LGBT Video-Makers Sue YouTube Claiming Discrimination (bbc.com) 176
AmiMoJo shares a report from the BBC: A group of YouTube video-makers is suing it and parent company Google, claiming both discriminate against LGBT-themed videos and their creators. The group claims YouTube restricts advertising on LGBT videos and limits their reach and discoverability. But YouTube said sexual orientation and gender identity played no role in deciding whether videos could earn ad revenue or appear in search results. A group is hoping a jury will hear its case in California.
The legal action makes a wide range of claims, including that YouTube:
- Removes advertising from videos featuring "trigger words" such as "gay" or "lesbian"
- Often labels LGBT-themed videos as "sensitive" or "mature" and restricts them from appearing in search results or recommendations
- Does not do enough to filter harassment and hate speech in the comments section "Our policies have no notion of sexual orientation or gender identity and our systems do not restrict or demonetize videos based on these factors or the inclusion of terms like 'gay' or 'transgender,'" spokesman Alex Joseph said. "In addition, we have strong policies prohibiting hate speech and we quickly remove content that violates our policies and terminate accounts that do so repeatedly."
The legal action makes a wide range of claims, including that YouTube:
- Removes advertising from videos featuring "trigger words" such as "gay" or "lesbian"
- Often labels LGBT-themed videos as "sensitive" or "mature" and restricts them from appearing in search results or recommendations
- Does not do enough to filter harassment and hate speech in the comments section "Our policies have no notion of sexual orientation or gender identity and our systems do not restrict or demonetize videos based on these factors or the inclusion of terms like 'gay' or 'transgender,'" spokesman Alex Joseph said. "In addition, we have strong policies prohibiting hate speech and we quickly remove content that violates our policies and terminate accounts that do so repeatedly."
Rhyme or reason (Score:5, Informative)
There is barely any rhyme or reason as to what YouTube demonetizes these days. A science channel I watch had a video demonetized that was describing how nuclear decay works. A legal channel had a video demonetized that was about what rights you have when owning a house under an HOA. A tech channel was demonetized for a copyright match on radio static.
Their algorithms are horrifically broken.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much so. Basically, they seem to be running in circles, screaming random things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Either way, they are a private, for profit entity, and they should be allowed to demonetize channels however they see fit on their platform. That leaves them vulnerable to new entrants in the marketplace, and someone will happily build a platform to monetize videos from the LGBT creators, science videos relating to nuclear decay and any other creator who Youtube feels is worthy of demonetization.
Ceasing to be neutral is a market gap that others will fill.
Re: (Score:3)
Not necessarily. There needs to be enough mass that somebody thinks they can get rich of it (unfortunate, but true).
Re: (Score:2)
Either way, they are a private, for profit entity, and they should be allowed to demonetize channels however they see fit on their platform. That leaves them vulnerable to new entrants in the marketplace, and someone will happily build a platform to monetize videos from the LGBT creators, science videos relating to nuclear decay and any other creator who Youtube feels is worthy of demonetization.
Ceasing to be neutral is a market gap that others will fill.
In the very long run that's true. However Youtube has over a decade worth of content, it would be hard for a competitor to catch up. Now if a mass movement to clone Youtube by having everyone who has uploaded content to youtube also upload it to this new platform then Youtube might change their ways / go belly up. All the new platform would have to do is promise no demonitization and no censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
No one wants to compete with YT because it loses massive amounts of money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, Youtube loses about $800 million a year.
Re: (Score:2)
They are apparently playing the "long game"
Re: Rhyme or reason (Score:2)
They are "dumping" their service on the market for less than the cost to operate it. Standard tactic of monopolists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Rhyme or reason (Score:3, Interesting)
I already know that you're all about controlling what people can do, say, and think, while you compete in the oppression Olympics, but first of all, this isn't Canada (slashdot makes no bones about being a US centric site) and this is far more complicated than you're making it out to be.
First off, this isn't about what YouTube wants, it's about what it's advertisers want. Advertisers are customers, they can choose to buy from whoever they want for any reason they want. Say hypothetically you didn't want to
Re: (Score:3)
Advertisers are customers, they can choose to buy from whoever they want for any reason they want.
No. If advertisers make a conscious decision to exclude people based on their sexual orientation, that's discrimination against a protected class and is illegal.
Similarly YouTube should not even offer the ability for advertisers to discriminate that way, since it's illegal and that would be aiding and abetting.
This is well established. We have had landlords trying to exclude tenants based on race and religion, and it's been found to be illegal in court multiple times.
Google at the time said that they had no way to police this
"We built this discriminatory platform a
Re: Rhyme or reason (Score:3)
No. If advertisers make a conscious decision to exclude people based on their sexual orientation, that's discrimination against a protected class and is illegal.
Similarly YouTube should not even offer the ability for advertisers to discriminate that way, since it's illegal and that would be aiding and abetting.
This is well established. We have had landlords trying to exclude tenants based on race and religion, and it's been found to be illegal in court multiple times.
No, you're missing the point: If sponsors see their ads appear with content that they disagree with, they can refuse to buy ad space from Google outright, and instead advertise elsewhere.
Furthermore, I'm not disagreeing that Google can have a platform that isn't compliant with the law. What I'm saying is that people like BarBar are trying, willingly or not, to prevent us from having nice things. First they attack the sponsors for funding content they don't like, then they attack YouTube for not funding cont
Re: (Score:3)
Err....well, you're saying Ad folks should no longer be able to try to get the best bang for their buck and be able to target their ad dollars in the most efficient way to generate most bang for th
Re: (Score:2)
Err....well, you're saying Ad folks should no longer be able to try to get the best bang for their buck and be able to target their ad dollars in the most efficient way to generate most bang for their advertising dollar?
GP totally missed what I'm saying (which I addressed in my previous post) but she is right in that this isn't totally true. This came up earlier this year when facebook was allowing home lenders to target ads towards some demographics (I don't recall if they could target race directly) that could be considered exclusionary towards minorities. DoJ and HUD filed a lawsuit against facebook, considering this to be another form of redlining, so it really depends on why they're targeting, or excluding certain gro
Re: (Score:2)
Err....well, you're saying Ad folks should no longer be able to try to get the best bang for their buck and be able to target their ad dollars in the most efficient way to generate most bang for their advertising dollar?
This is an age old and accepted practice.
It's not acceptable to, say, discriminate against black people because you think it might reduce the rent in your apartments. Clearly this is an old but not accepted practice.
Re: (Score:2)
If advertisers make a conscious decision to exclude people based on their sexual orientation, that's discrimination against a protected class and is illegal.
There are certain things it's illegal to exclude people from based on their sexual orientation, and there's things which aren't illegal. In general, if you're doing things for people you may be asked to be inclusive, while if you're doing things to people, nobody is asking for that. Advertising is a deliberate attack on the senses in order to manipulate your mental state, in an attempt to make you do something you don't want to do. Nobody is begging to be included in that.
You can't refuse to do business wit
Re: (Score:2)
First they came for the gun channels, but I did not speak out....
Next they came for the conservative channels, but I did not speak out....
Next they came for the.......
Re: (Score:3)
The laws about discrimination are general, and in California we have more protected classes than in the rest of the country. The suit is being brought in California. If they are working full time for Google then California might even conceivably treat them as employees. They have a good shot, though I certainly don't think it's a shoo-in.
Re: (Score:3)
YouTube content creators are not employees. Those laws about discrimination do not apply.
Unless you think it was ok for the bakery to reject the gay marriage cake buyers, too.
It's a sharp knife and cuts both ways.
I always wonder about that baker case and the implications of the aftermath.
So i'm a Muslim, and you are a Christian, I will not make you a cake.
So i'm Christian and you are a Muslim, now i don't have to make you a cake.
So I am a vegetarian, and I do not eat meat so i will not approve your campsite reservation.
I am a meat eater and you are vegetarian, I will not approve your campsite reservation.
I am a republican doctor, I will not perform a triple bypass surgery on a democrat.
I am a democrat doctor, I will
Re: Rhyme or reason (Score:5, Insightful)
I always wonder about that baker case and the implications of the aftermath.
I wonder as well. I also wonder how people will misinterpret any court rulings on the case.
The case in question was if a person is required to provide creative services in which they had a moral objection in providing. I believe the court ruled correctly in not forcing the baker to provide such services. People should still have freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of association.
What happened when this case got up to SCOTUS the case was ruled in favor of the baker because it wasn't just the gay couple being religious bigots, the city agency that took the case in the first place were also not all that tolerant of a Christian baker acting within the confines of his beliefs.
We could JUST treat each other with respect. Tough choice.
You mean like if a business refuses someone service that instead of just going somewhere else this person wages lawfare on the business? This poor baker just wants to live his life as he wishes. This couple was so intolerant of this baker, so disrespectful of his beliefs, that they could not let this poor guy be. They had to make it clear to this baker that he was going to bake this cake whether he wanted to or not. Is that the kind of society you want to live in? Isn't this a kind of slavery?
Who's being disrespectful here?
I know the answer to that. You might not like how the baker acted. You might consider his refusal to be disrespectful. Maybe it was disrespectful to not bake the cake they wanted. I believe the use of the power of the government to attempt to force this man to do something he found sinful to be very disrespectful. This is not just disrespectful of this man's beliefs but also disrespectful of all of our rights as protected by the Constitution. This baker has the right to express himself as he wishes. If that displeases you then expect to be displeased. No one has the right to impose their beliefs onto another with the force of the government. Getting your feelings hurt should not be a matter worthy of a federal lawsuit.
Re: (Score:3)
This poor baker just wants to live his life as he wishes. This couple was so intolerant of this baker, so disrespectful of his beliefs, that they could not let this poor guy be.
Hardly. The baker wants the privilege of protection from the government without the responsibility of having it. If the baker eschewed limited liability protection I would be taking a different line here.
I believe the use of the power of the government to attempt to force this man to do something he found sinful to be very disrespec
Re: Rhyme or reason (Score:2)
There is no natural right to limited liability protection. The baker as a private citizen should be free to do that. There's no reason why companies should have the same protections as people. They are not people.
A person running a company does not stop being a person. If you can't force the company to do something without also forcing the person to do it then yes, the company should have the same protection. A company cannot act without the people it employs.
This is likely less of an issue for a large conglamorate, but is a serious issue for a "company" which consists solely of a married couple and 2 or 3 employees.
Re: Rhyme or reason (Score:2)
That's absurd. You don't get a free pass on things just because you sincerely believe in them. And the government's job is literally to use force to stop you doing things against the law without reference to religion. It doesn't matter whether you strongly believe it or simply want to do it for money. The government should not concern itself with why beyond the confines of mens rea.
Unless you want to undo the separation of church and state; in which case be plain in your advocacy.
I'm not sure if you're trying to build a legal theory here, but by using legal terms, I think you are. And, we happen to have a long, long running precedent that contradicts everything you stated here: The conscientious objector.
This isn't a case of the government stopping somebody from doing something, rather it's a case of the government compelling action. The conscientious objector gets a "free pass", as you call it, on exactly these grounds. The law compels a particular action, but this allows an except
voluntary (Score:2)
And, we happen to have a long, long running precedent that contradicts everything you stated here: The conscientious objector.
There is a big difference.
Conscientious objectors, never choose to serve the military, they were drafted, forced into a type of activity (killing) against their beliefs.
The exemple here in this discussion are bakers. Nobody forced them to be bakers. They personally choose to go into this field of work without any government pressure.
But this specific type of work happens to be a service, which means that they will service customers, and local law requires them to not make any distinction between customers.
B
Re: (Score:2)
They don't have a very tolerant view on homosexuality either...in fact their religion in many places actually kills homosexuals.
What if a muslim caterer was hired, but they insisted they serve pork as a dish offering?
Re: (Score:3)
This, I must say is one of the strangest posts I have ever read and it reveals a lot about the right wing mentality. And part of that is you're really obsessed with Muslims.
There's nothing in any of my arguments specific to any religion and nothing in there or anything I've ever said that would indicate that I'd single out any one religion for special privileges.
Re: (Score:2)
Religious belief should not be a protected class. If your religion tells you to be a bigot, it should not be an excuse for anything.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder as well. I also wonder how people will misinterpret any court rulings on the case.
The case in question was if a person is required to provide creative services in which they had a moral objection in providing.
Except it wasn't, quite, as Philips (the baker) wasn't turning people away because they requested a product with a specific message, but because they requested a product for a same-sex wedding. Philips rejected them before any actual message (whether dependent on words or design) on the cake was discussed:
Craig and Mullins were refused the sale of any wedding cake at all.They were turned away before any specific cake design could be dis-cussed.
and this was part of a larger policy of not selling to same-sex couples for certain kinds of events:
Phillips’ shop had refused to sell cupcakes to a lesbian couple for their commitment celebra-tion because the shop “had a policy of not selling baked goods to same-sex couples for this type of event."
(Both from the decision (pdf) [supremecourt.gov]).
The followup argument here is of course that even if Philips would have s
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I always wonder about that baker case and the implications of the aftermath...
OR
We could JUST treat each other with respect. Tough choice.
Yes, we should treat each other with respect. The gay couple in question specifically targeted this bakery, knowing they would not do it. The gay couple wanted to force the Christian baker to specifically do something that would violate their conscience. Despite the fact that they could have gone almost anywhere else to get a cake made, they decided to choose that guy so they could sue him. That doesn't really sound like respect.
Hippocratic oath (Score:2)
I am a republican doctor, I will not perform a triple bypass surgery on a democrat.
I am a democrat doctor, I will not remove the brain tumor from this republic patient.
That would be a breach of the Hippocratic oath.
Under it (or more likely the modern local ethics code, nobody does actually recite old greek oaths nowadays), we pledge to treat any oatient, no discrimination, no matter what.
(We would be supposed to even medically treat Hitler if it comes to that.)
This contrasted with multiple religious example, where the local holy book (to which some person ascribes to) might forbid on the peril of eternal brimstone and fire, helping anyone who happens to be born on the wro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Libertarian neo-con detected. How about those deregulated markets that gave us the last Great Recession .:.
No censorship?
Not even bot postings?
What about DDOS?
What about posts soliciting transactions with counties or entities prohibited by law by sanction?
What about people posting links to child porn or snuff films?
No censorship at all?
Good luck.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Wow... what have you been smoking?
Let me guess... you are also a climate denier and probably a flat-earther.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, quit using facts to prove your point. You may cause some snowflake/liberal to have a meltdown. At least lead with a warning so they can get to their safe place.
Facts :
"you want all businesses to be regulated to provide all services to everybody regardless of the wants and the needs of the *specific* private business."
*specific*
Yes.
Re: Rhyme or reason (Score:2)
"vulnerable to new entrants in the marketplace"
That's why we need Uncle Sam to break up the Big Tech monopolists and smash the Sandhill Road money cartel. When we have real competition again, maybe free market solutions can work. No free market, no free market solutions.
Re: Rhyme or reason (Score:2)
"a private, for profit entity, and they should be allowed to demonetize channels"
Alphabet would have a stronger case if they removed all advertising from "offensive" videos. But they don't. When a video it's demonetized they still run the advertising, and steal the ad revenue from the creator.
When they actually censor content, that's a freedom of speech issue. The same publisher/platform debate we've been rehashing here for quite a while.
Demonetization, however, seems closer to racketeering than censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't steal something that was yours to begin with. Just because they give money to some people doesn't mean they're stealing it from others. Or else all of the videos of the small creators who don't get monetized would be considered stealing also. Or is that the point you were getting at? Are you saying these people are entitled to get paid the money that youtube makes regardless of anything else?
Re: (Score:2)
Alphabet would have a stronger case if they removed all advertising from "offensive" videos. But they don't. When a video it's demonetized they still run the advertising, and steal the ad revenue from the creator.
I never see adverts on Youtube so I can't check this, but that sounds unlikely. Why have I never heard this from other sources?
Re: (Score:2)
You must watch Thunderf00t.
Re: (Score:2)
I watched his videos on Fukushima fallout and Solar Roadways. Was he demonetized too? The nuclear decay video was from a German guy I think...
Re: (Score:2)
Some of his science videos get demonetized for no reason apparently. Probably some keyword trigger.
Rhyme without Reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Their algorithms are horrifically broken.
That's certainly true but the way they are broken seems to be somewhat random in that they pick up on some utterly irrelevant thing in the video to make a decision. This seems far more consistent with incompetence than systematic discrimination.
As for their other complaint about their videos being labelled as "mature" or "sensitive" by their very nature LGBT+ videos are presumably often discussing issues related to sexuality or sexual identity since these are the characteristics by which they define their group identity. Surely any video discussing these types of topics should get these labels whether or not it is from an LGBT+ perspective?
Re: (Score:2)
From TFA:
In a phone call heard by BBC News, one Google ad representative told the programme's producers that "sexuality content about the gays" broke its advertising rules.
I put that in the summary but the editor removed it. It's pretty damning as it suggests that merely discussing homosexuality is a red flag, which is likely a violation of various equality and discrimination laws.
Note that "sexuality" doesn't mean explicitly sexual, it refers to sexual orientation in general. We are talking make-up videos, fashion advice, dating tips etc. Not explicit stuff. That's what the lawsuit is alleging.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seconded (Score:3)
I've heard of at least one history video demonetized - the only difference with their other videos is they covered World War 2. It focused on the development of air planes. The next one covering the beginning of the cold war was fine. I'm betting the WW2 video wasn't demonetized because it had a controversial opinion on how effective the P38 was.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Being demonetised does not mean they do not show ads, just means they keep all the money. So obfuscation to allow highly profitable mass theft of income from content. It is hardly surprising many content creators put a polite sales plug in their content for their sponsors. The system is not broken, not broken in the least, it is working 100% as intended, serve ads and do no pay the content provider for that ad.
OBEY you little shit, OBEY GOOGLE your worthless scum, or they show ads with your content and you
Re: (Score:2)
Surely any 'pedo-filth' content would be removed, not demonetised?
Not to mention the comedy of someone going to court to demand Google monetise their child pornography.
Actual demonitising is reserved for conservative accounts
No, it's happening to a lot of channels with a broad range of political (and non-political) views and videos.
The third claim is true but irrelevant. (Score:5, Insightful)
The claim that YT doesn't do enough to stop harassment in the comments is absolutely true, but it's not discriminatory because they do just as shitty a job for everyone.
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't harassment if you have to navigate to and read the comments. The video publisher is free to disable comments as well. There is a point where your harassment concerns yield to free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
That part seems to be more of a general complaint designed to show that YouTube's claims that it supports the LGBTQ community are untrue. If it did, it would presumably do something to stop LGBTQ people getting harassed as any reasonable supporter of a community would.
All part of building up their case.
Re:The third claim is true but irrelevant. (Score:4, Informative)
First Amendment Free Speech doesn't even come into it unless it's being abridged by the government.
Youtube can censor what they like.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube has a de facto monopoly on this type of content. There are other streaming sites, but none of them can handle the load that YouTube can, many of them only permit certain types of content, and none of them have any meaningful amount of traffic for general content compared to YouTube. If you want your non-gaming, non-porn, non-gun video to be viewed by people, you want it to be on YouTube.
Re: (Score:2)
Monopolies are allowed to censor as much as any other private entity. So your reply was utterly irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they really aren't. Once you become a monopoly you can't behave the same way that you could before. Malls are private entities but they can't prohibit you from entering because you're wearing an offensive shirt, or prevent you from taking photographs. And they're not even monopolies.
Re: (Score:2)
Being critical, and disagreeing is not harassment. Saying something that hurts your feelings, is not harassment.
Libel and slander: YES...againt the law, I agree with you.
Racism and hate speech, while they are reprehensible, they are speech...they are protected speech, at least in the US.
As long as you are not promoting violent action,
Re: (Score:2)
Libel and slander: YES...againt the law, I agree with you.
Not exactly. These are civil statutes, and the only damages you can claim would be from say lost wages due to reputational harm. It's not government prosecution, so it's not first amendment.
As long as you are not promoting violent action, that type of speech is not illegal and is in fact, protected.
100% correct. What BarBar doesn't understand is that the philosophy of the United States is to not try to limit what you can express. If you said, for example, that the crime rate is higher among certain races, that might be political in nature, you just don't know without actually being inside of that person's head, so
Good luck (Score:3)
And fuck off with making Google responsible for dealing with your comment section. Channel owners can already remove or hide comments that they don't like. If you're too lazy to do that on your own, just turn comments on your video off. If you want to make Google do it, don't be surprised when they keep all the advertising revenue for doing the extra work.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Indeed. Conservatives also are complaining about search bias and removals.
When you are a near-monopoly in a medium, you will get such scrutiny.
Youtube should refine their filtering and ad guidelines, give clear reasons for judgements made, and include a reasonable way to address grievances.
I'm okay with the idea of requiring a fee to address grievances because of the sheer volume, but only if it can be shown it's to cover the review costs and not a
Re: (Score:2)
This is what happens when you try to use your political position to silence your opposition, eventually it turns around to bite you in the ass. I see a lot of people here that were saying "Youtube is a private company and can censor/remove anything they want, now claiming they can't censor or remove anything they want. Meanwhile I'm just going to sit here and continue laughing at the twisting mind circles. You either want free speech or you don't. Nobody likes inconsistent positions.
You would think they would do their homework... (Score:2)
Advertisers (Score:5, Insightful)
There are probably a large percentage of advertisers that don't want to be attached to their content, so the algorithm doesn't promote their videos as heavily. I would imagine the algorithm weights advertiser friendly content and distributes it more widely.
Advertisers Blacklisting Stories W/Forbidden Words (Score:3)
There are probably a large percentage of advertisers that don't want to be attached to their content
Case in point: The Wall Street Journal recently ran a story about advertisers choosing not to place their ads on articles with controversial words in the headline [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is that the decision to specifically avoid LGBTQ content is likely to be illegal. Obviously the advertisers could be sued for that, but it makes more sense to sue YouTube for offering them the tools to do it. Take away the tools and the advertisers can either choose to be on LGBTQ content or to go away.
Dismissal for failure to state a claim? (Score:2)
the group claims YouTube restricts advertising on LGBT videos and limits their reach and discoverability.
So what? Youtube is a private entity, and Youtube has 1st amendment free speech rights. That includes the right to not speak or to moderate out certain content on their network Should they choose: Youtube has the constitutionally protected right to prohibit videos on their platform featuring any LGBT-content.
Youtube does not do that, but b/c they have the right to do that "Youtube discriminat
Re: Dismissal for failure to state a claim? (Score:2)
"Youtube has 1st amendment free speech rights"
Only corporate stooges believe the "rights" of a fictional legal "person" ought to trample the fundamental rights of human beings.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever considered that you are illiterate and stupid? Because your comments clearly show this to be the case. Maybe just stop posting in public?
Re: (Score:2)
the first amendment doesn't restrict states from passing laws that limit speech, that criminalize libel and slander and hate speech.
Actually... the First Amendment absolutely does restrict states from passing laws that limit speech.
Unless the speech is of a form that incites immediate violence endangering the life or threatens to immediately cause serious physical injury, then the states and congress are Not able to criminalize or interfere with that speech -- even attempts at hate speech regulation
Re: (Score:2)
Laws upheld that criminalize or make a civil offence out of any kind of speech such as slander
Actually they can't criminalize slander or libel, though it can be legislated as a tort.
Listen... (Score:4, Insightful)
Youtube is, for the most part, a place that tries to be family friendly. Sexual orientation is not something that is valid to discriminate based on. However, for a family site, sexuality is and will continue to be. I don't care if it's hetero, gay, lesbian, "little people", or goatsex porn. I don't want it on Youtube and I support Google in their efforts to restrict it. You can't put sexual themes in a video, label it lesbian, then cry discrimination when that label causes it to be flagged or dropped from searches. There is not a special dispensation for homosexual sexual themed videos because the people who make them feel marginalized.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Listen... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're both right - sometimes they nobly fight for equality and sometimes they already are equal but feel entitled to a free pass. The problem is there is so much hysteria around discrimination that it's hard to distinguish actual discrimination, which is morally wrong, from absence of favouritism, which is not discrimination at all. Many self-identified groups, not just LBGT, want better treatment, whether they are disadvantaged, equal, or already advantaged.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said it was about porn, and you're misreading my comment to try and direct it that way. I said it was about sexuality.
What I cannot countenance are people who are further stirring already muddy water. As was pointed out in another comment, the hysteria and noise-to-signal ratio is terrible on the subject of discrimination, and people who use that muddy water to further their own goals of just wanting no limits on what they personally can do are not helpful to anyone. I like being able to say Yout
Re: (Score:2)
Barbara is illiterate. You'll have to excuse her/it.
Re: (Score:2)
I struggle to find anything in their guidelines [google.com] that could be construed to forbid it as well.
My speculation is that YouTube's automated scanners are just worse than usual at differentiating between sex and sexuality, magnified by some cognitiv
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube's "Nudity and sexual content policies" [google.com] speaks toward what I am talking about. Pornography and pornographic-like content is barred, as are clips from non-pornographic shows intended to isolate explicit scenes. Anything that is intended to isolate, promote, or enhance content meant for sexual gratification is essentially barred. Sexuality itself isn't barred in its entirety, but my take on those guidelines is basically a "PG" type environment.
Keywords that are generally used to identify such conten
Re: (Score:2)
Keywords that are generally used to identify such content are, I would suggest, fair game for algorithms that catch this.
Using keywords such as "lesbian," "straight," or "gay" seems like a clumsy way to filter out sexual content while allowing educational videos about sexuality. Would it then not be comparable to filtering out videos condoning apartheid by the keywords "black African" and "Dutch?"
Re: (Score:2)
Any video talking about sexual identity is going to be a mature topic. Homosexuality has the word "sexuality" there for a reason, and it's not because the topic is talking about cute puppies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Sexuality" just refers to if someone is lesbian, gay or bi. It doesn't mean explicit details of sex.
In the UK children start learning about this as soon as they start school, around ages 4 to 5. It's all very tame stuff as you would expect. Fairy tales where the two princes are in love, anthropomorphised animals with two mothers. Some general discussion about the different kinds of families that exist, including for example hetro couples who are in long term relationships but not married or where the wife
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Mental illness discussion is also demonetized. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good (Score:2)
Apologies to Dylan (Score:3)
They'll sue you just like they said they would
They'll sue you when you're trying to go home
And they'll sue you when you're there all alone
But someone saw you nude
Everybody must get sued
Well, they'll sue you when you're walking on the street
They'll sue you when you're tryin' to keep your seat
They'll sue you when you're walkin' on the floor
They'll sue you when you're walkin' to the door
Because everybody is so rude
Everybody must get sued
They'll sue you when you're at the breakfast table
They'll sue you when you are young and able
They'll sue you when you're tryin' to make a buck
Then they'll sue you and then they'll say "good luck"
Tell ya…
Everybody must get sued
Suspicion (Score:2)
Also, Sunni Muslim men oppressed in Saudi Arabia (Score:2)
LMAO. I mean it's possible that they run into AI filter stupidity like everyone else. Or not complete stupidity if sex(uality) related videos are downranked on a site for mixed age/gender/sensitivity audiences. But being specially discriminated compared to say Ben Shapiro? Not a chance on this particular site.
What exactly is LGBT "themed"? (Score:2)
It's about Sex. That's all. (Score:2)
If you talk about sexual intercourse or genitalia in your videos, expect Youtube to make you less discoverable by kids. The seclusion of sex-related topics from children is a nearly universal tenant in human cultures. Yes, sexuality, sexual orientation, and even transgender topics by their nature and definition fall under those categories. Don't act surprised. You know this is the issue at hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"psycho tar-baby"
Good job outing your racism.
Re: (Score:2)