9 ms·

Not being funny, but there are plenty of western countries that don't go around censoring this stuff. There's one massive leader in it.

noiwillnot 5y ago
The same country that gave us Dexter.
ajross 5y ago
Why do people insist on conflating demonitization with censorship? Google isn't saying she can't put her body on YouTube, they're saying they don't think they can sell ads on that content. If advertisers would pay for controversial content, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
- londons_explore 5y ago
  Seems like a dumb move on YouTubes part. Instead just only show ads from advertiser's who want to be associated with this kind of content. There aren't many of that kind of advertiser, so prices will be low. YouTubers will then soon find out that while that sort of content might get lots of views, it earns few dollars, so will produce other content. Having a binary 'you have been demonetized' flag just seems like a way to stir discontent.
  - richardfey 5y ago
    That's what their email says. You will receive less revenue because less advertisers will want them on adult content. She has not been demonetised, despite the clickbait title, but classified as adult which means roughly 99% less ad revenue.
    - SexyCyborg 5y ago
      >She has not been demonetised, despite the clickbait title, but classified as adult which means roughly 99% less ad revenue. Correct
    - youngtaff 5y ago
      End effect is essentially the same thing though, less ad revenue for Naomi
- SexyCyborg 5y ago
  >Google isn't saying she can't put her body on YouTube, they're saying they don't think they can sell ads on that content. If advertisers would pay for controversial content, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The assumption being in this case that advertisers will pay for ads when a man creates a nude female torso and not when a woman creates a nude female torso and YouTube is simply acting on their behalf?
- will4274 5y ago
  Advertisers would pay for controversial content. They'd pay less, but they'd pay. TPB keeps selling ads somehow. I think the reason people see demonization as censorship follows the same lines as seeing non-government censorship or "ceasing to do business" (in an industry that generally does business with everybody) as censorship. They aren't exactly going out and burning books, sure, but it's certainly exclusionary and it's certainly targeted. What's wrong with demonitizing all the videos of gay people? "It's not censorship." Still seems to have most of the negative impacts of censorship. It's a spade to me.
- bamboozled 5y ago
  Would it be hard for Google, for all their greatness, to have adds for...adults?
  - ajross 5y ago
    Advertising-funded adult sites are extremely common, though. If you have adult content and want a site to host your content and share ad revenue with you, you have lots (lots!) of choice. The problem is that there's a lot less money available to people funded by sex toy ads on PornHub or whereever than there is to people who sit behind Liberty Mutual ads on Youtube. So SexyCyborg would, unsurprisingly, prefer to be on youtube. But she's also dancing on the edge of what people call "adult" (again, I'm presenting no personal opinion here: take it up with Liberty Mutual if you don't like the definition). So naturally she's going to have trouble with those boundaries. PornHub never would have kicked her off, but she doesn't want to be on PornHub. It's all about money here, not freedom. That was my point.
- cfn 5y ago
  "My channel got demonetised but my videos shows ads." https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/105920334/my-channel-got-demonetised-but-my-videos-shows-ads?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/105920334/my-chann...
  - jimworm 5y ago
    This is the big one imo. Youtube's monopoly status is making creators sign unfair contracts, after which stealing from them becomes legal.
- danielrpa 5y ago
  Not defending YouTube, but I think that the letter said that some advertisers won't accept "sexual" content and thus her income would go down? The big question here, as I see it, is whether it's fair to call that "sexual" content.
laumars 5y ago
Ironically the same county that doesn’t see an issue with guns and graphic violence. I’ll never understand how a nipple is more offensive than shooting someone.
- 4gotunameagain 5y ago
  Female breasts were, are, and will be secondary sexual characteristics. With whatever implication. Male and female bodies will never be the same, and they shouldn't be. That should have zero implications on equality though. It means that it is trickier to achieve
  - batekush 5y ago
    And so are hairy arms on men. Do you have a point?
    - saalweachter 5y ago
      I think beards would be a better analogy.
- post_from_work 5y ago
  It's all the fault of those damn Puritans: people who were such sticks in the mud they were essentially kicked out of Europe because nobody wanted to hear their prudish nonsense. They were all about the "fire & brimstone".
- xvector 5y ago
  I've played videogames where I turn people into fine red mist, where I decapitate people or deglove them, where blood and gore are practically features. I've watched movies with scenes so brutal that I've felt sick. But full nudity and sex? Noooo, we can't have that! Thanks, Puritan America.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  The right to have tools for killing people is considered essential to maintain their democracy. Unfortunately, their constitution doesn't say anything about the right of being naked or having large breasts or other visible appendages shall not be infringed upon.
phendrenad2 5y ago
"Name three"
- Mashimo 5y ago
  France, Denmark, Germany.
  - tremon 5y ago
    and Italy, Netherlands, Czech Republic. I'm sure other commenters can give even more examples.
- pjc50 5y ago
  Dailymotion, the French youtube competitor, used to have a "Red" section on its front page, next to "Sport" "News" etc, where they kept all the nudity. That all got deleted in one of their acquisitions.
- dncornholio 5y ago
  Netherlands. Literally all of our classic movies features a dick in plain sight. Yes, even Rutger Hauer shows all his features in Turks Fruit
  - spacechild1 5y ago
    Same in Germany and Austria. It's not unusual to see fully naked actors on TV, even on the afternoon program. That's because we can see a difference between nudity and (graphical) sex.

noiwillnot 5y ago

The same country that gave us Dexter.

ajross 5y ago

Why do people insist on conflating demonitization with censorship? Google isn't saying she can't put her body on YouTube, they're saying they don't think they can sell ads on that content. If advertisers would pay for controversial content, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

londons_explore 5y ago
Seems like a dumb move on YouTubes part. Instead just only show ads from advertiser's who want to be associated with this kind of content. There aren't many of that kind of advertiser, so prices will be low. YouTubers will then soon find out that while that sort of content might get lots of views, it earns few dollars, so will produce other content. Having a binary 'you have been demonetized' flag just seems like a way to stir discontent.
- richardfey 5y ago
  That's what their email says. You will receive less revenue because less advertisers will want them on adult content. She has not been demonetised, despite the clickbait title, but classified as adult which means roughly 99% less ad revenue.
  - SexyCyborg 5y ago
    >She has not been demonetised, despite the clickbait title, but classified as adult which means roughly 99% less ad revenue. Correct
  - youngtaff 5y ago
    End effect is essentially the same thing though, less ad revenue for Naomi
SexyCyborg 5y ago
>Google isn't saying she can't put her body on YouTube, they're saying they don't think they can sell ads on that content. If advertisers would pay for controversial content, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The assumption being in this case that advertisers will pay for ads when a man creates a nude female torso and not when a woman creates a nude female torso and YouTube is simply acting on their behalf?
will4274 5y ago
Advertisers would pay for controversial content. They'd pay less, but they'd pay. TPB keeps selling ads somehow. I think the reason people see demonization as censorship follows the same lines as seeing non-government censorship or "ceasing to do business" (in an industry that generally does business with everybody) as censorship. They aren't exactly going out and burning books, sure, but it's certainly exclusionary and it's certainly targeted. What's wrong with demonitizing all the videos of gay people? "It's not censorship." Still seems to have most of the negative impacts of censorship. It's a spade to me.
bamboozled 5y ago
Would it be hard for Google, for all their greatness, to have adds for...adults?
- ajross 5y ago
  Advertising-funded adult sites are extremely common, though. If you have adult content and want a site to host your content and share ad revenue with you, you have lots (lots!) of choice. The problem is that there's a lot less money available to people funded by sex toy ads on PornHub or whereever than there is to people who sit behind Liberty Mutual ads on Youtube. So SexyCyborg would, unsurprisingly, prefer to be on youtube. But she's also dancing on the edge of what people call "adult" (again, I'm presenting no personal opinion here: take it up with Liberty Mutual if you don't like the definition). So naturally she's going to have trouble with those boundaries. PornHub never would have kicked her off, but she doesn't want to be on PornHub. It's all about money here, not freedom. That was my point.
cfn 5y ago
"My channel got demonetised but my videos shows ads." https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/105920334/my-channel-got-demonetised-but-my-videos-shows-ads?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/105920334/my-chann...
- jimworm 5y ago
  This is the big one imo. Youtube's monopoly status is making creators sign unfair contracts, after which stealing from them becomes legal.
danielrpa 5y ago
Not defending YouTube, but I think that the letter said that some advertisers won't accept "sexual" content and thus her income would go down? The big question here, as I see it, is whether it's fair to call that "sexual" content.

laumars 5y ago

Ironically the same county that doesn’t see an issue with guns and graphic violence. I’ll never understand how a nipple is more offensive than shooting someone.

4gotunameagain 5y ago
Female breasts were, are, and will be secondary sexual characteristics. With whatever implication. Male and female bodies will never be the same, and they shouldn't be. That should have zero implications on equality though. It means that it is trickier to achieve
- batekush 5y ago
  And so are hairy arms on men. Do you have a point?
  - saalweachter 5y ago
    I think beards would be a better analogy.
post_from_work 5y ago
It's all the fault of those damn Puritans: people who were such sticks in the mud they were essentially kicked out of Europe because nobody wanted to hear their prudish nonsense. They were all about the "fire & brimstone".
xvector 5y ago
I've played videogames where I turn people into fine red mist, where I decapitate people or deglove them, where blood and gore are practically features. I've watched movies with scenes so brutal that I've felt sick. But full nudity and sex? Noooo, we can't have that! Thanks, Puritan America.
rbanffy 5y ago
The right to have tools for killing people is considered essential to maintain their democracy. Unfortunately, their constitution doesn't say anything about the right of being naked or having large breasts or other visible appendages shall not be infringed upon.

phendrenad2 5y ago

"Name three"

Mashimo 5y ago
France, Denmark, Germany.
- tremon 5y ago
  and Italy, Netherlands, Czech Republic. I'm sure other commenters can give even more examples.
pjc50 5y ago
Dailymotion, the French youtube competitor, used to have a "Red" section on its front page, next to "Sport" "News" etc, where they kept all the nudity. That all got deleted in one of their acquisitions.
dncornholio 5y ago
Netherlands. Literally all of our classic movies features a dick in plain sight. Yes, even Rutger Hauer shows all his features in Turks Fruit
- spacechild1 5y ago
  Same in Germany and Austria. It's not unusual to see fully naked actors on TV, even on the afternoon program. That's because we can see a difference between nudity and (graphical) sex.