26 ms·

this guy should have censored the cursing if he didn’t want to be age restricted. If you expect a trillion dollar corporate entity to play fair, you’re delusion

this guy should have censored the cursing if he didn’t want to be age restricted. If you expect a trillion dollar corporate entity to play fair, you’re delusional

emkoemko 4y ago
since when has cursing been age restricted? i hear it all the time and videos are not age restricted even war footage from Ukraine shows horrible stuff no age restriction on most of them. There are those channels that bleep out the last second of the word so you know and heard exactly what they said, is that how they are getting around it?
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  I would not really include the Ukraine footage in this discussion. Pretty much every media company has loosened their rules on this topic in the interest of allowing the free flow of information. There's a time-sensitivity that doesn't apply to child programming. It's really really easy for one side to abuse the moderation system and get the other side silenced, when all the content is horrible.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  >since when has cursing been age restricted? Do you recall Mickey Mouse or Garfield or Charlie Brown dropping an F bomb? No? Exactly.
  - Ukv 4y ago
    "Age restricted", in the context of terminology used by Youtube, specifically means 18+. Being age restricted heavily suppresses the video and, depending on country, watchers may be required to verify their age by credit card or sending an ID photo to Google. Whether the video is "for kids" (under 13) is a separate matter. Generally a video like the one in the article would be not-for-kids, but also not age restricted.
    - Dalewyn 4y ago
      Far as I'm concerned, any commercial product that contains swearing has nearly always been Rated M For Mature, which is a more verbose way to say 18+ only. Rated T for Teenagers and Rated E for Everyone straight up do not have swearing, period. Amateur products have been the exception to this norm, because let's face it: The commons don't give a shit. But platforms/publishers themselves are not the commons, they are businesses and they have legal liabilities: They do give a shit. So while Youtube is asinine, flagging a video that contains swearing as Rated M (aka 18+) is reasonable. The only thing unreasonable is inconsistent enforcement. If something contains swearing, it's going in the 18+ Only bin.
      - Ukv 4y ago
        I agree that the main problem is the fact that this rule is uncommunicated. As the creator of the video in the article said, they'd be fine with adjusting if they could. Instead, they complied with the publicly given rules and in return had a huge project arbitrarily suppressed. > any commercial product that contains swearing has nearly always been Rated M For Mature, which is a more verbose way to say 18+ only. Rated T for Teenagers and Rated E for Everyone straight up do not have swearing, period. Even in traditional media you can often get away with some swearing - especially with documentaries. Record for PG-13 movies is apparently Gunner Palace with 42 uses of "fuck".
      - CDSlice 4y ago
        > Rated T for Teenagers and Rated E for Everyone straight up do not have swearing, period This is absolutely wrong. According to the ESRB website, T for Teen allows the infrequent use of strong language. This is a far cry from no swearing allowed at all. Furthermore, the PG-13 rating for movies allows one use of the F-word per movie and more liberal use of less strong swears. So neither games or movies get rated 18+ only for swearing
- waiseristy 4y ago
  Seems like the year 1968 actually https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_film_rating_system?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_fil... Why should YouTube not try to abide by the same rules of industry they’ve done a pretty amazing job of destroying?
  - sumeno 4y ago
    Whether they should or not is a different question than whether that's what their rules state and whether the standards should be clear
galleywest200 4y ago
To be restricted to 18+? If your kid goes to public school they learn these words in 1st grade.
- waiseristy 4y ago
  When was the last time you saw a movie theater let children into an R rated movie?
  - serf 4y ago
    seeing a guys' head get blown off in Pulp Fiction is different than when a student-peer says "Hey you wanna hear a bad word?" -- I feel like I shouldn't need to explain that.
    - kevinmchugh 4y ago
      The word "fuck" appearing twice in a movie is sufficient for an r rating
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        It is not.
  - staticman2 4y ago
    Are you under the impression a movie theater won't let a child into an R rated movie when accompanied by a parent? Because they certainly will.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - moviewatcher333 4y ago
    My parents took me to see R-rated horror movies when I was like 8 years old. It owned. One benefit of them having done that is I cannot possibly imagine giving a fuck if somebody says “fuck.” Context is what matters. Saying “fuck yeah dude!” in front of kids does absolutely no harm.

this guy should have censored the cursing if he didn’t want to be age restricted. If you expect a trillion dollar corporate entity to play fair, you’re delusional

emkoemko 4y ago

since when has cursing been age restricted? i hear it all the time and videos are not age restricted even war footage from Ukraine shows horrible stuff no age restriction on most of them. There are those channels that bleep out the last second of the word so you know and heard exactly what they said, is that how they are getting around it?

bpodgursky 4y ago
I would not really include the Ukraine footage in this discussion. Pretty much every media company has loosened their rules on this topic in the interest of allowing the free flow of information. There's a time-sensitivity that doesn't apply to child programming. It's really really easy for one side to abuse the moderation system and get the other side silenced, when all the content is horrible.
Dalewyn 4y ago
>since when has cursing been age restricted? Do you recall Mickey Mouse or Garfield or Charlie Brown dropping an F bomb? No? Exactly.
- Ukv 4y ago
  "Age restricted", in the context of terminology used by Youtube, specifically means 18+. Being age restricted heavily suppresses the video and, depending on country, watchers may be required to verify their age by credit card or sending an ID photo to Google. Whether the video is "for kids" (under 13) is a separate matter. Generally a video like the one in the article would be not-for-kids, but also not age restricted.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    Far as I'm concerned, any commercial product that contains swearing has nearly always been Rated M For Mature, which is a more verbose way to say 18+ only. Rated T for Teenagers and Rated E for Everyone straight up do not have swearing, period. Amateur products have been the exception to this norm, because let's face it: The commons don't give a shit. But platforms/publishers themselves are not the commons, they are businesses and they have legal liabilities: They do give a shit. So while Youtube is asinine, flagging a video that contains swearing as Rated M (aka 18+) is reasonable. The only thing unreasonable is inconsistent enforcement. If something contains swearing, it's going in the 18+ Only bin.
    - Ukv 4y ago
      I agree that the main problem is the fact that this rule is uncommunicated. As the creator of the video in the article said, they'd be fine with adjusting if they could. Instead, they complied with the publicly given rules and in return had a huge project arbitrarily suppressed. > any commercial product that contains swearing has nearly always been Rated M For Mature, which is a more verbose way to say 18+ only. Rated T for Teenagers and Rated E for Everyone straight up do not have swearing, period. Even in traditional media you can often get away with some swearing - especially with documentaries. Record for PG-13 movies is apparently Gunner Palace with 42 uses of "fuck".
    - CDSlice 4y ago
      > Rated T for Teenagers and Rated E for Everyone straight up do not have swearing, period This is absolutely wrong. According to the ESRB website, T for Teen allows the infrequent use of strong language. This is a far cry from no swearing allowed at all. Furthermore, the PG-13 rating for movies allows one use of the F-word per movie and more liberal use of less strong swears. So neither games or movies get rated 18+ only for swearing
waiseristy 4y ago
Seems like the year 1968 actually https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_film_rating_system?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_fil... Why should YouTube not try to abide by the same rules of industry they’ve done a pretty amazing job of destroying?
- sumeno 4y ago
  Whether they should or not is a different question than whether that's what their rules state and whether the standards should be clear

galleywest200 4y ago

To be restricted to 18+? If your kid goes to public school they learn these words in 1st grade.

waiseristy 4y ago
When was the last time you saw a movie theater let children into an R rated movie?
- serf 4y ago
  seeing a guys' head get blown off in Pulp Fiction is different than when a student-peer says "Hey you wanna hear a bad word?" -- I feel like I shouldn't need to explain that.
  - kevinmchugh 4y ago
    The word "fuck" appearing twice in a movie is sufficient for an r rating
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      It is not.
- staticman2 4y ago
  Are you under the impression a movie theater won't let a child into an R rated movie when accompanied by a parent? Because they certainly will.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- moviewatcher333 4y ago
  My parents took me to see R-rated horror movies when I was like 8 years old. It owned. One benefit of them having done that is I cannot possibly imagine giving a fuck if somebody says “fuck.” Context is what matters. Saying “fuck yeah dude!” in front of kids does absolutely no harm.