will get deleted or marked as “inappropriate” and/or the user account will be deleted20. It’s quite debatable [21] when a video is marked “inappropriate” based on gay content. And can there for be considered as ‘R’ rated [22]. But as soon as a video or an account gets deleted because it has been unrightfully flagged for containing gay content without nudity or sexual content, flagging stops being a tool for moderating content and starts being a tool for censorship. And because it is the community that censors itself, in a way this is self-censorship. Even though it’s YouTube that has the last hand in the deletion process, it’s the flaggers that decide which videos are up for deletion. Although this article only handles flagging on gay content, more types of content23 are being unrightfully flagged.
It seems that something really provoked the LGBT community in this year. For not only was 2007 the year Grimace posted his video about ‘fagging’, but many other articles and videos dealing with ‘fagging’ on YouTube were mostly written and posted in this year. The video, that caused a great upheaval about homophobia by the LGBT community on YouTube, was part of an ad campaign of Snickers (called “Snickers Satisfies”) that was aired during the Superbowl in 2007. The accompanied contest, using YouTube as a platform, asked people to vote for “the most satisfying ending”, posting the alternative endings on their own website [24]. In the ad two guys accidentally kiss after which they try to prove how manly they are by ripping hair out of their chest. The website also displayed the reactions of five NFL players to the several versions of the ad. “The players’ reactions range from general amusement (…) to non-verbal disgust (…) to overt expressions of prejudice (…)”[25] It was the endings together with the players’ reactions that provoked gay rights organizations (a.o. GLAAD) to take a stand. Although the original advertisement is still online on YouTube26, the site has been taken down and the players’ reactions [27] show up on YouTube under the message:
“This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Mars, Inc.”
The “Snickers”-outrage was followed up by a smaller discussion in August 2007 in response to the flagging of a videoposting [28] of the first teenage gay kiss during American daytime television, between Luke and Noah from As The World Turns [29]. It was claimed to be ‘fagged’30 and later taken down in request by Viacom due to copyright infringement. The video has been mirrored (= copied and posted by other users, while the original video is still online) numerously since then. Although YouTube responded in its own way by improving their flagging system in November, 2007 [31]. The main issue has not been resolved yet.
2.1 Strategies
There are different ways in which the LGBT community and affiliates react to ‘fagging’. One way is creating
awareness by posting videos and writing articles and blogposts about the subject. But other interesting
approaches deal with it by using the system.
a. re-posting videos
The paradox in starting a new account is that it’s not only done by the so-called ‘haters’, but also by the users whom account has been ‘fagged’. They do this in a way so that their audience can trace them back. For example, keeping the same name and adding something. So has the user ‘cha970′ turned into ‘cha9701′ and is currently [32] available under ‘cha9704′. Her whole account exists of posting and re-posting episodes of ‘The L-Word’, a TV-series with lesbians in the lead roles. And as soon as her account is about to be deleted, she warns her subscribers by the means of a video. In which she tells that her account will be deleted and what her new account name will be. ‘Luvcats4′s account has been suspended, while ‘luvcats4again’ contains solely lesbian themed videoclips. Amongst which a video called ” This Video May Not Be Suitable for Minors” YT Protest.” [33] with this text on the side:
“Every time you look around you see the words, “This video may not be suitable for minors” at the top of
the screen. What bothers me is that a majority of these videos are either gay or lesbian and are quite tamein their content. To all you flaggers out there, come into the 21st Century. Don’t let homophobia rule YouTube.”
Sometimes it isn’t the account that has been deleted, but just videos. Also in these cases this strategy is applied as well. For example, ‘ChrisCrocker’ reposts all his deleted videos under ‘ChrisCrockerDeleted’.
Renaming accounts can also be done in advance of deletion in order that not all videos are gone when the account has been deleted. The user ‘mightyatomant’ also has an account under the name ‘mightyatomantagain’. Although she refers to the other on both sites and it’s quite clearly a way of categorizing her own content, it’s striking to see the different use in naming and tags.
b. hiding
Mightyatomant’s account is used to post clips from ‘The L Word’ (written full out in the title) and ‘Queer as Folk’ (abbreviated as ‘QAF’). While the ‘mightyatomantagain’ account is used to post lesbian themed movies, from which the titles are all abbreviated except for every first clip of a movie34. This could be laziness of the user, seen the fact she had to make an average of ten posting per movie. But the specific use of tags stands out, for she tags a lot of movies with just the tag ‘movie’, while her first account has an average seven tags per videoclip. A tag like that in combination with an abbreviated title makes it hard for gay haters (also called ‘gay bashers’) to find the movie in order to flag it. Mightyatomantagain doesn’t do this consistently enough for it to be a strategy. She also sometimes uses just the tag ‘lesbian’, which is also notoriously used to attract users to porn videos. But the activity of specific tagging is seen more. Previously mentioned user ‘cha9704′ avoids using the tag ‘lesbian’ and with her history of multiple suspensions, being suspended at least four times and re-posting at least 74 videoclips every time, it seems she knows what “aggravates” gay haters and/or allows the YouTube staff to suspend her.
The best example of hiding is done by the user account ‘mgsg07′, for she only allows other users to see her playlists after they’ve become friends with her on YouTube. Consequently her channel contains a mere 40 lesbian themed videos for everyone to see, while her playlists contains 287 videos which can only be viewed by friends and don’t show up in search results. G@B also she quite consistently tags her movies with just the tag ‘Movie’, with exception of music videos. She shows luvcats4again’s YT protest video on her channel, which indicates that she’s aware of (and active in) the ”fagging” discussion.
c. challenging
An interesting, however non-related, trend has sprung up amongst the YouTube community to make videos by the name “This Video Will Be Flagged.” The trend goes under the name “YouTube poop”, these clips consist of repeated sequences of mostly cartoons, from which the editor has taken a few frames and repeated it. Resulting in videos where words like ‘fuck’ and ‘sex’ are endlessly repeated. In the text column they challenge the ‘flaggers’ to flag the video, often referring to them as ‘flaggots’ or ‘fl@ggots’.
A related trend is to insert “Flag This” in the video title, or even “Flag this, YouTube!” This seems to be a direct critique against flaggers, the flagging system and YouTube itself. It must be added that probably not all users do this to criticize the system.
d. reacting
Another strategy against ”fagging” is addressing the issue directly, like previously mentioned user Grimace has done. Or posting videos about ‘Gay Hate’ on YouTube in general, without talking about the flagging system. As did the previously mentioned ChrisCrocker with “Chris Crocker – Gay HATE on Youtube!”35, in which he talks about hate speech, safety and the lack of media attention to this subject. With the exception of an article in the Advocate called “Homophobosphere36″, of which he posted the URL next to the video. More users address the issue of ”fagging” and gay hate on YouTube in their videopostings [37]. But, as many of them claim, the issue should get more media attention and to be taken more seriously. By joining the discussion, starting a platform and/or openly blogging about the subject matter. Just as YouTube does with other subjects like terrorism [38], American politics [39] and wars (a.o. Iraq, Myanmar and Dafur).
3. Conclusion
The way the flagging system works now, is like a governmental democracy in which YouTube forms the
government and flagging videos are our everyday miniature referendums. It’s nowhere near the way it could work, an open democracy where the users decide for themselves what they want to see and what not. YouTube is still in denial of the workings and accuracy of the flagging system and tells it as if it’s a succes story:
“(…) hundreds of thousands of videos are uploaded to YouTube every day. Because it is not possible to pre-screen this much content, we have developed an innovative and reliable community policing system that involves our users in helping us enforce YouTube’s standards. Millions of users report potential violations of our Community Guidelines by selecting the “Flag” link while watching videos.”[40]
But if you’d read this thoroughly, it says that they’re not able to pre-screen “thousands ” of videos. But they are able to review/moderate those “millions” reported potential violations. In other words, they are actually openly admitting here that their flagging system is flawed.
Or did I miss something here. Either that or they did automate the reviewing process in some way, instead of
having it all done by ‘real-life humans.’ Or could it be, that flagged videos aren’t reviewed at all by humans and the videos are suspended when they simply got flagged often enough? Making the moderating part of the flagging system a numerical part instead of a human one. And the mistakes it makes are excused as human mistakes. Which they are in a way, because it was all flagged by humans. If this were true, it truly is “an innovative and reliable community policing system that involves our users in helping us enforce YouTube’s standards”.
Footnotes:
1
“Censorship.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved on May 18th, 2008.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship>
2
LGBT stands for ‘Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender/Transsexual people’.
3
YouTube was founded in February, 2005. It’s a subsidiary of Google, Inc. since November
2006. Youtube.com: Company History <http://www.youtube.com/t/about>
4
YouTube Blog. Posted on Aug 11, 2005. <http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=XgM4c0oGu94>
5
YouTube Blog. Posted on 15, 2005. <http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=MykmTeTiooA>
6
YouTube Blog. “Improvements to Video Flagging System” Nov 6, 2007.
<http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=vQjIMRCXDV4>
7
“This Video is Inappropriate
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about the video,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates our Community Guidelines
or isn’t appropriate for all viewers. Abusing this feature is also a violation of
the Community Guidelines, so don’t do it.”
Select a Reason: Sexual Content (‘graphic sexual content’, ‘nudity’, ‘suggestive, but
without nudity’ or ‘other sexual content), Violent or Repulsive Content (‘adults
fighting’, ‘physical attack’, ‘minors fighting’, ‘animal abuse’ or ‘shocking or
disgusting content’), Hateful or Abusive Content (‘promotes hatred or violence’ or
‘bullying’), Harmful Dangerous Acts (‘drug abuse’, ‘abuse of fire or explosives’ or
‘other dangerous acts’), Infringes My Rights (‘infringes my copyright’ or ‘infringes my
privacy’) or Spam.
8
YouTube Blog. Posted on August 11, 2005. <http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=XgM4c0oGu94>
9
YouTube Blog. “How Flagging Works” Oct 8, 2006.
<http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=19wva-QR0aI>
10
YouTube Blog. “Greetings from the YouTube SQUAD” Oct 19, 2006.
<http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=XP6y1TfR1-w>
11
YouTube Blog (see footnote 9) Parts of the citation have been made bold by the author
of this article. This goes for all the following citations of the YouTube blog as well.
12
YouTube Blog. “Improvements to Video Flagging System” Nov 6, 2007.
<http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=vQjIMRCXDV4>
13
Ibed.
14
“Comments Bug” permalink: <http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=UR1y8kP-vh0>
15
“Please Be Decent and Kind” permalink: <http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=e-Fk7vMPqLE>
16
YouTube blog. “YouTube Policy Enforcement Changes” April 17, 2008.
<http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=cBWbe7SwrV8>
17
AfterEllen.com ” Homophobic Flagging of Lesbian Content on YouTube Continues” by Ellen
Seidler. June 8, 2007. <http://www.afterellen.com/node/4303>
18
Youtube.com “Fagged or Flagged?” Jan 25, 2007. by user ‘Grimace’.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdWVAKhC0ec>
19
“Handkerchief Code.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved on April 4yh, 2008.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handkerchief_code>
20
“Account Termination Policy
A. YouTube will terminate a User’s access to its Website if, under appropriate
circumstances, they are determined to be a repeat infringer.
B. YouTube reserves the right to decide whether Content or a User Submission is
appropriate and complies with these Terms of Service for violations other than copyright
infringement, such as, but not limited to, pornography, obscene or defamatory material,
or excessive length. YouTube may remove such User Submissions and/or terminate a User’s
access for uploading such material in violation of these Terms of Service at any time,
without prior notice and at its sole discretion.”
Accessed on May 27, 2008. <http://www.youtube.com/t/terms>
21
In the same article on AfterEllen.com (see footnote 16), they’ve “requested
clarification as to what specific criteria employees use to determine whether a flagged
video contains ‘inappropriate content’. YouTube did not respond.”
22
This is the widely accepted film rating system (by the MPAA) in the US, which has been
accused of having a double standard towards films with LGBT content in the documentary
‘This Film Is Not Yet Rated’ (Kirby Dick, 2006.)
23
Other types of content (with the names of users reacting to this) that are frequently
unrightfully flagged: anti-Scientology (user: AtheneWins, “YouTube is blocking nearly all
anti-Scientology content” <http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=NmgQHYChrPw>), anti-Islam
(suspended accounts: NickGisburne and NickGisburne2000, documentation of deletion:
<http://www.gisburne.com/ngban2.php> and there is a whole discussion within the YT
community about the suspension of ‘Malasonja1′) and racist flagging (user: TonyaTko,
“Racist Flagging on YouTube? Flagging me Bcz I’m BLACK!??”
<http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=QZL2N1nbayw>)
24
Site is no longer available. <http://www.snickerssatisfies.com>
25
The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation “GLAAD, Matthew Shepard Foundation
Condemn Anti-Gay SNICKERS® Campaign” Press Release. Feb 5, 2007. The players’ names are
edited out of the quotation. <http://www.glaad.org/media/release_detail.php?id=3970>
26
YouTube.com “Snickers Super Bowl Ad – Vote!” posted by SnickersSuperBowl on Feb 2,
2007. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHkoZ7ngAM0>
27
Reaction of the Bears: <http://youtube.com/watch?v=rPEw0N9ORVI>
Reaction of the Colts: <http://youtube.com/watch?v=WOSlesmeMMQ>
28
“This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Viacom International
Inc.” <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfxu6fk26ng>
29
Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved on May 24,
2008. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Snyder_and_Noah_Mayer>
30
AfterElton.com “YouTube supports Bigotry”
31
YouTube Blog. “Improvements to Video Flagging System” Nov 6, 2007.
<http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=vQjIMRCXDV4>
32
user account: cha9704. Accessed on May 24, 2008. <http://www.youtube.com/user/cha9704>
33
YouTube.com “This Video May Not Be Suitable for Minors” YT Protest” Posted by user
luvcats4again. Feb 11, 2008.
34
A movie can never be posted as a whole, because of YouTube’s 10 minute limit to every
video posting by a non-premium account. YouTube Blog “Your 15 Minutes of
Fame..ummm…Make that 10 Minutes or Less” March 26, 2006.
<http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=oorjVv_HDVs>
35
YouTube.com “Chris Crocker – Gay HATE on Youtube!” Posted by user ChrisCrocker. Feb 8,
2008. <http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd1Oe1LELcc>
36
Advocate.com “Homophobosphere” by Will Doig. Issue nr. 1002. Feb. 26, 2008.
<http://www.advocate.com/issue_story_ektid51690.asp>
37
The author of this article has collected and is collecting these videos under the
account: globalFREAK. <http://www.youtube.com/user/globalFREAK>
38
YouTube Blog. “Dialogue with Sen. Lieberman on terrorism videos” May 19, 2008.
<http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=MuaJbJV4Qkg>
39
YouChoose ’08 platform < http://www.youtube.com/youchoose>
40
YouTube Blog. “Dialogue with Sen. Lieberman on terrorism videos” (See footnote 38)