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.
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.
You and I have different opinions of what constitutes dangerous activity
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.
Will the general Population accept it. Google is great it. Thats why China wants them to build their search engine.
[($)]
But nazis, antivaxxers, etc can keep posting like normal
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.
Content creators have two months to clean up their thumbnails. Vidoes that violate the community guidelines can still be reported and removed.
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
It's all about pushing the current creators out and turning Youtube into Cable TV Jr.
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.
I think it's good to filter the stupid from society.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
He's released from rehab within the next week.
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.
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
I hope they keep the butt rockets. Who doesn't like a good butt rocket video?
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.
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
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
'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.
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.
So should Netflix execs be jailed for starting that whole birdcage thing?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
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.
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
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.
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
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.
You've misread my comments and made faulty interpretations of my statements. I'm done with you.
Just another day in Paradise
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.