Thread by @LaFleurDelSur

THREAD:
Why is the YouTube version of @wikileaks' Collateral Murder video assigned to the "inappropriate for some users" category - so it can't be played directly on YT or Twitter (& has no 'share' button)?

What does this say about YouTube's "community standards"?

The Youtube version is here:

A smaller version CAN be played direct from the @wikileaks site: collateralmurder.wikileaks.org

At Wikileaks, there are also both short and full versions, & a companion video giving US Soldier @EthanMcCord's Eyewitness Story.

Ethan McCord's Eyewitness Story is also available on YouTube, (age) restricted in the same way.

SOME videos which incorporate material from either of these videos are given similar restrictions by YouTube.

eg: "Julian Assange: The making of a Villain" at

But SOME are NOT.

eg: "Hero or Villain: The Prosecution of Julian Assange | Four Corners"

What is causing YouTube to classify these derivative videos differently?

Some might suggest it is related to the videomaker (eg citizen journalists v legacy press).

But a more likely criteria (easily determined by algorithm) is WHICH PART of Collateral Murder is included.

Those videos (eg the Four Corners 'documentary') which include what some might see as 'typical war scenes' remain unrestricted.

But those scenes which depict the murder of a wounded man lying in the street, and the murder of the good samaritans who try to rescue him (plus the serious injury of the two children in their van) ...
well THEY are given a restricted status.

In other words, although arguments could be made as to whether the earlier deaths meted out to unarmed men from a helicopter gunship were actually war crimes (ie MAYBE they had weapons), the evidence of an unequivocal #warcrime (killing the wounded) is masked from public viewing.

As Daniel Ellsberg said:

"It would be interesting to have someone speculate ... exactly what context would lead to justifying the killing that we see ... the killing of men ... lying on the ground where ground troops ... are perfectly capable of taking those people captive."

The Dan Ellsberg quote above is from "Is Wikileaks a Force For Good or a Force For Chaos?" (2010) at 16:16.

Hmm.

But - we can almost hear YouTube say - the restrictions are really to protect children (and 'sensitive' adults) from terrible violence.

Next we'll examine that premise by looking at other forms of violence that YouTube permits in unrestricted videos.

From the many millions of YouTube videos, of which tens of thousands depict violence, I have chosen TWO to discuss. Both are UNRESTRICTED videos.

The first is Childish Gambino's music video "This Is America" at (584 million views to date).

The whole of this video - indeed the central point of it - is simulated depictions of gun violence.

The @washingtonpost music critic, Sonia Rao, describes (9 May 2018) "This is America" as

"a painful yet perfectly timed masterpiece, what Glover seems to do best."

washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-…

The second video is Avicii's "For a Better Day" (2015) at (69 million views to date).

This video tells the story of sex-trafficked children and their (later) acts of vigilante justice against the traffickers and the pedophiles the traffickers service.

The grown up (previously trafficked) children BRAND the pedophiles (presumably because they had themselves been branded - shades of NXVIM) before meting out other forms of vigilante justice.

justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/f…

cbsnews.com/news/keith-ran…

The pedophiles are then killed - in various ways. One is killed by hanging - a topical subject at the moment.

cnbc.com/2019/08/16/jef…

Almost all the deaths of the targeted pedophiles (and traffickers) are violent, although one is a forced suicide by shooting (the person shoots himself in the head).

As an aside - it would seem that #Aviici knew more about #NXVIM and child #trafficking rings that the FBI and DOJ did at the point he made this video (2015), so it is a shame that he was not asked about this - before he committed suicide (in April 2018).

thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/6…

So what is the lesson here?

That simulated violence is OK- as entertainment, not a serious matter, but REAL violence, newsworthy coverage of what government forces really do in war zones (#WarCrimes) is NOT OK?

Is this what YouTube's "community standards" really amount to?