4 ms·
Watching YouTubers come up with weird euphemisms to avoid saying "COVID" (to avoid the risk of automatic demonetisation) drove home how much self censorship the
by hnick 3y ago
Watching YouTubers come up with weird euphemisms to avoid saying "COVID" (to avoid the risk of automatic demonetisation) drove home how much self censorship there must be around content creation in general. I've also seen a few joke about whether they're allowed to swear or not yet since apparently the algorithm cares if they swear in the first 15 seconds, lest an easily damaged listener finds them by mistake.
- derefr 3y agoApparently you can't monetize a YouTube video that says the word "kill", even in the context of educational videos about wildlife ecology. So you get serious educational content creators saying that a bird "un-alives" a fish.
- userbinator 3y agoIf only Orwell was still alive today.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jrmg 3y agoThis sounds like an urban legend.
- tourmalinetaco 3y agoI know true crime youtubers tend to avoid the word like a plague, so take that for what you will.
- bitwize 3y agoI've seen it myself. Casual Geographic does this a lot: https://m.youtube.com/@mndiaye_97 https://m.youtube.com/@mndiaye_97 The thing is, the phrase has an origin in a parody of censorship. In one episode of Ultimate Spider-Man, Spider-Man teams up with Deadpool. Deadpool, being fourth-wall-savvy and well aware that he is in an animated kids' show, talks rather frankly about his plans to "un-alive" the criminal they are pursuing. To which Spider-Man responds "Un-alive... you mean KILL him?!" Mr. Pool was applying standards and practices to his own speech that were common on 80s and 90s animated programs, in which characters obviously wielding rifles would assiduously avoid talking about killing or death. And now people are using his neologism to avoid being punished on a video platform ostensibly for adults primarily.
- RobotToaster 3y agoApparently you can't mention silencers at all? which even as a non American seems weird.
- flagrant_taco 3y agoAssuming you're talking about gun silencers/suppressors, the US has a very confusing history with them in general. The way in which they made it into Congress's list of heavily regulated weapons is an interesting story of inept politicians at work. I've also never understood why suppressors would be seen as anything other than a good thing, if we wanted to regulate them it'd make more sense to require them for carry guns rather than make them hard to get. Shooting an unsuppressed handgun without hearing protection is really bad for your hearing, and carrying a surpressed pistols also much trickier if we're concerned with how many guns are legally carried in public.
- Nasrudith 3y agoYou know the abundance of Hollywood bullshit on AI going to kill us all? The same thing happened long ago with silencers as they forget about hearing damage from firearms because it isn't seen in movies but worry about "the dangers" of firearms being suppressed to non-hearing damaging levels by equating it with the classic "mouse-fart" level of volume. Hollywood has a lot to answer for in its damage to epistemology.
- flagrant_taco 3y agoAs far as I understand it these restrictions on suppressors predate any meaningful impact of Hollywood action films. Suppressors were included in restrictions from the prohibition era largely targeting the fear of the use of automatic weapons by organized crime (the mob). Feds pictured everyone in the mafia carrying military-grade Thompsons (Tommy guns) despite the fact that they were horribly expensive, produced in small quantities, and didn't sell well. There are actually congressional record of the hearings for the weapons law that make clear no justification was given for including suppressors, it just wasn't pressed by anyone involved.