5 ms·

Pretend you make a video about the best gay movie stars, because you're gay and you like to document your role models. You're doing something that doesn't invol

by mxkopy 5y ago

Pretend you make a video about the best gay movie stars, because you're gay and you like to document your role models. You're doing something that doesn't involve genitals or anything explicit, but is per se sexual because gayness is by definition a sexual topic. Post it to YouTube, and you get demonetized because you're making sexual content (worst case). Or your viewers get recommended videos about sex toys too (average case). I think there is a pretty hard line between straight porn and sexual content that is pretty easy to police, but the problem remains that conservative approaches towards sex tend to stifle the experiences of people who aren't sexually conservative. People have a set of assumptions that they make when they hear "movie star" (straight white man). When you add more adjectives (gay movie star, female movie star, black movie star), those are assumptions are broken and we are no longer in the land of "normal" movie stars, but "sexual" "political" and "ethnic" ones. I didn't read the article bc fuck Wired but I can assume they're pushing for openness towards sex bc it allows us to be more open to those who have an identity strongly rooted in sex (which honestly should be everyone even if you're straight)

knighthack 5y ago
> I can assume they're pushing for openness towards sex bc it allows us to be more open to those who have an identity strongly rooted in sex Just because one is open towards sex doesn't mean that their identity has to be "strongly rooted in sex". I don't need anyone to know my sexual orientation. It's not important in whether I'm doing my job right, or when I'm engaged in my hobbies. If anyone wants to have an identity "strongly rooted in sex", more power to them, but there's something wrong in that statement if you have to shove your opinion about your sexuality in contexts that don't matter, and where not all people share your opinion on the importance of sex to their identity.
- mxkopy 5y ago
  >Just because one is open towards sex doesn't mean that their identity has to be "strongly rooted in sex". That's not what I meant, I think you misread. I meant that we (straight "normal" people who don't necessarily have an identity rooted in sex) should not stigmatize sexual topics because there are those who have a non negligible amount of their identity rooted in their sexuality. >have to shove your opinion about your sexuality in contexts that don't matter See but that's the thing. There are no hard and fast boundaries in the real world when it comes to "does sexuality matter here," because sexuality is kind of a fundamental aspect of being a human. The types of jokes you make, the types of clothes you wear, what people think of you and how you think of other people - all these are things that can be and are influenced by your sexual orientation. >where not all people share your opinion on the importance of sex to their identity. You can't tell others what their identity is or how it's formed. It doesn't matter what you think, the truth is that (hypothetically) I was kissed by a boy when I was 7 or some shit and that has forever changed my life etc etc. Who are you to tell me that's not important to my identity? If sex isn't part of your identity that's fine, but you should still be open to the idea that it's important and OK to talk about. Because if we don't talk about it, then discussions are had in the context of unspoken defaults (straight white man=normal=default), even/especially if the conversation has nothing to do with sex. EDIT: >I don't need anyone to know my sexual orientation. It's not important in whether I'm doing my job right, or when I'm engaged in my hobbies This is irrelevant and borders on being maliciously discursive. 1. You don't need to reveal your sexual identity to be open to discussions about others' and their relevance to the task at hand. 2. Experiences at work, home, among friends, within your internal dialogue, have many more dimensions than "am I doing this job correctly/am I enjoying myself." 3. Moreover, even if you restricted your own experiences to just those dimensions, others' experiences of you doing your job/enjoying yourself aren't going to map perfectly. OK, you sealed the deal with your client. What were you wearing? Did you speak to them with the stereotypical gay accent? Unless your job has absolutely no human interaction, people can and will profile you on criteria that you think don't matter.
jarjoura 5y ago
This is a hypothetical scenario and seems weird to create a debate around. Do you have explicit examples of YouTube censoring content that seems unfair? For YouTube, they are appeasing advertisers who do not want to align their brands with provocative content. However, back to your example, just a quick search on YouTube right now shows hundreds of gay movie star videos and clicking on the first few of them launch with ads. YouTube also tries hard to make interesting content that keep you engaged. Maybe you're okay with hyper sexualized content, but if you're not, YouTube would have a hard time bringing you back after losing you. I guess the same could be said for a content creator who leaves the platform, but seems YouTube made the calculus they have more to gain keeping a wider audience than having a wider range of content.
- mxkopy 5y ago
  https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/19/youtube-lgbt-restricted-mode/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/19/youtube-lgbt-restricted-mo... Granted YouTube does still exist in the year 2022 so it had done its due diligence when it comes to representing and supporting LGBTQ+. But even 10 years ago there wasn't as much pressure to do so. Same sex marriage was only legalized last decade. >Maybe you're okay with hyper sexualized content I explicitly said that LGBTQ+ content could be demonetized _despite_ the fact it's not hyper sexual. >but seems YouTube made the calculus they have more to gain keeping a wider audience than having a wider range of content. >For YouTube, they are appeasing advertisers who do not want to align their brands with provocative content. Neither of these are necessarily ethical goals (what if we're in Gilead and a woman showing her ankles is considered provocative). And I would argue that YouTube, by virtue of its near monopolistic power and pervasive reach, has some obligation to act ethically. And to be fair, they have got a little better at doing that specifically in regards to LGBTQ+ content over the past couple years, but we should remember that that wasn't the case and isn't necessarily the case.

by mxkopy 5y ago

knighthack 5y ago

> I can assume they're pushing for openness towards sex bc it allows us to be more open to those who have an identity strongly rooted in sex Just because one is open towards sex doesn't mean that their identity has to be "strongly rooted in sex". I don't need anyone to know my sexual orientation. It's not important in whether I'm doing my job right, or when I'm engaged in my hobbies. If anyone wants to have an identity "strongly rooted in sex", more power to them, but there's something wrong in that statement if you have to shove your opinion about your sexuality in contexts that don't matter, and where not all people share your opinion on the importance of sex to their identity.

mxkopy 5y ago
>Just because one is open towards sex doesn't mean that their identity has to be "strongly rooted in sex". That's not what I meant, I think you misread. I meant that we (straight "normal" people who don't necessarily have an identity rooted in sex) should not stigmatize sexual topics because there are those who have a non negligible amount of their identity rooted in their sexuality. >have to shove your opinion about your sexuality in contexts that don't matter See but that's the thing. There are no hard and fast boundaries in the real world when it comes to "does sexuality matter here," because sexuality is kind of a fundamental aspect of being a human. The types of jokes you make, the types of clothes you wear, what people think of you and how you think of other people - all these are things that can be and are influenced by your sexual orientation. >where not all people share your opinion on the importance of sex to their identity. You can't tell others what their identity is or how it's formed. It doesn't matter what you think, the truth is that (hypothetically) I was kissed by a boy when I was 7 or some shit and that has forever changed my life etc etc. Who are you to tell me that's not important to my identity? If sex isn't part of your identity that's fine, but you should still be open to the idea that it's important and OK to talk about. Because if we don't talk about it, then discussions are had in the context of unspoken defaults (straight white man=normal=default), even/especially if the conversation has nothing to do with sex. EDIT: >I don't need anyone to know my sexual orientation. It's not important in whether I'm doing my job right, or when I'm engaged in my hobbies This is irrelevant and borders on being maliciously discursive. 1. You don't need to reveal your sexual identity to be open to discussions about others' and their relevance to the task at hand. 2. Experiences at work, home, among friends, within your internal dialogue, have many more dimensions than "am I doing this job correctly/am I enjoying myself." 3. Moreover, even if you restricted your own experiences to just those dimensions, others' experiences of you doing your job/enjoying yourself aren't going to map perfectly. OK, you sealed the deal with your client. What were you wearing? Did you speak to them with the stereotypical gay accent? Unless your job has absolutely no human interaction, people can and will profile you on criteria that you think don't matter.

jarjoura 5y ago

This is a hypothetical scenario and seems weird to create a debate around. Do you have explicit examples of YouTube censoring content that seems unfair? For YouTube, they are appeasing advertisers who do not want to align their brands with provocative content. However, back to your example, just a quick search on YouTube right now shows hundreds of gay movie star videos and clicking on the first few of them launch with ads. YouTube also tries hard to make interesting content that keep you engaged. Maybe you're okay with hyper sexualized content, but if you're not, YouTube would have a hard time bringing you back after losing you. I guess the same could be said for a content creator who leaves the platform, but seems YouTube made the calculus they have more to gain keeping a wider audience than having a wider range of content.

mxkopy 5y ago
https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/19/youtube-lgbt-restricted-mode/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/19/youtube-lgbt-restricted-mo... Granted YouTube does still exist in the year 2022 so it had done its due diligence when it comes to representing and supporting LGBTQ+. But even 10 years ago there wasn't as much pressure to do so. Same sex marriage was only legalized last decade. >Maybe you're okay with hyper sexualized content I explicitly said that LGBTQ+ content could be demonetized _despite_ the fact it's not hyper sexual. >but seems YouTube made the calculus they have more to gain keeping a wider audience than having a wider range of content. >For YouTube, they are appeasing advertisers who do not want to align their brands with provocative content. Neither of these are necessarily ethical goals (what if we're in Gilead and a woman showing her ankles is considered provocative). And I would argue that YouTube, by virtue of its near monopolistic power and pervasive reach, has some obligation to act ethically. And to be fair, they have got a little better at doing that specifically in regards to LGBTQ+ content over the past couple years, but we should remember that that wasn't the case and isn't necessarily the case.