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.

Honestly that's probably not going to happen since YouTube has a history of giving the woke crowd special treatment.

Granted, YouTube isn't quite as about this as Twitch is (Who turned a blind eye to Alinty's animal abuse that was so blatant that it not only got the attention of PETA, but it made people actually side with them on an issue for once), but expecting YouTube to implement this fairly is foolish.
 
malicious insults based on protected attributes such as race, gender expression or sexual orientation

It is nice to hear that it will be Ok To Be White on youtube now that these safeguards are in place.

Honestly that's probably not going to happen since YouTube has a history of giving the woke crowd special treatment.

If I had one wish in the entire SJW/identity politics/social media culture war it would be for the Farms to start doxing the freaks that are in charge of these 'thought police' or 'trust and safety' groups at companies like twitter, facebook, and google.

I remember seeing one of the group photos a couple years ago of one of the company's trust and safety group and it was like some parody of lunatic SJWs. It is mind boggling that there is still an assumption that these companies have normal individuals struggling with how to balance a world of ideas.

In reality it is like having the police hiring anyone who wants to legally threaten and kill people right off the street with no background checks or training or accountability. These social media companies end up having EXACTLY the opposite type of people you would ever want policing public discourse.
 
Última edición:
Honestly that's probably not going to happen since YouTube has a history of giving the woke crowd special treatment.

Granted, YouTube isn't quite as about this as Twitch is (Who turned a blind eye to Alinty's animal abuse that was so blatant that it not only got the attention of PETA, but it made people actually side with them on an issue for once), but expecting YouTube to implement this fairly is foolish.

In YouTube's defense (ugh) but a lot of the rules that targeted children from the last "adpocolypse" (as in, marking content unsafe/unmonetizable) was applied to SJWs, parciular the LGBTQ+ crowd. The meltdown they had over it was hilarious and amazing because thier definition of "child safe" content wasn't the same as Google's.
 
Youtube officially on life support. I love it. You cannot ridicule someone's appearance?? That is the heart of comedy. And all the rest on the list! They've banned comedy practically.

Why do Youtube even pretend to care? They're a private company and can delete anything at any time for any reason.
They like to think of themselves a superior and benevolent.
 
expecting YouTube to implement this fairly is foolish.
I agree, it will probably be implemented when someone gets a lot of flags, but like on Twitter, you'll probably have to sign your reports now. This is all to try & force anonymous users to get another account to use their real name & shit.
"I'm sorry xxxnarutosniper420xxx, but we don't care you reported cheese pizza on Youtube you have an anonymous account so we won't even look at your report."
 
Let's see how long youtubers bitch over the new guidelines this time around and then start finding 4d chess strats to somehow circumvent these guidelines instead of simply switching their video hosting.
 
One has to wonder whether this will extend to fictional characters. Say for instance you insult that Star Wars mary sue bitch and say she is a terrible character that drags the franchise down an should not exist, will this warrant a ban? Is it okay to criticize a game company for being lazy hacks making shitty games? Seems more likely than not.
 
It's_All_So_Tiresome.png
 
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.
Switching schools is pretty extreme and was/is only for the most edge cases possible. I think nowadays, the strategy is to have a controversy lined up about another kid so that if you get called out, you shift the focus to the next outrage. Unfortunately, that means there's a bunch of kids/parents with itchy trigger-fingers digging up dirt, unable to sit on it and firing it out there left and right just for its own sake, i.e. your basic SJW moralfag.
 
It's like elections are coming up or something. The whole carlos maza thing was a spook. YouTube has planned the changes for a time just used that nontroversy as an excuse to roll them out. Revamping the whole algorithm over a few days is a big task, unlikely to happen because some nobody's feels got hurt.
 
Mass banning of Feminists in 3,2,1, NOW!
Based AI will turn this into a real shitfest...
 
I'm guessing this means white straight men are still fair game because they aren't protected, yeah?
Hey man some pigs are more equal than others. Deal with it.
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.
It's less about removing controversy and more about preemptively giving content the axe who don't appeal to their advertisers. Not that the advertisers honestly care about that shit, they just want people to buy their product. They just don't want their products boycotted because some shithead agitator and their media mouthpiece fellow-travelers started a campaign against them because an ad appeared on something they didn't like and want it silenced (or a payout). That's why YouTube's censor people are all dangerhairs, they cut out the middle troon and just put the people who run the outrage-culture protection racket in charge.

Shit's been like this for a long time. Al Sharpton has been doing it for years.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo