Posting the Truth on YouTube? You Might Be the Only One Who Sees It
When your words vanish and no one tells you, you’re not paranoid. It’s just the algorithm.
Diogenes In Exile is reader-supported. Keep the lamp of truth burning by becoming a paying subscriber—or toss a few drachmas in the jar with a one-time or recurring donation. Cynics may live in barrels, but websites aren’t free!
YouTube. Along with Substack, X, and a few other sites, it is becoming the alternative news source the mainstream media fears. It’s also the second biggest search engine, right behind its owner, Google.
And it is a decent source for video news, if with a few more censorial caveats than we like to think about, not the least of which is in their comment section.
Like many a viewer with a keyboard and a bursting desire to communicate about what I just watched, I once believed YouTube was a place where freedom of speech flourished, even if it was mostly used to argue over whether pineapple belongs on pizza or to post 32-paragraph manifestos under videos of raccoons washing cotton candy.
That belief died quietly, without fanfare, over the last two years after commenting on several videos of people simply talking about our current reality. For example, my most recent ‘mistake’ on a video about therapist education:
“AI is a limited vehicle for therapy right now, because it's trained on the current orthodoxy. I use it for editing the writing I've been doing about my experience in therapist training and the things I have discovered about accreditation and licensing. I have had repeated arguments with it, particularly over the subject of transgender care for kids. It will downplay that issue and objects to using words like mutilate or castrate.”
In retrospect, my ‘mistake’ here is both obvious and ironically amusing.
Yes, I hit “Post.” It showed up. I nodded with satisfaction. I’d caught the video right after release, so I went about my business and waited for engagement with the community.
It never came.
This is an important issue, and this was an early comment. If nothing else, it would be reasonable to assume I might get a hate reply from someone who disagrees, but no. Nothing.
And then I checked from another account. The post was missing.
I checked back with the original account, and there it was, plain as day, just as if no one found it interesting. Not obviously flagged. Not under review. Not by all appearances in purgatory.
Except that it was in purgatory.
Thus began my descent into the realm of YouTube Shadowbanning, or as I’ve come to call it, “Going to Coventry.”
Things I Learned in the Censorship Mines:
YouTube’s comment section doesn’t just moderate—It gaslights.
When a comment is shadowbanned, you—the commenter—still see it. It’s there, like a loyal ghost you buried alive. But no one else can. Not your friends. Not strangers. Not even that guy with anime profile pics who argues in broken capslock. No one.
Some of this, I later learned, is customizable by creators. Creators can block things like links, or keywords like “disgusting,” “ugly,” or “cringe.” YouTube enables this. What is less clear is whether it maintains its own mysterious blacklist of unutterables that will get your comment silently blackholed.
Here are just a few words I and some redditors tried using in separate, innocuous contexts that triggered a vanishing act:
Mutilate – Apparently, YouTube thinks no one should describe what's happening to flesh in any context.
Castrate – Let’s just say biology class would be hard to pass on this platform.
Misandry – Big nope. Don’t even imply that men have feelings.
Pedophile – Even if you’re calling one out? Yep. Into the void.
Genocide Joe – Not even said with affection.
Death / Die – Including wishing someone would “die in prison,” which is both legal to say and a common outcome in movies, YouTube gladly monetizes.
Tankie – I don’t even know what this means.
Fascist – So much irony to see this word banned.
Dead time – It sounds like a goth Netflix series, but no. Instant nuke.
I considered testing this further. I could post experimental comments, worded as delicately as a BBC narrator talking about platypus mating rituals, and see what happened. But at the end of the day, YouTube, like most large social media platforms, doesn’t have customer service for those trading their eyeballs and time for parasocial connection. So productive communication is impossible.
And to be sure, trolls and opportunists are an ugly reality in human populations that will overstep boundaries of decent conversation. There are good reasons to shut down nasty, threatening commenters. They add nothing to the conversation while making things worse for everyone.
At the same time, until we find ways to differentiate the bad actors from sincere people trying to have genuine discourse over tough subjects, shadowbanning silences everyone, without letting honest actors know what they need to sidestep to stay in the conversation.
Since fixing any of that is outside of my control, I’ve decided to be proactive and help YouTube on its mission of shutting up scary threats to the system without ever letting those pesky commenters know!
A Helpful List of Future Words for YouTube to Censor
Here you go, folks! Enjoy this compiled list of phrases and concepts, with commentary that YouTube should probably go ahead and shadowban preemptively—since we’re already halfway to full Ministry of Truth.
Wrongthink - This term implies there might be more than one way to think. That’s dangerous. Stick to Correctthink™, now in rainbow packaging!
The Truth - Too definite. Too confident. Smells like misinformation. Better downgrade to ‘my perspective’ and consult a partner fact-checker before speaking.
Free Will - Might encourage people to make decisions without consulting the Terms of Service. Wildly irresponsible.
Unapproved Sarcasm - Sarcasm requires nuance, tone, and the assumption that your audience isn’t a rutabaga. Your AI can’t detect any of those.
Jokes - May accidentally trigger laughter or critical thought. You can’t be having that.
My Lived Experience - actually, could you just ban this one because I feel dirty even typing it?
Common Sense - Highly dangerous. Common sense is not endorsed by the media elite and may contain traces of harmful logic or parental wisdom. Proceed with censorship.
Biology - If a Supreme Court Justice won’t go there, why should you leave the door open for any of the rabble?
Reality - Outdated construct. Please replace with ‘my truth,’ ‘our narrative,’ ‘vibes,’ ‘lived experience,’ or ‘algorithm-approved fantasyland.’
Question Everything - Why even present the possibility? If you avoid the subject long enough, people will forget that’s even an option. So mums the word, right?
Define Woman - Better not let folks get started talking about this, or next thing you know, some wisecracker is gonna mention science. See Biology above.
1984 - Mentioning it invites unnecessary comparisons. And scrutiny. And critical thinking. Ban it.
Can’t We Just Talk About This? You do not negotiate with the rabble. And what better way to show that than by shadow-holing the notion of conversation?
Peacefully Disagree - Sounds suspiciously like adult behavior. This could destabilize outrage engagement metrics. Shadowban immediately.
I Read the Study - Suggests too much independence. You can’t allow that.
Is That a Conflict of Interest? - Immediate ban. Rule one of your self-preservation is don’t F with the money. That kind of talk F’s with the money.
Data That Wasn’t Funded by Pfizer - See the rule above. You can’t be letting word get out about just how much money is involved.
I Don’t Hate Anyone But— A known prelude to problematic honesty. A little honesty begets more honesty. Let that slide, and the next thing you know, you’ll have a torrent of the stuff on your hands.
What Happened to Nuance? - No talk of nuance can be allowed. That just tempts people to consider the existence of other opinions. And there are no other opinions. Nuance only exists in questions of how many genders there are and in questions of institutional failure, so that language is a privilege reserved for power accounts only.
I Respect You But Think You’re Wrong - Agree to disagree? That is not the rage bait that keeps the lights on in social media office parks. Ban it.
My Mom Thinks You're Dumb - While this does have the rage bait, it’s slipping in banned ideas. Admit there are Moms, and you are back to biology talk. See rule 8.
The Algorithm is Gaslighting Me - How precious. Of course, hide this from all other users, but why not also make a bot reply, “That’s crazy. We would never do that. You’re probably just tired. Have you tried clearing your cookies?”
These Aren’t the Droids You’re Looking For - References to resistance, Star Wars, or subtle rebellion are flagged for inciting fun. Humor level: too spicy.
Nothing to See Here - Classic ironic humor attempt to divert attention from censored truth. Suspicious. Dangerous. Also, ironically accurate. Ban it.
I Have a Substack - Do I even need to explain why this is dangerous? Shut. This. Talk. Down.
Final Thoughts From the YouTube Phantom Zone
The worst part isn’t the censorship itself—though that’s bad—it’s the trickery. The system is designed not to confront you, but to quietly erase you. It doesn’t give you a warning. It doesn’t even mark your words as “under review.” It just lets you sit there, thinking you made your swing at brave communication.
The result? A growing army of people who think they’ve joined the bigger conversation or taken a verbal risk, unaware they’ve been digitally gagged.
Perhaps this is a necessity in an age of anonymous trolls and little accountability, but along with that goes our ability to converse on hot-button topics, even if we are doing so respectfully. Or warn about very real abuses of power.
So the next time you post a comment with a dangerous idea—like “don’t sterilize children” or “I don’t trust the pharmaceutical industry”—do yourself a favor.
Check it from a burner account. And if it’s not there, welcome to the club. We meet in silence.
(Elsewhere. And occasionally conversing in encrypted Morse code.)
Did I mention that I have a Substack?
Housekeeping
Poppet and I enjoyed the fireworks last week, and she was quite the brave girl, especially not being a gun dog.
During our exercise time, we did come across signs of a rough exchange. Yes, the area smelled of skunk, but we didn’t find any bones, which makes me wonder if it managed to get away or not.
On the Bookshelf
I’ve been doing a lot more writing than reading over the last week, but that said, I have listened to a fair bit of Your Consent is Not Required. I highly recommend all freedom-loving folks pick up a copy and read it. I’m hoping to have some time for more of it over the weekend. Also, the book of Job is very good.
Accreditation on the Edge: Challenging Quality Assurance in Higher Education by Susan D. Phillips
The Case Against Education by Bryan Caplan
The Licensing Racket: How We Decide Who Is Allowed to Work, and Why It Goes Wrong by Rebecca Haw Allensworth
Moral Calculations: Game Theory, Logic and Human Frailty by Laszlo Mero
The New Know-nothings: The Political Foes of the Scientific Study of Human Nature by Morton Hunt
The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard by Marc Brettler, Carol Newsom, Pheme Perkins
Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman! Adventures of a Curious Character by Richard Feynman
We Have Never Been Woke: The Cultural Contradictions of the New Elite by Musa al-Gharbi
“Whatever It Is, I’m Against It”: Resistance to Change in Higher Education by Brian Rosenberg
Your Consent Is Not Required by Rob Wipond. ←— READ THIS BOOK!
Help Keep This Conversation Going!
Share this post on social media–it costs nothing but helps a lot.
Want more perks? Subscribe to get full access to the article archive.
Become a Paid Subscriber to get video and chatroom.
Support from readers like you keeps this project alive!
Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a pledging/paid subscriber, donating to my GiveSendgo, or buying Thought Criminal merch. I’m putting everything on the line to bring this to you because I think it is just that important, but if you can, I need your help to keep this mission alive.
Already a Premium subscriber? Share your thoughts in the chat room.
About
Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a Clinical Mental Health Counseling master’s degree at the University of Tennessee. What I encountered, however, was a program deeply entrenched in Critical Theories ideology. During my time there, I experienced significant resistance, particularly for my Buddhist practice, which was labeled as invalidating to other identities. After careful reflection, I chose to leave the program, believing the curriculum being taught would ultimately harm clients and lead to unethical practices in the field.
Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to investigating, writing, and speaking out about the troubling direction of psychology, higher education, and other institutions that seem to have lost their way. When I’m not working on these issues, you’ll find me in the garden, creating art, walking my dog, or guiding my kids toward adulthood.
You can also find my work at Minding the Campus