5 ms·

From the article: 'The new policy will ban “videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion,” the company

From the article: 'The new policy will ban “videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion,” the company said in a blog post.' Is this going to include videos that mention "white privilege" (which one could argue alleges superiority of white people) in which white people are asked to "check their privilege" in some way (which one could argue is an attempt to justify exclusion)?

sneak 7y ago
How about PHP devs? Furries? Racists? KKK members? Pedophile activism? Nationalism? Pro-EU content? I will happily allege that people who aren’t racist are superior, and that racists should be discriminated against, segregated, and excluded wherever possible. Is that video permitted? YouTube is going too far. This will either be the biggest footgun due to unintended blast radius, or will be selectively enforced so that they have an excuse to editorialize and shut down stuff they or their advertisers personally find icky (entirely subjectively) while ignoring other stuff that breaks these rules.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  > YouTube is going too far. This will either be the biggest footgun due to unintended blast radius, or will be selectively enforced so that they have an excuse to editorialize and shut down stuff they or their advertisers personally find icky (entirely subjectively) while ignoring other stuff that breaks these rules. Pretty sure it'll be the latter. Selective enforcement seems to be the name of the game in SV, and IMO that's going to bite them in the ass eventually. (this isn't to say that selective enforcement is avoidable with the ruleset they've chosen, because it's probably not, but instead that policies that minimize the opportunity for selective enforcement should be used)
ajross 7y ago
> "check their privilege" [...] (which one could argue is an attempt to justify exclusion)? If you can make the case, maybe. I mean, it sounds like a kind of insane case to make to me. Who's being excluded, and from what, merely by having their assumptions challenged in a discussion context? The groups actually being targetted are ones that tend to advocate for the status of the US as an inherently white nation. Sort of an easier sell to my mind.
- deogeo 7y ago
  It's not surprising there'd be groups advocating for that. They don't want to become a minority in their country, as both history and current events show that's a bad position to be in.
  - ajross 7y ago
    I can't tell if you're making a dispassionate explanation for why hate exists or if you're actually advocating for white supremacists...
    - deogeo 7y ago
      My intent makes no difference, and the statement isn't limited to whites.
  - Kye 7y ago
    "Their country" seems to imply that it doesn't belong to people who immigrate legally. They're the majority of immigrants despite what people spreading hateful rhetoric try to tell you. https://www.pewhispanic.org/2019/06/03/facts-on-u-s-immigrants/ https://www.pewhispanic.org/2019/06/03/facts-on-u-s-immigran... It belongs to them just as much as it does to people whose ancestors planted flags a handful of centuries ago.
    - deogeo 7y ago
      > "Their country" seems to imply... How else should the country they were born in, and are citizens of, be referred to? Without making it US specific, as my point is not limited to the US.
      - Kye 7y ago
        The comment you replied to specified the US. Framing immigration as an invasion is nonsense no matter what country you're talking about.
radiator 7y ago
No, because white privilege cannot be denied and exclusion against whites can never exist. But you should tread carefully, asking such questions.
- theonlyklas 7y ago
  Hey buddy, are you alleging that white people as a group are superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion? Slow down, there! This is "rule" is a mess and its enforcement will be up to YouTube's moderators' whims. I don't look forward to it. Maybe delived will pick up more content creators.
- dang 7y ago
  Please do not take HN threads further into ideological flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
umvi 7y ago
> "videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion" What if the group is a political party alleging they are morally superior in order to justify "intolerance of intolerance" and "bigotry of bigotry" as a tactic to decry, discriminate, and exclude political opponents?
Shekelberg 7y ago
I assume these rules also won't apply to the ethnic group of most of Alphabet/YouTube's top management (Susan Wojcicki, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, etc.). I'm sure you will still be able to post videos in support of Israel and it's right to exclude and discriminate against those who are not racially Jewish.
noelsusman 7y ago
I'm sure you could find an individual case of that, but in general those phrases do not mean what you described them to mean.
StanislavPetrov 7y ago
The whole idea that a mass censorship policy can be implemented in a way that is "unbiased" is absurd. This would be true even if it wasn't being implemented by a company with incredible political bias like Google (Youtube).

sneak 7y ago

How about PHP devs? Furries? Racists? KKK members? Pedophile activism? Nationalism? Pro-EU content? I will happily allege that people who aren’t racist are superior, and that racists should be discriminated against, segregated, and excluded wherever possible. Is that video permitted? YouTube is going too far. This will either be the biggest footgun due to unintended blast radius, or will be selectively enforced so that they have an excuse to editorialize and shut down stuff they or their advertisers personally find icky (entirely subjectively) while ignoring other stuff that breaks these rules.

DuskStar 7y ago
> YouTube is going too far. This will either be the biggest footgun due to unintended blast radius, or will be selectively enforced so that they have an excuse to editorialize and shut down stuff they or their advertisers personally find icky (entirely subjectively) while ignoring other stuff that breaks these rules. Pretty sure it'll be the latter. Selective enforcement seems to be the name of the game in SV, and IMO that's going to bite them in the ass eventually. (this isn't to say that selective enforcement is avoidable with the ruleset they've chosen, because it's probably not, but instead that policies that minimize the opportunity for selective enforcement should be used)

ajross 7y ago

> "check their privilege" [...] (which one could argue is an attempt to justify exclusion)? If you can make the case, maybe. I mean, it sounds like a kind of insane case to make to me. Who's being excluded, and from what, merely by having their assumptions challenged in a discussion context? The groups actually being targetted are ones that tend to advocate for the status of the US as an inherently white nation. Sort of an easier sell to my mind.

deogeo 7y ago
It's not surprising there'd be groups advocating for that. They don't want to become a minority in their country, as both history and current events show that's a bad position to be in.
- ajross 7y ago
  I can't tell if you're making a dispassionate explanation for why hate exists or if you're actually advocating for white supremacists...
  - deogeo 7y ago
    My intent makes no difference, and the statement isn't limited to whites.
- Kye 7y ago
  "Their country" seems to imply that it doesn't belong to people who immigrate legally. They're the majority of immigrants despite what people spreading hateful rhetoric try to tell you. https://www.pewhispanic.org/2019/06/03/facts-on-u-s-immigrants/ https://www.pewhispanic.org/2019/06/03/facts-on-u-s-immigran... It belongs to them just as much as it does to people whose ancestors planted flags a handful of centuries ago.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    > "Their country" seems to imply... How else should the country they were born in, and are citizens of, be referred to? Without making it US specific, as my point is not limited to the US.
    - Kye 7y ago
      The comment you replied to specified the US. Framing immigration as an invasion is nonsense no matter what country you're talking about.

radiator 7y ago

No, because white privilege cannot be denied and exclusion against whites can never exist. But you should tread carefully, asking such questions.

theonlyklas 7y ago
Hey buddy, are you alleging that white people as a group are superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion? Slow down, there! This is "rule" is a mess and its enforcement will be up to YouTube's moderators' whims. I don't look forward to it. Maybe delived will pick up more content creators.
dang 7y ago
Please do not take HN threads further into ideological flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

umvi 7y ago

> "videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion" What if the group is a political party alleging they are morally superior in order to justify "intolerance of intolerance" and "bigotry of bigotry" as a tactic to decry, discriminate, and exclude political opponents?

Shekelberg 7y ago

I assume these rules also won't apply to the ethnic group of most of Alphabet/YouTube's top management (Susan Wojcicki, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, etc.). I'm sure you will still be able to post videos in support of Israel and it's right to exclude and discriminate against those who are not racially Jewish.

noelsusman 7y ago

I'm sure you could find an individual case of that, but in general those phrases do not mean what you described them to mean.

StanislavPetrov 7y ago

The whole idea that a mass censorship policy can be implemented in a way that is "unbiased" is absurd. This would be true even if it wasn't being implemented by a company with incredible political bias like Google (Youtube).