Attack of the Algorithm: YouTube’s censorship of The Week in Review

At least in Communist countries, wrong thinkers have the right to a show trial.

‘The Presidium has reviewed your content, and, unfortunately, we have decreed that it violates our Worker’s Solidarity policy. We’ve removed the following content from public view: (insert dissident material).

The People’s Republic doesn’t allow for the expression of falsehoods and deceit surrounding the scientific reality of the proletarian revolution.’

At least in Communist countries, wrong thinkers have the right to a show trial. As many of our dear readers and listeners will be aware, last week’s episode of our podcast series, The Week in Review, was censored by YouTube.

While my colleague Michael Curzon has written a good summary of the incident, it is necessary to delve further into YouTube’s rather blunt decree. The first question we must ask: was the decision reached by a human, or an unthinking algorithm made by a human?

Clearly the latter, given the generic ‘letter of dismal’ which countless other channels have been subjected to, and if a Silicon Valley foot soldier did happen to stumble across the channel, the entire playlist would have been sliced clean off the website.

But the algorithm has many other qualities, besides not requiring sick pay or needing days-off. The algorithm, once computed and authorised, is able to record and detect an incalculable amount of information that it was programmed to hunt down.

To the more tech-savvy amongst us, it appears to be CTRL F’s big brother, as it can sift through large quantities of material to uncover certain key words or phrases. That’s how it locates YouTube’s ‘vaccine-hesitant’ community.

In turn, its flesh and blood creators also endow the algorithm with the power to play judge, jury, and executioner. It takes a digitally literal form of justice being blind; it acts without thoughts of mercy, vindictiveness, righteousness, or malice, thus is unafraid and unaware of the consequences of its actions. I am confident that no YouTube employee has still heard of this publication.

Nevertheless, the due diligence of the algorithm in spotting forbidden words, phrases, and statements falls short in telling the convicted what exactly they are guilty of. The three hosts of the show, S D Wickett, Michael Curzon, and I are always heavily critical of the reigning political and cultural regime, frequently discussing the tyrannical model of vaccine passports, which, according to Merriam-Webster, makes you an ‘anti-vaxxer.’

Dwelling over the specifics, or questioning what exact statements alerted the algorithm, is useless, because the episode was struck from the roll not through inaccuracy on our part, or the deliberate peddling of harmful misinformation, but because of our ideological leaning.

Silicon Valley equips its legion of algorithms with its own ideological bent. When it is done throwing dissidents outside the new public square it has virtually monopolised, it mocks you by saying ‘we know that this might be disappointing.’ Disappointing it is.