YouTube blatantly says anti-gay slurs and targeted harassment don't break its rules

EdibleKnife

Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,418
OP, kindly do not criticize mediocre by labeling Crowder as one. He is bottom of the barrel homophobic, dudebro, "alpha male", conspiratorial toxic garbage entombed within a human body.
Yep. When I think “mediocre” I think the hundreds of thousands of random channels where the only content is the creator doing unboxings and Let’s Plays. Funnily enough I would have counted ProJared as a mediocre YTuber before his reveal as a monster.

Men like Crowder, Dave Rubin, Sargon, etc. go beyond just mediocre into active villainous participants in the desimination and reinforcement of bigotry in our society. I’m sure YT themselves pull this shit because they desperately want to convince themselves that these people are mediocre and inconsequential. But they are not. They’re worms who attract and are supported by the worst of the worst of society and YT needs to treat them as such.

It still pisses me off how YT basically outlawed LGBTQ+ content not long ago but continue to keep their site a breeding ground for bigots, violent and otherwise. And now they want to “celebrate” Pride with fucking rainbow iconography. Fucking give me a break.
 

Futureman

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,115
Honestly feel scared for Maza's well being right now. If YT reverses their decision, I could see people going after him in real life.

Also I don't think YT didn't take action because this loser has a lot of followers, but more because there are MANY other channels that would need to be shut down if they enforced this and that would really start to affect their bottom line.
 

Chikor

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,066
Mission accomplished, now that PR story which is not really related to Steven Crowder and his harassment is pushing the bad news down.



The media should know better.
 

jaekeem

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,440

this reads to me like an attempt at misdirection away from the abuse they allow

nothing they say they're going to be doing really addressing the problem

they say they'll ban literal school shooting videos and videos glorifying nazi ideology, but the real problem is the large amount of content out there that's still horrible and doesn't reach that point
 

Arkanim94

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,115
Man, those big ass corporations surely have the interest of lgbt+ people in their heart, they are using a rainbow icon.
 

Red Arremer

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,624
Yep. When I think “mediocre” I think the hundreds of thousands of random channels where the only content is the creator doing unboxings and Let’s Plays. Funnily enough I would have counted ProJared as a mediocre YTuber before his reveal as a monster.

Men like Crowder, Dave Rubin, Sargon, etc. go beyond just mediocre into active villainous participants in the desimination and reinforcement of bigotry in our society. I’m sure YT themselves pull this shit because they desperately want to convince themselves that these people are mediocre and inconsequential. But they are not. They’re worms who attract and are supported by the worst of the worst of society and YT needs to treat them as such.

It still pisses me off how YT basically outlawed LGBTQ+ content not long ago but continue to keep their site a breeding ground for bigots, violent and otherwise. And now they want to “celebrate” Pride with fucking rainbow iconography. Fucking give me a break.
You have to understand, EdibleKnife.
Talking about LGBT+ issues as an LGBT+ person has to be demonetized because it's not ad-friendly, but calling people slurs and launching harassment campaigns against them while dogwhistling nazis and burping out white supremacy talking points is A-OK, you can make money off of that!
 

Altazor

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,077
Chile
Again, per that Verge article I quoted earlier:

YouTube did not disclose the names of any channels that are expected to be affected by the change. The company declined to comment on a current controversy surrounding my Vox colleague Carlos Maza, who has repeatedly been harassed on the basis of his race and sexual orientation by prominent right-wing commentator Steven Crowder. (After I spoke with the company, it responded to Maza that it plans to take no action against Crowder’s channel.)
don't expect anything but paying lipservice to PRIIIIIIIIIDE and the rainbow flag.
 

Tregard

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,852
FWIW someone defending this attacked me for quoting Crowder, because the words weren't the issue, but the way in which they were said.

He wanted me to quote Crowder without using words.

These are the arguments you have to try and dismantle.
 

EdibleKnife

Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,418
You have to understand, EdibleKnife.
Talking about LGBT+ issues as an LGBT+ person has to be demonetized because it's not ad-friendly, but calling people slurs and launching harassment campaigns against them while dogwhistling nazis and burping out white supremacy talking points is A-OK, you can make money off of that!
Right? It’s astounding how fucking backwards these modern media companies like Twitter and YT are about this. How hard is it to not make fucking bigotry and harassment lucrative on the fucking platform you own and operate?
 

NHarmonic.

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
5,398
Youtube is fucking trash. When will these companies grow some spine and go against this toxic pieces of shit? How can the lust for money and relevancy be so disgustingly high...
 

collige

Member
Oct 31, 2017
5,267
Would also be civil too, the journalist should be able to sue YouTube for them affirming the content harassing and encouraging harassment fr his followers. These platforms can filter out content like this like they do ISIS/terror group content and reposting of the Christchurch massacre, yet they choose to keep equally dangerous content like this up.

Would bet this kind of shit gets nipped in the bud if it were the case.
If Crowder is civilly liable for harassment, Maza can sue him right now without going after the middleman.
 

Chikor

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,066
Youtube is fucking trash. When will these companies grow some spine and go against this toxic pieces of shit? How can the lust for money and relevancy be so disgustingly high...
I think it's pretty damn clear that youtube is not gonna do shit unless they're forced to (either directly or by seriously hitting their bottom line).
 

Apharmd

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,298
Youtube is fucking trash. When will these companies grow some spine and go against this toxic pieces of shit? How can the lust for money and relevancy be so disgustingly high...
It's capitalism. That's the point of it, if it makes a profit and you can get away with it then you do it. Social progress under capitalism is a tenuous and temporary thing.
 

collige

Member
Oct 31, 2017
5,267
This is a great point. Why is everyone acting like there is no recourse Maza can take here? There is a full legal system that he can utilize for himself, its not 'Youtube does it or nothing happens'.
Because like I said, Crowder isn't breaking the law. "Incitement to harassment" isn't a thing (though it probably should be) and putting up a Youtube video isn't the same as actually contacting a person. The problem is that Youtube's moderation standards are below basic human decency.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,600
If Crowder is civilly liable for harassment, Maza can sue him right now without going after the middleman.
It’s important that the “middleman,” the company hosting, promoting, and profiting off this content is also included. There needs to be enforcement on the platforms themselves, same issue with kids who get bullied to suicide on Facebook and SM platforms. Right now they get to live in the grey area where they can put up hate and profit from it yet be excluded from liability. That’s why we are here when they treat this as a PR threat and not a legal one.
 

Sanka

Member
Feb 17, 2019
727
Youtube is a company, they are just acting according to their main goal, profit. The anti-sjw crowd is huge and really active on youtube and acting against them might not be worth the effort to them. As long as advertisers aren't pulling back nothing will change. In conclusion companies suck and are not your friends.

What should be done now is to bring this topic up to all the advertisers and ask them if they support a platform that tolerates this homophobic garbage.
 

hurroocane

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,246
Germany
HuffPo has this as their top story. Media attention might be enough to shame Google into doing something. Maybe.
I hope this blows up a bit. I don't know if it will motivate Google to actually do anything but at least it will leave a mark especially because this is happening during pride month.

Can we cancel YouTube now?
I think a lot of people, me included, are yearning for a competitor. It just seems increasingly unlikely to happen. Some people are still rooting for Twitch to become a competitor but Amazon is just another can of worms obviously...
 

Funky Papa

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,068
Finally, YouTube does the absolute minimum commanded by basic human decency at last*

*while avoiding more difficult choices altogether and/or passing the buck as always
 

Radeo

Banned
Apr 26, 2019
1,305
It still pisses me off how YT basically outlawed LGBTQ+ content not long ago but continue to keep their site a breeding ground for bigots, violent and otherwise. And now they want to “celebrate” Pride with fucking rainbow iconography. Fucking give me a break.
Can you elaborate on this? I only check like 1 channel every few months so I'm not sure what you're referring to
 

Archon

Member
Oct 27, 2017
623
Sites like YouTube and Twitter abuse the fact that they have little to no competition.
They don't have to do anything but algorithms and the occasional PR because what are people gonna do? Use Dailymotion and Digg?
 

Watchtower

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,274
Finally, YouTube does the absolute minimum commanded by basic human decency at last*

*while avoiding more difficult choices altogether and/or passing the buck as always
They're not even doing that. As Maza's tweet posted above notes, the "updated policy" does jack shit because it would've already been covered in the previous one if Youtube had any moral standards. They're literally just blowing smoke up the media's ass.
 

Funky Papa

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,068
They're not even doing that. As Maza's tweet posted above notes, the "updated policy" does jack shit because it would've already been covered in the previous one if Youtube had any moral standards. They're literally just blowing smoke up the media's ass.
Yes, that's what I meant. They are basically "updating" their policies to ban the content that shouldn't be there in the first place in order to create a smokescreen. Banning the few, non important, full-on cryptonazis that nobody would like to associate with while allowing "personalities" that have no issue with harassing folks.

YouTube's only robust policy is to ignore issues until they become big enough and then pass the buck to somebody else (see: pedos).
 

collige

Member
Oct 31, 2017
5,267
It’s important that the “middleman,” the company hosting, promoting, and profiting off this content is also included. There needs to be enforcement on the platforms themselves, same issue with kids who get bullied to suicide on Facebook and SM platforms. Right now they get to live in the grey area where they can put up hate and profit from it yet be excluded from liability. That’s why we are here when they treat this as a PR threat and not a legal one.
I don't wanna derail the thread into a general argument about Internet laws, but I would encourage you to read up on why Section 230 exists. The idea of a service provider not being responsible for the actions of its users is both logical and fundamental to how the Internet works.
 

Avitus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,505
Yep

Finally, YouTube said it would restrict channels from monetizing their videos if they are found to “repeatedly brush up against our hate speech policies.” Those channels will not be able to run ads or use Super Chat, which lets channel subscribers pay creators directly for extra chat features. The last change comes after BuzzFeed reported that the paid commenting system had been used to fund creators of videos featuring racism and hate speech.
"You can use our platform, we just won't pay you for the hate"
 

Rivenblade

Member
Nov 1, 2017
6,273
YouTube gives preference to and helps produce some of its most popular channels. I'd be surprised if this Crowder fellow wasn't on their "keep happy" list.
 

AGoodODST

Member
Oct 28, 2017
851
They won’t do anything. They will just throw a few bones now it’s in the media to try shake of some heat.

They make money of all these arseholes so are happy to enable them.
 

Watchtower

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,274
Yes, that's what I meant. They are basically "updating" their policies to ban the content that shouldn't be there in the first place in order to create a smokescreen. Banning the few, non important, full-on cryptonazis that nobody would like to associate with while allowing "personalities" that have no issue with harassing folks.

YouTube's only robust policy is to ignore issues until they become big enough and then pass the buck to somebody else (see: pedos).
I guess my cynicism is more doubting that they'll even ban the bottom-feeders at this point. Wouldn't surprise me if they just say they do and then just plug their ears.

What I do find really surprising is how willing they are to turn a blind eye to Crowder's shit. He's practically daring them to stop him at this point. Alex Jones didn't get that far before he got slapped for overstepping.

Either Crowder's raking in a serious amount of cash or someone higher-up has a major soft spot for him. Most likely both.
 

Adam_Roman

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,706
Publicly list the channels being banned, Google. Otherwise I won't believe any of the shit being spun.
 

EdibleKnife

Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,418
Can you elaborate on this? I only check like 1 channel every few months so I'm not sure what you're referring to
No problem. Here's an article that goes into it better than I would:
Verge said:
YouTube’s track record with LGBT creators isn’t great. Last year, YouTubers such as Rowan Ellis, Tyler Oakley, Stevie Boebi, and NeonFiona spoke up about their content being hidden, demonetized, or age-gated. YouTube responded with posts in April and May of 2017 that said their system sometimes makes mistakes “in understanding context and nuances,” that Restricted Mode “should not filter out content belonging to individuals or groups based on certain attributes like gender, gender identity, political viewpoints, race, religion or sexual orientation,” and promised to fix an engineering “issue” that had lead to the platform “unintentionally filtering content.”


Over a year later, however, the same problems persist. In a series of videos posted to his YouTube channel, trans creator Chase Ross says that for the past three weeks he’s been dealing with age restrictions on his videos daily; some of his older videos have been recently demonetized, or stripped of revenue-earning ads, with others being removed completely. He says YouTube has regularly demonetized his videos with the word “trans” or “transgender” in the title — and even run anti-LGBT ads on some videos geared toward the LGBT community.


Ross, a YouTuber for about 12 years, creates videos touching on his personal experiences as a trans person, and the trans community as a whole. In addition to his Trans 101 project, a 31-episode series that educates viewers about subjects like pronouns, terminology, and body dysphoria, Ross has also posted about his personal experiences transitioning. According to Ross, YouTube’s algorithm seems to be triggered by the word “trans” specifically to demonetize his videos. He suspects that some of these are the result of the platform’s algorithm for evaluating content as well as targeted flagging by anti-LGBT users. “I’ve done multiple tests in proving that the word transgender on my channels has demonetized my videos,” he says in one video. “It’s a trigger word. It triggers the algorithm.”

...

Restrictions on LGBT channels don’t just hurt their creators. They also remove education and information for young people who may not have access to it any other way. Ross says that he’s had at least 144 videos that have either been demonetized or age-restricted. “I have seen YouTube grow into this beautiful platform of education and community, especially for the trans community,” he says. “We all found ourselves here. We found our identities. We figured out who we were. We watched other people’s top surgery videos and realized oh my god I need that, I need that feeling. YouTube has been a lifesaver for so many trans people, and I wish that this education that’s available now was available when I was younger. But here’s the kicker: I was under 18, so all of this education I would not have had access to [if it was age-restricted].”


The troubles with YouTube and LGBT content don’t stop there. In a follow-up video posted on June 2nd, Ross pointed out that on top of demonetization and age-restriction, some of his video were also being tagged with anti-LGBT advertisements. The organization behind the ads, Alliance Defending Freedom, has been deemed a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and has linked homosexuality to pedophilia, and advocated for the sterilization of trans people and the recriminalization of homosexuality in the U.S.



“I know that it’s the algorithm and the bots and the way that everything is coded,” Ross says. “But you’re allowing an anti-LGBT ad, a very homophobic and transphobic company, [to] advertise their message.” He also questioned why homophobic and transphobic ads were showing up on his videos, especially given how the company has articulated its support for diversity on the platform. (Last August, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki noted the principle of free speech “does not mean companies cannot take action” when that speech perpetuates negative stereotypes or “the language of discrimination.”) Ross calls it hypocritical for YouTube to say they support marginalized creators, “and yet on the other side [it’s] advertising homophobic stuff on our videos.”
Verge
Polygon
 

Jadusable

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,018
User banned (2 weeks): dismissing concerns surrounding hate speech and harrassment
I’m against gay bashing of ANY kind and have actively gone out of my way to stop it when I’ve witnessed it firsthand but I agree with this. I think YouTube should just be a platform and not a publisher, it kind of takes the You out of YouTube if it isn’t. We should let the community sort out what is right and wrong. It seems like we’re doing a good job as it is.

If something like this were to be implemented there should be clearly defined metrics and criteria for what constitutes “anti-gay” and “targeted harassment” or else people’s livelihoods would be at the whim of some underpaid intern in California
 

wedge55

Member
Oct 30, 2017
3
Just canceled my YouTube Premium subscription, and guess I need to find some YouTube adblocker to use.

Sucks that the content creators I really like end up losing money here, but I'm not sure what the alternative here is. Don't want to give any of my money to Google.
 

StarBot

Member
Jan 12, 2018
88
So, is anyone gonna talk about how Ricky Berwick is actually defending YouTube for this mess