I see a lot of people commenting that his channel is "pseudoscience." After watching several of his videos in full, he mainly talks about the interrogation techniques officers use over the actual subject or their psychological reaction. He also does any the analysis of a subject after the case has concluded with full knowledge of what the end result is. He is more looking back, trying to explain the subject's actions based on the full knowledge that the person is found guilty or not. He also analyzes full videos and takes into consideration all the facts of the case. He doesn't make assumptions based on one small tell or the other.<p>He also actively shows that not everyone reacts the same. One of his videos is fully based around an innocent man who seems to react differently than the average person and is kept in jail because of it. He makes the point that cops sometimes do read too much into these tells and forget the facts.<p>If you think that this could somehow be problematic; after watching the channel the only conclusion you can reasonably come to is "if the police suspect me of a crime, shut the hell up and get a lawyer." He is quite clear that the police are way better at psychological games, and the absolute last thing they want you to do is get your lawyer involved. Heck, he shows a cop who murdered someone get caught to show that even cops can't keep up with their own interrogation tactics! This is actively helpful and exactly what anyone under investigation should do.
Feels like a tipping point of sorts. Nothing about this channel is “problematic” in any mainstream consensus. Spotify might be the landing place of choice for the time being.
Youtube’s claims are that the channel violates “sensitive events” or “violence” themes, which I don’t really take at face value. Especially with all the actual gore promoting content of youtube this was an presentation vlog, without claiming any specific accuracy. Most likely it was maliciously flagged for presenting the simplistic methodologies of said agencies.
Presenting agency methodology is absolutely free speech and has been a target of random and sometimes unrelated harassment and legal actions for many years in many cases (stop and frisk, polygraph pseudoscience, racial profiling, journalist harassment in general etc)
I really hope he switches platforms. This serves as a valuable lesson, though: archive everything from YouTube channels you like! Treat it as totally ephemeral. YouTube seem to just take things down at the turn of a hat. I hope Jim also mirrors his content to alternative platforms, instead of just using that as a threat. He has been a huge inspiration to many, as you can clearly see from the amount of 'JCS inspired' videos popping up on the platform.
I'm interested in criminology and I found his videos really good. YouTube is no longer place suitable for free speech; they are banning everybody left and right no matter what if you are going against popular consensus and their agenda.
They could single-handedly make peertube 100x more popular by moving there. The only problem being money from ad revenue of course. Brave style micropayments are starting to make more and more sense as I think about it.
I support this channel's right to exist but this channel is still pseudoscience garbage.<p>Then again, a non trivial portion of what is going on in academic psychology is pseudoscientific garbage so maybe this is state of the art?