YouTube Clarifies 'Hate Speech' Definition and Which Videos Won't Be Monetized (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: In a blog post, YouTube outlined more specific definitions of hate speech and what kinds of incendiary content wouldn't be eligible for monetization. Three categories are classified as hate speech, with the broadest one being "hateful content." YouTube is defining this as anything that "promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual's or group's race, ethnicity, or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic associated with systematic discrimination or marginalization." The second category is "inappropriate use of family entertainment characters," which means content showing kid-friendly characters in "violent, sexual, vile, or otherwise inappropriate behavior," no matter if the content is satirical or a parody. The final category is somewhat broad: "incendiary and demeaning content" means that anything "gratuitously" demeaning or shameful toward an individual or group is prohibited. The updated guidelines are a response to creators asking YouTube to clarify what will and will not be deemed advertiser-friendly. YouTube acknowledges that its systems still aren't perfect, but it says it's doing its best to inform creators while maintaining support for advertisers. YouTube also launched a new course in its Creator Academy that creators can take to learn more about how to make "content appealing for a broad range of advertisers."

Comments

That clears things up!

[LarryRiedel]

So I just need to make sure I don't do things like say or show anything "associated with systematic discrimination or marginalization".

What a broad definition

[DatbeDank]

I seriously doubt they're going to be applying this rule fairly to offensive videos on both sides of the political divide.

Re: Conservatives will whine about this

[PopeRatzo]

This is how you suppress speaking truth to power.

No, this is how a private corporation chooses to do business.

Western Liberal Values

[bill_mcgonigle]

I was just listening to this guy on the radio yesterday. He's a UK "Liberal" who spends his time attacking the ideology of the Progressives he so vehemently opposes.

YouTube demonetized him and so he went to Patreon, but is only getting 1/4 of the revenue he was before (which he says is enough to pay the rent and keep the lights on, so he's continuing).

Google has a serious problem when it's shutting down legitimate political speech under the pretext of "Social Justice". Jesus, if I couldn't handle hearing the occasional "fuck you, political group" I'd be on Twitter, not YouTube. I hope Google gets its head on right about political speech and returns to supporting Western liberal values. Y'know, "Do The Right Thing". "Don't Be Evil" was a better moral compass, though.

The ironic thing is that this guy points out that WSJ, which started this kerfuffle, is not really attacking these particular YouTubers, it's attacking YouTube, as the most successful New Media platform. It's an Old vs. New fight, and Google is walking right into the trap and handing power back to the Obsolete Media.

Anyway, where can I find a list of sponsors who are pulling out over the ideologies of whichever YouTubers? I'd like to boycott them.