An Asexual Review of Filtering Service VidAngel

Image description: The logo of filtering service, VidAngel, which allows users to filter out things like sexual content, graphic violence, language, etc. Discussing how the service works is the subject of today's post.

In 2022, I did a post about the concept of filtering media with the promise that I would test a filtering service in early 2023. Today, I’d like to fulfill that promise, specifically using a service known as VidAngel. This is not the only filtering service, but it happens to be the one I originally came across, thus introducing me to the concept and sparking my desire to discuss the topic. As a sex-repulsed aspec person, realizing this was an actual service intrigued me, and it made me think of the many times where I’ve been put in uncomfortable situations due to unexpected sexual content in media. Because I’m sex-repulsed, I don’t seek out media with graphic sexual content, but these types of scenes often find me even so.

Therefore, I wanted to analyze how a service like VidAngel works and see if it’s viable for people like me, or people who simply don’t want graphically sexual scenes in their media. Of course, this isn’t the only thing VidAngel filters out, so I decided to test out several filters to see the result. The following will be my impressions of the service and how it operates, but it won’t be a tutorial. This is also not meant to be an endorsement nor a deterrent – I’m not being asked to do this by anyone, nor am I intending this review to constitute advice on what you should do or how you should watch media. Much like my Ace Book Reviews, this is merely one aspec person’s perspective.

Spoiler warning! 

The Crown ("Matrimonium")

Stranger Things (season 4, various)

Squid Game (various)

Dragon Age: Absolution (minor)

Content warning: Mentions of blood, gore, and violence; brief discussions of triggers and phobias (specific and general)

-------------------------------------------------------

What Is Filtering and How Does VidAngel Filter?

As previously stated, I did an entire in-depth post on filtering and why I feel it’s important, but I’ll summarize things here too. In essence, filtering is just that: the ability to filter out things you don’t want to see and separate them from things you do want to see. A good example is the “blacklist” feature on the social media site Tumblr, which allows you to add tags to a list that will automatically hide posts with those tags. When it comes to filtering media, the concept is similar, in that media filtering services allow you to select certain things you’d like to have filtered out and then the media is presented without these things included.

In my original post, I analyzed a few common criticisms against filtering media, chief among them the notion of “don’t like, don’t watch.” I often agree with that premise in theory, but in my post, I also look at its limitations. Much like the Tumblr blacklist allows users to still interact with Tumblr despite certain things being untenable for them, I believe filtering media does the same thing. Furthermore, filtering is not the same as censorship, nor should it be treated as such. Rather than get rid of a piece of media or alter a scene forever, filtering is something that individuals can do at their own discretion and on their own. Rather than forcing other people to watch something as they’d want to watch it, they are merely catering the experience to their own needs in a way that only affects them.

There are many reasons why someone might wish to filter media – and if they have the option to, why deny them? Maybe they want to watch a piece of media so they can interact with people who are enthusiastic about it, but don’t want to see content like extreme violence or graphic sex. Perhaps they started watching a show that never included certain types of triggers before, but now the show includes them, and they need a way to keep watching. Therefore, I don’t think shaming people for filtering media is productive or fair. But, with that said, how exactly does filtering work? When it comes to VidAngel, there are a few standard filters to be expected – language, sexual content, and graphic violence chief among them.

When filtering a show, the first step is to connect the streaming service on which that media appears – i.e., if you’re watching something on Netflix, you would connect your Netflix account, a simple process that involves going to VidAngel’s website to the “Connect services” option and then logging into the other streaming account so the service can verify it. From there, you’re able to watch the shows from that platform on VidAngel’s website, where you can get to filtering. There are a few ways to do this – turning off a filter for everything you watch, turning a filter off in a specific piece of media, or picking and choosing what you turn off – as described in the image below.

Image description: This image, taken from one of the how-to pages on VidAngel's website, describes the different ways the filters can be used

For instance, if I decided that I didn’t want to see any sexual content at all in any of the shows I watch, I could go into “default filters” and turn it off for everything. However, if I wanted to, I could go into a specific show and turn it off there on an episode-by-episode basis. In each episode, there is also an extensive list of everything that can be filtered out by category. So again, using sexual content as an example, I’m perfectly fine with kissing or scenes that precede or follow sex, just not graphic sexual content itself, and so I can customize the filters accordingly. The site even gives brief non-specific descriptions of what occurs in the episode so you can determine what you’d like to see or not.

I was extremely interested to know how these filters affect the actual watching experience of a show. Having to look away or leave a room is not only awkward and embarrassing, but it also sometimes causes me to miss important plot and dialogue, so I wanted to know how filtering impacts these things specifically. While this will depend on what you choose to filter and where, I wanted to test my theory with a few shows I’ve already watched, that way I had an idea of what was coming and what was taken away, and so this is where I began experimenting.

Testing the Service

First, to test the filter for sex, I tried an episode of The Crown – a dramatized look at the life of Queen Elizabeth II and those closest to her. Second season episode “Matrimonium” centers on Princess Margaret and her fiancé, who is revealed to be conducting multiple sexual relationships while seeing her. This is explicitly shown and discussed in a few scenes, woven among regular plot points, and I thought the filter did a great job of only editing out the explicit scenes while leaving the others untouched. However, I admit this led to things appearing jumpy, especially when you only get parts of a conversation because the filters need to work around nudity or sexual inuendo. Additionally, I didn’t use all the filters, which could have cut out more conversations that reveal the extent of the philandering. Overall, the viewer doesn’t miss out on much, since these activities are also revealed in dialogue, but it made me wonder how this would affect shows with more to filter.

Although I’m primarily interested in filtering sex, I thought this test would work better with another filter, so I decided to filter the gore in season four of Stranger Things. This show has always included gore, but season four contains elements that are personal phobias, so I had to spoil the plot ahead of time to determine when to leave the room. Is filtering the gore better than repeatedly having to walk away? Although the filter can be choppy, walking away caused me to miss just as much if not more, so is this option better?  For a bit of setup, Stranger Things is about a small town that ends up ensnared in the dangers of a dimension called the Upside Down and its horrible creatures. Season four’s main creature is the terrifying and deadly entity known as “Vecna,” and filtering the gore from Vecna’s kills is what interested me the most. The result was interesting, because skipping the actual kills almost raised the intensity of the situation, while not compromising the creepiness. Part of what makes Vecna so frightening is that he gets into the heads of his victims and exploits their traumas, all of which was still present. I even checked an iconic scene to make sure the filters didn’t mar it and was surprised to see it remained just as impactful. Even with the filter for non-graphic violence on, the result was certainly very disjointed, but the most important parts were still there.

Image description: The aforementioned iconic scene in season four of Stranger Things. Obviously, if you need to filter out certain content for whatever reason, your needs matter far more to you than whether or not a scene is well done in its original form. However, in this and many other cases, I was very pleasantly surprised to see that the filters allowed both - filtering out the necessary content while keeping many of the original merits of good scenes intact.

Inspired by this, I decided to turn on all the violence filters for another harrowing but plot-heavy element. Season four begins with a flashback to main character El’s past as a child test subject in Hawkins Lab, where one day all the other test subjects, save for her, are found dead. Netflix actually has a warning before the first episode, since the scene involves numerous children; however, this plot point turns out to be extremely important, so I wanted to see if the plot is still comprehensible with the gore, graphic violence, and non-graphic violence removed. The filter removed many scenes related to this massacre earlier in the season, but what about in episode seven, where the scene comes back around? With all the violence filters on, the main plot points were disjointed and, because scenes where El has flashbacks to this moment were filtered out in other episodes, some of the payoff is lost when the culprit is revealed. However, the key details remain.

This scene also reveals a huge plot point when El banishes the culprit to the Upside Down – a scene which is likewise cut severely, but can still be understood, despite its fragmented nature. We see El using her powers to restrain the individual and, although we don’t see the exact moment she banishes him, the idea (and its result) is made clear. Overall, I think the filter does an admirable job of keeping as much plot as it possibly can here. Although it’s a very patchwork experience, it nevertheless gets much of the point across, especially compared to not watching at all or leaving the room, like I had to for Vecna’s machinations. Additionally, for many of these episodes, I was doing an extreme test by filtering out both graphic and non-graphic violence, so with these restrictions in mind, I was impressed that the plot still worked.

Following this, I decided to take things up a notch and test the Korean survival-thriller, Squid Game. In general, Squid Game is a good test of all the filters VidAngel offers – both the violence ones I’ve been using as a broad test, and the all-important sexual filter. The show’s sexual content is limited to the point where I forgot it even existed when the filter removed it, and in the scenes where plot was revealed during these instances (such as a scene featuring nudity), the filter once again allowed the most important elements to endure. However, filtering the gore is certainly a harder ask, since the show is, by its very nature, pretty darn brutal and these scenes often feature important plot moments. As I’ve said many times, I believe people should be allowed to watch a show however they want – maybe they want to talk about the show with their friends, or want to broaden their horizons and use Squid Game as their gateway into Korean media (something I deeply support). Filtering might offer a way to do that… but what if it alters the plot so much that you can’t follow what’s happening? Is it even worth it then?

Squid Game centers on hundreds of in-debt people who enter a mysterious competition in the hopes of winning an enormous prize. At the end of the first episode, the contestants realize the game’s deadly nature during a bloody, high mortality game of Red Light, Green Light. The game’s objective is to get across a finish line, running on “green light” and freezing on “red light”; the players who move before “green light” are immediately shot, and thus many of them are killed when they try to flee. As with my other tests, although the scene was obviously quite choppy, they managed to keep a lot of fidelity to it while cutting out the bloodiest parts (the edits were less jarring to me than the fact that it was the English dub version). In the case of this scene, they can’t possibly cut out everything that might be “objectionable,” but I think what they show is an impressive compromise.

From here, I went into a few other episodes to test how the filter would handle my specific phobias. This occurs in a side plot, but some important things happen in between these moments, and I was curious to see if they were kept. This side plot involves one of the players and several of the guards collaborating with dire consequences, while another character tries to get to the bottom of it all. There are a lot of jump cuts to work around the gory parts, but again, the crux of each scene is surprisingly clear. Next, I filtered an episode where arguably some of the most gratuitous violence occurs, thanks in large part to the camera lingering on the bodies of fallen (literally) players. I found that the game still managed to be horrifying all the same; in fact, by sheer chance, the show already had a method for showcasing what happens in some of the more violent scenes in a non-violent way, as the “eliminated” players were represented by a model, which unintentionally worked in tandem with the filter.

Image description: In the episode of Squid Game I'm describing above, the players are represented on a board using these numbered glass pieces. When a player is eliminated in the game, the pieces are knocked off the board elsewhere, unintentionally making it so that the plot is still very comprehensible even when the filter edits out the actual player deaths.

After that, I tested the last two episodes, in which there are several violent scenes that are also important plot moments. For instance, in the penultimate episode is a scene where one player kills another, setting up crucial events for the last episode. It’s also a very moving scene, so I was relieved to see it was not too terribly altered. However, the final episode arguably presents the most issue (spoilers ahead). In the eponymous squid game, the final two players slash, punch, choke, and otherwise try to dominate each other. Eventually, one player gets the opportunity to attack the other with his knife – and the camerawork makes it seem like he does, before revealing he has set it aside. He then offers the other player a chance to walk away; they’ll still be poor, but they’ll be alive. The other player, unable to face this reality, makes the winner promise to take care of his mother and then stabs himself. If you have the graphic violence filters on, this character’s death is obviously not shown; however, depending on your other filters, it can become very confusing, seeming like either the deceased player was merely shot by the guards for losing, or was in fact killed by the winner, when the opposite is true. Either way, you lose a large part of what defines the competition’s tragic end. (End spoilers)

The last episode of Squid Game serves as proof that some things do indeed get lost in filtering, despite good plot balancing otherwise. It also made it clear that knowing what happens in a scene aided my tests and may have given me an unfair advantage. So, for my final experiment, I decided to watch something new and chose the Netflix series Dragon Age: Absolution, using both the filters for sex and violence. I’ve discussed my love of Dragon Age before and, although I’m a fan, I wasn’t really interested in this show – in large part because I expected it to be overly violent and sexual. While I was surprised to find it didn’t have much in terms of sexual content, the violence filter test was certainly eye-opening. The episodes of the show were already short (usually less than 30 minutes) and filtering the violence reduced them by as much as ten minutes sometimes.

Did that affect the viewing experience? Yes. In fact, parts of Absolution actually became borderline indecipherable with the filters on. While a lot of the information I missed was later explained in dialogue (ex: character deaths I didn’t witness), it made for an extremely incoherent experience, and I found myself very lost at certain points. However, a lot of this occurred because I was purposely drastic with the filters to see what would happen, filtering out most if not all the violence – graphic and non-graphic alike – as well as even the things that could be considered non-graphically sexual. While I’m sure this is the approach some people take to their filtering, as it’s easier than reading through each individual section, I believe it’s a much better option to read the descriptions and decide what you’re fine with seeing. For instance, the non-graphic violence section contains things like kicking or punching in a non-bloody way, so if that’s something you can handle, it’s better to not indiscriminately use that filter.

Overall, I believe these final tests prove that a filtering service still needs a bit of individual thought and intentionality put into it. Even the best filter can only do so much, and for as many times as the filters kept the plot intact, there are other times where a coherent plot was not possible, or where a choppy viewing experience was inevitable. In general, it really depends on what you’re looking for in the service; chances are, if you’re using a filtering service in the first place, you know and expect that what you’re seeing is an altered product, so you’re willing to make some sacrifices. In some cases, the answer may be no, but in other cases it may be yes – again, only you can make that determination. But I hope my tests and observations serve as a jumping off point in deciding if such a service is worth these sacrifices.

Final Thoughts and Overall Impressions

Like I said in my introduction, I’m not here to tell anyone what to do – these are just my opinions on how VidAngel works and what it does. Overall, I was quite impressed with it and really enjoyed testing it out. Admittedly, I didn’t test as much sexual content as I could have, but with what I did test, the peace of mind was a welcome change, so I could see people like me benefiting from it. But outside of that, I admit I’m not sure who might benefit the most from this service. When I first began testing the service, I thought it might be useful for triggers and phobias, like how I used it for Stranger Things. However, while I was impressed with how varied the filters are – covering things like blood, medical procedures, needles, even references to childbirth – there are limitations to what they can do.

For instance, in the “Red Light, Green Light” scene from Squid Game, although the most graphic parts are removed, it’s still possible to see the bodies of fallen players at key points throughout the scene. Additionally, blood is often visible on players throughout the show, especially on their clothes, meaning avoiding blood entirely is literally impossible. Obviously, someone who has that deep an aversion to blood likely wouldn’t be interested in a show like this anyway, but I think the underlying point remains. Another example would be many of the Stranger Things episodes I filtered where, although I was able to avoid directly seeing the things related to my phobia, hearing characters talk about it was still unpleasant (not to mention all the times where spiders were present in scenes I had otherwise been out of the room for; as a bug-phobic person, I was not exactly vibing).

Another thing I want to discuss is the price. Right away, I want to be transparent about the fact that I did all this testing using a week-long free trial of the service. The monthly cost, in my opinion, is a bit pricey ($9.99 a month), especially when you consider it’s not in and of itself a streaming service – rather, it can only be used with your preexisting streaming services, so you’re paying for this service on top of those. Just like I’m not here to tell you how to watch your media, I’m not here to tell you how to spend your money and only an individual can make the determination of how they’d like to do that, but it’s certainly something to keep in mind when weighing how much you think you’d get out of a service like this.

When it comes to determining if the service is right for you, another thing many individuals might consider is the site’s attitude towards filtering. Something I discussed in my previous post was the resistance people seem to show to this service, and my belief that its name is probably part of the reason why. Unfortunately, the name “VidAngel” can make it seem like certain content must be made better or “pure.” In that initial post, I thought maybe the name just conjured unfortunate connotations without actual substance, but I think it’s an unfortunate approach the service takes in general. In things such as their ads and how-to videos, it can sometimes seem like they treat what’s being filtered out as automatically “bad,” when this is not necessarily always the case.

Even some of their filters could have that slight judgmental slant to them depending on your point of view. In some cases, things that aren’t categorized as nudity, for instance, are classified as “immodesty” (i.e., a character in their underwear), even in cases that aren’t sexual or meant to be considered as such. There are also filters for kissing, with heterosexual kissing and homosexual kissing separate from one another rather than both being considered under a more generic umbrella. Although the filter allows you to filter out heterosexual kissing just as much as homosexual kissing, I imagine this divide might still understandably rub some people the wrong way.

And this is all a shame, because I feel like filtering could have a broader appeal than just people filtering media so they can watch it with their kids, or people like me who would be filtering to avoid graphic sexual content. For example, have you ever been watching a show or a movie and find yourself enjoying everything save for gendered insults and racial slurs? Or maybe you want to watch an old standby movie or TV show, but aren’t in the mood for the violence. There are plenty of movies and shows out there that have great messages or fantastic moments in them that are otherwise inaccessible to people due to things that have the potential to be triggering, such as suicide, self-harm, the list goes on. Being able to watch media without these things included might prove very useful to some people, and I think it would be very unfortunate if these things were lost to people because of these attitudes.

This issue can also be difficult due to the age-old question of who gets to be the arbiter of “good taste”, which seems to be one of the main hang-ups people have with services like these. However, the fact that VidAngel chose to use the English dub of Squid Game put a finer point on this issue for me. In my opinion, the best and only way to watch the series was to watch it in the original Korean with English subtitles; however, that might not be an option for some people. Maybe they have trouble reading subtitles, or maybe it’s just their own personal preference to watch a dub. That’s their choice. My belief on how they should watch the show has no bearing on their reality, and I think the same should be true of filtering. If I shouldn’t tell someone they “need to” be watching the original version of a show, doesn’t it also follow that they also shouldn’t tell me how I “need to” watch a show in my own home and on my own time?

Image description: This is the screen that appears at the beginning of everything I tested at VidAngel. It's difficult to read the fine print in this picture, but it says: "this performance of the motion picture is altered from the performance intended by the director or copyright holder of the motion picture." One of the big criticisms against services like this is that they're going against what the directors wanted, but VidAngel isn't trying to pass their filtered material off as the originals at all, and are in fact perfectly transparent about it. I found that interesting.

When I was in high school, I used to write essays discussing the misguided notion of banning books or exercising censorship just because one specific group of people decided something was “bad.” I would talk about how these things limited creative thought, artistic expression, and the chance to have meaningful conversations, and I still believe those things to this day. Banning and censorship are still a frightening and slippery slope to me, so I understand why anything that even remotely smacks of those things is alarming. But I feel that filtering is a distinctly different animal. I believe banning and censorship happen when people want everyone to consume the same type of media, and set themselves up to know best. But who decides what’s good and bad? Who decides what’s questionable, objectionable, or unacceptable for the masses? Reaching a consensus on such a thing isn’t possible.

However, we can decide what’s acceptable for ourselves, and I believe filtering can help us do that. While of course I can’t say any of this for sure, I feel like allowing someone to consume media on their own terms and allowing others to consume it on theirs might be the antidote to a banning/censorship mindset. I’m not saying filtering needs to become anything more normalized or mainstream than what it currently is; in fact, I think it works well as this type of niche service. But I am saying that allowing people to interact with media on their own terms would certainly foster more creative discussion and appreciation than banning or censoring a work outright.

Of course, for this to work, a service like this would probably need some fine-tuning; but I think this concept has potential. No one person can be, as I said earlier, an arbiter of good taste or morality for all; but if we have more options and more tools at our disposal, maybe we can at least make some decisions about our media experiences for ourselves that don’t have to be limited just to “don’t like, don’t watch.” No tool will be perfect, but VidAngel – while there were some flaws – showed me that at least such a thing may be possible, and that made for a very meaningful and worthwhile experience overall.