• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

leburn98

Member
Nov 1, 2017
1,637
In the community guidelines, under "Hateful Content":
Our products are platforms for free expression. But we don't support content that promotes or condones violence against individuals or groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, nationality, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity, or whose primary purpose is inciting hatred on the basis of these core characteristics.
Well based on that wording, anyone uploading videos of the Carmagedon games could fall under the "Hateful Content" guideline. The originals had you kill pedestrians that included killing elderly people who would scream "I was in the war" and elderly women with walkers to increase your time limit.

For example, this trailer for Carmagedon: Max Damage should be banned as per the TOS and guidelines you listed as it glorifies the death of wheelchair bound pedestrians for fun.


While I have no sympathy for idiot in the original story, I can see how YouTubers may be concerned based on this reaction.
 

Deleted member 8777

User Requested Account Closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
1,260
User banned (1 week) - off-topic, drive-by, vitriolic attacks on another member + recent infraction for the same thing
I swear that fat fuck Jim Sterling pays for promotion on this board.
 

Tensuke

Member
Oct 27, 2017
117
I don;t think you make 10 videos or whatever where you meticulously play out your feminist murder fantasies and then post them with Alt-right clickbait monitzation titles just for fun. It's expressing hatred.

It's not one video it's at least 5 videos.

Come on man, this is in the OP.
I don't think the number of videos changes the fact that the titles nor the content were specifically advocating violence against real people. I think that's what the TOS view hinges on. A pattern may show his true colors, but it doesn't magically mean he promotes real violence.

I'm not entertaining your "it's just pixels" bs sorrynotsorry.
You were calling for someone to refute the TOS argument--and like I said, the difference in video game characters and real people is probably the most important part of whether or not the TOS applies. If you won't even entertain the notion that there's a difference, than I guess you win?
 
Last edited:

MisterBear

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Nov 1, 2017
656
Did you just not walk away and just stay in her general vicinity or.....
No she is really annoying, I'm sorry. It doesn't justify virtual murder, but there are a couple shops near her and she's audible during the entire transactions in the shop. I was cordial with her during our interactions, but I had some withheld grievances. She's literally the most annoying NPC in the cities, for some reason.
 

Laiza

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,170
I swear that fat fuck Jim Sterling pays for promotion on this board.
...Tell us more about how you feel about Jim Sterling.
I don't think the number of videos changes the fact that the titles nor the content were specifically advocating violence against real people. I think that's what the TOS view hinges on. A pattern may show his true colors, but it doesn't magically mean he promotes real violence.
It doesn't matter if you use an effigy or a real person. By expressing these views you are promoting violence towards real women, full stop. Especially women who are of the "feminist" persuasion (like myself).
 

Deleted member 9237

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
1,789
Did you just not walk away and just stay in her general vicinity or.....
Does he have to justify killing an annoying NPC?

These are debates we had 20 years ago, I thought we were past this. Video game violence is not real violence, it doesn't advocate or lead to real violence, and you can't cherry pick it and say that it's bad in certain situations but not others. You can disagree with either the message (rejection of feminism) or the expression (video game violence) but if both are fine in isolation then they are fine together.
 

Amnixia

▲ Legend ▲
The Fallen
Jan 25, 2018
10,411
Predictable, but still sad.
And the even more predictable excuse: "But the game also lets us kill KKK members."
And these people don't even realize that they equate people who fought for their right to vote to people who fought for their right to enslave and kill black people, as if those were even remotely comparable.

Well in their eyes the feminsts are evil and the KKK are just people with an opinion so no doubt these fucks will use that example.
 

Crossing Eden

Member
Oct 26, 2017
53,300
Does he have to justify killing an annoying NPC?

These are debates we had 20 years ago, I thought we were past this.
XdQR74a.png

anuYLUL.png


"Siri, google the definition of context"
 

newmoneytrash

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,981
Melbourne, Australia
I don't think the number of videos changes the fact that the titles nor the content were specifically advocating violence against real people. I think that's what the TOS view hinges on. A pattern may show his true colors, but it doesn't magically mean he promotes real violence.
He is very clearly targeting a specific political ideal with violence and it is within youtube's tos to interpret this as bannable. It's pretty simple
 

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,316
I don't think the number of videos changes the fact that the titles nor the content were specifically advocating violence against real people. I think that's what the TOS view hinges on. A pattern may show his true colors, but it doesn't magically mean he promotes real violence.

It promotes hatred
 

Deleted member 32679

User requested account closure
Banned
Nov 12, 2017
2,787
Does he have to justify killing an annoying NPC?

These are debates we had 20 years ago, I thought we were past this. Video game violence is not real violence, it doesn't advocate or lead to real violence, and you can't cherry pick it and say that it's bad in certain situations but not others. You can disagree with either the message (rejection of feminism) or the expression (video game violence) but if both are fine in isolation then they are fine together.
Context matters in this case but it's ok if you just pretend to care.
 

Fastidioso

Banned
Nov 3, 2017
3,101
When I seen the video the first time honestly I don't get what was funny about it and why he did it. The days are passed and the video were even more. I have started to think"this guy is really obsessed in a worrying way".
 
Last edited:

ctj

Prophet of Truth
The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
2,318
Bay Area, California
I think there's disagreement about whether this actually breaks the TOS because, again, it's from a video game. I think that's the most important fact when looking at what happened, I don't think it should be discounted as some people are doing. I've only got the article to go off of since the video was removed, but it appears in-game he just kills people, and the titles are, while objectionable, just describing what he did. Not something like, "This is what you should do to feminists" which I do think would be promoting or condoning violence against real people, and would break TOS. But the question is, are video game characters protected groups? Personally, I don't think so, which is why I don't think the video strictly breaks the TOS. Maybe the guy made hateful comments in the video, or in the comments on the page, but I don't know that since it was removed.


Thompson often argued that violent games were an outlet where kids could rehearse their existing violent fantasies, which is what you're accusing this guy of doing. And maybe he was, his titles certainly suggest it, but there is no study that shows real life violence linked to video game violence, so the point would be moot regardless of why he made the video.
1. The kids Thompson was talking about were just kids playing games, they weren't doing anything hateful. This guy is.
2. I never said that he would actually commit these acts himself. If he were to hear about a feminist being killed IRL, can you really say you would be surprised if he wasn't upset about it?
3. If "pixels aren't people", are you saying that no red flags would be raised if he made a video about only targeting black people in the game?
 

psychowave

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,655
Does he have to justify killing an annoying NPC?

These are debates we had 20 years ago, I thought we were past this. Video game violence is not real violence, it doesn't advocate or lead to real violence, and you can't cherry pick it and say that it's bad in certain situations but not others. You can disagree with either the message (rejection of feminism) or the expression (video game violence) but if both are fine in isolation then they are fine together.
i dunno, i think games like undertale have proven that people are perfectly capable of feeling real emotion towards fictional characters in video games. if you don't feel even a little bit awkward about killing an NPC because she was bothering you with her talk about women's right to vote, then... idk what to tell you. that's kinda weird, man.
 

Laiza

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,170
Does he have to justify killing an annoying NPC?

These are debates we had 20 years ago, I thought we were past this. Video game violence is not real violence, it doesn't advocate or lead to real violence, and you can't cherry pick it and say that it's bad in certain situations but not others. You can disagree with either the message (rejection of feminism) or the expression (video game violence) but if both are fine in isolation then they are fine together.
As a matter of fact, the debates we had 20 years ago are actually irrelevant when we are talking about how video games can inform the views of the people who play them - let alone how much reach content creators have with their audiences.

It's not that video game violence somehow magically gets people to perform real violence - it's that video game violence desensitizes people to that violence and can inform their views subconsciously by coding certain elements of humanity as being "the enemy". To deny the effect that video games can have on the psyche of the players is to deny the fact that significant chunks of the player base are shitty people specifically because video games foster that type of audience.
 

Trup1aya

Literally a train safety expert
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,323
I mean, I also don't think it's wrong to point at his poor actions and say, "See this? This is bad. Don't do this. He was dumb for doing this and here's why," where then we can have a greater conversation about why he was wrong, why google was wrong for pushing his videos so hard, and why people shouldn't repeat his actions out of some weird spite-filled angle because they don't understand the concept of "hateful content".

Realistically, who was this article going to reach? Primarily people who already know it's wrong and don't need to be told why. And then after that, fascist assholes who use it to further their false claims of being victims.

It was never going to convince a fascist to stop being so. And the conversation doesn't need footage of toxic RDR2 player behavior as an ice breaker. We can just, you know, have the discussion. Assholes being assholes in a game and on social media isn't news.
 

SmarmySmurf

Banned
Nov 5, 2017
1,931
The game allows terrible people to be terrible people. Yeah, this youtube guy is a bigoted asshole... but that doesn't absolve the game of being completely open to explicitly facilitating him to be a bigot in game. This is what you get with too much freedom and "both sides" humor in a game. It encourages this. I'm glad the fucker was banned, but this is also a great example of why I'm done with Rockstar games and have never been impressed with the "its just a game" defense. In recent years we're seeing irl the results of a generation of South Park and Rockstar kids as adults, and its fucking terrifying.

No one here (mostly) bats an eyelash over the fact that you can't kill kids in Fallout, or that there are no kids in Rockstar games to begin with, so most of you know there is a line, but you (and Rockstar themselves) fail to see that "going too far" is something the company's games has already been doing, for a long time.

Anyone who thinks the company that popularized hiring and then murdering hookers has no blame in helping to encourage violent misogyny, and this is just an issue of a few senseless bigots on youtube, is lying to themselves. Not just lying to themselves, but doing so just so you can keep enjoying a videogame without feeling bad. Maybe you should feel bad.
 

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,316
Realistically, who was this article going to reach? Primarily people who already know it's wrong and don't need to be told why. And then after that, fascist assholes who use it to further their false claims of being victims.

It was never going to convince a fascist to stop being so. And the conversation doesn't need footage of toxic RDR2 player behavior as an ice breaker. We can just, you know, have the discussion. Assholes being assholes in a game and on social media isn't news.

No one has the discussion though, you're here practically not having it but focusing on being more upset at Motherboard for writing about it.

Writing about it is part of having a discussion
 

ckareset

Attempted to circumvent ban with an alt account
Banned
Feb 2, 2018
4,977
The game allows terrible people to be terrible people. Yeah, this youtube guy is a bigoted asshole... but that doesn't absolve the game of being completely open to explicitly facilitating him to be a bigot in game. This is what you get with too much freedom and "both sides" humor in a game. It encourages this. I'm glad the fucker was banned, but this is also a great example of why I'm done with Rockstar games and have never been impressed with the "its just a game" defense. In recent years we're seeing irl the results of a generation of South Park and Rockstar kids as adults, and its fucking terrifying.

No one here (mostly) bats an eyelash over the fact that you can't kill kids in Fallout, or that there are no kids in Rockstar games to begin with, so most of you know there is a line, but you (and Rockstar themselves) fail to see that "going too far" is something the company's games has already been doing, for a long time.

Anyone who thinks the company that popularized hiring and then murdering hookers has no blame in helping to encourage violent misogyny, and this is just an issue of a few senseless bigots on youtube, is lying to themselves. Not just lying to themselves, but doing so just so you can keep enjoying a videogame without feeling bad. Maybe you should feel bad.
Well there are kids in this game. Haven't tried killing any myself though.
 
OP
OP
vestan

vestan

#REFANTAZIO SWEEP
Member
Dec 28, 2017
24,611
it's just pixels dude nothing to get mad about don't get triggered bro

2hvexc5.jpg
 
To all the people in this thread who are apparently offended by this (admittedly oddly written) post - consider that 74% of crimes committed in the US are committed by men including 89% of the murders committed and 99.1% of rapes committed. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Thank you! I know my statement was worded awkwardly but this was more so what I was trying to get at!
 

ArchedThunder

Uncle Beerus
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,997
The people calling her annoying in this thread.

Yes, it's so annoying that a woman is demanding rights in a time that women were treated as property.
Y'all listening to yourselves?
 

SegavsCapcom

Member
Aug 27, 2018
26
I, uh, wow.

I now that some gamers aren't fans of feminism because it's critical of their hobby, but jeez.

Also, how dumb do you have to be to release that to the public. It'd be one thing to do it by yourself and have a laugh, but sharing it on the internet? Can you not read the room?
 

Tensuke

Member
Oct 27, 2017
117
It doesn't matter if you use an effigy or a real person. By expressing these views you are promoting violence towards real women, full stop. Especially women who are of the "feminist" persuasion (like myself).

He is very clearly targeting a specific political ideal with violence and it is within youtube's tos to interpret this as bannable. It's pretty simple

I absolutely see y'all's points on the matter--I think we just fundamentally disagree on this situation. I think if the framing of the videos was different, there would be a clear rule in your favor, but as it stands I think it could go either way. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
1. The kids Thompson was talking about were just kids playing games, they weren't doing anything hateful. This guy is.
2. I never said that he would actually commit these acts himself. If he were to hear about a feminist being killed IRL, can you really say you would be surprised if he wasn't upset about it?
3. If "pixels aren't people", are you saying that no red flags would be raised if he made a video about only targeting black people in the game?
1. He frequently brought up the topic with regards to kids that committed violent acts (shootings, assault, etc.). He argued that video games desensitized them to violence, made them violent, or were used as training to commit actual acts. Which are unfounded accusations, and easy to make after the fact.
2. You didn't, but you said he would probably be ok with those things happening irl. And it's a similar argument, that video games reflect the reality of someone's true fantasies. I would be surprised, because most people should be upset when someone dies. Just because you like killing in a video game, doesn't mean that translates to being okay with murder in the real world. Whether you commit the act or not.
3. I mean that wouldn't be that different of a scenario, would it? He still wouldn't be harming actual people. It would probably show racism (versus these videos showing sexism), but it doesn't imply he's also violent.
 

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,316
I, uh, wow.

I now that some gamers aren't fans of feminism because it's critical of their hobby, but jeez.

Also, how dumb do you have to be to release that to the public. It'd be one thing to do it by yourself and have a laugh, but sharing it on the internet? Can you not read the room?

If YouTube hadn't deleted it and his channel these videos would have been very popular and shared with high like ratio, reading the room ain't the problem, it's their room.
 

DoubleTake

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,529
This shit is why I will never identify myself as a "gamer". Because of imbeciles like this youtber and all you ignoramuses trying to defend him.
 

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,316
I absolutely see y'all's points on the matter--I think we just fundamentally disagree on this situation. I think if the framing of the videos was different, there would be a clear rule in your favor, but as it stands I think it could go either way. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

No.... you can;t just agree to disagree that a series of vidoes about murdering feminists designed and marketed for alt-right fuckheads isn't expressing hatred. Sorry.
 
Dec 9, 2017
720
Good thing it did break TOS like the people who quoted you have demonstrated, glad we could iron this out

are you trolling or you simply can't understand Youtube's TOS now?

a human making a call to terminate a channel for a batch of hateful videos is one of the rare signs of human decency coming from these shitty silicon valley corporations, they should be unprofessional more often if this is in fact against the TOS (I couldn't begin to give enough of a shit to check)

Hate speech policy
We encourage free speech and try to defend your right to express unpopular points of view, but we don't permit hate speech.

Hate speech refers to content that promotes violence against or has the primary purpose of inciting hatred against individuals or groups based on certain attributes, such as:

  • race or ethnic origin
  • religion
  • disability
  • gender
  • age
  • veteran status
  • sexual orientation/gender identity
There is a fine line between what is and what is not considered to be hate speech. For instance, it is generally okay to criticize a nation-state, but if the primary purpose of the content is to incite hatred against a group of people solely based on their ethnicity, or if the content promotes violence based on any of these core attributes, like religion, it violates our policy.

Y6cSN0A.png


Gonna stop stanning now or?

Waiting for your educated response on the YouTube ToS that people keep referring you to!

This situation is not in TOS.
In fact TOS is incredibly vague when it comes to certain mediums. (artwork, films, games, music)

That's probably why these videos have existed on Youtube's site for so long...

Yep_zpslm05nizt.jpg


I said it once, I'll say it again:

Behind closed doors, Youtube needs to have a conversation about their ethics & morals when it comes to Video Games.

When they've come to a decision on what type of Website & Business they want to be, make it KNOWN. Update TOS. Make the rules clear and concise.

- IF Youtube doesn't allow violence based off race, gender etc in VIDEO GAMES, MAKE IT CLEAR.

- Figure out how this rule works...Do they not allow violence based off race, gender, religion if the game is an open sandbox? What if killing someone based off these factors are part of the story? GAMING IS TOO LARGE to not have these types of conversations.

- Give the kid his channel back.
- Then, give everyone a chance to clear their portfolio of any videos that violate those rules.

But to abruptly terminate a channel, because someone at the office was feeling emotional, is unprofessional.
 

ctj

Prophet of Truth
The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
2,318
Bay Area, California
I absolutely see y'all's points on the matter--I think we just fundamentally disagree on this situation. I think if the framing of the videos was different, there would be a clear rule in your favor, but as it stands I think it could go either way. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

1. He frequently brought up the topic with regards to kids that committed violent acts (shootings, assault, etc.). He argued that video games desensitized them to violence, made them violent, or were used as training to commit actual acts. Which are unfounded accusations, and easy to make after the fact.
2. You didn't, but you said he would probably be ok with those things happening irl. And it's a similar argument, that video games reflect the reality of someone's true fantasies. I would be surprised, because most people should be upset when someone dies. Just because you like killing in a video game, doesn't mean that translates to being okay with murder in the real world. Whether you commit the act or not.
3. I mean that wouldn't be that different of a scenario, would it? He still wouldn't be harming actual people. It would probably show racism (versus these videos showing sexism), but it doesn't imply he's also violent.
Jack Thompson was using video games as a scapegoat for bullshit political reasons. He did the same thing with rap music. The guy who is making these videos is clearly a nutcase who has serious problems with women. If you can't see the difference between these two scenarios then I don't know what to tell you.
 

excelsiorlef

Bad Praxis
Member
Oct 25, 2017
73,316
- Give the kid his channel back.
- Then, give everyone a chance to clear their portfolio of any videos that violate those rules.

But to abruptly terminate a channel, because someone at the office was feeling emotional, is unprofessional.

There's that emotional thing again.

As if if YouTube were run by Spock he';d conclude there;s nothing wring with monetized feminist murder fantasies.

And all you've highlighted is that they have some other channels to purge.