Slashdot Mirror
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."
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...
I want to run my ads on anti-SJW videos?
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
I seriously doubt they're going to be applying this rule fairly to offensive videos on both sides of the political divide.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
No, this is how a private corporation chooses to do business.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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
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
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)
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.