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



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.
Don’t let your memes be dreams. Be the change you want to see friend.

D O I T
 
Other than bitchute are there any decent alternatives? The internet desperately needs them I feel.

I remember way back when you'd have people host videos on their own site as an alternative and while barriers to entry for that are probably lower now in terms of technical know how and internet speeds it feels like people are too fucking lazy for that to be viable. Like they will refuse to go on another site for content and just use Facebook/YouTube /twitter as the gateway to the internet. I miss the old internet and the prevalence of weird niche websites.
 
Other than bitchute are there any decent alternatives? The internet desperately needs them I feel.

I remember way back when you'd have people host videos on their own site as an alternative and while barriers to entry for that are probably lower now in terms of technical know how and internet speeds it feels like people are too fucking lazy for that to be viable. Like they will refuse to go on another site for content and just use Facebook/YouTube /twitter as the gateway to the internet. I miss the old internet and the prevalence of weird niche websites.
There were bandwidth cost issues having them on a personal website.
 
Why do Youtube even pretend to care? They're a private company and can delete anything at any time for any reason.
Simple- They fear the public and advertisers just as much as the public and advertisers fear them. I's like a twisted mobius strip where everyone fears everyone else. Everytime YouTube does something dumb after everyone else has gotten used to the last dumb change, it's either they offend everyone and they threaten to take action against the video site (which rarely happens), or everyone fears the site because their rules are too damn vague for even the government or are done so incompetently it can flat out break the site itself for periods of time.
 
Article dijo:
YouTube will no longer allow videos that "maliciously insult someone" based on "protected attributes" such as race, gender identity or sexuality.
Then all the videos on conspiracy theories must go into the trashbin because they say unpopular things like Nigger Freesmason fuck Roswell aliens in Area 51 and George W. Bush was the director of the whole shtick even if it was still Whitey's fault anyways.
 
Good job left wingers, zoomers, snowflake millenials and cuckolded boomers for ruining the interweb.

In your attempt to stop the right wing, you only let them diversify their portfolio and spread their ideas somewhere else unchallenged.

I hope the commie revolution happens so Commisars Cletus, Tyrone, Chang, Abu Muhammad on chairman Chad's orders line you lot up against the wall.
 
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.
'RACISM AND BULLYING BAD AND UNACCEPTABLE. unless it's done for cynical personal benefit, then its totes okay.'

Nice backbone. Pretty sure this logic applies as well to every single video they've nuked so far, by the way. They're just covering their asses and slightly virtue-signalling in regards to Trump here, because (like Twitter realized) it's a really dumb move on every level to try and censor the fucking president of the United States.
 
Man, I wonder how possible it is for another big video hosting service to come up. There are not many megacorps that aren't totally cucked, so even if a new video service comes up it might get bought by Amazon who have already ruined Twitch, so they can say they have a video service. It would have all the same problems as Youtube, if not more
 
Última edición:
Man, I wonder how possible it is for another big video hosting service to come up. There are not many megacorps that aren't totally cucked, so even if a new video service comes up it might get bought by Amazon who have already ruined Twitch, so they can say they have a video service. It would have all the same problems as Youtube, if not more

The only corporation with the resources and know-how to run a potentially viable YouTube competitor that's not also woke as fuck is Mind Geek.

Don't get me wrong, Mind Geek are shady amoral smut-peddlers, but they're not woke and seem to care about actual profit as opposed to virtue-signalling. Of course, Google is likely worried and watching them like a hawk, and I wouldn't be surprised if the recent PayPal decisions over Pornhub may have had something to do with YouTube's newer policies and Google's fear of direct competitors.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo