Business YouTube bans 'malicious insults and veiled threats'

YouTube will no longer allow videos that "maliciously insult someone" based on "protected attributes" such as race, gender identity or sexuality.
The video-sharing platform will also ban "implied threats of violence" as part of its new harassment policy.
A row erupted in June after a prominent video-maker said he had been the target of abuse by another YouTube star.
At the time, YouTube said its rules had not been broken. But it has now deleted many of the videos in question.


"Even if a single video doesn't cross the line, with our new harassment policy we can take a pattern of behaviour into account for enforcement," Neal Mohan, chief product officer at YouTube, told the BBC.


As a result of the policy change, the Google-owned business also considered taking down clips of President Trump calling Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas" to taunt her over her claim that she has distant Native-American heritage.
But it decided that the president's intention was to curry favour with voters rather than attack his opponent on race and so the videos could remain online.


What was the row about?
At the centre of the dispute was journalist Carlos Maza, who presented videos for the Vox channel.
Mr Maza said he had been the subject of persistent abuse from rival video-maker Steven Crowder, who presents a talk show on YouTube.
Mr Crowder had about four million subscribers at the time, while Vox had about six million followers.


Mr Maza created a video compilation of all the times Mr Crowder had made fun of his sexual orientation and ethnicity.
In the clips, Mr Crowder imitated Mr Maza's accent and called him, among other things, a "lispy queer", a "gay Vox sprite" and a "gay Mexican".
Mr Crowder said the language he had used to mock Maza was "friendly ribbing".


But the videos led many of Mr Crowder's viewers to harass Mr Maza on social media.

YouTube said it had conducted an "in-depth review" and found "the videos as posted don't violate our policies".
However, it later restricted Mr Crowder's ability to earn advertising revenue due to "continued egregious actions".

And on Wednesday, it intends to delete several of Mr Crowder's videos that fall foul of the updated harassment policy.


What does the updated policy say?
Prior to the change, YouTube had already banned videos that:
  • contained explicit threats of violence
  • bullied somebody about their appearance
  • revealed somebody's personal information
  • encouraged viewers to harass an individual
But the new policy also bans:
  • "veiled" or implied threats of violence, such as saying "you better watch out"
  • simulated violence towards an individual
  • malicious insults based on protected attributes such as race, gender expression or sexual orientation
YouTube said the new policy would apply to "everyone" including politicians and popular YouTube stars as well as the general public.
Video-makers who consistently break the rules will have their ability to earn advertising revenue restricted, and may have videos deleted or their channel closed.
The company said there would be some exemptions from the new policy, including insults used in "scripted satire, stand-up comedy, or music".
Mr Mohan told the BBC that individual complaints would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis, with the context of each video being taken into account.
However, the new guidelines do say: "This is not a free pass to harass someone and claim, 'I was joking.'"


Mr Mohan said YouTube had consulted with think tanks, video-makers, Google employees and other third parties to help inform its policy.
He told the BBC he did not think the new rules would restrict YouTubers' freedom of expression.


"We don't want YouTube to be a place where public discourse is getting stifled as a result of people having the fear of being harassed on our platform," he told the BBC.
"My view is that, on balance, having a strong framework around which we are protecting individuals from being harassed is important to ensure that our platform remains one where there can be robust debate."
 
More abuseable censorship rules. It’s like i can’t even give a shit anymore. I’m sure a lot of people are going to cheer now then bitch later when they find out these rules are also applied to them. That’s usually how this shit plays out. Whatever, it’s their bed they’re making, not mine.
 
I don't know why they even bother with adding new guidelines. There's plenty of 'we can ban you for no reason at all whenever we feel like' clauses in their terms of service, just like every other site on the internet.
 
lmao

All the "controversial" youtubers are gonna get nigged pretty hard with this, is my guess. They've mostly already been demonetized, but even being able to have your mildly edgy videos up on JewTube with a "donate to my patreon!" is a big benefit.
 
"veiled" or implied threats of violence, such as saying "you better watch out"

Really? Fucking really? You better watch out does mean a threat of violence. What if someone was making a video about thots tax evasion and said "you thots better watch out." That's a threat of violence according to YT now. You know they won't be bothering with context.

malicious insults based on protected attributes such as race, gender expression or sexual orientation

No more criticizing trannies.
 
YouTube said the new policy would apply to "everyone" including politicians and popular YouTube stars as well as the general public.

The company said there would be some exemptions from the new policy,.. individual complaints would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis, with the context of each video being taken into account.

To quote George Carlin: “You know what, at least they’re honest. At least they’re honest about being completely full of shit.
 
TBH I think the core issue is that the kids nowadays spend too much time online getting cyberbullied. We need more kids to be bullied in the real world to put all the cyber bullying into perspective for them.
The core issue about cyberbullying is children being pressured by peers into having persistent online identities and online communities parallel to IRL communities (and stupid parents being pressured by other parents into doxing and shaming their children). Ad corporations want to easily and publicly link users to real people. "Walking away from the screen" Tyler the Creator style won't help unless they're willing to forswear the interwebs forever.

Previously, if a kid got shamed on a forum, s/he could just wait a bit, make another account and pretend to be a different person, or find another community. That was how the interwebs did learning and forgiveness. If a kid fucked up IRL, it would be forgotten, or the kid could switch schools. These days, if a kid gets roasted in the school's parallel social network group, it's out there forever.

(The OP has nothing to do with cyberbullying, though. Neither Pocahontas nor the lispy faggot Maza are schoolchildren.)


> malicious insults based on protected attributes such as race, gender expression or sexual orientation

"Gender expression" is not a protected attribute.
In Warren's case, it's her lie, not her race, that was the target of insults.
Where's the insult in "gay Mexican" - the gay or the Mexican part?
 
More abuseable censorship rules. It’s like i can’t even give a shit anymore. I’m sure a lot of people are going to cheer now then bitch later when they find out these rules are also applied to them. That’s usually how this shit plays out. Whatever, it’s their bed they’re making, not mine.

This is so nebulous and exploitable. Its paving the way for full corporate sanitatization. Alternatives are going to be even more needed now.

Oh by the by, these rules are so they can protect creators they like from any sort of criticism or harm. They just ban you if you talk shit about them.
 
Why do Youtube even pretend to care? They're a private company and can delete anything at any time for any reason.

Because if they don't have rules in place and arbitraily delete content - they could be legally branded as a "curator" instead of a "publisher"

Being a "publisher" removes them from the responsibility of the videos uploaded; because they have no control over what users upload. If they lose that status, it means they would be responsible for the content on the website - even if it's user generated.

so the new policy is basically there to protect youtubers from criticism.

Beyond threatening someone, there is also demeaning language that goes too far. To establish a consistent criteria for what type of content is not allowed on YouTube, we’re building upon the framework we use for our hate speech policy. We will no longer allow content that maliciously insults someone based on protected attributes such as their race, gender expression, or sexual orientation. This applies to everyone, from private individuals, to YouTube creators, to public officials.

Also Public Officals, although we'll see how much Anti-Trump stuff gets left up there accidentally.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo