YouTube Says It Will Now Remove 'Violent' and 'Mature' Videos Pretending To Be Kid-Friendly (theverge.com) 40
YouTube announced it is changing its policy in regard to how it treats videos targeted toward minors and young children. "The video platform says it will now remove all content that contains 'violent' or 'mature' themes if it is targeted toward kids, either through the title of the video, its description, or the accompanying tags," reports The Verge. From the report: Going forward, YouTube says this type of content "will no longer be allowed on the platform." Prior to this change, YouTube was age-restricting such videos, but now it's going a step further to help clean up the platform and make it a safer place for children amid intense regulatory scrutiny and nonstop criticism of its executive leadership. The policy change was announced two days ago, but it was done so on a YouTube Help community forum and appears to have gone largely unnoticed, with the post amassing only 20 replies and little news coverage. YouTube says it will begin ramping up enforcement of this new policy over the next 30 days, to give creators a chance to become familiar with the new rules.
As part of that process, YouTube says it will remove videos that violate the policy, but it won't be giving strikes to channels until the 30-day period is up. YouTube says it won't be handing out strikes to videos uploaded prior to the policy change, but it still reserves the right to remove those videos. YouTube advises creators check the YouTube Kids guidelines if they want to specifically reach children with their videos, and it also advises creators to make sure their descriptions and tags are targeting the right audience to avoid getting caught up in the ban. YouTube also says it will be age-restricting more content that could be confusingly viewed as kid-friendly, like adult cartoons.
As part of that process, YouTube says it will remove videos that violate the policy, but it won't be giving strikes to channels until the 30-day period is up. YouTube says it won't be handing out strikes to videos uploaded prior to the policy change, but it still reserves the right to remove those videos. YouTube advises creators check the YouTube Kids guidelines if they want to specifically reach children with their videos, and it also advises creators to make sure their descriptions and tags are targeting the right audience to avoid getting caught up in the ban. YouTube also says it will be age-restricting more content that could be confusingly viewed as kid-friendly, like adult cartoons.
Happy Tree Friends (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Happy Tree Friends shouldn't be posted to Youtube Kids in the first place, and it would probably end up tagged as age-restricted. It should be PG-13 really, but I'm not sure what Youtube's rating system is like.
It's a Wide Net (Score:2)
"The video platform says it will now remove all content that contains 'violent' or 'mature' themes if it is targeted toward kids, either through the title of the video, its description, or the accompanying tags,"
That sounds like HTF and Youtube doesn't seem to care if the video is on Youtube Kids or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but what you wrote only mentions keywords in the title, tags and description. The person uploading the video decides on those things, so the video's content itself isn't mentioned in that explanation.
Unless they are saying that the words "happy" and "friends" themselves are not allowed to be used on violent or mature videos, or you'll get banned because kids could get diverted to the content. If that's the case, then it's Youtube's fault for not having very clever recommendation algorithms.
They already started (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
This issue was raised years ago. People were making fake Pepper Pig videos that involved a gory trip to the dentist or some other thing designed to traumatise kids. They should have stopped it years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When asked how they might identify the videos, YouTube engineers quipped "Let's think cre-a-tive-ly."
This is confusing. (Score:1)
Why weren't they already doing this?
Re: (Score:2)
Why are they seemingly incapable of producing youtube for minors and youtube for adults, oh I know, they are a pack of cunts and they want to specifically target children with advertisements and pretend they are only meant for adults, all the junk food shit and the manipulative shit targeted at children to manipulate their parents, all the peer pressure shite designed to get children to attack each other when they fail to have the right stuff. Alphabet/Google/Youtube absolutely evil as and immoral corrupted
Re: (Score:2)
Because youtube *isn't* a publisher, so they don't have direct control over what is uploaded, they are a platform for self-publishing. This is a common mis-conception about Youtube, Facebook and Steam as well. People often ask "how could Steam 'allow' such-and-such game to be published on Steam. Nintendo wouldn't allow that". The difference is that Nintendo is a *publisher* and Steam is a *platform* for self-publishing.
The business model of Youtube, Facebook and Steam do not provide for "editorial staff" so
Because it's published under YouTube.com (Score:2)
Perhaps people assume that a platform like YouTube is assuming responsibility because the video is self-published on a URL under a domain name belonging to YouTube. If the video were instead self-published under a domain name belonging to its publisher, as the IndieWeb movement recommends [indieweb.org], there wouldn't be quite as much of a problem.
Re: (Score:1)
Push gov approved broadcasting from what nations only? All nations?
The monarchies and theocracies get top ranking? Failed states national broadcasters?
They can make amazing shows. With a wholesome nation building/faith message.
Packed with honour, patriotism and gov approved education.
Ads need users content. Users content makes people watch.
The ads need that viewer.
Money.
Goodbye Naruto (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That'd be gone because copyright strikes in the first place. And it's not really what they're targeting to be honest. As mentioned in other posts, the real targets are people who make spoof kid's cartoons like Pepper Pig which have extreme gore in them, then upload them and label them as children's cartoons in the tags and descriptions.
You can *still* upload violent content, even animated content, just don't go around tagging it as kid-friendly. The algorithm doesn't know whether your video is cartoon or li
Question (Score:1)
Like ninja turtles, GI Joe? (Score:3)
More like tearing Mr Rogers' head off (Score:2)
Some people apparently think it's "funny" to take shows for pre-schoolers, such as Peppa Pig and Puppy Dog Pals, and insert the most gruesome, graphic, bloody violence they can imagine. Then tag it and title it to target three year olds.
I'd kinda like to meet those people in a dark alley.
Someone is going to come in with "parents should be supervising their kids". It may come as a surprise to some, but people who have kids occasionally need to poop. And wash the dishes. And cook dinner. While Dad
Re: (Score:1)
Its from a big brand.
Re: (Score:1)
Historically, Tom & Jerry and Bugs Bunny were not created to be children's cartoons. They were cartoons to serve as interludes between the adult films at movie theatres.
Blood and gore, no gang rape in Tom & Jerry (Score:2)
I don't remember seeing any gang rapes in Tom & Jerry.
Nor any blood gushing. Nor did they falsely claim to be Peppa Pig.
Just how invested ARE you into arguing that it's a great idea to fraudulently trick preschoolers into watching rated-R blood and gore? I do hope you aren't a parent, if you think three year olds should be watching horror movies.
Re: (Score:1)
I remember Tom & Jerry episodes from the late seventies(?) and eighties. At least that was the decade when they were broadcast in German TV. Usually at a time of day when children would watch. Quite violent, but I found them funny. Of course, that was a time when society was not quite as overprotective.
Pick any medieval children's nursery rhyme (Score:3)
https://www.brainz.org/24-terr... [brainz.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Gov approved content? (Score:2)
From a video-sharing website to an approved video watching website?
Re: (Score:2)
Like a state broadcaster makes?
From a video-sharing website to an approved video watching website?
Now that's just silly.
YouTube/Google/FB/Twatter/et al enjoy the legal protections of a non-curated/edited neutral platform, so YT acting like a publisher and curating/editing content is unpossible! They say they're obeying the law (do not look at all the de-platformed people behind the curtain) and a multinational megacorp would never lie !! That would be illegal and unethical.
Strat
Re: (Score:1)
So the content is politically, culturally, regionally, linguistically correct.
Every show to be within the new CoC.
Make an educational internet show about old computers?
Is the old computer packaging in the video politically correct?
The people seen in the frame of the video on the old computer "photo" packaging?
Should that old computer box cover photo be shown decades later?
The music that was par
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The myth that service providers on the Internet have to be "neutral"...
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is not a myth, and they do not have to be neutral.
If they choose to not be neutral, however, they do not get immunity from legal liability for anything they publish regardless of whether or not said content was originally from a 3rd party the same as a newspaper. Legally speaking, by engaging in a pattern of curation and editing, they become legally and criminally liable and responsible for all content that appears on their site/service, and do not get to enjoy
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny how you complain about the "feelz" while arguing about your feeling of what the law is, not what it actually is. You put it well: the law indeed does not care about your feelz.
I, however, would still hold the same opinion even if it were the Left being censored as my opinions are based upon principle, not partisan political or ideological/religious expediency.
Odd, I've never heard you complain about you tube's attitude to LGBTQ videos.
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny how you complain about the "feelz" while arguing about your feeling of what the law is, not what it actually is.
The Act clearly delineates between a publisher and a platform and further defines those terms as I've set out, e.g. a publisher is one who curates and edits content (like a newspaper) that do not enjoy any legal protections against liability for content and a platform (like Slashdot) that does not itself curate or edit content which the Act protects against liability for content appearing there.
They cannot have it both ways. They cannot act like a publisher while simultaneously avoiding legal liability like
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it clearly delineates between publisher and platform but your assessment of what makes a publisher is at odds with the case law. There is nothing that forces platforms to exert no control.
The thing is either you haven't actually looked at reality, are ignoring reality or are being dishonest. None of these is a good look for you.
"How people are still getting [230] wrong" (Score:2)
Legally speaking, by engaging in a pattern of curation and editing, they become legally and criminally liable and responsible for all content that appears on their site/service, and do not get to enjoy qualified legal immunity.
Citation please, or I'll provide citations with the opposite view: that section 230 was explicitly designed to encourage curation by removing this liability. (See "Why the internet’s most important law exists and how people are still getting it wrong" by Adi Robertson [theverge.com].)
Re: (Score:2)
How about? (Score:2)
Stupid (Score:1)
YouTube, you don't get it, do you? (Score:2)
The core reason why people dropped cable TV was, aside of the insane commercial times, that it was bland, uninteresting and lifeless.
The only thing that could stand in the way of YouTube stomping on traditional media and rolling all over them at this point is YouTube itself. So far, they're doing a pretty good job.