5 ms·

For the sake of future searchers everywhere: "There was a youtube video banned by showing a 3 second clip where a guy repeated the word fuck". /me looks at the

For the sake of future searchers everywhere: "There was a youtube video banned by showing a 3 second clip where a guy repeated the word fuck". /me looks at the sky above waiting to be struck by lightning.

renewiltord 4y ago
Thanks, this doesn't sound quagmirish at all. YouTube is taking a lot of heat for kids viewing videos on its platform. It's unsurprising that they often exceed the boundary. You know the boundary exists and you know that censoring the audio then does the trick. So just do it.
- Ukv 4y ago
  Marking the video as not-for-kids (under 13) was expected. Age restricting the video to 18+, which heavily suppresses the video and requires watchers in many countries to give ID photo/credit card verification, was not expected. I've never seen that before just for swearing. > You know the boundary exists From the article, the video doesn't appear to break any of the publicly given rules. Likely it breaks some internal rule they use for judgement (X swears in Y seconds). The creator claims they'd be fine adjusting accordingly if Youtube gave some stance to follow - problem is pouring a ton of work into a huge video and only then having it unexpectedly restricted due to uncommunicated rules.
  - kevinmchugh 4y ago
    A pg 13 movie can use the word "fuck" exactly once. More than once and it's an r rating (appropriate for 17+). I believe this has been the case in the almost forty years since pg-13 was introduced.
    - Ukv 4y ago
      Record for PG-13 movies is apparently Gunner Palace with 42 uses of "fuck". But more to the point, Youtube is not the MPAA. The documentary seems to comply to Youtube's publicly given rules more so than a huge number of other unrestricted videos, which makes the restriction unexpected.
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        The standards for MPAA ratings have changed dramatically with time. PG used to actually mean Parental Guidance, it wasn't just an initialism that meant "family friendly" in effect. Take Logan's Run (1976) for instance, that got a PG rating. It has orgy scenes and frontal nudity, if released today it would get an R rating easily.
        rightbyte 4y ago
        > It has orgy scenes It was a long time ago I watched it, but weren't the orgies just implied?
        MichaelCollins 4y ago
        They're shown but somewhat obscured with psychedelic club lighting. You can see glimpses of naked people writhing around with body paint.
        raydev 4y ago
        I'll never forget staying at my grandma's house one time, she took me to Blockbuster and allowed me to rent anything that wasn't PG-13 or "worse". I picked up Airplane! because I had seen it on afternoon TV a few times, and it was rated PG. Fun for the whole family! Grandma and I found out that day that TV networks edited out full frontal nudity.
- davesque 4y ago
  That's the channel creator's complaint though. He thought his video was below the stated profanity threshold. But YouTube age restricted it anyway. He found other examples of videos that weren't age restricted but had twice as much profanity. He also said he'd have no problem censoring profanity if he had known he had to. The problem is that an opaque moderation and appeals process is causing real harm to creators on the platform who are making good faith efforts to follow the rules.
- sumeno 4y ago
  Find the documentation on YouTube for that boundary and compare it to the video.
CydeWeys 4y ago
In light of this I'm bemused by the streamer's lack of understanding why his video was age-restricted. Censor out the fucking curse words if you want your content to be deemed suitable for a general audience; this isn't hard! TV and radio have been playing by these rules since their inception; you can figure it out too!
- sumeno 4y ago
  The video is on YouTube and YouTube's guidance says that the following won't be age restricted: Abbreviated, censored, or light profanity (like “hell” or “damn”) in the title, thumbnail, or video. Moderate profanity (like “shit” or “bitch”) used in the video. Infrequent usage of strong profanity (like the "f-word”) after the opening or up to twice in approx. the first 30 seconds of the video; or strong profanity in a music video. So a video can drop an f-bomb twice in the first 30 seconds but a few times across 10 seconds of the video is frequent?
  - CydeWeys 4y ago
    These kinds of rules are never applied strictly. Content moderation is always discretionary. If you don't want to be judged as adult content then play it safe, which includes censoring the f-bomb. It's just common sense.
    - asveikau 4y ago
      I really doubt it's "discretionary". They're probably running scripts on the content and likely not basing decisions on human review of any kind. If they have any human review, it's probably contactors, reviewing only the 3 second clip of the 1.5 hr video, the tiny part that was flagged by the algorithm and understanding very little.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      No, it's not "common sense" to go that far beyond what the rules say. The video has over an order of magnitude less swearing than the rule says is okay.
    - 4y ago

renewiltord 4y ago

Thanks, this doesn't sound quagmirish at all. YouTube is taking a lot of heat for kids viewing videos on its platform. It's unsurprising that they often exceed the boundary. You know the boundary exists and you know that censoring the audio then does the trick. So just do it.

Ukv 4y ago
Marking the video as not-for-kids (under 13) was expected. Age restricting the video to 18+, which heavily suppresses the video and requires watchers in many countries to give ID photo/credit card verification, was not expected. I've never seen that before just for swearing. > You know the boundary exists From the article, the video doesn't appear to break any of the publicly given rules. Likely it breaks some internal rule they use for judgement (X swears in Y seconds). The creator claims they'd be fine adjusting accordingly if Youtube gave some stance to follow - problem is pouring a ton of work into a huge video and only then having it unexpectedly restricted due to uncommunicated rules.
- kevinmchugh 4y ago
  A pg 13 movie can use the word "fuck" exactly once. More than once and it's an r rating (appropriate for 17+). I believe this has been the case in the almost forty years since pg-13 was introduced.
  - Ukv 4y ago
    Record for PG-13 movies is apparently Gunner Palace with 42 uses of "fuck". But more to the point, Youtube is not the MPAA. The documentary seems to comply to Youtube's publicly given rules more so than a huge number of other unrestricted videos, which makes the restriction unexpected.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      The standards for MPAA ratings have changed dramatically with time. PG used to actually mean Parental Guidance, it wasn't just an initialism that meant "family friendly" in effect. Take Logan's Run (1976) for instance, that got a PG rating. It has orgy scenes and frontal nudity, if released today it would get an R rating easily.
      - rightbyte 4y ago
        > It has orgy scenes It was a long time ago I watched it, but weren't the orgies just implied?
        MichaelCollins 4y ago
        They're shown but somewhat obscured with psychedelic club lighting. You can see glimpses of naked people writhing around with body paint.
      - raydev 4y ago
        I'll never forget staying at my grandma's house one time, she took me to Blockbuster and allowed me to rent anything that wasn't PG-13 or "worse". I picked up Airplane! because I had seen it on afternoon TV a few times, and it was rated PG. Fun for the whole family! Grandma and I found out that day that TV networks edited out full frontal nudity.
davesque 4y ago
That's the channel creator's complaint though. He thought his video was below the stated profanity threshold. But YouTube age restricted it anyway. He found other examples of videos that weren't age restricted but had twice as much profanity. He also said he'd have no problem censoring profanity if he had known he had to. The problem is that an opaque moderation and appeals process is causing real harm to creators on the platform who are making good faith efforts to follow the rules.
sumeno 4y ago
Find the documentation on YouTube for that boundary and compare it to the video.

CydeWeys 4y ago

In light of this I'm bemused by the streamer's lack of understanding why his video was age-restricted. Censor out the fucking curse words if you want your content to be deemed suitable for a general audience; this isn't hard! TV and radio have been playing by these rules since their inception; you can figure it out too!

sumeno 4y ago
The video is on YouTube and YouTube's guidance says that the following won't be age restricted: Abbreviated, censored, or light profanity (like “hell” or “damn”) in the title, thumbnail, or video. Moderate profanity (like “shit” or “bitch”) used in the video. Infrequent usage of strong profanity (like the "f-word”) after the opening or up to twice in approx. the first 30 seconds of the video; or strong profanity in a music video. So a video can drop an f-bomb twice in the first 30 seconds but a few times across 10 seconds of the video is frequent?
- CydeWeys 4y ago
  These kinds of rules are never applied strictly. Content moderation is always discretionary. If you don't want to be judged as adult content then play it safe, which includes censoring the f-bomb. It's just common sense.
  - asveikau 4y ago
    I really doubt it's "discretionary". They're probably running scripts on the content and likely not basing decisions on human review of any kind. If they have any human review, it's probably contactors, reviewing only the 3 second clip of the 1.5 hr video, the tiny part that was flagged by the algorithm and understanding very little.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    No, it's not "common sense" to go that far beyond what the rules say. The video has over an order of magnitude less swearing than the rule says is okay.
  - 4y ago