Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the ad-exodus dept.

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."

149 of 271 comments (clear)

  1. That clears things up! by LarryRiedel · · Score: 1, Interesting

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

    1. Re:That clears things up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All speech is equal but some speech is more equal than others.

      Down voting this just enforces the statement that some speech is more free that others. Thank you thought police.

    2. Re:That clears things up! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Basically you need to fuck off as do the people who modded you up. I mean christ the so-called free speech whiners on slashdot these day are some of the whiniest, most entitled people I think I've ever seen online.

      For fuck's sake, google isn't even blocking the videos, they're simply not paying you for the privilege of having them on youtube. Here's a free clue: you not getting paid for your videos is not fucking censorship.

      No it's not enough that they're giving you an entirely free platform to espouse your dumbass views (something they are neither legally nor morally obligated to do). No if they don't actually pay your for your dumbass views you'll whine and whine about how your free speech is harmed.

      That ain't free speech and you do a disservice to the whole concept when you try to equate the two.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  2. Untenable strategy by junner518 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds like YouTube is doubling down on letting the folks in charge of "report abuse" triage bring their biases when choosing which videos make money and which ones don't. Hopefully Vimeo is taking notes...

  3. What if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I want to run my ads on anti-SJW videos?

    1. Re:What if by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      I'd buy your crap.

      Just for the sake of it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:What if by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I want to run my ads on anti-SJW videos?

      Then go ask google if they'll do business with you. They are not obligated to, and not doing business with you is noting to do with muh freeze peach.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  4. Conservative Field Day by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    How many far-left videos are there I wonder that whine about oppression from the evil white male, or just from white people in general?

    Well now, all of them are subject to complaint under these rules... conservatives are going to have a field day bringing down videos.

    After all, one of the worst things you can do an opponent is make them live by the rules they made...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Conservative Field Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Here's your weasel words right here -

      ... or other characteristic associated with systematic discrimination or marginalization.

      discrimination or disparaging or humiliating any white male or conservative is NOT systematic discrimination in their opinion. It's just being a heroic autobot.

    2. Re:Conservative Field Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      After all, one of the worst things you can do an opponent is make them live by the rules they made...

      Politics aside, the older I get the more this seems to ring true in all aspects of life.

    3. Re:Conservative Field Day by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      It is systematic, because it is allowed without question, because of orthodoxy of thought.

      Q.E.D.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:Conservative Field Day by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You don't seem to understand what the text you quoted is saying. It's only if the disparagement is on the basis of race, so the kind of complaints you are taking about wouldn't count because they are on the basis of behaviour.

      Conservatives took down a Contra Points video recently by mass reporting it as spam. Since this is only a rule clarification, not a change, it suggests that they couldn't attack it on race/gender grounds.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Conservative Field Day by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Extremists on both sides will. You'll have religious nuts who will go out of their way to ensure anyone and everyone promoting tolerance towards transgender and gay people will get plastered with demonetization requests, and SJWs will do the same with anything and everything dealing with religious content and anything else that's "white privilege promoting" in their eyes.

      In the end, the sane people will be the ones losing out. Because when the dust settles after they're done, what's left is cat videos and some teen "youtube stars" promoting the crappy products they created that even your average homeshopping channel wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.

      So long YouTube, you were fun while you lasted.

      NEXT!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Conservative Field Day by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Well now, all of them are subject to complaint under these rules... conservatives are going to have a field day bringing down videos.

      It doesn't bring down videos. It just removes most of the ads from it.

    7. Re:Conservative Field Day by cyberchondriac · · Score: 2

      Good catch. And when weasel words aren't enough, they'll just redefine terms after the fact to make them fit their agenda.
      Example, I've read many opinions that blacks simply cannot be "racist" because racism is defined (?) now as, "racial discrimination or stereotyping exercised or implemented at an institutional level".. i.e. not personal belief or actions. Definitely not what Merriam-Webster says but whatever.
      So, a black person can, under this new definition, say or do anything against a white person or people and it's "not racist" or hate speech because it's not somehow institutionalized.
      I've seriously had this argument on Facebook with a few BLM members, and their racist UC professor actually teaches (brainwashes) them this made up crap. It's scary. There are many SJWs out there that don't seek justice, they want revenge.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    8. Re:Conservative Field Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No its because Google, Facebook, Twitter and the rest of the fuckers work DIRECTLY for the Deep State. This is just another way to stifle free speech.

    9. Re:Conservative Field Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When youtube restricts advertising that criticizes one group, while allowing it for similar criticism for another group, it becomes by definition institutionalized.

    10. Re:Conservative Field Day by zieroh · · Score: 1

      I've read a couple of your posts now, and it's clear that you don't even understand the basic premise. This is about monetization of videos, not whether the video can be on YouTube. It's shocking (shocking!) how much effort you've put in to espousing your point, when your point isn't even on point.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    11. Re:Conservative Field Day by poity · · Score: 1

      Wait, let me see if I understand you correctly.
      Disparaging white/black people's whiteness/blackness = violation
      Disparaging white/black people's behavior = not a violation

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    12. Re:Conservative Field Day by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      But instead of educating me you just belittle me.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:Conservative Field Day by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Yes, because being white/black is involuntary but behaviour is a choice.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:Conservative Field Day by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      From a strict grammatical perspective, "associated with systematic discrimination or marginalization" only applies to "other characteristic", and so does not modify the previous words' meaning at all, but implies that they are also "associated with systematic discrimination or marginalization". :-)

      --
      == Jez ==
      Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
    15. Re:Conservative Field Day by zieroh · · Score: 1

      But instead of educating me you just belittle me.

      From my reply:

      This is about monetization of videos, not whether the video can be on YouTube

      That was me educating you.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    16. Re:Conservative Field Day by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Yawn. Another AC chickenshit liberal using the standard liberal playbook. YAWN

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    17. Re:Conservative Field Day by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Whether something is educative is up to the recipient, not the sender.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:Conservative Field Day by russotto · · Score: 1

      After all, one of the worst things you can do an opponent is make them live by the rules they made...

      That only works against honorable opponents, or if you have an honorable authority to appeal to. Here, there's neither; Google will happily ignore complaints about videos expressing hate against white males even when they contravene its own rules.

    19. Re:Conservative Field Day by zieroh · · Score: 1

      By that standard, not a single 10 year old has ever received an education. So that's a big fat nope on your made-up rule.

      And by the by, your crack about being belittled rings particularly hollow. The tell is your slashdot ID. Both of us have been here long enough to know that the victim act is bullshit.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    20. Re:Conservative Field Day by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      What victim act? All I wanted from you is a sensible answer.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re:Conservative Field Day by zieroh · · Score: 1

      And I gave you one. You were conflating monetization of videos with censorship. I corrected you. What's worse is that you were probably deliberately conflating monetization with censorship, which would make you more than a bit dishonest.

      So which is it? Were you mistaken, or were you being dishonest? Because there are objectively no other explanations for your statements.

      Pick one.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
  5. What a broad definition by DatbeDank · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    1. Re:What a broad definition by mea_culpa · · Score: 1

      Just like Twitter, some youtubers are more equal than others.

  6. Looks more like a giant liberal loss to me by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Conservatives only attack people on an ideological basis, I don't see anything in the rules that would stop any conservative videos I've seen.

    Nope, instead you are going to see a lot of content pulled from notable racists like Hillary Clinton, who can't help but blame problems on an entire race of people.

    Remember kids, being color-blind means just that - don't place blame on people based on the color of their skin! Everyone has different pasts and experiences, such that you cannot categorically treat them as as a group instead of individuals.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Looks more like a giant liberal loss to me by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The most racist people I know are do good liberals who are trying to save colored people. Like Whiteplaining why black people can't use cell phones.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      They think they aren't racist because they are trying to "help" people of color.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re: Looks more like a giant liberal loss to me by Plowd · · Score: 1

      See comment above: If liberals and conservatives both lose then isn't it a win for humanity?

    3. Re:Looks more like a giant liberal loss to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm white I don't give a flying fuck about your problems. I don't need to give a fuck about your problems. If that offends you go fuck yourself.

    4. Re: Looks more like a giant liberal loss to me by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Not really, it's a win for those that have enough idiots paying them regardless of views. They can keep spreading their bullshit while everyone debunking it will have to pack and go.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Looks more like a giant liberal loss to me by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Why only white people, all people can listen, it's not a white privilege, dammit!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Looks more like a giant liberal loss to me by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      You mean he took over as Shitposter-in-Chief?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re:Looks more like a giant liberal loss to me by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      Nobody is talking about pulling content. But hey, let's not let that get in the way of an opportunity to talk about Hillary Clinton - truly our country's greatest problem. Pay no mind to what's going on with the man who actually made it to the white house. Shh.... Believe me.... believe.

    8. Re: Looks more like a giant liberal loss to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How is this flamebate???

      It is called "flame bait" because idiots have used mod points to label it as their idiotic knee-jerk political correct reflexes
      told them to do.

      It's not REALLY flame bait. It exposes cluelessness on the part of well off white jerkoffs in Berkeley California,
      and that is the unvarnished truth.

    9. Re:Looks more like a giant liberal loss to me by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      why black people can't use cell phones

      Isn't this the reason why? It's colonial science after all. You have to come up with decolonized phones first.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    10. Re:Looks more like a giant liberal loss to me by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Color blind is only true when a black man holding a gun is quietly asked by police to return the weapon to the car, instead of killing him.
      Thus we know who the racist really is here.

    11. Re:Looks more like a giant liberal loss to me by MrLint · · Score: 1

      Freeow...

      And this is why this is 'entertainment' and not even news and certainly not research. An ad-hoc 'survey' of white college people in Berkley, in a state with no voter ID laws. To NYC another state with no voter ID laws. Quite literally neither of these ad-hoc groups are affected.

      A very lazy search shows there are about a handful of DMV offices in Manhattan alone. In a borough and city with a large public transit system.

      Again another very lazy search shows that many of the other *counties* have 1 DMV office and very poor (if any) public transit. Even at that my comments are not research or data, its only more (albeit more useful) ad-hoc crap.

    12. Re:Looks more like a giant liberal loss to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A sincere effort would be to help them get to the DMV if their need was legitimate - for any race to get ID. It's another lie, the libs know they are benefiting from illegal voting from any class that benefits from their pandering and are deliberately obfuscating the issue by claiming that there is an imaginary tiny percentage out there that can't be bothered to get ID because of an imaginary burden and all voter IDs are therefore racist. Furthermore, to accommodate this imaginary group we should maintain nation-wide vulnerabilities in the voting system. Anyone who believes this narrative is a brainwashed lib-zombie or is even worse, deliberately desiring to undermine democracy for the sake of the libs.

    13. Re:Looks more like a giant liberal loss to me by MrLint · · Score: 1

      citation needed.

    14. Re:Looks more like a giant liberal loss to me by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      citation needed for lots of political claims, including "black people can't find the DMV" or "Hispanics can't afford a free ID" and "Poor people can't figure out how to navigate how to get an ID, even though it is required for just about everything in society today, including getting government benefits"

      But I don't see anyone crying "citation needed" every time some liberal is crying wolf ... "Children are certainly going to die!!!"

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    15. Re:Looks more like a giant liberal loss to me by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Voter ID laws are racist because poor voters are less likely to have ids and minorities are more likely to be poor. Likewise, minority voters are far more likely to vote democrat which is why red states love their voter id laws.

      A well edited video of the public talking about any political concept can find a shocking level of ignorance on any subject. Your video proves nothing.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  7. Religion? by blind+biker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unlike ethnicity, disability, or age, religion is something the individual chose him/herself, and should be completely open to ridicule and mocking. It's an ideology, there is nothing sacred about it.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:Religion? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Probably had to throw that in for the advertisers. Shane because otherwise it all seems fairly reasonable for a commercial service like YouTube.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Religion? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      That has to cover the investors, the monarchies and kingdoms with blasphemy laws.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:Religion? by qwak23 · · Score: 1

      Sure it's a choice, I certainly made a choice when I decided I was no longer a christian, but that was also a fairly painful and difficult experience to go through. Most people are religious because they've been indoctrinated from birth and it is a central and significant part of their life. I consider myself an athiest now (and have for over 30 years) and while I have a very negative opinion of religion as a whole, I also recognize that it can be a critical part of a person's identity and generally refrain from ridicule and mocking. Criticizing their beliefs is a completely separate issue, especially when it involves them imposing their beliefs on others through violence, threats, or legislation.

    4. Re: Religion? by Imrik · · Score: 1

      There is a very significant difference between believing that there is no god and not knowing if there is.

    5. Re:Religion? by scsirob · · Score: 1

      Time to move out of those countries then.

      Several millions are doing that right now, flooding Europe. The problem is, they don't leave their garbage ideology behind.

      --
      To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    6. Re:Religion? by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      I don't disagree, but it is indeed a shame. As humankind, we're better than this.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    7. Re:Religion? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The real issue here is that no one has found a better way to fund these sites. Still, YouTube is going to continue hosting their content for free.

      Kinda exposes the people complaining about it. It's not that they want to become allowed to speak, it's not even that they are demanding a platform. They are demanding to be paid to promote their political views.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  8. The sky is falling... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Another weekend of videos explaining what this mean for the YouTube community.

  9. Re: Conservatives will whine about this by jimbob6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This isn't really a conservative/liberal issue.
    This is an authoritarian/libertarian issue.
    This is how you suppress speaking truth to power. If it doesn't offend someone. Its probably some drivel that isn't worth saying.
    Which is what YouTube wants. Less provocative news and social critique, more ad friendly cat videos.
    If the rules were applied evenly, this would block out entire segments of the media like news, music and comedy.

  10. Nope by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    I will stop posting viewpoints that offend your sensitive child-mind when all you fascist Deep State supporters are crying like Kathy Griffin over the many self-inflicted losses you have incurred...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Nope by lgw · · Score: 1

      Admit it, like me you're an oppressed ethnic Kekistani. (And, dammit, I can't get the Kekistani National Anthem out of my head - the metal version by FrogRock is especially catchy.)

      I can't blame YouTube for this, they're just in it for the money. The NYT is working on a hitpiece showing big advertisers names next to actual hate videos, trying their best to save themselves by scare ad revenue away from the internet. YouTube is pretty savvy, fighting back before it even blows up.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Nope by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      Its an excellent and addictive song. I like this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  11. How is this an issue? by joetomato · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I fail to see how this is a free speech issue. They're not saying you're not allowed to post content like that. They're saying that Google is not going to pay you To post it.

    Say whatever you want, just don't expect Google to help you make a living saying it.

    Unless of course TFA says more than TFS.

    1. Re:How is this an issue? by Imrik · · Score: 1

      The US constitution only applies to government censorship.
      This does not silence people or in any way hinder them getting their message out, it just doesn't reward them for their speech.

    2. Re:How is this an issue? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's an entitlement issue. People feel that they are entitled to be paid for posting their views on YouTube. They feel entitled to force advertisers to display ads along side their videos.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:How is this an issue? by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      If Youtube starts calling stuff "hate speech" it's hard to believe it will continue to host it for free. Corporate advertisers will make further demands, and European Axis Powers are threatening fines

  12. YT what? by AndyKron · · Score: 1, Troll

    So basically YT is saying they only want cuddly cat videos. Is there another video hosting sight that isn't full of fucking bullshit?

    1. Re:YT what? by Falos · · Score: 2

      YT doesn't give a damn, this is a dance to placate advertising deals.

      Who in turn are also doing lip service for some client or another. Trace it back and it probably converges to some nasal screecher demanding not to share space with videos by pewdiepie or whatever internet "celebrity".

      It's the same as netflix being told to "fight" proxies, the same as blizzard saying they're doing "something" about overwatch porn, the same as TSA burning through billions of tax dollars, the same as your ISP being obliged to do anything when they'd much rather get paid insane margins for keeping everything plugged in, and (quite reasonably) ignore the endless 3rd party demands about "the activity at client 171.175.55.55 during 2017-07-05 17:55". But dance they must.

      It's what happens when the journalism bullshits like "What is X doing about Y?" fail to disperse from the "We at X take Y very seriously." chaff and you have to double down the lip service and say "we posted a policy Twitter is hate-free now please come back"

  13. Heritability of religion by tepples · · Score: 1

    Sometimes religion is chosen for you. Children often have no practical ability to opt out of their parents' religious practices.

    1. Re:Heritability of religion by tepples · · Score: 1

      What should a child who endures such hateful ridicule due to his parents' religious beliefs do to end ridicule directed towards him?

    2. Re:Heritability of religion by tepples · · Score: 1

      Choose a saner religion?

      "No, we're not driving you to the meetings of the religion you choose. Instead, we're driving you against your will to the meetings of the religion we choose."

      Realize that the cult he's at is actually kinda shady and agree that maybe he should develop some ties outside of the cult?

      "You're becoming too worldly. We'll have to take privileges away as long as you're living under our roof."

  14. Choice? by DiscountBorg(TM) · · Score: 1

    The vast majority of people are born into a religion, and trained from birth to interpret reality through that lens, and frequently, are further trained in how to process (or fear and avoid) viewpoints that disagree. I don't know how you call that a choice. Like, not to break into a free will debate, but we only make choices based on what we know, and if what we know is limited, our choices are limited.

    --
    "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." George Bernard Shaw
    1. Re:Choice? by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      That religion is used to brainwash children does NOT change the fact that religion is indeed an ideology.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    2. Re:Choice? by DiscountBorg(TM) · · Score: 2

      As John Maynard Keynes so eloquently put it: “Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”

      Everyone has ideology, especially the people who deny it. I grew up in a cult, and according to them, everyone else had a "religious ideology" and we had the truth. Few people question their reality, so their ideology is invisible to them. "Ideology" has become a code word for "a worldview that is obvious to me because it conflicts with mine."

      Brainwashing is ostensibly used to reprogram adults, not children. It came into prominence as a cold-war word for deserters, and has about as much scientific evidence behind it as cold war LSD experiments to find truth serums. What I went through was shitty but it wasn't "brainwashing". It's what any kid goes through when they grow up in a culture and believe what their parents tell them, just amplified because of the cult language and the imprinting of fear responses from a young age.

      More to the point, religion is infused with cultural traditions. Which is why as an atheist, you still probably believe in a rationalist universe that Christianity created, or why you might still celebrate Christmas, even if you know it's horseshit.

      --
      "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." George Bernard Shaw
    3. Re:Choice? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I fucking hate Christmas. I leave the West just to get away from it, but it is starting to affect East too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Choice? by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      A fuckton of assumptions, kid. For one thing, I don't celebrate Christmas.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    5. Re:Choice? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I fucking hate Christmas. I leave the West just to get away from it, but it is starting to affect East too.

      I love Christmas. I'm an atheist, and if I wasn't, my religion would almost certainly not be Christian because that's not my family background. It's really just based on pre-Christian traditions which are more or less having a bit of a party at the most miserable time of year, with a bit of Victorian weirdness thrown in (well a lot).

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:Choice? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The same shitty music, the same crap food, the same forced time off work, the same commercial rip-off fest every year... As someone with chronic fatigue the extra obligation of buying cards and stupid gifts is a literal pain I could do without too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Choice? by tepples · · Score: 1

      What steps should a child who is a victim of ongoing parental brainwashing take?

    8. Re:Choice? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The same shitty music,

      OK well you know those obnoxious tits who actually like christmas songs at Christmas?

      Ahem.

      the same crap food,

      I don't get why so few people like roast turkey. I love the stuff. Thought I think my SO nearly murdered me when I tried to get a reduced one after Christmas. I'd only had 3 turkey dinners :(

      I do make a mean roast turkey though.

      the same forced time off work

      I kinda like that. I think if basically there was not no one to work with I probably wouldn't have taken time off last Christmas and that would have been very bad for me. As it is, too few people take off all their holiday time.

      As someone with chronic fatigue the extra obligation of buying cards and stupid gifts is a literal pain I could do without too.

      Hm OK that figures. I kind of skip out on some of that. I generally exchange gifts with my SO. I only give gifts to adult family members if I happen to see something that I think would be fun. I get the best gifts I can for my young relatives because what's christmas about if not winning? Plus they're at the age where I can introduce them to new things, which I like.

      I don't do cards though.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    9. Re:Choice? by DiscountBorg(TM) · · Score: 1

      The word "might" indicates its an example. Whether you do or don't is completely missing the point. If a person is not at the very least looking at the things Keynes is saying, if doing so elicits strong emotion, you'll never find the ideologies that are there, same goes for everyone else whom it's easy to accuse of "having ideology." Lots of religious people say the same in return about atheists. It's a thought terminating cliche that explains nothing.

      --
      "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." George Bernard Shaw
    10. Re:Choice? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I think I could accept the music if it was for a day or two a year... But it's 2 months. One 6th of my entire life if I don't actively avoid it.

      Turkey is okay, but the other crap... Pigs in blankets, ugh.

      Last year I asked everyone to not get me anything, and it was great. This year I'm just going to avoid the UK entirely I think, take long enough off to miss the worst of it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Choice? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I think I could accept the music if it was for a day or two a year... But it's 2 months. One 6th of my entire life if I don't actively avoid it.

      Hm yeah ok. December is OK, but when you get christmas tunes in october, that's kinda irritating.

      Turkey is okay, but the other crap... Pigs in blankets, ugh. :(

      Last year I asked everyone to not get me anything, and it was great. This year I'm just going to avoid the UK entirely I think, take long enough off to miss the worst of it.

      Sounds entirely reasonable. Not everyone has to like the same things as me.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    12. Re:Choice? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of people are born into a religion, and trained from birth to interpret reality through that lens, and frequently, are further trained in how to process (or fear and avoid) viewpoints that disagree.

      This itself is promoting discrimination against religious people.

      Not saying you're wrong, but realize if you made a youtube video saying this, they'd separate you from the advertisers.

    13. Re:Choice? by DiscountBorg(TM) · · Score: 1

      I highly doubt it. I have seen far more inflammatory things on YouTube than a general description of things common to culture and group behavior. For example, the person I'm responding to thinks it's OK to mock anyone religious because it's something they "choose" to do even though nobody chooses to be born into a cultural group. He then shifts the goalpoast from choice to "they are brainwashed" which is totally contradictory and shows that it's mostly knee jerking--good for mod points though.

      --
      "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." George Bernard Shaw
    14. Re:Choice? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Yeah ok. Lemme rephrase that.

      Realize if you made a youtube video saying that, they should separate you from the advertisers according to this policy as stated. You know, if there wasn't politics in play.

    15. Re:Choice? by DiscountBorg(TM) · · Score: 1

      I really can't find anything on this in the policy. Youtube itself only provides the example "it is generally okay to criticize a nation-state, but not okay to post malicious hateful comments about a group of people solely based on their ethnicity." A nation-state is a state of mostly one ethnicity--criticism is ok, discrimination is not.

      Discrimination is about exclusion. If I said, "don't let members of this particular religion into your establishment" that would be promoting discrimination. I'm not even pushing for anyone to do anything other than to not make up silly non-explanations as a reason for religious mockery. I'm not even targeting a specific group--"religious people" is pretty broad and general.

      At the same time, when religious people go on long rants about atheist communists killing millions of people in the 20th C, I don't think that's discrimination either. If they refuse to hire atheists or exclude them in other ways that is.

      --
      "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." George Bernard Shaw
    16. Re:Choice? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Per that view NOTHING on youtube is discrimination and I'd agree.

      But the policy isn't just about discriminating against people, like not hiring them or excluding them from clubs, it's stated as "PROMOTING discrimination".

      Oh, and also anything that "disparages or humiliates". Pointing out that people are born into religions that train them to fear and avoid other viewpoints is a disparaging remark. Humiliating for open-minded religious people. And it encourages people to avoid and discriminate against participating in said religion.

      That this statement was said in an effort to, I think, make religion look like something people are born with and not made as a conscious choice and therefore similar to a disability or being born into a less privileged class or race is, frankly, hilarious. But maybe I'm reading too much into it.

    17. Re:Choice? by DiscountBorg(TM) · · Score: 1

      Disability has nothing to do with it, unless one thinks that being religious makes a person disabled.

      I don't see hundreds of thousands of young adults in Utah lining up to become Hinduists or Taoists. If you're born in Utah you will more likely be a Mormon, raised in a Mormon household, or you will be a member of another Western religion in the same way. That's because you make your choices based on what you get from your surroundings, what you're socialized in. For most believers, religion is not a hat you choose to discard on a whim anymore than the rest of your culture or traditions, it is part of your family and community history, it's how you see the world. Saying it's just "a choice" is being flippant about the majority of the world's religions.

      Going by the interpretation of Youtube policy I am reading above, fundamentalists could easily blame the self-professed open minded religious people for humiliating them when they disagree. After all, the open minded types often claim that fundamentalists are being willfully disingenuous and insincere, practicing only "in the name of religion." Even the claim of being open minded is to distinguish from those closed-minded types. Point being until youtube tells us what humiliation consists of, it isn't criticism. And I disagree that discrimination is about avoiding participation. Discrimination is exclusion of group members (eg not hiring members of a specific religion), it isn't about preventing criticism.

      "People are born into religions, and then trained to interpret reality through that lens." Where does that sentence even say "the religion trains"--that's two independent clauses! This is about socialization, who teaches, and how people learn!

      As for Youtube, I guess we'll find out in praxis.

      --
      "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." George Bernard Shaw
    18. Re:Choice? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Disability has nothing to do with it, unless one thinks that being religious makes a person disabled.

      If that means they're "trained from birth to interpret reality through that lens, and frequently, are further trained in how to process (or fear and avoid) viewpoints that disagree"... then YES, they're very much mentally and/or developly disabled. They do not posses the ability to see reality or learn about new viewpoints like a normal person. That's akin to those suffering PTSD or clinical depression. Something they'd hopefully get therapy for.

      But... it's not like most religious people are really as bad as that. For most people, it's just a christmas and easter thing. Even in strict places, yeah sure, you maintain social order by not eating in public during the day for a month. You step up, do the ritual, and sit down. There are the devout, but also the not-devout, those that are just along for the ride.

      And yeah, I agree it's not REALLY a choice for most people.

      Going by the interpretation of Youtube policy I am reading above, [silly people can use it to block sane people]

      YES. That was MY point. I believe we are actually in perfect agreement with each other on the main thrusts of BOTH of our arguments here.

      Point being until youtube tells us what humiliation consists of, it isn't criticism.

      Wrong. Point being that "promoting discrimination, disparaging, and humiliation" can mean whatever youtube wants them to mean. This isn't pending anything. It's in effect right now and this memo from youtube trying to clarify their stance doesn't clarify anything as it could be applied to anything by anyone. We don't have to wait until after Youtube launches. It's in production now. You can go read articles and, ironically, watch youtube videos about people pointing out what is and is not de-monitized. You too can spot the trend. And I don't think this memo wasn't supposed to CHANGE the policy, only explain it.

      And I disagree that discrimination is about avoiding participation.

      Yeah, barring participation. If you avoid participation, you are the one discriminating against the activity. But the policy isn't about discrimination per se, it's about PROMOTING discrimination.

      it isn't about preventing criticism.

      There's a million ways to promote discrimination. Are you just whistling Dixie? If you don't get that reference you need to step back from the debate and get some learnitude to go along with that latin.

    19. Re:Choice? by DiscountBorg(TM) · · Score: 1

      Maybe there should be therapy for people who leave fundamentalist communities, it's difficult to abandon everything while telling yourself that God isn't damning you. That might be akin to having PTSD. Aside, at least here in the Western+European liberal traditions, most of the Christians (and members of other creeds) I personally know are pretty chill about it too, you're quite right there. But in the Bible belt it affects government policy over classroom science education, Roe vs Wade, and who votes for which political candidate. Also, until 50 years ago we still took blue laws (aka the sabbath) seriously. "Sodomy" laws prohibiting what consenting adults do in privacy, usually because of religious convictions, were repealed only in 2003. Our chill religious society is very recent and fragile...

      I think this is very normal group/tribal identity and social influence at work, not mental illness. This applies to a lot more than just religion (which is why I mentioned group behavior above). There's the "third wave" experiment, but in more ethical studies, people form in-groups over arbitrary things so quickly that it's shocking. It's a bug or feature of being human. Agree with a political partisan on nearly everything but tiny details on one of their models, and they claim you're with the out-group. They've heard it all, and they already have a response designed to quickly deal with views that disagree. In our daily political life you'll constantly run into interpretive articles or YT lectures that oversimplify your political critics, teaching you how to dismiss them, while reaffirming your tribal identity..There are many books I have seen that get passed around Christian households detailing why other faiths are mistaken and what the correct view really is. Even some of the open-minded I know share things on why who they deem the closed-minded are wrong or are willfully insincere, while reaffirming their "correct" scriptural interpretation. So this isn't just religion. It's kind of normal. Hopefully that explains better the point I was trying to make about religion and socialization. Religion is the venue, socialization is what people do. Next time I'll be more careful in the first post haha.

      Anecdotally, I know of hardcore believers who still do quite well as engineers+computer scientists and so forth. They have strong communities and familiesr. I can't say, in this case, that their beliefs are disabling. Misleading maybe, but not enough to be unable to function in society or find happiness. These types are puzzling.. but I think it comes down to the above, tribal identity, not mental illness.

      Since we agree on most other things (you are right that YT can do whatever it wants) there's no need to rehash, but I'll look up some of the stuff you're talking about. No offense to whistling Dixie, it's a nice turn of phrase.

      I think the YT problem is that discrimination has different word senses/meanings (like a crop can be any of these: a photoshop job, a style of haircut or a harvest). The definition I see about discrimination is specifically about treating people based on the groups they are in. If I read you correctly, what you are talking about seems to be quite different, more discrimination in the sense of judgment about what a thing is and what it does--but no group is entitled to have people sign up for them.. Anyway if YT takes it as far as you are saying, it's going to be a gong show. They'll be revoking major media documentaries.. time to break out the popcorn..

      --
      "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." George Bernard Shaw
  15. MediaGoblin with blackjack and hookers by tepples · · Score: 1

    You could always start your own MediaGoblin instance on your own web site.

  16. Re: Conservatives will whine about this by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is how you suppress speaking truth to power.

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

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  17. Re:Youtube:profiting on everyone's copyright for f by tepples · · Score: 1

    If YouTube is displaying your work without authorization and without grounds for fair use, what happened when you reported this to YouTube through its OCILLA notice process?

  18. Boooo by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    I can't say anymore that religious nuts are well defined in the ICD-10 F22.0 without being demonetized?

    Hey, it's only the truth!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  19. Re:Conservatives will whine about this by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    It also means that sane people can't post videos debunking the bullshit some preachers spread anymore if they want to make a living that way. So the religious nuts and those trying to milk idiots believing in that bull should be good, after all, the idiots they're preaching to keep sending them money, no need to monetize the videos themselves.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  20. "The systems aren't perfect." by Chas · · Score: 1

    So we're going to continue being as arbitrary and vague about this as possible as we implement our agenda.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:"The systems aren't perfect." by Hartree · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm sure the policy is designed very carefully. Not for preventing anything objectionable, but so Google can't possibly suffer any legal problems due to it.

    2. Re:"The systems aren't perfect." by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      So we're going to continue being as arbitrary and vague about this as possible as we implement our agenda.

      Their agenda is "make money". If you are being paid for your videos, then you only matter to them inasmuch as the presence of your videos is bringing in more advertising dollars than they are spending on you. If you start bringing in less, or worse, have a negative impact on their revenue, they'll dump your ass.

      Their agenda is not shadowy or vague.

      If you want your videos online censorship-free, then find a host like Dreamhost (anything not violating the first amendment is allowed) and PAY them to host your stuff, which they will happily do. I have no affiliation other than being a happy customer of theirs BTW.

      You can then post whatever crap you want all day and they won't stop you.

      But if you want someone else to pay you? HA!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:"The systems aren't perfect." by tepples · · Score: 1

      YouTube suggestions at the right side of a video page are not federated. Because of this, a user going the Dreamhost route must find another way to ensure that a video is suggested to prospective viewers. What such ways do you recommend?

    4. Re:"The systems aren't perfect." by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Having the right to free speech doesn't mean you have the right to have other people promote your speech for you. And again, people are under no moral obligation to pay you for your speech or promote your speech to others.

      So you will have to do it yourself. The great thing about doing that in the modern world is that just about everyone can play HTML5 videos on just about any device. In fact youtube in mobile firefox often works better than the native app.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  21. Re:Trump Videos by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    No. All it means is that Trump can't collect the 100 bucks he would make from his videos.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  22. Re: Conservatives will whine about this by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    If you can't make your political point without being a bigot, you probably need to improve your rhetoric.

    In any case, I don't know why people expect YouTube to be the ultimate defender of free speech. It's a commercial service whose primary source of revenue is ads. Maybe you should get together and set up a site dedicated to freedom of speech.

    Crowd fund it. Bandwidth and disk space are cheap. Prove that it can work and can survive and thrive.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  23. Re:All video to be de-monetize by Falos · · Score: 1

    No. You're wrong. Only if they have an insult or disparaging remark in them.

    So remove a nine.

  24. Western Liberal Values by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Western Liberal Values by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Some of his videos were demonetized at the same time as many thousands of others, including make-up tips for trans people and anti-fascist videos. He was just caught up in the shitstorm that happened when advertisers started pulling out of YouTube a few months back.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Western Liberal Values by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Since when does free speech mean that someone will pay you to speak on their platform?

      I swear the loudest advocates of free speech are the people least able to actually advocate for it. You have a right to speak freely. No one is obligated to provide you a platform to do so. Double so, no one is obligated to actually PAY you to speak.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:Western Liberal Values by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely right.

      That said I as a customer get annoyed when content serving companies start trying to actively discourage speech which isn't illegal. Stripping all monetization from videos outright is ridiculous. When someone wants to buy advertising space from you they should be asked to specify what kind of content they do or don't want their brand associated with. This all essentially comes off as people trying to turn youtube into a perfectly PC giant echo chamber, and that would honestly suck for practically everyone. I understand that it is Googles prerogative to do whatever they see fit with Youtube, it's just very disheartening to see it lose relevance because their too lazy to work out a better solution.

    4. Re:Western Liberal Values by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      That said I as a customer get annoyed when content serving companies start trying to actively discourage speech which isn't illegal.

      At this point, it's not clear if you're the type of customer who watches videos on youtube, or the type of customer who is buying advertising space.

      When someone wants to buy advertising space from you they should be asked to specify what kind of content they do or don't want their brand associated with.

      To some extent they probably are. It certainly happens in TV and cinema advertising. However, that still doesn't mean youtube has any obligation to find the kind of obnoxious advertisers who want to advertise on obnoxious videos.

      This all essentially comes off as people trying to turn youtube into a perfectly PC giant echo chamber, and that would honestly suck for practically everyone.

      Yeah no not really. Firstly, there's tons and tons of great stuff on youtube that somehow doesn't manage to offend vast numbers of advertisers so thoroughly. And for the rest... it's still on youtube, it just won't get ads.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:Western Liberal Values by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Currently I'm the kind that watches, though I suppose that actually makes me the product at some point. But I could also at some point be an advert buying customer, and seeing how hamfisted some of their efforts have been isn't encouraging.

      If they aren't actively trying to match their advertisers to videos then their doing a disservice to their advertisers as well as shareholders. Otherwise they are essentially hosting the video as a public service. It's easy to see this issue and chalk it up as only a problem for people deliberately riding the edge, like neo-nazis. But this has been affecting uploaders that are far more bland.

      For instance one youtuber I follow mainly does woodworking and homesteading stuff and occasionally discusses his rather main stream religious beliefs. I find his religious views uninteresting and usually skip to the next video when he gets into that. But apparently some people find it offensive and will actually take the step to report it as offensive somehow and get it demonetized for sometime until he successfully refutes their claims officially.

      That kind of thing can have a huge impact on the content creator because frequently most of the views they get on any given video happen in the first few days if not hours. If you dis-incentivize content then you will eventually see less and less of it. And while I think that'd be nice in terms of hate speech, I feel that the brushes they are painting with, or allowing to be used by others, are far to broad.

  25. Re:Trump Videos by mark-t · · Score: 1

    But YouTube still can??? Seems like they would have to disable even their own ads on hateful content or else they could be construed as endorsing it.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  26. Re:Youtube:profiting on everyone's copyright for f by tepples · · Score: 1

    "Wrong box" sounds like a user interface problem. In my opinion, a user interface that is confusing to navigate is defective. Did you take a screenshot of the confusing part of YouTube's form?

    Your "regular citizen or gold tier" appears to be a paraphrase. What phrasing did YouTube actually use? Using the same terminology that YouTube uses may help other readers understand exactly what went wrong.

    The "bot entrance" appears to be related to the Content ID system. I have read that because Content ID is the most CPU-intensive takedown means, YouTube offers Content ID only to copyright owners whose work is uploaded most often. Is this qualification part of what you meant by "gold tier"?

  27. If what you know is limited, try googling by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    or asking people who are not exactly like you what they know, value, and believe. Then your knowledge will become less limited and you will be free to choose.

    The thought-police do not yet have the tools to know what you really think inside your mind.

    I'm pretty sure there are a lot of secret atheists in mandatory-religion states. They can recite the words like robots, but they can ignore it and laugh at it on the inside.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re: If what you know is limited, try googling by DiscountBorg(TM) · · Score: 1

      Oh I think there is a long lineage of secret atheists probably dating back to the presocratic philosophers (some were charged with impiety).
      The thing about googling now is that everything is customized. You are more likely to see things in search engines that reinforce the filter bubble than disrupt it.
      Also, religion is adaptive--it evolves and the fittest versions stick around. Even the fundamentalist group I grew up in has adapted to reinforcing their beliefs on the internet. The "backfire effect" is real.
      But yes if you really are the type to ask the hard questions you can find things if you try hard enough.
      R'amen.

      --
      "The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." George Bernard Shaw
  28. And if google / books etc are banned... by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    then move (for the Great Sphaghetti Monster's sake, may his noodly appendage wave over us beneficently), or have a revolution.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:And if google / books etc are banned... by tepples · · Score: 1

      then move

      Anti-refugee sentiment in the United States and much of Europe has made this less practical.

  29. If you act like a sheep by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    you'll be herded like one, and all your utterances will be heard as "ba-a-a-a-a-a-h".

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  30. Cat's are full of hate by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    They hate all moving things smaller than them, and kill them at any opportunity. Ban the evil hate-filled cat videos.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  31. Re:We have Slashdot for that by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Uh...what exactly is it you want us to show you?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  32. Re:Youtube:profiting on everyone's copyright for f by sexconker · · Score: 1

    YouTube uses the word "partner" a lot when referring to the media corps that pay to have access to the real tools.
    The public gets a half-working form that generates a report that is never acted upon.

  33. Re: Conservatives will whine about this by zieroh · · Score: 2

    This is an authoritarian/libertarian issue.

    Poppycock. You have a right to spout hateful bullshit, but nobody (least of all a private corporation) should be obligated to pay you for doing so.

    --
    People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
  34. Re:Conservatives will whine about this by zieroh · · Score: 2

    It also means that sane people can't post videos debunking the bullshit some preachers spread anymore if they want to make a living that way.

    No it doesn't. It just means they have to be rational and civil while doing so, instead of shrieking hate at the top of their lungs.

    --
    People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
  35. Re:Conservatives will whine about this by zieroh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Only an idiot would celebrate an attack on freedom of speech.

    How is this an attack on freedom of speech? Since when is getting paid by advertisers a necessary component of the exercise of free speech?

    --
    People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
  36. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  37. Re:Conservatives will whine about this by lgw · · Score: 2

    No, they can't. If the bullshit the preachers spread is offensive, then quoting it to highlight just how crazy those guys are will get you a community strike and eventually banned. People reading sections of the Koran that call for violence against the infidel, to make a point about Islam, have been banned - not for hate speech against Islam, which would make some vague sense, but for supporting terrorism.

    Being civil is no form of defense at all. Meanwhile, Jim Fucking Sterling Son still has never had a video taken down, and "uncivil" is pretty much his whole theme (of course, he doesn't monetize his videos, so YouTube gives 0 fucks about him since there are no ads running next to the guy waving the 3-foot dildo sword).

    But that also shows the way out: support yourself via patreon or similar, not YouTube ad revenue, and YouTube will leave you alone.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  38. Re:What about Trump haters? by lgw · · Score: 1

    Heh, Slashdot mods, so predictable.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  39. systematic abuse by Z80a · · Score: 1

    "Hey! your video panning the latest EA (tm) game is systematically discriminating against the group of people known as Electronic arts employees, Demonetized!"

  40. Re:Racism by Z80a · · Score: 1

    Judging people by their "race" at all is racism.

  41. Well I'm not vapid by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Mr. Reality. Unlike you I am not an empty vessel full only of steam and hot air...

    B.U.R.N. - Somebody put the kettle ON.

    I'll let you have the last response, mine was too masterful to bother reading whatever half-boiled retort you manage cook up.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  42. Re: Conservatives will whine about this by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    Youtube is a corporation of such size and reach that it's policy effects the direction of the world.

    Thus their attempts to suppress concepts and ideas that they disagree with is an act of censorship, tyranny and oppression.

    OK, so what is your solution? I have problems with capitalism too, so I fully understand your frustration. Unfortunately, corporations of great size and reach that have an effect on the direction of the world have been with us for as long as we've had corporations (see "John Company" aka "East India Company").

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  43. Re: Conservatives will whine about this by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    In a world where certain massive corporations often have more power than the government in specific areas

    You are welcome to join our anti-capitalism book club. We meet at the union hall every Tuesday night. It sounds like you're ready.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  44. Re:Racism by Imrik · · Score: 1

    In theory yes, in practice no.

  45. And so YT goes the way of Twitter into oblivion by guruevi · · Score: 1

    Within 5 years they'll find themselves asking why nobody is on their platform, where all the advertisers are without noticing all the content is based around the same set of circle-jerks.

    Being offended just means you're too narcissistic to tolerate opinions different than yours.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  46. Re:Racism by Z80a · · Score: 1

    It end being in a way or another.
    Even if you're "helping a race", you end damaging em more than actually helping, because you're objectifying the individuals, erasing their personal goals, merits and turning em into dolls of a particular color of skin.
    It's just a stupid and imprecise way to judge people.

  47. Re: Conservatives will whine about this by swillden · · Score: 4, Informative

    Thus their attempts to suppress concepts and ideas that they disagree with is an act of censorship, tyranny and oppression.

    They aren't censoring or suppressing anything. You can still put publish whatever. For free! To the whole world! They just won't attach ads to your speech if it's offensive to advertisers.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  48. Fail by harlequinn · · Score: 1

    On first glance it seems to me that "fail" type videos and practical joke videos all fall foul of these rules.

  49. Youtube must be off their rockers by anonieuweling · · Score: 1

    `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." `

    I.e.: when I post a video declaring we want to limit immigration severely for the sake of stability of my country I am discriminating w.r.t 'race', ethnicity, origin, nationality, religion, etc. (we could not want any person with no or backward education because they are a drag on our society)
    In such case pure logic shows the validity of the argument against limitless immigration.
    Yet Youtube (leftist? libtard? hyper-PC?) thinks we cannot have such an opinion?
    Weird organisation. Or at least weird rules by a questionable organisation not able to write rules.

    1. Re:Youtube must be off their rockers by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      In such case pure logic shows the validity of the argument against limitless immigration.

      What utter rubbish. Your so-called "pure" logic must make some assumptions about the actual world, and include some sort of moral, ethical or other judgements on your part. Since there is no underlying grand truth to life, your base assumptions are just that, assumptions. You and others might thing they're reasonable, but they are not pure logic in any abstract sense.

      The only thing which could be considered to stem from pure logic is maths.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  50. Progressives *are* whining about this by anyaristow · · Score: 1

    And by "whine" I mean "have been squelched and are complaining."

    This policy covers topics such as war and Syria. You can't report on war or Syria, as in "the war in Syria", and expect to be monetized. If you have "war" or "syria" in the title, it'll be automatically unmonetized.

    You can't report on anything the nanny state has determined might be in opposition to mainstream news. Use the word "lawsuit" or the name "seth rich" and you're probably going to be unmonetized, even if your video parrots the mainstream propaganda, as in, "the DNC lawsuit is bunk", or "the seth rich story is conspiracy nonsense". Got naughty keywords? No ads for you.

    And you sure as hell can't describe the dnc lawsuit or the seth rich story, fairly or not, and expect ad revenue.

    Want to talk about propaganda? Call it something else.

    Hillary Clinton? Be nice to her or her paid trolls (Correct the Record, now ShareBlue) will report you.

    Something you want to describe as "rigged"? Don't do that.

    Think you want to report on news and use words like murder or conspiracy or conflict? Yeah, nanny state don't like those words anymore.

    Say something unapproved today? They're going to go through all your videos now and unmonetize the ones they don't like.

    This might be google appeasing advertisers, as they say it is, or it might be google exerting political influence, like they do in search listings, or it might just be google realizing that political commentators will continue to produce content for their platform even if they don't pay them anything. Whatever it is, it's definitely not just a smack down on conservatives. Progressives are complaining, too.

  51. Re:Youtube:profiting on everyone's copyright for f by tepples · · Score: 1

    A partner is a YouTube user who has an address in a supported country, 10,000 total views of public videos, an AdSense account, and at least one original video approved for advertisement. It doesn't necessarily mean "media corps". I guess you might be referring to Content ID, access to which requires approval because the process is so CPU-intensive. But what other parts of YouTube copyright enforcement are conditioned on having been granted access to Content ID?

  52. Re: Conservatives will whine about this by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    So I'm sure we'll hear no complaints from you if a company starts censoring leftist dogma.

    You mean a company like Newscorp? Or SRN radio network? Clear Channel/iHeart?

    There are two remedies for companies that censor speech. One is easy, the other is hard.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  53. Leonard French by tepples · · Score: 1

    Use the word "lawsuit" or the name "seth rich" and you're probably going to be unmonetize

    Then how does Leonard French, a lawyer who makes videos about tech lawsuits, keep his ads?

    Something you want to describe as "rigged"? Don't do that.

    What effect will this have on Blender 3D modeling tutorials, particularly when a man is associated with an armature?

    1. Re:Leonard French by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      I think the key word is 'probably,' and the odds are that we're going to be able to use things like those Blender 3D modeling tutorials as canaries to determine just how automated the demonetization is. I'm not sure Leonard French would be a good canary for 'lawsuit' making the banned list, he might function more as a part of a canary set for telling if that filter is in and if there's a whitelist...

  54. Re:Bugs in trouble by tepples · · Score: 1

    Videos violating the copyright of Warner Bros. Animation were already banned.

  55. Re: Conservatives will whine about this by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    Actually, he's right. Read the damned 1st Amendment for once. NOTHING about free speech on someone else's property

  56. What means of promotion for off-YouTube video? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Having the right to free speech doesn't mean you have the right to have other people promote your speech for you. [...] So you will have to do it yourself.

    Let's pretend for a moment that you have produced videos that you want others to see, and you have made them viewable on devices supporting HTML5 video. Now what steps would you take to promote them? I ask because I seek something to recommend to others seeking alternatives to YouTube's right column.

    The great thing about doing that in the modern world is that just about everyone can play HTML5 videos on just about any device.

    Except web browsers on iPod touch, iPhone, and iPad, until Apple adds WebM support to WebKit.

    1. Re:What means of promotion for off-YouTube video? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Let's pretend for a moment that you have produced videos that you want others to see, and you have made them viewable on devices supporting HTML5 video. Now what steps would you take to promote them? I ask because I seek something to recommend to others seeking alternatives to YouTube's right column.

      I'm not much of an expert on promotion (read: not at all) being more of an engineer type. But not all content is on YouTube. There seem to be plenty of special interest forums and blogs out there. Those might be a place to start.

      Except web browsers on iPod touch, iPhone, and iPad, until Apple adds WebM support to WebKit.

      They support H.264, though and there's always ffmpeg for encoding.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:What means of promotion for off-YouTube video? by tepples · · Score: 1

      They support H.264, though and there's always ffmpeg for encoding.

      What patent license is required for a U.S. resident to use FFmpeg internally?

  57. Re: Conservatives will whine about this by lgw · · Score: 1

    If you don't think his persona would spark controversy in society at large, you need to meet a broader range of people. Of course, within the very narrow world of games journalism, he's controversial and radical for a very different reason: he's willing to tell the publishers "fuck off, I'm writing an honest review of your shitty game, boycott me all you want". TB is the only other PC games reviewer I know that does the same.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  58. Re: Conservatives will whine about this by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

    That's why corporate charters were highly restricted when the US was first formed. The founding fathers knew what corporations could become, so they made it as hard as possible to incorporate and very easy to disband a corporation. Unfortunately this changed over the next couple hundred years to the point a person can become a one person corporation by simply paying a fee and it is almost impossible to disband a corporation.

  59. Definition not clear, please try again. by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    or other characteristic associated with systematic discrimination or marginalization

    Like idiocy? Lying?

    Listen, we discriminate against a LOT of characteristics because they're BAD characteristics. "Discrimination" might sounds like a bad word, but when picking fruit at the store, do you discriminate against the ones with worms poking out? Why don't you fairly give the wormy apple a chance? When a scientist says "don't do X, because it will kill us all, here's my proof" he's promoting people to discrimination against doing X.

    The problem with discrimination comes up when people erroneously think a characteristic is bad when it really isn't. Like being black. Black people aren't bad. Some of them are, but not all. Just like some asian people are bad, but not all of them. It's been a political issue because so many people made a thing about it.

    I get what they're trying to do. They want to protect the little guys, and the oppressed, and leave it open enough to bring in whatever scrappy underdog comes next. But they left it so open as to include literally everyone.

    I mean... if me and my friend agree to say mean things on youtube about.... oh jesus...... uh.... Major General Richard Montgomery, then we have a system. And some people could call that systematic. Because good fucking luck getting a clear-cut definition of that.

    For example, neo-nazis in Germany have been systematically discriminated against. With the whole "it's fucking illegal" thing. Saying anything negative about neo-nazis should therefore cut the purse-strings of your youtube video.

    Lemme just... lemme re-phrase this plan using just one clause path:

    "They cut the funding of anything that promotes discrimination of anyone on the basis of a characteristic associated with discrimination." Do you see the circular reasoning there? Slapping in the term "systematic" has enough wiggle-room to send California into the sea.