There is a lot of historical misinformation and it is one of the biggest problems in the Philippines. This ranges from outright denial, saying that the atrocities during the martial law regime never happened. And there are also the more extreme claims, such as the “Marcos gold” myth. We know that their wealth comes from stealing from the Filipino people and public funds, but it allows them to say: [they didn’t steal]†
Many reporters and historians were amazed at the level of propaganda and misinformation on YouTube. But my research shows that there were such videos even in early 2011, and the trend accelerated after 2016. Even when students search YouTube for Philippine history, these false claims emerge.
Is this something you highlighted on YouTube?
We [Gaw and coauthor Cheryll Soriano] did this survey in 2020 and we had conversations with YouTube executives. We said, “Here’s a list of videos and channels that we flag as historical misinformation and denial.” And they said they would check and contact us but they never did. The people they send to the Philippines are not the ones who really have a say in setting content moderation policies.
The problem really is how YouTube defines disinformation – it’s a very western approach. In the Philippines, many political divisions are not ideological, but based on patronage. It’s about which elite family you support, and whose story you therefore endorse.
[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 YouTube remove any of the videos?
No, that’s actually the most frustrating thing. At the start of the election season, they said, “We’re going to take it really seriously to make sure the elections are fair and free.” But the part where they actually take action on the content, on the platform, nothing really happens, nothing meaningful. Even the historical misinformation I spotted two years ago is still there. In fact, because they weren’t removed, those 500,000 subscribers are now 2 million. So there is an exponential gain on these channels and videos as they have been left untouched by the platform.
If videos are popular, they can get brand sponsorship. And because they have a lot of subscribers and they talk about a very important topic, there are a lot of views. And that’s paid for by YouTube – they pay a little bit for disinformation.
[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.]
