Slashdot Mirror


YouTube Cracks Down on 'Harmful and Dangerous' Challenges and Pranks (polygon.com)

YouTube has set stricter guidelines for "harmful and dangerous" prank and challenge videos. From a report: "We've always had policies to make sure what's funny doesn't cross the line into also being harmful or dangerous," reads the YouTube guidelines. "Our Community Guidelines prohibit content that encourages dangerous activities that are likely to result in serious harm, and today clarifying what this means for dangerous challenges and pranks." YouTube's guidelines now further detail which of these popular videos push the line, including challenges such as the Tide Pod challenge and the Fire challenge -- anything "that can cause death and/or have caused death in some instances."

As for pranks, videos that make the victims believe they're in serious danger or cause severe emotional distress to children (further clarified with examples like faking the death of a parent) are no longer acceptable on the platform. Creators who host these types of videos on their channels will receive a grace period of two months to clean up their channel.

101 comments

  1. Using Tide to clean out the gene pool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    You and I have different opinions of what constitutes dangerous activity

    1. Re: Using Tide to clean out the gene pool by Eichmil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Don't really care about the Tide bit. That's just self selecting the stupid for pool washing. Driving whilst blindfolded endangers others. Die yourself all you want, but don't take others with you.

    2. Re: Using Tide to clean out the gene pool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's multiple classes of "stupid"

      There is "Stupid is as Stupid does", where people re-create things they've seen. This is why "dangerous challenges and pranks" shouldn't go viral. The Tide pod one was especially egregious since children don't get it.

      There is "darwin award", where people die, or become critically injured in a way that their life is basically over. Driving blindfolded, climbing tall buildings without fall protection, setting self on fire, etc.

      There is "autism-scale ignorance" (aka "I'm smarter than the average bear",) where people are so focused on a end-goal that they ignore the danger warning signs that present that would otherwise not be present if they took a break. These are things like "water drinking without going to the toilet", fad diets (especially things like Atkins), and consuming supplements and pharmaceuticals without medical supervision (eg self-diagnosis.) In general someone who behaves like an autistic child when told not to do something, and they continue to do it because their behavior (regardless if they are autistic or not) falls along the "fuck you, I'll do what I want just to spite you" type of reasoning.

      And then there's "sunk cost fallacy claims another victim", where people continue to do things with the mistaken belief that the next time it will work. Gambling in general with no self-control. Gachapon/lootboxes are the current iteration of this, but there's also stock market manipulation, and cryptocoin (eg bitcoin, etherium) variations where people are duped into buying rubbish at overvalued prices and then the market crashes hard. These things have no tangible value, so their value only exists for finite amounts of time, and then they're worthless.

  2. Two months? by scdeimos · · Score: 0

    While the whole thing seems like a nanny state situation... isn't two months grace period far too long? In two months viral videos have spread far and wide and earned mountains of advertising revenue for the content creator. In two months the peak viewing audience has pretty much moved on to the next big thing... like an egg.

    1. Re:Two months? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I read that as two months from now, the grace period is over.

      That is, two months before they start to enforce this, and possibly demonetize channels, etc.

    2. Re:Two months? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Content creators have two months to clean up their thumbnails. Vidoes that violate the community guidelines can still be reported and removed.

    3. Re:Two months? by Xylantiel · · Score: 1

      I've got an idea... make advertisers liable for reckless endangerment and wrongful death claims for people doing things they saw on youtube. If they paid a "creator" for making this video so that they could advertise during it, they are liable for the content of the video right? But "that will kill the platform" you say? Exactly. Maybe the reason the platform is bad for society is that it is inherently unjust. A company can use the basest filth to promote their brand (even target viewers of that filth), but plead innocence to filling the world with filth. This argument applies even more to fraudulent material or terrorist recruitment videos.

    4. Re:Two months? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like demonize you mean?

    5. Re:Two months? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when you purchase advertising targeting 18-25 year olds, you get to go to jail when an automated algorithm displays your add during a video of some dumbass 20 year old driving blindfolded?

      Please, give us some more ideas like this and show us just how goddamn stupid you are.

    6. Re:Two months? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While the whole thing seems like a nanny state situation...

      Alphabet is a private company, moron.

    7. Re: Two months? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alphabet is part of the parastate. They are not democratically accountable, but they are hardly a "private business".

    8. Re:Two months? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you wouldn't.
      Because if such a law was in place you wouldn't just push your ads to as many channels as possible.
      Instead you would make sure that your ad money only went to channels with responsible behavior.
      In return the 20 year old wouldn't drive blindfolded since it wouldn't generate any ad revenue.

      Currently people are encouraged to behave like assholes because number of clicks is more important than how you got them.

    9. Re:Two months? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is too naive, and your understanding of how advertisements is essentially zero.

      If such laws were in place, advertisers would only advertise on curated videos and websites, thus all user-generated content hosting systems would become too expensive (eg youtube, soundcloud, tumblr, twitter, facebook, disqus, etc) to operate and would also shutdown or go subscription-only.

      The algorithms are designed to match content to advertisements, and a lot of this is self-reported or the occasional survey-in-an-ad-box mechanic. Laws would just make algorithms 100% unusable except with human curated content, and then you'd just get a lot of bait-and-switch. People like pewdiepie and logan paul would be dropped like they're radioactive. Hate generators like infowars and nearly every right-wing source of news and entertainment would stop being so lucrative. The only people making money in an environment of overregulation of advertisements would be Disney-like content.

      As it is, advertisements are already at a shit-tier valuation, which is entirely google's fault because their algorithms suck, and are designed to waste advertisers money on "Safe" content that a lot of people see, but very little people click on because those click-bait content farm sites have more ads than content (eg those one-paragraph-per-page slideshow sites that have 30 ads on them per page, and the content is often stale or stolen.) People using adblockers on everything-by-default have sent some ad-supported sites into subscription-only states as a means of just paying for the hosting where they only need 10 subscribers to support the site.

    10. Re:Two months? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      So should Netflix execs be jailed for starting that whole birdcage thing?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  3. Guidelines with no effective means of enforcement by stevez67 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They can publish all the "feel good" guidelines they want. Until they can effectively and promptly enforce consistent guidelines, it's all marketing drivel aimed at keeping the lawyers and regulators at bay.

  4. Its how you say it. by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Will the general Population accept it. Google is great it. Thats why China wants them to build their search engine.

    --
    [($)]
  5. ok by bhcompy · · Score: 1, Troll

    But nazis, antivaxxers, etc can keep posting like normal

    1. Re:ok by H3lldr0p · · Score: 2

      Not to mention that the heyday of prank videos has come and gone. The changes to their promotion algo effectively nuked them. What is YT trying to do with this change to their TOS?

    2. Re:ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't forget communists and sjws.

    3. Re:ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't forget those, he's quite happy that commies and purplehairs are free to post.

    4. don't forget communists and sjws.

      The pranks that never go away :-(

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  6. Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we can take that awful gillete prank.

  7. Re:Guidelines with no effective means of enforceme by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They can publish all the "feel good" guidelines they want. Until they can effectively and promptly enforce consistent guidelines, it's all marketing drivel aimed at keeping the lawyers and regulators at bay.

    Exactly this. They have all sorts of rules and guidelines but we all know that unless the PR $#!+ hits the fan they don't enforce them regularly. They are in the business of selling ads and as long as they are not getting raked over the coals for something, they don't have the resources to police everybody. Just keeping porn at bay is a full time job, even though there are other, more popular options for that stuff.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  8. Re:Guidelines with no effective means of enforceme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's all about pushing the current creators out and turning Youtube into Cable TV Jr.

  9. But what about the Darwin Awards..... by Proudrooster · · Score: 2

    But what about the Darwin Awards?
    Seriously YouTube, what are you thinking?

    No more Tide Pod challenges, trying to swallow cinnamons, or driving blindfolded.

    This makes absolutely no sense.

    1. Re:But what about the Darwin Awards..... by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      While I agree with you on tide pods, swallow cinnamon, and other stupid self abusive shit, driving while blindfolded can get other people killed.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    2. Re:But what about the Darwin Awards..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just waiting for the Cut-Your-Balls-Off Challenge...

    3. Re:But what about the Darwin Awards..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just waiting for the Cut-Your-Balls-Off Challenge...

      You're about 15 years too late, don't look up the "Pain Olympics"...

    4. Re:But what about the Darwin Awards..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we start the nutsack zip tie challenge? We could get the idiots out of the gene pool pretty quick.

    5. Re:But what about the Darwin Awards..... by froggyjojodaddy · · Score: 1

      I must admit, I find a certain hilarity associated with watching people eat cinnamon powder etc. As long as they're ONLY hurting themselves, it's funny. When they do stuff that could hurt others, it's not funny. Random-stranger-minding-their-own-business did not sign up to be part of your shenanigans

      While we're at it, can we ban the following:

      - 10 things I hate about my . Inevitably shows person with their head in their hands in despair
      - 60 minute long videos for content that really is 5 mins
      - Instructional videos with terrible / annoying music. If I clicked on a video titled, "Greatest V12 sound ever", I don't want to hear some crappy pop / synth music.
      - "Review" videos that are just some cheap text-to-speech program reading out an obvious copy and paste from an article

    6. Re:But what about the Darwin Awards..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget all those "free energy 100% works" videos.

  10. darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think it's good to filter the stupid from society.

    1. Re:darwin by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      I think it's good to filter the stupid from society.

      Agreed, what would you like done with your body?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  11. We've been down this road before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Content providers are always scared shitless that the idiots of the world are all going to do something stupid, just because "I saw it on TV". In 1993 Beavis and Butthead got blamed because some 5 year old kid started his house on fire.

    https://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/10/us/cartoon-on-mtv-blamed-for-fire.html

    So MTV banned the two idiots from saying Fire! Fire!

    (later it turned out the family didn't even have a cable subscription).

    Mike Judge had a pretty clever response, with an episode when B&B go out in a rainstorm and flying a kite after seeing a PBS show about how Benjamin Franklin did that.

    It's nothing new, and we haven't really learned anything in 26 years.

  12. So I bet ads on a certain site cost more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WOOOOORRRLLLD STAAAAAAARRRR!

  13. Re:Guidelines with no effective means of enforceme by Falos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Aw, you say that dismissively. Your customers wanted signaling, and you achieved that. Mission complete. It's not like actually being effectual matters, just advertisers, who were getting I Want To See The Manager in their inboxes.

    Part of me wanted to celebrate a decrease in garbage on Youtube, but then again, it's about as impressive as removing "All 1% milk cartons" from a landfill.

  14. What about dangerous activities? by imcdona · · Score: 1

    I'm waiting for the day YouTube starts banning motorcycle chases and the like. Someone is eventually going to make the case that watching such videos encourage dangerous behavior.

    1. Re:What about dangerous activities? by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      First it was the religious right, now it's the progressive left... all in the name of the children of course.

    2. Re:What about dangerous activities? by fafalone · · Score: 1

      For now... don't forget, children don't place very high on the Victimhood Hierarchy, so this policy is ok as long as it doesn't hurt anyone with a higher rank... and if it does, fuck the children... literally: recall the enlightened progressive European Court of Human Rights, desperate to defend Muslim feelings from those crazy people who for some reason take issue with people having sex with 9 year olds, declared that as long as you keep sleeping with them after they hit puberty, it's not pedophilia, and therefore illegal blasphemy to call Muhammad a pedo. Yes, really.
      Well, I guess that at least explains YouTube's inability to do something about all the creepy guys who flood the comments of little girls' gymnastics videos.

    3. Re:What about dangerous activities? by fafalone · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's not like there's been actual news articles about that problem, I could only possibly have known about it first hand.
      And even more offensive, I'm not even close to conservative, I vote straight (D) and support single payer, drug legalization, criminal justice reform in general, discrimination protection for LGBTQIA+ and trans right to use the facility of their choice, abortion rights, legalizing prostitution, and etc; it's getting more and more tiring to explain how not all liberals are SJWs and batshit crazy progressives obsessed with identity and grievance politics.

  15. Optimus Primes death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cartoon deaths are not allowed?

    1. Re:Optimus Primes death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, he got better.

  16. Re:"cause severe emotional distress to children" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's on TV, it's already been past Standards and Practices. Youtube is concerned about the random stuff that hasn't. Jimmy isn't telling parents their parents died or telling them to eat laundry detergent. It's just stupid candy and not orwellian in the slightest.

  17. Re:Nazi faggot cries about getting his ass kicked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come get some, Nancy.

  18. Ick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't know which is worse - that someone would prank a child by telling them their parent died, or that someone would watch it. This level of depravity makes me despair for the status and future of the human race.

    1. Re:Ick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      agreed. I had a couple of big posts here that i'd typed out, outlining other different examples. Not just about kids, but also general duty of care, and glorifying in the failure of large responsibilities. but they just simply boil down to "I really agree with this statement"

  19. So more bans on by AHuxley · · Score: 1, Troll

    funny political memes and one side of politics?
    No blasphemy and the history of faiths/cults?
    Wait for Germany, France and Spain to demand the removal of "harmful" political and historical content.
    News about protests will be removed.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:So more bans on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saudi Arabia will demand the removal of all videos with females not wearing a burka

  20. Darn it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My video of shoving Tide pods up my butt while being blindfolded was sure to score millions of viewers!

  21. Re:"cause severe emotional distress to children" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't matter if it's been on TV. It certainly meets the criterium of severe emotional distress.

  22. I made someone believe he voted for Trump by Dirk+Becher · · Score: 1

    He's released from rehab within the next week.

  23. Re:Guidelines with no effective means of enforceme by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

    Until they can effectively and promptly enforce consistent guidelines, it's all marketing drivel aimed at keeping the lawyers and regulators at bay.

    So.. we good then? If you've solved the problem of lawyers and regulators, then you've solved the problem. It's not like it's in society's interest to censor web hosts.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  24. butt rockets by AndyKron · · Score: 2

    I hope they keep the butt rockets. Who doesn't like a good butt rocket video?

  25. Yay censorship! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I much prefer a padded cell where I can never be hurt than walking about in the open where I might trip and hurt myself. Just to be safe, Alphabet-sama, can I have a straight jacket also? Can never know when I'll tear my eyes out out of sheer boredom!

    1. Re:Yay censorship! by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Thank goodness we're in a place that respects free speech and would never consider censoring someones posts.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    2. Re:Yay censorship! by dcw3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thank goodness we're in a place that respects free speech and would never consider censoring someones posts.

      Your free speech rights don't cross the line into a web site owned and operated by someone else who doesn't like what you have to say. You're completely free to create your own though.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    3. Re:Yay censorship! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is if those sites claim to be public.

    4. Re:Yay censorship! by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Thank goodness we're in a place that respects free speech and would never consider censoring someones posts.

      Your free speech rights don't cross the line into a web site owned and operated by someone else who doesn't like what you have to say. You're completely free to create your own though.

      I'm sure you would feel differently if your credit card vendor decided they did not like what you were purchasing and decided to cancel the transaction. You would be completely free to create your own though.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    5. Re:Yay censorship! by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Thank goodness we're in a place that respects free speech and would never consider censoring someones posts.

      Your free speech rights don't cross the line into a web site owned and operated by someone else who doesn't like what you have to say. You're completely free to create your own though.

      I'm sure you would feel differently if your credit card vendor decided they did not like what you were purchasing and decided to cancel the transaction. You would be completely free to create your own though.

      Your credit card vendor has a legal obligation to make payment. A random website has no legal obligation to you. Apples v. Hockey Sticks

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    6. Re:Yay censorship! by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Your credit card vendor has a legal obligation to make payment. A random website has no legal obligation to you. Apples v. Hockey Sticks

      Well you've made a great case for censorship.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    7. Re:Yay censorship! by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Your credit card vendor has a legal obligation to make payment. A random website has no legal obligation to you. Apples v. Hockey Sticks

      Well you've made a great case for censorship.

      Censorship isn't always inappropriate. And FWIW, I'm fine with someone wanting to yell and scream or hold up signs for ANY cause on the steps of the capital, because...free speech! Conversely, I think the courts overstepped when they allowed the Westboro Baptist Church members to protest and interrupt funeral ceremonies...your rights stop where they interfere with the rights of others IMO. I'm very much against censorship of ideas in any forum run by the government, but open to it by any place, site, business etc. .

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    8. Re:Yay censorship! by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Your credit card vendor has a legal obligation to make payment. A random website has no legal obligation to you. Apples v. Hockey Sticks

      Well you've made a great case for censorship.

      Censorship isn't always inappropriate.

      By unparsing your double negative you're saying that censorship is mostly appropriate.

      And FWIW, I'm fine with someone wanting to yell and scream or hold up signs for ANY cause on the steps of the capital, because...free speech!

      But nowhere else. It's interesting how you view free speech as people yelling and screaming.

      Conversely, I think the courts overstepped when they allowed the Westboro Baptist Church members to protest and interrupt funeral ceremonies...

      Defending free speech means defending people's right to express ideas that you may not agree with so that the ideas can stand or fall on their own merits. It would seem you think there are limits to how free speech should be, which isn't free speech.

      your rights stop where they interfere with the rights of others IMO.

      Except, according to your previous statements, if it is a public web forum, where members of the public make public comments that the forum "doesn't like", then they can interfere with the posters free speech rights because they don't exist on a privately owned public forum.

      I'm very much against censorship of ideas in any forum run by the government,

      so you're against censoring child pornography because the government does that and says that's illegal.

      but open to it by any place, site, business etc. .

      however you're in favor of corporate censorship. So you're open to all the privately owned media censoring what is seen on TV, print media, radio and anything they "don't like" on their privately owned websites, ergo, you're open to closing down free speech.

      I completely disagree, I think the onus is on private companies to defend free speech. More-so, I believe they are obligated to defend free speech as a fundamental tenet of democracy which allows stable business environments to exist, indeed their very business model exists as a function of free speech. The entire premise of western democracy is founded on the right of free speech and association, yet somehow those foundations of our society can be thrown away because someone "doesn't like" what is being said and it offends them? There is nothing more offensive than the banal inoffensive cloistering of conformity.

      You may wish to consider your perspective. I suggest that the enemy within is that you are open to censorship.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    9. Re:Yay censorship! by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      You've misread my comments and made faulty interpretations of my statements. I'm done with you.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    10. Re:Yay censorship! by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      You've misread my comments and made faulty interpretations of my statements.

      The onus for communicating your ideas accurately is your responsibility, this is another burden of free speech. Allowing you to communicate your ideas freely reveals your position, which is mostly justifying censorship. That's how you used your free speech.

      I'm done with you.

      If course, your position is indefensible.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  26. Re:Guidelines with no effective means of enforceme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1 Insightful.

  27. So Long OAS by runningduck · · Score: 1

    How will Outrageous Acts of Science survive? Although to be honest I have always been shocked at what they have been able to find and somewhat concerned that they are in a subtle way encouraging some crazy videos.

    --
    -rd
  28. Re:What about ANTIFA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Nazis are leftsits though.

    Wrong.

  29. Re:"cause severe emotional distress to children" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By your standard maybe, but not society's!

  30. cause death? by sad_ · · Score: 1

    'anything "that can cause death and/or have caused death in some instances."'

    that is basically anything, i can die eating a bowl of soup, walking down the stairs, etc.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
    1. Re:cause death? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The more they censor, the less chance they have of saying "No judge that's not our content...." when something ends up in court.

  31. the revival of common sense ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    May it finaly happen ?? a bit overdue, where did it go anyway ...took a hollyday ?

  32. Re:Guidelines with no effective means of enforceme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aw, you say that dismissively. Your customers wanted signaling, and you achieved that.

    Wow, all of this bullshit around 'virtue signalling'.

    In response we have a bunch of people defending 'asshole signalling'.

    OK, fine, make it public that you are and will continue to be an asshole. Fine, you're an asshole, now deal with the consequences of publicly saying you're an asshole.

    Basically when I hear someone bitching about 'virtue signalling' it really is just saying "well, I'm a complete fucking asshole and proud of it".

    I guess publicly being an asshole is like free speech, you're free to make it, you're not free from the consequences of it. So, go ahead, be an asshole, keep saying that people trying to encourage people to not be assholes are wrong.

    In this case YouTube is trying to tamp down videos which could lead to real, actual harm of people. But you're complaining about your right to be an asshole.

    Well, congratulations, you're an asshole.

  33. Re:Guidelines with no effective means of enforceme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So... you're saying that just saying any variation of "I am doing something good" actually makes you a much better person?

    Wow. No wonder it's so popular to do! A minimum of work and I can feel like I saved the world!

    (Seriously, I'd say YouTube would be doing something better if they had tried banning these kinds of videos first... but they didn't, because those videos get them $$ and the others got them worse PR than even the DEATHS OF CHILDREN in their oh-so-wise estimation.)

  34. Re:Guidelines with no effective means of enforceme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, all of this bullshit around 'security theater'.

    In this case the TSA is trying to tamp down terrorism which could lead to real, actual harm of people. But you're complaining.

  35. Bird box driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a new idiot challenge; driving a car blindfolded AKA bird box.

  36. Re: "cause severe emotional distress to children" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.reddit.com/r/elsagate
    ^ There's some REALLY weird content being published on youtube

  37. It's about time! by jccosmetics · · Score: 1

    It's about time something was done about this! I can only imagine how many people have died because they did some stupid stunt they saw on Youtube.

  38. Re:"cause severe emotional distress to children" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, not my standard. Youtube's standard.