MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

YouTube Says No to Sexual Humor, Profanity, Partial Nudity, Political Conflict, and 'Sensitive Subjects' In Partner Content

#YouTubeIsOver? Content creators mourn the platform's terms-of-service for monetizable videos.

MAJA HITIJ/EPA/NewscomMAJA HITIJ/EPA/NewscomSo... there goes YouTube? The online-video monarch just released new* publicized rules prohibiting everything from "sexual humor" to any depiction of drug use to "sensitive topics" such as politics and war on its "advertising-friendly" video content. If it's not a Christian music video, a beauty vlog, or a hamster on a piano, it's probably a no-no under YouTube's newly-clarified terms of service for anyone hoping to monetize their channel.

YouTube content publishers—both those who are exclusively YouTube phenomenons and the offline comics, artists, journalists, and activists who rely on the site to spread (and help fund) their work—have been aghast at the platform's seemingly new policy, with #YouTubeIsOverParty now trending on Twitter. (See a sampling of those tweets below.)

Here's the complete list of things banned from YouTube content that's eligible for monetization:

  • Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor
  • Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism
  • Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language
  • Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items
  • Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown

YouTube warns that "If any of the above describes any portion of your video, then the video may not be approved for monetization. If monetization is approved, your video may not be eligible for all available ad formats. YouTube reserves the right to not monetize a video, as well as suspend monetization features on channels that repeatedly submit videos violating our policies."

* A YouTube spokesperson told Gizmodo that the advertiser-friendly content guidelines are not new, though the company has just begun to email content-partners when a video has had advertising removed. In practice, the site had been quietly unmonetizing videos that failed to meet ad-friendly policies already.

Photo Credit: MAJA HITIJ/EPA/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Anomalous||

    Google, as usual, is being evil.

  • Lee Genes||

    I'm not sure whether it's evil or just stupid.

  • IWasADemocrat||

    How is this a bad thing?

    When there is a void, you can generally count on capitalists to fill it.

    Especially in the tech space when regulators are so far behind.

  • ||

    Yeah, the whole "Don't be evil." meme always gave me the kid in the corner whispering to himself impression rather than the "Oh cool, Finally! A corporation that's not evil." impression.

  • Roger the Shrubber||

    Free Minds and Free Markets?

  • Swiss Servator||

    OUCH!

  • Princess Trigger||

    It says "Free"!
    I love free stuff.

  • R C Dean||

    What I've always thought was funny was all the positive attention Google got for something that sets a very low bar.

    Imagine if my hospital's mission statement was "Don't torture patients." Think we'd got plaudits for that?

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    First, do no harm?

  • Zeb||

    Is it really a meme? Seems like just another corporate slogan that everyone ignores and then complains about advertising.

  • np||

    And as usual it's always the do-gooders

  • Private Chipperbot||

    Luo Dong massage videos hardest hit.

  • Zeb||

    It's a questionable move, but I'm not sure how it makes them evil.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    I hate watching it all fall to ruin. Just hurry up and convert me, I WANT TO LOVE BIG BROTHER.

  • Lee Genes||

    Cat videos reign supreme!

  • ||

    Can they still be called, "Pussy Vids?" Or is that too suggestive?

  • thrakkorzog||

    It lines up with the current popular understanding of Free speech. After all, the current leading candidate for president thinks it ought to be illegal to say nasty things about political candidates. Which pretty much leaves cat videos as the only Founder approved form of speech.

  • Glide||

    Also can't monetize saying "fuck", but that doesn't sound as righteous a thing to prevent as violent fantasies so carry on.

  • UnCivilServant||

    I know of several entertainers whose shows consist of interesting uses of vulgar language.

  • Lee Genes||

    I'm becoming more and more convinced you're Tulpa.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    It's too boring to be Tulpa.

  • Citizen X||

    It's probably not shreek, and neither shreek nor AM/dajjal is David Weigel, Bum-Hectic Piss In It.

  • Roger the Shrubber||

    Did you forget to switch your handle?

  • bacon-magic||

    Come on Mike, where's the nickname comeback?
    Let me help:
    Citizen XXXL
    City Hen X
    Shitty Him X
    X marks the spam

  • Ted S.||

    How about a movie review of, say, Psycho? The movie contains violence and voyeurism, among other controversial topics. And partial nudity, although we never see the censorable bits.

  • UnCivilServant||

    profanity and vulgar language...
    Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown

    This is the Internet, Google, the natural habitat of profanity and controversy.

    What the fuck is wrong with you?

  • Lee Genes||

    I'm wondering if this this is connected to an effort to make YouTube more family and school "friendly" as they continue to push into the educational arena.

    It would seem smarter to channelize their content instead.

  • You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)||

    Jesus. How puritanical.

    Is this just Youtube giving itself greater discretion over the users it supports? It will be interesting to see what kind of content they crack down on, or if it will just be scattershot according to the whims of the individuals making these decisions.

  • GILMORE™||

    Is this just Youtube giving itself greater discretion over the users it supports?

    Seems so.

    The surface read is that they're not going to 'censor' anyone, but that they simply won't pay for any content someone might consider offensive.

    as i mention below, i'm guessing the point here is to disqualify the people who post lots of shitty 'viral vines' videos that are nothing but "man kicked in nuts" type shit. "racist memes", etc. I presume Allah Akbar-memes are no longer a path to riches.

    The idea would be to allow YT to incentivize "longform content-creators" rather than the sort of shitposting stuff that dominates YT.

  • UnCivilServant||

    The rules as listed effectively ban commenting on the news if you want to make money. these vine mashups compose so little of what I see on youtube that I forgot they even existed.

  • GILMORE™||

    The rules as listed effectively ban commenting on the news if you want to make money

    I don't think so. As someone notes below = they clarify that they've already been demonetizing videos for various reasons, and that the above list of 'criteria' are simply post-hoc explanations which they hitherto haven't provided.

    Meaning, if people are currently getting paid right now for news-commentary, then this 'clarification' means they're already in the clear.

    its simply people who've already had content demonetized being told 'why'.

    *Correction: According to a YouTube spokesperson, there has been no policy or enforcement change put in place by the platform. Instead, the outrage expressed by De Franco and others appears to be caused by a chance to notifications. Now YouTubers are receiving emails about videos that have been unmonetized.

    In the past, YouTubers would have to go into an individual video's analytics to see it had been unmonetized by the platform. It seems clear the platform is trying to be more transparent in notifying users through easy-to-see notifications and an appeals process, though it's galling to think these things weren't in place already.

    Does this mean that they are going to go on a newly-justified bout of video-demonetizing? maybe so. time will tell.

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: YouTube Bans Sexual Humor, Profanity, Partial Nudity, Political Conflict, and 'Sensitive Subjects' In Partner Content

    You Tube is a private entity that has a right to censor its customer's content. Hopefully, our socialist slavers oppressing will take a page from You Tube and launch a censorship program targeting all doubters and counter-revolutionaries in beloved socialist slave state. There are too many who question our enlightened leaders in matters of foreign policy, domestic policy, economic policy, etc. We should be lemmings who will believe all the bullshit our controlling masters in Washington DC tell and follow their diktats to the letter without question. This cannot be done if the little people are not properly watched, listened to and controlled. Censorship will eliminate the dangerous and vile concept of free speech and expression that infects our wonderful socialist slave state and must be removed like a cancer that it is.

  • ||

    Know what I find fascinating about socialists? They don't realize their entire intellectual framework relies on tactics like censorship. Today I was listening to one on the radio talk about (in response to someone saying America has the best hospitals in the world) how the U.S. spends more per capita on hospitals than anyone else and that hospitals are crazy expensive with big bureaucracies without ever mentioning a single word that it's because of regulations HIS SIDE demand that increase costs.His point made no fucking sense.

    But don't ask this guy to be saved since he then went on to say 'socialized medicine' is less expensive. I just can't even.

  • ||

    102 fascinating things you can do with a paper bag, socks and zucchini!

    I guess all libertarian and conservative heads like McInnes, Carolla, Stanhope, Condell and a host of others will be censored out.

    What a bunch of lame asses youtube are.

    Is Vimeo a viable option?

  • UnCivilServant||

    No, the video player is crap and doesn't work more than half the time.

  • ||

    That was my first thought. "Ok, so now that this is ruined, what great new product is going to step up and fill the void?"

    Particularly because I have no faith that leftist rants won't be considered controversial, because they're bold and woke, but any suggestion of cutting spending will be met with cries of racism because it disproportionately affects minorities, and racism must be censored.

  • ||

    What about controversial films or films with controversial content?

    I can totally see 'Animal House' or 'Blazing Saddles' being 'edited' by pathetic Youtube pissheads.

  • ||

    "Ok, so now that this is ruined, what great new product is going to step up and fill the void?"

    Mozhet byt', RuTube, da?) Oj! Nechego..

  • ||

    Do you primarily speak Ukrainian, or Russian?

    I can't really understand Ukrainians when I hear them, even though I'm told I should be able to.

  • ||

    Russian is the language of the household and in Odessa (though I have been instructed, since my son is talking now, that I only speak to him in English so he, and the twins eventually, will know English ASAP and naturally). Ukrainian at work if needed, spoken. Ukrainian written.

    They are truly different languages, tonnes of false cognates, UKR has a seventh case, and three letters between each are different. Plus there are a lot of different ways impersonal constructions are handled b'twixt the two.

    That's like saying you can understand a Belorussian (I can't really).

    Allow this lovely young devushka to explain better...

  • UnCivilServant||

    Was she demonetized too?

  • ||

    If so, I will send her to Jimbo's place in Texas. If his wife says no, then off to RC Dean's she goes.

  • ||

    Well, I found it to be pretty sexual....

    rowr

  • Free Society||

    My wife speaks Dutch to the children almost exclusively and I speak to them in English exclusively. So my young kids speak both, though naturally being in America the kids are stronger with their English and know the difference between the vocabularies and when to use them. If you want your kids to retain their Russian, the best way is keep speaking to them in Russian and getting them to speak Russian back when possible. My daughter only mixed up the languages or had any difficulty knowing which words to use until she was about 3 and 1/2 and now she's good at being bilingual.

  • ||

    If you want your kids to retain their Russian, the best way is keep speaking to them in Russian and getting them to speak Russian back when possible.

    That's Dr. ZG (and by extension Babki's and Dedush's) job, since none of them speak much English (my wife speaks hardly any, but understands more than she lets on). Dedush speaks some, but not fluent by any means.

    Which is why my job is passing on English. If we stay in UKR, then schooling will teach them proper Ukrainian.

  • Free Society||

    I see, sounds like you're doing what I'm doing then. If you do decide to leave UKR, the US would be better off to have you and UKR all the worse off for it.

  • Zeb||

    I don't know about that. Judging from the comments at Youtube, moronic racists and "alt-right" weirdos are a key part of their audience.

  • You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)||

    To run ads and make money? I don't think so, at least not at the moment.

    I wonder how much it would take for a competitor to create a similar platform and grow large enough to monetize its content. If you make some scratch talking politics or making jokes on youtube, would you stop uploading new content to youtube and start using an alternative service, one that does not get the same exposure and cannot yet offer a monetization deal? How many would it take for the competitor to succeed?

  • UnCivilServant||

    One thing it would take would be a video player that doesn't crap out every time I try to open a video on their site. A lot of these "youtube alternatives" fail that test. If your tech doesn't work, your content isn't going to matter.

  • np||

    What are you using? I've never had an issue with them

  • np||

    Vimeo's a great platform and its terms are way more liberal but it's a completely different business model

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor

    Wow... ok so... wow...

    Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism

    No more skateboarding fail videos.

    Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language

    Uhh... so... let me see if I... ok so... WTF?!!

    Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown

    The fucking fuck?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    It's like they don't even YouTube.

  • Princess Trigger||

    80's music videos and cute animals.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    So where is this coming from? Is YouTube Red exempt from these terms? Is this a push to get users toward that service?

  • anticollective||

    It is probably a combination of an effort to appease corporate advisors as well as SJW nitwits.

    Since Google is unabashedly pro-Clinton, they will probably use it to silence her critics on there like Stefan Molyneux.

  • Free Society||

    He doesn't monetize his content at all, so I think he'll be unaffected by this. Ever notice that he doesn't even run clips of speeches he's commenting on? I think he's about a dozen miles away from any "legitimate" reasons to censor his stuff.

  • Pay up, Palin's Buttplug!||

    Since Google is unabashedly pro-Clinton, they will probably use it to silence her critics on there like Stefan Molyneux.

    Are they hoisting their own petard question… if Citizens United had been decided the other way, wouldn't this be illegal?

  • Glide||

    You know, I wouldn't be shocked. I've seen far too many websites that started out as a spectacular free services with potential to self-sustain on ads, then they got greedy and abandoned the base functionality of their website in favor of premium models.

  • ||

    Hulu

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    I'm not normally a fan of anti-trust, but.....

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    But youtube/google just created the environment for more competition.

  • Bra Ket||

    What exactly is partial nudity anyway? Somewhere on the continuum between nude and a Burka?

    Seriously though if they mean cleavage then there goes half their views.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor
    Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism
    ...
    Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items

    Well there goes all the Warhammer Lore videos (especially any talking about Chaos)

  • ||

    Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the throne of Khorne!

    Cocks for the Lust God! Penises for the throne of Slaanesh!

  • ||

    (I'm playing a game against daemons this weekend w/ my beloved rat-men using the 9th Age ruleset)

  • AceDroman||

    Field only doomwheels

  • 0x90||

    Where does something like VEVO fall in this?

  • UnCivilServant||

    Do they have a separate contract with google instead of the regular terms?

  • You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)||

    That was my next question. There are always ads before music videos on youtube, and music videos usually have heaps of t&a. Or some violence, or drug use, or frightening images. Are those going to be exempt?

  • np||

    I notice that Vevo's own site posts videos that are not on youtube or more explicit / uncensored versions. Even youtube takes down Vevo content in the past when flagged.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Demonetized

    /google

  • GILMORE™||

    any depiction of drug use

    This gentleman may have to modify his channel concept somewhat

    Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism

    I may need to download this *just in case*

    Sexually suggestive content

    Heroic Mulatto's favorite genre is now in doubt

    Inappropriate language,

    Is something simply quoting source-material any more 'inappropriate' than the original?

    Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts

    Well there goes another genre

    ------------------------------

    What's the real impact of any of this? you'd need a lot of Youtube's own data on who gets paid how much for what to really do any decent analysis. My guess is that most long-form content will sneak by, but that censorable 'viral' video-clips will be demonetized

  • Johnny Hit n Run Paulene||

    Sounds like a good opportunity for a new video sharing site. Markets in everything and whatnot . . .

  • ||

    So all of the gun/shooting videos are out, the stupid people fails are out, and drunk chicks....

    I guess I will have to amuse myself somewhere else.

    Youtube is dead if they implement this.

  • UnCivilServant||

    More or less.

    There are exactly zero content creators I follow who would not be severely crippled by these rules.

  • Banjos||

    I, for one, welcome our new Amazonian overlords.

  • The Grinch||

    Well it was fun while lasted. Will the last person out turn off the lights, please?

  • Glide||

    Per Gizmodo:
    *Correction: According to a YouTube spokesperson, there has been no policy or enforcement change put in place by the platform. Instead, the outrage expressed by De Franco and others appears to be caused by a chance to notifications. Now YouTubers are receiving emails about videos that have been unmonetized.

    In the past, YouTubers would have to go into an individual video's analytics to see it had been unmonetized by the platform. It seems clear the platform is trying to be more transparent in notifying users through easy-to-see notifications and an appeals process, though it's galling to think these things weren't in place already.

    Nothing to see here guys, we were already terrible censors, we just finally let you find out about it!

  • GILMORE™||

    It seems clear the platform is trying to be more transparent in notifying users through easy-to-see notifications and an appeals process, though it's galling to think these things weren't in place already.

    The entire point is what i guess is litigation avoidance.

    And they're not doing it because they are getting sued NOW for "shit some snowflake found offensive" - but my impression is that they're doing it because they see potential for someone like a Hillary Clinton administration to opening up the door for "suing the internet" for offending them.

    There is likely some proposed legislation already floating around somewhere which they think presents a liability risk.

  • 0x90||

    That's what I was thinking. It's one thing for youtube to host arbitrary content, but when you monetize your content, I'd assume youtube has it set up so that they get a cut, which if true, seems like it could have the potential of blurring the line sufficiently to get the legal dept. worried.

    That's the only angle that makes sense to me so far, given that they're specifically referring to monetization, and apparently not content in general.

  • GILMORE™||

    Exactly

  • R C Dean||

    Instead, the outrage expressed by De Franco and others appears to be caused by a chance to notifications.

    Try English next time.

  • esteve7||

    They are fucking idiots, so great videos like the Plinkett Star Wars Reviews or the Sequelitis Gaming Videos are now done because of "vulgar language", just fucking please.

    They are idiots too because this will push people to other sites, and it's harder for hollywood to control 100s of smaller sites than only one Youtube

    http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=youtube_google

  • The Grinch||

    They'll be selective in their unmonetizing. Libertarian, conservative , or general nonleftist thought won't be allowed to be monetized. Toe the approved line or post things like cat videos and you'll get the thumbs up.

    Ah Sargon of Akkad, Hicock45, Undoomed, Jason Stapleton, and Anthony Cumia, farewell, we hardly knew you.

  • R C Dean||

    Yep. This here.

    The Silicon Valley tech titans are fully engaged in the war for social justice, by purging badthinkers from the dominant sites. Google has been caught repeatedly monkeying with search results. Twitter is actively purging badthinkers. Now YouTube is getting in on the act.

  • ant1sthenes||

    YouTube is Google.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Regardless, the Iranian EMP bomb scenario is starting to look less like a nightmare and more like a blessing in disguise.

  • Mazakon||

    Yeah, I've seen videos made by Pokemon Youtubers and videos that are not gruesome in any way, but simply talk about things typically seen as hard to talk about get demonetised. So it seems that anyone not explicitly left-wing could get hit.

  • meister574||

    If they do not change this soon, this will end YouTube. They are shooting themselves in the foot. YouTube is the biggest online video service at this time, but so was Myspace for social media and Yahoo for search.

  • colorblindkid||

    Thank you, SJW internet!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism

    Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language

    WTF? Motherfuckers. If they kick Red vs Blue off, I'm going to be sore wroth.

    I'm only up to season 13.

  • GILMORE™||

    13?

    I noticed that they revived it after a few years dormant. Last i checked.... it stopped around "8" or something. (or they'd tacked on some short 'mini-series' stuff after the main-plot died around series 7)

    they got proper animators now? no more machinima?

  • Aloysious||

  • Aloysious||

    I love that show. O'Malley is one of the best villains ever.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Possibly a move to get more people to sign up for YouTube Red?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    they got proper animators now? no more machinima?

    Nope. Better clearer graphics, but still Halo.

  • ||

    I suspect this has more to do keeping their ad inventory clean and corporate-image-friendly than "SJW-ism". Although I don't doubt that selective enforcement will be a problem, and I don't understand why they can't just give ad buyers a "check this box if you want to be on 'naughty' videos too" option.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, sounds more like cable channels with ads not putting on dirty stuff to appease advertisers.

  • ant1sthenes||

    In some ways, that makes it worse. Say what you will about the tenets of social justice, at least it's an ethos.

  • Zeb||

    I think I prefer nihilists.

  • ||

    Colion Noir is out, I guess. I mean, like, all that dude talks about is, like, guns n stuff!

  • The Grinch||

    That's a good compromise but I don't know how many Fleshlight ads I'll be able to stand because that's the only kind of advertiser that'll touch controversial videos if given the choice.

  • thrakkorzog||

    Really? because from watching South Park and Archer ads, I regularly see ads for Trojans, Whiskey, beer, cars, and annoying anti-smoking ads. I doubt the kind of people buying ads at 2 AM tend not to be that focused on morality instead of selling something to who ever is buying. .

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Red vs Blue only goes to season 14? I thought there were more, for some reason.

    NEEDZ MOAR PVT CABOOSE

  • You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)||

    I think they're on season 15 now? I just saw that Netflix has the whole exhausting series, so I may catch up soon.

    I got off the train when it turned into original CGI kung-fu scenes.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I get enough Red Vs. Blue on CNN every night.

  • Trshmnstr, green and mangy||

    Can we finally talk about the fact that most of these internet media/social media companies are all headquartered in the fucking silicon valley? You know, the epicenter of smug, militant progressivism?

  • Zeb||

    We haven't before?

    I honestly don't know, but is this really a case of SJW-ism run amok? Seems less than obvious to me. If they aren't lying, this isn't really a policy change, but sounds more like a clarification to people complaining about being de-monetized.

    Silicon valley may be an epicenter of SJW BS, but it's also an epicenter of people who like making lots of money and getting rich.

    I'm open to the possibility that I am wrong here, but I bet not much changes.

  • Trshmnstr, green and mangy||

    I honestly don't know, but is this really a case of SJW-ism run amok?

    I'm still recovering (in some senses) from spending an entire summer out there. SJW-ism is running amok out there. It's baked into the culture. I was sitting in a Starbucks in Palo Alto listening to a gender studies student rave to her professor about the conference on intersectionality they went to the day before, and how all white men suck. Politics was the first thing to come up at every work event. I was called a racist within hours of getting off the airplane for the observation that Indians tend to like hot drinks in the summer. I got to tour the Facebook campus, and was shocked to see a workplace so steeped in SJW-ism.

    It was an eye-opening experience. I've never lived or worked in a place that was so "loud and proud" about politics in my life. The East Coast isn't like this. The Midwest isn't like this. Texas isn't like this. Silicon Valley (and the Bay Area as a whole) is.

    It sounds like youtube is just clarifying an existing policy, but in general I don't buy that the censorship in social media is just because they're being unthinkingly heavy-handed. I've met the people that work on this stuff, and they're "true believers" of the highest sort.

  • Zeb||

    Sounds awful. I'm glad the company I work for hasn't tried to move me out there. Say what you will about New England, but outside of the froofy Boston and CT upper crust sorts, we say what the fuck we want. And most of the people who come out here from the west coast think it's awesome.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I honestly don't know, but is this really a case of SJW-ism run amok?

    I'm gonna withhold judgement. These companies are getting a LOT of pressure from smug progressives who can't get movement on hate speech from Congress because of that pesky constitution, so there's a lot of back-channel talk between NGOs (for lack of a better word) and these corporations on "doing something" about sexual harassment, racism, hate speech etc.

    I don't know if it's because they're HQd in SV, but I'm going to suspect that it's because of progressive group pressure that this stuff is coming about.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    There's also another, more likely possibility.

    these companies are responding to pressures from the EU. (Remember, there's NO good reason to leave the EU);

    BRUSSELS, May 31 (UPI) -- Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft agreed Tuesday to help fight the spread of hate speech in Europe.

    The United States-based Internet and social media giants signed a code of conduct formulated by the European Union.

    Because these companies are global entities and they want to keep uniform rules of conduct, what NAZI shit is going on in Europe now applies to the US as well.

    In a joint statement with the EU, the companies say they support the "effort to respond to the challenge of ensuring that online platforms do not offer opportunities for illegal online hate speech to spread virally" and that they "share, together with other platforms and social media companies, a collective responsibility and pride in promoting and facilitating freedom of expression throughout the online world."
  • Zeb||

    Oh, yeah. Didn't think of the EU. That seems likely to be a big part of it.

    I'm sure pressure from Silicon Valley SJW culture contributes something, but as I observed above, they are above all there to make money. And they aren't stupid. And lots of YouTube audience (to judge by those who comment anyway) seem to be stupid and hateful people who enjoy some good hate speech.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    That's why on further reflection, I think it has to do more with the antics of the EU. They're there to make money, and the EU can make it very difficult for you to make money if you don't conform to the European anti-speech sensibility. When you have to comply with restrictive rules and you're a global company, you operate at the lowest common denominator.

    Think Cascade Detergent. A couple of states have passed rules on phosphate content in dishwasher soap (the component that actually helps get your dishes clean) and so now Cascade has eliminated it from their entire product line.

  • ant1sthenes||

    So... if all these videos are demonized demonetized, that means they're ad free, right? Because otherwise...

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    YOU can't monetize them. Doesn't mean Youtube can't.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I got off the train when it turned into original CGI kung-fu scenes.

    Definitely some of that, but still plenty of standing around insulting each other. Reminds me of several of my past work environments.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Let a thousand competitors bloom then.

  • The Grinch||

    Yep, the market will find a way while YouTube slowly goes into the shitter before finally sliding into sweet oblivion.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    BTW, Europe continues to stubbornly refuse to recognize the transgendered:

    The code of conduct is based on 2008 EU legislation. It describes illegal hate speech as "all conduct publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin."
  • vek||

    I do business with YouTube. In theory this means that MONETIZED videos can't have this stuff. That essentially means professionals cannot do these things. It does not say that unmonetized content can't have this stuff. So if you want to rant, and are ok with not making any money on YouTube, you should still be able to. Thank god. I was just discussing with my father the other day how miraculous it is that YouTube still allows essentially anything to fly. I guess that wasn't quite the case.

    This is still total bullshit. Fortunately my channels don't really have pretty much any issues with these rules, but a metric fuck ton of "professional" YouTube people could be destroyed by not being able to monetize their content. Also lots of multi-channel media stuff could be screwed. Some might make a lot of money off of their own website or whatever, but YouTube could still be a large secondary source for some people that exist outside of YouTube alone.

    I really hope this spurs the ascendance of a major competitor. I really hate the tendency with internet companies to end up in absolute monopoly with ZERO competition. I hope a new generation of ANYTHING GOES, AND WE MEAN IT Facebooks/YouTubes/etc crop up. People are getting tired of this shit, and as anybody who remembers Myspace exploding can tell you it takes no time at all for one of these companies to just go "Poof!" once critical mass of "This place sucks now" is reached.

  • Fredrik B||

    Is I understand advertisers can still opt to advertise on these videos.

  • Fredrik B||

    I would like to know the average age , income, likelihood to buy stuff online etc of the two groups a) those who watch news related videos, science, and other graphic content vs the ones who only watches family friendly.

    It bet you make more money advertising to the first group.

  • Nyaituppi||

    YouTube does not inform the channel uploader that their video has been demonetized for ad-friendly concerns.
    They will if it is a copyright issue on a song. But I just had a video demonetized, and the only way I found out, was going to my video manager and seeing that it had been demonetized. No reason why.
    It doesn't matter that a bot does the filtering. If it was a copyright issue, they immediately fire off an automated message to your email.
    But when it is the ad-friendly censorship. Nothing. And there is no appeal form that is obviously available for that.
    They obviously don't want to deal with the thousands of appeals they would get for something they don't need to do.

  • Nyaituppi||

    The censorship is blanket. If you put suicide or rape in the title or tags, even if it is a video on how to deal with suicidal thoughts or defend against rape, they will demonetize it. They are contributing to bringing the society back to a place where you are rewarded if you just don't talk about those things.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online