YouTube Clarifies 'Hate Speech' Definition and Which Videos Won't Be Monetized (arstechnica.com) 271
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."
That clears things up! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Untenable strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
What if (Score:2, Insightful)
I want to run my ads on anti-SJW videos?
Re: (Score:3)
I'd buy your crap.
Just for the sake of it.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Conservative Field Day (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...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
... 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.
Re: (Score:2)
It is systematic, because it is allowed without question, because of orthodoxy of thought.
Q.E.D.
Re: (Score:3)
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 o
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because being white/black is involuntary but behaviour is a choice.
Re: (Score:2)
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 s
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
But instead of educating me you just belittle me.
Western Liberal Values (Score:3, Interesting)
I was just listening to this guy [youtube.com] 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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
What a broad definition (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Just like Twitter, some youtubers are more equal than others.
Religion? (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably had to throw that in for the advertisers. Shane because otherwise it all seems fairly reasonable for a commercial service like YouTube.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree, but it is indeed a shame. As humankind, we're better than this.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Heritability of religion (Score:2)
Sometimes religion is chosen for you. Children often have no practical ability to opt out of their parents' religious practices.
Re: (Score:2)
What should a child who endures such hateful ridicule due to his parents' religious beliefs do to end ridicule directed towards him?
Choice? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That religion is used to brainwash children does NOT change the fact that religion is indeed an ideology.
Re: (Score:3)
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 thei
Re: (Score:2)
I fucking hate Christmas. I leave the West just to get away from it, but it is starting to affect East too.
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
A fuckton of assumptions, kid. For one thing, I don't celebrate Christmas.
Re: (Score:2)
What steps should a child who is a victim of ongoing parental brainwashing take?
If what you know is limited, try googling (Score:2)
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.
And if google / books etc are banned... (Score:2)
then move (for the Great Sphaghetti Monster's sake, may his noodly appendage wave over us beneficently), or have a revolution.
If you act like a sheep (Score:2)
you'll be herded like one, and all your utterances will be heard as "ba-a-a-a-a-a-h".
Re: (Score:2)
then move
Anti-refugee sentiment in the United States and much of Europe has made this less practical.
Re: If what you know is limited, try googling (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 refra
Re: (Score:2)
There is a very significant difference between believing that there is no god and not knowing if there is.
Re: (Score:2)
The sky is falling... (Score:2)
How is this an issue? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
YT what? (Score:2, Troll)
MediaGoblin with blackjack and hookers (Score:2)
You could always start your own MediaGoblin instance on your own web site.
Re: (Score:3)
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 t
Cat's are full of hate (Score:2)
They hate all moving things smaller than them, and kill them at any opportunity. Ban the evil hate-filled cat videos.
Boooo (Score:2)
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!
"The systems aren't perfect." (Score:2)
So we're going to continue being as arbitrary and vague about this as possible as we implement our agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 fin
Re: (Score:2)
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?
systematic abuse (Score:2)
"Hey! your video panning the latest EA (tm) game is systematically discriminating against the group of people known as Electronic arts employees, Demonetized!"
And so YT goes the way of Twitter into oblivion (Score:2)
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.
Fail (Score:2)
On first glance it seems to me that "fail" type videos and practical joke videos all fall foul of these rules.
Youtube must be off their rockers (Score:2)
I.e.: when I post a video declaring we want to limit immigration severely for the sake of stability of my country I am d
Re: (Score:2)
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
Looks more like a giant liberal loss to me (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 [youtube.com], 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
Re: (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?... [youtube.com]
They think they aren't racist because they are trying to "help" people of color.
Re: (Score:2)
why black people can't use cell phones
Isn't this the reason why? [youtube.com] It's colonial science after all. You have to come up with decolonized phones first.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope (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...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Why only white people, all people can listen, it's not a white privilege, dammit!
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Progressives *are* whining about this (Score:2)
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 mainstr
Leonard French (Score:2)
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?
Re: Conservatives will whine about this (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.
Re: Conservatives will whine about this (Score:5, Interesting)
No, this is how a private corporation chooses to do business.
Re: (Score:3)
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" ak
Re: Conservatives will whine about this (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Conservatives will whine about this (Score:4, 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?
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
"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 [youtube.com]?
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 mos
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
A partner [google.com] 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?
Re: (Score:2)
No. All it means is that Trump can't collect the 100 bucks he would make from his videos.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. You're wrong. Only if they have an insult or disparaging remark in them.
So remove a nine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, Slashdot mods, so predictable.
Re: (Score:2)
Judging people by their "race" at all is racism.
Re: (Score:2)
In theory yes, in practice no.
Re: (Score:2)
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.