Talk:Censorship by Google

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Catwilsonaz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Simple English stub
I've just created it.

Dislike button
On November 10, 2021 the YT announced that it will hide a number of dislikes of videos. I propose to mention this. See also, and Official Video  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 08:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Are there any sources that specifically call it censorship? Otherwise, I doubt we could, or should, mention it. I'll look more later, but so far I've found this, however the website may not be an RS, according to some of the discussions I have seen about it's use. INDT (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that there may be no WP:RS. I won't insist if none is provided by someone. Regards. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 14:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would not consider that censorship either, unless RS's state otherwise. However, I am shocked that this information isn't on Criticism of YouTube, where it definitely belongs. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup. Feel free to move this discussion to the Talk:Criticism of YouTube page if none minds. I also suggest to use tags like moved and moved from.-- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 07:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree about adding this to Criticism of YouTube, almost every source I have seen has either called the move heavily controversial, or directly criticised it. INDT (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not really a censorship.Cwater1 (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 medical misinformation policy
Google has published terms of service that allow them to take down videos that "spread" misinformation about COVID-19:. There is plenty of abuse cases to find out I'm sure. It would be hard for a third party to verify fairness of policy application. AXO NOV (talk) ⚑ 09:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, Google mentions ivermectin and hydrochlororoquine many many times in their policy as of today's date, here is a sample of censored content:

"Content that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19. Claims that Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for COVID-19. Categorical claims that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19. Claims that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are safe to use in the treatment COVID-19."

Now, it is irrelevant to this discussion what the science is, because it is definitely not the case that Google has the expertise to adjudicate therapy. For example, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are chemical names and as such are not proper nouns, i.e., they are never capitalized if they do not begin a sentence. This is sufficient to illustrate that Google has not the slightest clue as to how one evaluates any drug therapy; they show an ignorance of the difference between expensive, capitalized trade names and cheap chemical names such that they are in no position to be able to even read the literature, never mind make 'holier than thou' pronouncements about the literature based on sources they are in no position to evaluate for lack of any demonstrable subject competency. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with removing lies that can harm large numbers of people? Would you say it is OK to post that you should take heroin for Covid? This has nothing to do with Google evaluating drugs. The medical researches have done that. WP:NOTAFORUM O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this a page about censorship or the american "liberal" censorship campaign ? 2A01:CB00:118C:7600:C98B:AC57:F341:3904 (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

2020-2021 censored and banned list?
We need add a list of people both conservative and liberal who have been censored on youtube and google since the 2020 election, when they started blocking search results and banning for "mis-information", even when the information proves true -Jf (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Any update on this? Python Drink (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Makes no sense
"Note that YouTube is a privately owned forum and the freedom of speech does not necessarily apply" - what? That does not make any sense, neither grammatically nor logically. Maybe this was meant to convey that Youtube is not necessarily bound to the First Amendment of the US constitution? Completely different concept. 2A02:8108:2C3F:AC2C:447D:4D16:C09A:101A (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Calling the war as a "Russian aggression" (near the end of the article) is clearly subjective and biased
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.90.88 (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Rather a lot of sourcing for this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely no mention in this page about the censorship in comment section.
Posting a link is practically impossible, which is necessary to cite sources in a proper argument. Cant even send a doi number due to ridiculous "spam" filter.

The "spam" filter. Ambiguous and arbitrary, like most stuff in youtube.

Calling out someone for the unwanted behavior ends up making your comment disappear, just because you used certain words which describe it, while they keep doing it.

Shadow ban, or worse, sometimes due to previous issues flagging you. Absolutely no feedback or a way to appeal especially if you are just a viewer.

The irony of democracy, which is completely absent in any corporation today. 185.180.31.249 (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Don't know what you are talking about. In any case, you have provided no reliable sources. Your own experiences are original research which is not allowed.O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I dont really care if you know what I talk about or not. But if you wnat links, I will provide one where possible.
 * 1- Here it is, you can find in here, a page which is literally made by google, that confirms they block links. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9483359?hl=en#zippy=%2Cblock-comments-with-links
 * 2- This one is literally about the ambiguity of the inner workings of youtube keeping people in dark, and asking a source about this is absurd. But still here are some articles that point to this issue. https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/youtube-bias-algorithm-theirtube-mozilla-conspiracy-theory-videos-a9624936.html
 * You can clearly see here youtube is secretive, and doesnt really tell people how stuff works.
 * 3- Again, and asking a source about this is absurd. It is a well known fact that certain words will get deleted in youtube.
 * 4- You are welcome to try to reach youtube, about any issue. You will find no help. Again, this is no secret, and quite easy to prove. https://www.engadget.com/2020-02-28-youtube-video-removal-appeal-process.html
 * Now I am sure you will claim this is not a "reliable source" . Any search on topic will bring more articles about the problem.
 * 5-Self explanatory. Do you really think corporations run on democracy? 185.180.31.249 (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "This is no secret" is unfortunately not good enough of a "source" for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia that only add content that can be sourced with "reliable third party sources" (see WP:RS). Any content that can not reference such a source, will be deleted.
 * The Independent UK link you provided would qualify as such a reliable source, but it looks like it might rather belong into the YouTube article than this Google article. But note: it is common standard for websites to block certain words (e.g., profanity or ethnic slurs). So, blocking certain words does not constitute "censorship" per se. For it to qualify as censorship it probably would need to be more like "blocking certain opinions". And for it to be mentioned as "censorship" on Wikipedia, you need to find a reliable source that calls the blocking of words as "censorship". If The Independent UK article you linked just says "YouTube blocks words", then you can't write on Wikipedia "YouTube is censoring things according to an article of The Independent UK", because that's not what The Independent UK said. If The Independent UK says "This is censorship" then you can write on Wikipedia that "The Independent UK calls this blocking of words 'censorship'".
 * As for the other links you provided, I don't know whether Engadget is a reliable third party source or not, but I note that the article also seems to be about YouTube rather than Google and therefore might rather belong in the Wikipedia article on YouTube, not here. And when it comes to the Google support link you provided, this is a "primary source" (see WP:PRIMARY). Primary sources are usually not suitable for Wikipedia (though there are exceptions), because drawing conclusions from statements in primary sources would be "original research" (see WP:OR). You can only include it if a reliable third party source such as The Independent UK says: "Google is censoring things, which is something they point out themselves on their support website, see [link here]". And once again, the link you provided is talking about YouTube. Nakonana (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As for the other links you provided, I don't know whether Engadget is a reliable third party source or not, but I note that the article also seems to be about YouTube rather than Google and therefore might rather belong in the Wikipedia article on YouTube, not here. And when it comes to the Google support link you provided, this is a "primary source" (see WP:PRIMARY). Primary sources are usually not suitable for Wikipedia (though there are exceptions), because drawing conclusions from statements in primary sources would be "original research" (see WP:OR). You can only include it if a reliable third party source such as The Independent UK says: "Google is censoring things, which is something they point out themselves on their support website, see [link here]". And once again, the link you provided is talking about YouTube. Nakonana (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As for the other links you provided, I don't know whether Engadget is a reliable third party source or not, but I note that the article also seems to be about YouTube rather than Google and therefore might rather belong in the Wikipedia article on YouTube, not here. And when it comes to the Google support link you provided, this is a "primary source" (see WP:PRIMARY). Primary sources are usually not suitable for Wikipedia (though there are exceptions), because drawing conclusions from statements in primary sources would be "original research" (see WP:OR). You can only include it if a reliable third party source such as The Independent UK says: "Google is censoring things, which is something they point out themselves on their support website, see [link here]". And once again, the link you provided is talking about YouTube. Nakonana (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Google censoring "DEIDetected.com"
Recently Kabrutus, a brazilian Steam Curator Creator of "Sweet Baby Inc Detected" (Now - DEI Detected), noticed that his website - deidetected.com has been hidden from search results. In other search engines such as Yandex or DuckDuckGo, the website pointed above being showed in first rows, while Google does not have this website, but Steam and X (Twitter) links instead.

In my opinion, this should be added as separate topic 46.56.181.117 (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)