7 ms·

YouTube Bans Sexual Humor, Profanity, Political Conflict, etc in Partner Content

51 points by protomyth 10y ago

Cortez 10y ago
YouTube has been dying for years now
- totalforge 10y ago
  Somebody should do a video startup that values free expression and adult topics of discussion, and eat their lunch. Oh, and cat videos.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Somebody should do a video startup that values free expression and adult topics of discussion, and eat their lunch. If you can find a way to get the people either providing or consuming the media to pay, that might work (though not so much at eating YouTube's lunch as serving a different market). If you want to monetize that with advertising, good luck: YouTube's content restrictions follow the general trend of big advertising-supported media, because its what the paying customers for that want.
    - serge2k 10y ago
      Yup. It's why the walking dead can show gratuitous over the top violence, but they have save "They're fucking with the wrong people" for the blu-ray. Can't have that swearing. Oh no.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > YouTube has been dying for years now If by "dying" you mean "growing up into mass-market, big-money commercial media" then, sure, its been dying.
  - Psyonic 10y ago
    Nobody goes there anymore -- it's too crowded.
    - ry_ry 10y ago
      Too crowded for what, though? The comments threads have always been an internet Mos Eisley cess-pit, so I'm unconvinced the social aspect have ever been particularly prevalent, and the competition amongst content creators is obviously intense, but to say nobody goes there is just plain wrong. Heck, the content glut means the likely hood of hitting relevant content quickly is higher than ever, quality notwithstanding.
      - serge2k 10y ago
        "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded" is a classic joke.
        ry_ry 10y ago
        Oh christ... That moment when you realise a joke has sailed clean over your head? Yep. Exactly that. Too late to edit and spare my blushes sadly. Still, it got a sheepish chuckle out of me when I finally twigged, so it's not all bad news!
btym 10y ago
Prohibiting the open discussion of "controversial or sensitive subjects" is unbelievable. Partners are no longer allowed to have political opinions or discuss major world events. What the fuck, YouTube?
- npiazza83 10y ago
  To be fair its hard to know what merits censorship on Hacker News as well. Mods frequently remove posts that are inflamatory, political, "unsubstantive", and your very comment may well fall under their guidelines for removal.
  - dang 10y ago
    > Mods frequently remove posts that are inflamatory, political, "unsubstantive", That's completely untrue. We reply to such comments asking people not to post those things. We sometimes detach such comments from their parents and mark them off-topic (which lowers them on the page). But removing them is precisely what we don't do. Where these notions come from is beyond me. You might think that if you scrupulously followed a policy of not doing X, people wouldn't blithely claim that X is your policy. Nope, not so.
    - npiazza83 10y ago
      Detaching a post from its parent and marking it as off-topic seems to me a pretty pusillanimous semantic difference to outright deletion. Context is key to comprehension. My notion comes from a direct quote from you, dang. Our discussion on the subject several days ago. I don't mean to impugn you or the moderation of HN in general. I'll just re-iterate what I said then: I understand what you want but I find it sterile and incompatible with my personal values as should others and I encourage you to re-examine the goals you have for discussion on the site.
      - sillysaurus3 10y ago
        It's necessary to detach off-topic threads of discussion. The site was much worse when that wasn't the policy.
mdaniel 10y ago
If anyone wants a succinct example of how misguided this is, https://www.youtube.com/user/Kurzgesagt https://www.youtube.com/user/Kurzgesagt is an amazing channel filled with thoughtful and well researched videos, but their Twitter account reported last night that their second video discussing nuclear power ran afoul of the "content guidelines" and was de-monetized. I can't imagine an educational channel deserving this treatment - it makes me so sad for everyone involved.
- ramblenode 10y ago
  "Nuclear power, Syrian refugees, clear cutting the Amazon--those are a lot to think about and we don't want to offend someone. We'll just double up on cat videos instead. Everybody likes cat videos, right?"
  - blackflame7000 10y ago
    Nothing controversial about cats... Unless they are the feral kind in which case you can find many arguments online that are in favor of their eradication.
    - baldfat 10y ago
      These are house cats :P ERADICATION IS NEEDED :) “The results were certainly surprising, if not startling,” said Kerrie Anne Loyd of the University of Georgia, who was the lead author of the study. “In Athens-Clarke County, we found that about 30 percent of the sampled cats were successful in capturing and killing prey, and that those cats averaged about one kill for every 17 hours outdoors or 2.1 kills per week. It was also surprising to learn that cats only brought 23 percent of their kills back to a residence. We found that house cats will kill a wide variety of animals, including: lizards, voles, chipmunks, birds, frogs, and small snakes.” http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&id=610:new-research-suggests-outdoor-cats-kill-more-wildlife-than-thought&catid=34:ONB+Articles&Itemid=54 http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/index.php?option=...
deadmik3 10y ago
YouTube renamed to Google SafeSpaces As a real comment though, maybe this is Google's way of trying to put the pillow over YouTube's face? It's been costing them money for a long time, maybe this is their way to kill it without just going "yeah iz ded"
- waqf 10y ago
  >It's been costing them money for a long time citation needed
  - blackflame7000 10y ago
    Its pretty well known that YouTube doesn't make money, but here is an article from the WSJ as of Feb 2015 http://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-for-youtube-1424897967 http://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-fo...
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- icebraining 10y ago
  Profitable or not, YouTube is the uncontested king of web video right at the moment when cord cutting is starting to get significant. They'd be insane to let that go. Besides, they're only removing monetization, not banning the videos. It's just a way to avoid offending their advertisers by getting them mixed up with uncomfortable content.
  - _0ffh 10y ago
    They're not even trying to be flexible. Advertisers could be given a choice, if they are fine with controversial content. Maybe use a handful of tags, like politics and swearing are fine, but no sex, violence or cat videos, please! All the pussy companies can then choose to only advertise on reaction videos, for all I care.
  - 10y ago
ramblenode 10y ago
> Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items Regulated by whom? Alcohol is banned in some countries, so does that mean a video on wine tasting is eligible for monetization if uploaded in the UK but not eligible if uploaded in Saudi Arabia? It seems like a reactive and overbearing policy change, but I'll admit to being ignorant of their motivations. This kind of soft censorship is a loss to the end user, regardless.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Regulated by whom? Alcohol is banned in some countries, so does that mean a video on wine tasting is eligible for monetization if uploaded in the UK but not eligible if uploaded in Saudi Arabia? Alcohol isn't regulated in the UK?
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago
  Also, does that mean I can't promote Gruyère cheese because the EU regulates that it can only be produced in Switzerland?
DanBC 10y ago
> Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown Evolution is (for some bizarre reason) both controversial and political. Will videos explaining evolution be de-monetised? EDIT: YT seem to be doing a boneheaded "search for problem words in titles, and demonetise that video". Hence this channel (which is full of stuff that is possibly against the new terms is mostly monetised apart from one video about preventing veteran suicide. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRo1KI1JC3A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRo1KI1JC3A ) (Not sure if it counts as political conflict, or if that means more along the lines of Basque Seperatism?)
serge2k 10y ago
Time for content creators to start banding together. Force youtube to deal with their lousy policies.
goldenkey 10y ago
Youtube makes money from ads too. They are doing this because its what the advertisers want. These so victimized wahwah creators can host on YouTube for free, use unlimited bandwidth, storage, etc and put sponsor ads in their videos themselves. Its not terribly hard for a channel worth any salt to find sponsors and self include advertising. Most of these youtube celebs have no backbone, no perserverance and are reactionary and quick to point fingers and whine. Their two bit followers regurgitate what ever half brained idea is told to them. As if this is a social injustice. Ugh. The mudrakers and journalists of yesteryear had to do what these lazy youtubers expect to get like dog food. The money doesnt come from YouTube, its from the advertisers. https://youtu.be/ZB-lh6_4ZIQ https://youtu.be/ZB-lh6_4ZIQ
CommanderData 10y ago
The tables are in favor of those with money i.e. Advertisers. The new rules seem to stem from normal TV advertising rules. Leaving or boycotting while in some situations is good, I don't think is not a solution in this case - the dynamics of the web / content content creation means there will be someone to replace a creator quickly if they no longer provide (users will just look elsewhere for their needs). No doubt these policies were pushed anticipating a backlash. This move is a thought-out strategy - it will be interesting to see how this will turn out, or if it follows YouTube's expectations.
imh 10y ago
I don't get the accusations of censorship here. They aren't stopping people from publishing of these videos, they're just telling the creators they won't pay for them anymore (beyond hosting costs, distribution, etc).
tomlock 10y ago
I don't think this is particularly surprising. Advertisers often won't run their ad on a particular show on TV because of its content. Youtube is most likely bowing to advertiser pressure on this.
wodenokoto 10y ago
What I do find odd is that Youtube is not auctioning advertisement space based on content of the video + user profile. Why not allow small advertisers a discount on "controversial" videos? I'm also surprised how much advertisers considers themselves linked to the content they advertise next to. I consider FB and Youtube ads completely user profile based, but maybe I live in my own little tech bubble.

51 points by protomyth 10y ago

Cortez 10y ago

YouTube has been dying for years now

totalforge 10y ago
Somebody should do a video startup that values free expression and adult topics of discussion, and eat their lunch. Oh, and cat videos.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Somebody should do a video startup that values free expression and adult topics of discussion, and eat their lunch. If you can find a way to get the people either providing or consuming the media to pay, that might work (though not so much at eating YouTube's lunch as serving a different market). If you want to monetize that with advertising, good luck: YouTube's content restrictions follow the general trend of big advertising-supported media, because its what the paying customers for that want.
  - serge2k 10y ago
    Yup. It's why the walking dead can show gratuitous over the top violence, but they have save "They're fucking with the wrong people" for the blu-ray. Can't have that swearing. Oh no.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> YouTube has been dying for years now If by "dying" you mean "growing up into mass-market, big-money commercial media" then, sure, its been dying.
- Psyonic 10y ago
  Nobody goes there anymore -- it's too crowded.
  - ry_ry 10y ago
    Too crowded for what, though? The comments threads have always been an internet Mos Eisley cess-pit, so I'm unconvinced the social aspect have ever been particularly prevalent, and the competition amongst content creators is obviously intense, but to say nobody goes there is just plain wrong. Heck, the content glut means the likely hood of hitting relevant content quickly is higher than ever, quality notwithstanding.
    - serge2k 10y ago
      "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded" is a classic joke.
      - ry_ry 10y ago
        Oh christ... That moment when you realise a joke has sailed clean over your head? Yep. Exactly that. Too late to edit and spare my blushes sadly. Still, it got a sheepish chuckle out of me when I finally twigged, so it's not all bad news!

btym 10y ago

Prohibiting the open discussion of "controversial or sensitive subjects" is unbelievable. Partners are no longer allowed to have political opinions or discuss major world events. What the fuck, YouTube?

npiazza83 10y ago
To be fair its hard to know what merits censorship on Hacker News as well. Mods frequently remove posts that are inflamatory, political, "unsubstantive", and your very comment may well fall under their guidelines for removal.
- dang 10y ago
  > Mods frequently remove posts that are inflamatory, political, "unsubstantive", That's completely untrue. We reply to such comments asking people not to post those things. We sometimes detach such comments from their parents and mark them off-topic (which lowers them on the page). But removing them is precisely what we don't do. Where these notions come from is beyond me. You might think that if you scrupulously followed a policy of not doing X, people wouldn't blithely claim that X is your policy. Nope, not so.
  - npiazza83 10y ago
    Detaching a post from its parent and marking it as off-topic seems to me a pretty pusillanimous semantic difference to outright deletion. Context is key to comprehension. My notion comes from a direct quote from you, dang. Our discussion on the subject several days ago. I don't mean to impugn you or the moderation of HN in general. I'll just re-iterate what I said then: I understand what you want but I find it sterile and incompatible with my personal values as should others and I encourage you to re-examine the goals you have for discussion on the site.
    - sillysaurus3 10y ago
      It's necessary to detach off-topic threads of discussion. The site was much worse when that wasn't the policy.

mdaniel 10y ago

If anyone wants a succinct example of how misguided this is, https://www.youtube.com/user/Kurzgesagt https://www.youtube.com/user/Kurzgesagt is an amazing channel filled with thoughtful and well researched videos, but their Twitter account reported last night that their second video discussing nuclear power ran afoul of the "content guidelines" and was de-monetized. I can't imagine an educational channel deserving this treatment - it makes me so sad for everyone involved.

ramblenode 10y ago
"Nuclear power, Syrian refugees, clear cutting the Amazon--those are a lot to think about and we don't want to offend someone. We'll just double up on cat videos instead. Everybody likes cat videos, right?"
- blackflame7000 10y ago
  Nothing controversial about cats... Unless they are the feral kind in which case you can find many arguments online that are in favor of their eradication.
  - baldfat 10y ago
    These are house cats :P ERADICATION IS NEEDED :) “The results were certainly surprising, if not startling,” said Kerrie Anne Loyd of the University of Georgia, who was the lead author of the study. “In Athens-Clarke County, we found that about 30 percent of the sampled cats were successful in capturing and killing prey, and that those cats averaged about one kill for every 17 hours outdoors or 2.1 kills per week. It was also surprising to learn that cats only brought 23 percent of their kills back to a residence. We found that house cats will kill a wide variety of animals, including: lizards, voles, chipmunks, birds, frogs, and small snakes.” http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&id=610:new-research-suggests-outdoor-cats-kill-more-wildlife-than-thought&catid=34:ONB+Articles&Itemid=54 http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/index.php?option=...

deadmik3 10y ago

YouTube renamed to Google SafeSpaces As a real comment though, maybe this is Google's way of trying to put the pillow over YouTube's face? It's been costing them money for a long time, maybe this is their way to kill it without just going "yeah iz ded"

waqf 10y ago
>It's been costing them money for a long time citation needed
- blackflame7000 10y ago
  Its pretty well known that YouTube doesn't make money, but here is an article from the WSJ as of Feb 2015 http://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-for-youtube-1424897967 http://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-fo...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
icebraining 10y ago
Profitable or not, YouTube is the uncontested king of web video right at the moment when cord cutting is starting to get significant. They'd be insane to let that go. Besides, they're only removing monetization, not banning the videos. It's just a way to avoid offending their advertisers by getting them mixed up with uncomfortable content.
- _0ffh 10y ago
  They're not even trying to be flexible. Advertisers could be given a choice, if they are fine with controversial content. Maybe use a handful of tags, like politics and swearing are fine, but no sex, violence or cat videos, please! All the pussy companies can then choose to only advertise on reaction videos, for all I care.
- 10y ago

ramblenode 10y ago

> Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items Regulated by whom? Alcohol is banned in some countries, so does that mean a video on wine tasting is eligible for monetization if uploaded in the UK but not eligible if uploaded in Saudi Arabia? It seems like a reactive and overbearing policy change, but I'll admit to being ignorant of their motivations. This kind of soft censorship is a loss to the end user, regardless.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Regulated by whom? Alcohol is banned in some countries, so does that mean a video on wine tasting is eligible for monetization if uploaded in the UK but not eligible if uploaded in Saudi Arabia? Alcohol isn't regulated in the UK?
TheCoelacanth 10y ago
Also, does that mean I can't promote Gruyère cheese because the EU regulates that it can only be produced in Switzerland?

DanBC 10y ago

> Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown Evolution is (for some bizarre reason) both controversial and political. Will videos explaining evolution be de-monetised? EDIT: YT seem to be doing a boneheaded "search for problem words in titles, and demonetise that video". Hence this channel (which is full of stuff that is possibly against the new terms is mostly monetised apart from one video about preventing veteran suicide. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRo1KI1JC3A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRo1KI1JC3A ) (Not sure if it counts as political conflict, or if that means more along the lines of Basque Seperatism?)

serge2k 10y ago

Time for content creators to start banding together. Force youtube to deal with their lousy policies.

goldenkey 10y ago

Youtube makes money from ads too. They are doing this because its what the advertisers want. These so victimized wahwah creators can host on YouTube for free, use unlimited bandwidth, storage, etc and put sponsor ads in their videos themselves. Its not terribly hard for a channel worth any salt to find sponsors and self include advertising. Most of these youtube celebs have no backbone, no perserverance and are reactionary and quick to point fingers and whine. Their two bit followers regurgitate what ever half brained idea is told to them. As if this is a social injustice. Ugh. The mudrakers and journalists of yesteryear had to do what these lazy youtubers expect to get like dog food. The money doesnt come from YouTube, its from the advertisers. https://youtu.be/ZB-lh6_4ZIQ https://youtu.be/ZB-lh6_4ZIQ

CommanderData 10y ago

The tables are in favor of those with money i.e. Advertisers. The new rules seem to stem from normal TV advertising rules. Leaving or boycotting while in some situations is good, I don't think is not a solution in this case - the dynamics of the web / content content creation means there will be someone to replace a creator quickly if they no longer provide (users will just look elsewhere for their needs). No doubt these policies were pushed anticipating a backlash. This move is a thought-out strategy - it will be interesting to see how this will turn out, or if it follows YouTube's expectations.

imh 10y ago

I don't get the accusations of censorship here. They aren't stopping people from publishing of these videos, they're just telling the creators they won't pay for them anymore (beyond hosting costs, distribution, etc).

tomlock 10y ago

I don't think this is particularly surprising. Advertisers often won't run their ad on a particular show on TV because of its content. Youtube is most likely bowing to advertiser pressure on this.

wodenokoto 10y ago

What I do find odd is that Youtube is not auctioning advertisement space based on content of the video + user profile. Why not allow small advertisers a discount on "controversial" videos? I'm also surprised how much advertisers considers themselves linked to the content they advertise next to. I consider FB and Youtube ads completely user profile based, but maybe I live in my own little tech bubble.