YouTube bans insults based on race, gender expression and sexual orientation

[Lorgar Aurelian]

And who is reasonable?
Is this racist?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3PJF0YE-x4

Yes which is why He only ever did it once.

By the way, I've never done that joke again, ever, and I probably never will. 'Cos some people that were racist thought they had license to say nigger. So, I'm done with that routine."

[GreenGoldSharpie]

aka: Don't be a dick and you'll be fine?

I'm guessing this is their primary hang up. Social skills are apparently difficult.

[Heran]

No, you don’t. If you did they couldn’t kick you off for saying it.

Right to free speech doesn't dictate what companies can or cannot do if they don't like what you're doing. It stops the government from prosecuting you.

[Endus]

Pretty soon all pejoratives will be banned. When money is involved, Youtube must allow everything (most of everything) or nothing. The people with the most money win.

There's been no push anywhere to ban all cussing. Well, except the fringe right puritan types in the USA, who've had enough influence to keep bad words off TV for a long time (hence Carlin's "7 words" bit). And that's been chipped away at continuously over the years, and that hasn't slowed down or changed direction.

Can we stop being dishonest with each other?

Can we not equate requests for specificity with being oblivious to basic manners?

Is it so outlandish to ask a company to be specific when the premise of its announced change is banning and punishing content creators based on the (insulting) words they use?

Yes, it's outlandish. It means that those who want to engage in banned activity can just develop a new word; "Hey, instead of calling them the n-word, let's just call them 'naggers' and they can't ban us". That's why you target the effect of the language use, rather than the specific wording. You're addressing the intent and motive, not the specific means.

They are, in short, banning "causing physical injury to another" whereas you're suggesting they should specify exactly what weapons you aren't allowed to hurt someone with, and if you can use any tool outside that list, you can beat them to death and that's fine. That's obviously outlandish, and that's why nobody does things that way.

You do understand the difference between the government restricting your speech and a private company, right?

Specifically, said private company's only controlling the use of its own services, by its own customers. There's no control of speech in general by private companies, just the use of their services to broadcast certain speech to a wider world.

[Kraenen]

Why are people trying so hard to poke holes into a rule that is obviously intending of lowering the toxicity of it's community? Who loses here with this new rule exactly that has so many of you up in arms over it?

It specifically says, "Google-owned YouTube will no longer allow anyone on its platform to post content that “maliciously insults” others based on protected traits including race, gender expression and sexual orientation"


aka: Don't be a dick and you'll be fine?

Sure, but I post a lot of material that could be considered inflammatory to religious groups. For example if I point out that the church has a pedophilia problem, is that phobic and malicious? I'm fine with banning content-less insults and flaming (not that I'm in favor of it either since it's just shit/trash posting that people end up ignoring), so I'm thinking of ways this could backfire against good people pointing out real but generalized problems. It's pretty obvious Youtube's political bias will lead them to go after the 'right targets' so maybe this fear is minimal. For example, would this video get banned for racism?

[Egomaniac]

Sure, but I post a lot of material that could be considered inflammatory to religious groups. For example if I point out that the church has a pedophilia problem, is that phobic and malicious? I'm fine with banning content-less insults and flaming (not that I'm in favor of it either since it's just shit/trash posting that people end up ignoring), so I'm thinking of ways this could backfire against good people pointing out real but generalized problems. It's pretty obvious Youtube's political bias will lead them to go after the 'right targets' so maybe this fear is minimal. For example, would this video get banned for racism?

I think you could point out the pedophilia problem in the catholic church in general terms. That's a matter of public record. Not just with the pedophilia itself...but of the pattern of covering it up. What would be more problematic is if you started referring to all catholic priests as "boyfuckers" or something like that.

Similarly, if a gay man raped someone...you could call that man a rapist...as long as you didn't follow it up with something like "because that's what these faggots do".

And no, I don't think that video could be banned under this rule. I don't see anyone saying "Black dudes are like this", "hispanic males are like that, or "white dudes are like that". It doesn't even go so far as to say "all men are like this". It's just a woman documenting her regular experiences while walking through the city.

[Endus]

It’s against the law to cuss in public in several states. Here’s the law in my state. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/...ction18.2-388/

A> Ridiculous, and B> it appears that law was implemented in 1950. So not exactly a new, emerging issue.

[Kallisto]

I'm guessing this is their primary hang up. Social skills are apparently difficult.

It's 2019 where for these people not being a dick will mean that they'll get SJWness.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

It's 2019 where for these people not being a dick will mean that they'll get SJWness.

I really think this is what happens when you stop trafficking in normal society. I work in a building with over eleven hundred people and the number of incidents of being an outright dick is, in my experience, pretty low.

[Egomaniac]

A> Ridiculous, and B> it appears that law was implemented in 1950. So not exactly a new, emerging issue.

Also, it would be interesting to know when the last time that law was actually enforced as it pertains specifically to the "profanely curses or swears" portion without the "intoxicated in public" portion.

[riptor7364]

When people don't have free speech, they want it.
When people have free speech, they don't want it.

People are obviously fucking stupid.. so stupid we're handing over one of the most important rights ever given to a civilization, to a profit driven mega corporation.

Sounds like a well thought out plan if you ask me..

And to the people saying "muh private business".. your'e idiots. Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Google are monolithic gate keepers of information. They have more power and influence over people than the federal government at this point. They have scary, really fucking scary amounts of power, the power to change elections and shape culture in the snap of a finger.

When you control what people see, what people hear, on a daily basis, you effectively control culture, and when you control culture, you control people. We are all products of our environment, and if you're never exposed to a view or option that just might change your perspective on an issue, because the moral arbiters of YouTube (Google) decide it's not "advertiser friendly", society has effectively become unwilling slaves to advertisers.

We're at a point where we're basically doing what government and socialist activists do to "fix" something, apply overly simplified 1 size fits all solution to millions of individual people with different views, different experiences, different races, genders, belief systems, political ideologies..

We'll just apply 1 way of doing things, to all these different people, and say if you don't like it, conform or leave.

Yes this definitely seems like the right way to go for a company founded and based in the freest country in the world.

I suspect this will all go VERY WELL for YouTube, because socialist approaches to problems ALWAYS end well.

[Endus]

And to the people saying "muh private business".. your'e idiots. Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Google are monolithic gate keepers of information. They have more power and influence over people than the federal government at this point. They have scary, really fucking scary amounts of power, the power to change elections and shape culture in the snap of a finger.

Literally all the "power" they have is because people choose to use them and their services.

If people decided they didn't like what Twitter and Facebook and Amazon do, they could collapse those companies into bankruptcy, just by walking away en masse. I'm only excluding Google because Alphabet Inc. has a lot of presence in the background, so people might not realize they're using some of their services, but really, that's got nothing to do with speech in the first place; the same principle would apply to those branches that operate like the others listed.

They have no "control". They exist at the whims of their users. All it takes to change that is users saying "nah" and going elsewhere.

I suspect this will all go VERY WELL for YouTube, because socialist approaches to problems ALWAYS end well.

Straight-up McCarthyist propaganda fearmongering, without any basis in reality or truth.

Your talking points are straight out of the 1950s, and we knew they were ridiculous bullshit even then.

[Mekkle]

There goes most conservative youtubers.

[DarkAmbient]

If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere.

Why do people blurt out this worthless sentiment when faced with a negative opinion about something?

"Hmm I tried the game but it seems pretty bad"
"Don't like it don't play it"

"The film sucked"
"You don't have to watch it"

"Wow that new song is terrible"
"No-one's forcing you to listen to it"

Every time, there's always one.

[Machismo]

Why do people blurt out this worthless sentiment when faced with a negative opinion about something?

"Hmm I tried the game but it seems pretty bad"
"Don't like it don't play it"

"The film sucked"
"You don't have to watch it"

"Wow that new song is terrible"
"No-one's forcing you to listen to it"

Every time, there's always one.

Well, that's what capitalism is all about.

If you don't like that this site won't let you be racist or homophobic, then don't use it. Start your own site.

I'm not sure why you hate capitalism so damn much, but that seems like a "you" problem.

[Flarelaine]

I suspect this will all go VERY WELL for YouTube, because socialist approaches to problems ALWAYS end well.

Can you present to us the chain of logic that took you from behavioural standards to social ownership of the means of production?

[Egomaniac]

Why do people blurt out this worthless sentiment when faced with a negative opinion about something?

Isn't that usually the defense for these kinds of Youtube videos? "Don't like it...don't watch it"

[Machismo]

When people don't have free speech, they want it.
When people have free speech, they don't want it.

People are obviously fucking stupid.. so stupid we're handing over one of the most important rights ever given to a civilization, to a profit driven mega corporation.

Sounds like a well thought out plan if you ask me..

And to the people saying "muh private business".. your'e idiots. Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Google are monolithic gate keepers of information. They have more power and influence over people than the federal government at this point. They have scary, really fucking scary amounts of power, the power to change elections and shape culture in the snap of a finger.

When you control what people see, what people hear, on a daily basis, you effectively control culture, and when you control culture, you control people. We are all products of our environment, and if you're never exposed to a view or option that just might change your perspective on an issue, because the moral arbiters of YouTube (Google) decide it's not "advertiser friendly", society has effectively become unwilling slaves to advertisers.

We're at a point where we're basically doing what government and socialist activists do to "fix" something, apply overly simplified 1 size fits all solution to millions of individual people with different views, different experiences, different races, genders, belief systems, political ideologies..

We'll just apply 1 way of doing things, to all these different people, and say if you don't like it, conform or leave.

Yes this definitely seems like the right way to go for a company founded and based in the freest country in the world.

I suspect this will all go VERY WELL for YouTube, because socialist approaches to problems ALWAYS end well.

You can literally start your own competing website in a matter of minutes. You can post whatever videos you want, and anyone who wants to see them, can go to your URL, and see those videos.

You do realize, that in this equation, you are the socialist... right?

[Trassk]

When people don't have free speech, they want it.
When people have free speech, they don't want it.

People are obviously fucking stupid.. so stupid we're handing over one of the most important rights ever given to a civilization, to a profit driven mega corporation.

Sounds like a well thought out plan if you ask me..

And to the people saying "muh private business".. your'e idiots. Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Google are monolithic gate keepers of information. They have more power and influence over people than the federal government at this point. They have scary, really fucking scary amounts of power, the power to change elections and shape culture in the snap of a finger.

When you control what people see, what people hear, on a daily basis, you effectively control culture, and when you control culture, you control people. We are all products of our environment, and if you're never exposed to a view or option that just might change your perspective on an issue, because the moral arbiters of YouTube (Google) decide it's not "advertiser friendly", society has effectively become unwilling slaves to advertisers.

We're at a point where we're basically doing what government and socialist activists do to "fix" something, apply overly simplified 1 size fits all solution to millions of individual people with different views, different experiences, different races, genders, belief systems, political ideologies..

We'll just apply 1 way of doing things, to all these different people, and say if you don't like it, conform or leave.

Yes this definitely seems like the right way to go for a company founded and based in the freest country in the world.

I suspect this will all go VERY WELL for YouTube, because socialist approaches to problems ALWAYS end well.

I want to say that it surprises the the responses to this announcement on this forum of this change, but honestly at this stage it doesn't, infact I expect nothing less then people on these threads agreeing with censoring of free speech given the nature of how things operate here.

Some might argue that youtube, or any website (like this one) has the right to censor anyone they want. Up to a point they do, however as you said, websites that have a monopoly on the spread of information, have only gotten to that point because of freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Youtube would not be the powerhouse it today if they censored what people said when the site began, this this level of censorship.

Of course I wouldn't expect people on threads like these to understand how important freedom of expression is, I mean imagine if we still operated on level of censorship such as how things worked 100 years ago during the jim crow law era, where you were segregated based on skin color. Not able to vote, not able to even drink from the same water fountains.
But today the 'liberal' thinkers online can't reflect on history to what happens when you silence people, they haven't learned that history has a tendency of repeating itself when you don't learn from it.

People who are so thin skinned they can't handle an insult online to the point they need people to be censored or removed, to making the internet into the 'safe space', rather then growing thicker skin, is hilarious how in their approach to stop the big bad insults, they become the thing their own forebears fought against a couple generations ago.

[Endus]

Why do people blurt out this worthless sentiment when faced with a negative opinion about something?

"Hmm I tried the game but it seems pretty bad"
"Don't like it don't play it"

"The film sucked"
"You don't have to watch it"

"Wow that new song is terrible"
"No-one's forcing you to listen to it"

Every time, there's always one.

Because "I don't like it" is just a statement of personal preference. It doesn't mean anything to anyone but yourself.

If you don't like zucchini, fine, just don't eat zucchini. If you're expecting to convince anyone else to not eat zucchini, even if they like zucchini, you're the one being completely fucking ridiculous and expressing a grossly inflated sense of self-importance.

People are telling you to take ownership of your own opinions, and stop trying to demand that everyone else agree with your preferences.