YouTube Cracks Down on 'Harmful and Dangerous' Challenges and Pranks (polygon.com) 101
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.
Using Tide to clean out the gene pool (Score:2, Funny)
You and I have different opinions of what constitutes dangerous activity
Re: Using Tide to clean out the gene pool (Score:3, Insightful)
Two months? (Score:1)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So should Netflix execs be jailed for starting that whole birdcage thing?
Guidelines with no effective means of enforcement (Score:5, 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.
Re:Guidelines with no effective means of enforceme (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's all about pushing the current creators out and turning Youtube into Cable TV Jr.
Re:Guidelines with no effective means of enforceme (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Its how you say it. (Score:2)
ok (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:1)
don't forget communists and sjws.
The pranks that never go away :-(
Re: (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.
But what about the Darwin Awards..... (Score:3)
But what about the Darwin Awards [capitalberg.com]?
Seriously YouTube, what are you thinking?
No more Tide Pod challenges, trying to swallow cinnamons, or driving blindfolded.
This makes absolutely no sense.
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree with you on tide pods, swallow cinnamon, and other stupid self abusive shit, driving while blindfolded can get other people killed.
Re: (Score:2)
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
-
darwin (Score:1)
I think it's good to filter the stupid from society.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's good to filter the stupid from society.
Agreed, what would you like done with your body?
What about dangerous activities? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
First it was the religious right, now it's the progressive left... all in the name of the children of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 b
Ick (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.
So more bans on (Score:2, Troll)
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.
I made someone believe he voted for Trump (Score:1)
He's released from rehab within the next week.
butt rockets (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank goodness we're in a place that respects free speech and would never consider censoring someones posts.
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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, bus
Re: (Score:2)
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, whe
Re: (Score:2)
You've misread my comments and made faulty interpretations of my statements. I'm done with you.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
So Long OAS (Score:2)
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.
cause death? (Score:2)
'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.
It's about time! (Score:1)