There’s a lot of misinformation about history, and that’s one of the biggest problems in the Philippines. This stems from total denialism, which states that the atrocities under martial law never happened. And there are also more extreme claims, like Myth “Golden Marcos”. We know their wealth comes from stealing from the Filipino people and from public funds, but that allows them to say [they didn’t steal].
Plenty of reporters and historians have marveled at the level of propaganda and misinformation on YouTube. But my research shows that there were videos like this as early as 2011 and the trend accelerated after 2016. Even when students were searching for Philippine history on YouTube, the claims were false. This still shows up.
Is this something you’ve flagged for YouTube?
we [Gaw and coauthor Cheryll Soriano] did this research in 2020, and we had a conversation with YouTube executives. We say, “This is a list of videos and channels that we are flagging as containing historical misinformation and denialism.” And they said they would check and get back to us, but they never did. The people they send to the Philippines are not the ones who really have a say in drafting content moderation policies.
The real problem is how YouTube identifies misinformation—it’s a very Western approach. In the Philippines, many political divisions are not ideological, but they are based on patronage. It’s about which elite families you support and which stories you subscribe to.
[Ivy Choi, a spokesperson for YouTube, says that its hate speech policy and a number of its election misinformation policies are applicable globally, “and take into account cultural context and nuance.” She says YouTube regularly reviews and updates its policies, and “when developing our policies, we consult with internal and outside experts around the globe, and take their feedback into account.”]
Have you seen any videos taken down by YouTube?
No, that’s actually the most frustrating part. At the start of the election season, they said, “We’re going to be really serious about making sure that the election is fair and free.” But the part where they actually act on the content, on the platform, there’s really nothing going on, doesn’t make any sense. Even the historical misinformation that I highlighted two years ago is still there. In fact, since they weren’t taken down, those 500,000 subscribers are now 2 million. So there is an exponential gain on these channels and videos as they are not impacted by the platform.
If the video is popular, they can get brand sponsorship. And because they have so many subscribers and they’re talking about a very prominent topic, there’s a lot of views. And that’s paid for by YouTube — they’re paying for misinformation.
[YouTube’s Ivy Choi says that it removes offensive content “as quickly as possible” and that it removed more than 48,000 videos in the Philippines during Q4 2021 for violating its Community Guidelines. YouTube says it is reviewing the specific channels flagged by WIRED, but that it reviews all of the channels in its YouTube’s partner program and removes those that don’t comply with its policies.]
