YouTube to ban 'hateful, and 'supremacist' videos

news.yahoo.com...

Google-owned YouTube is banning videos that promote supremacism or discrimination as well as those denying the Holocaust or other well-documented events

Back YahooNEWS
YouTube to ban 'hateful,' 'supremacist' videos
Rob Lever
Rob Lever
AFPJune 5, 2019, 10:07 AM PDT
Google-owned YouTube is banning videos that promote supremacism or discrimination as well as those denying the Holocaust or other well-documented events (AFP Photo/Ethan Miller)
YouTube said it latest ban on hateful content and conspiracy theories would prevent those videos from being used for monetization (AFP Photo/YAMIL LAGE)
1 / 2
Google-owned YouTube is banning videos that promote supremacism or discrimination as well as those denying the Holocaust or other well-documented events
Google-owned YouTube is banning videos that promote supremacism or discrimination as well as those denying the Holocaust or other well-documented events (AFP Photo/Ethan Miller)
Less
Washington (AFP) - YouTube announced Wednesday it would ban videos promoting or glorifying racism and discrimination as well as those denying well-documented violent events, like the Holocaust or the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting.

The announcement by the Google-owned video-sharing platform was the latest of a series of tech industry moves to filter out hateful and violent content, which have spurred calls for tougher regulation.

Today, we're taking another step in our hate speech policy by specifically prohibiting videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status."

Well, there's been a slow buildup to this for a while, but it seems Google's taking the next step from demonetization of content it disapproves of and will now be out right banning channels over some fairly vague criteria. Luckily alternatives are popping up, such as the decentralized, torrent based, streaming video alternative PeerTube hopefully this spurs more innovation in decentralized video hosting and streaming and content producers can begin to move away from Google's monopoly.

a reply to: dug88

It's a shame that corporations are denying a platform of free speech to those they disagree with.

But censorship is the tool of cowards and tyrants.

We just don't know which one Youtube is yet.

a reply to: dug88

And who gets to decide what is hateful and supremacist?
The pansies that fired someone who dared to claim that men and women are different?

Once again, the squeaky wheel get the grease, while the silent majority groans.

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
a reply to: dug88

And who gets to decide what is hateful and supremacist?
The pansies that fired someone who dared to claim that men and women are different?

Once again, the squeaky wheel get the grease, while the silent majority groans.

Yup, that is the real problem. How they determine if something is racist, etc is vague and not clearly defined. Anyone offering a different opinion will be targeted and accused of being racist, etc.

YouTube are a business, they make money by having content and are therefore unlikely to ban users or content except when it crosses a fairly clear line.

Appreciate that some of you think a private company should promote racism, but they are under no moral or legal obligation to do so.

What concerns me also (apart from what is already mentioned) is that documentary film-makers, students working on historical or contemporary projects and so forth will find it harder to use YouTube as a research tool, or to find stock-footage and references.

Just because you watch something, doesn't mean you agree with it.

If i own a shop and a customer walks in and puts a poster up against redheads, I have the right to remove it as its my property, youtube own their platform and have the right to remove/demonitize whatever they deem negative to the growth of their platform, thats all they are concerned about, making more money for youtube.

Youtube is not a right to free speech it is a video hosting site, play by there stupid rules and you will be ok, or just dont bother with them, its a choice to be able to upload to youtube, to suggest ones freedom is being impacted because I cant upload something to 1 website in particular seems a bit over the top, to me.

Post it here if you cant on youtube, post it to instagram, criminals currently use instagram to boast about there robbing in the UK, some companies dont care some do. one thing is certain though if profit is affected decisions get changed, money will always be the deciding factor.

Instagram thieves




Instagram 'thief' posts videos 'showing him burgling homes' with followers sending requests for where he should steal from next

plenty of these videos available on.........youtube, lol, like they have any morales

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: dug88

It's a shame that corporations are denying a platform of free speech to those they disagree with.

But censorship is the tool of cowards and tyrants.

We just don't know which one Youtube is yet.

Doesn't ATS ban people for posting white supremist stuff?

China's best friend Google practicing censorship based on their ideological views? Heh.

Maybe the antitrust investigation will straighten 'em out a bit.

Is there a historical cut-off date?

Now here's one hateful phrase that should definitely be banned from the entire Internet: "Carthago delenda est!"
en.wikipedia.org...

Oops, giving away my age again - but common ... hate speech is hate speech!

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: dug88

It's a shame that corporations are denying a platform of free speech to those they disagree with.

But censorship is the tool of cowards and tyrants.

We just don't know which one Youtube is yet.

Doesn't ATS ban people for posting white supremist stuff?

I don't know. And yet again, someone is trying to use ATS as an example of corporate censorship.

When ATS starts banning people simply for having ideological differences and disguising it as "protecting from hate speech" then you might have an argument.

Until then?

That was pretty weak.

I have a giant prostate and my urine stream is stronger than your post.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: dug88

It's a shame that corporations are denying a platform of free speech to those they disagree with.

But censorship is the tool of cowards and tyrants.

We just don't know which one Youtube is yet.

Doesn't ATS ban people for posting white supremist stuff?

The issue is I think most people know white supremacist stuff when they see. I mean if a klan rally is being filmed, etc then yeah... it shoudl probably be taken down. However, what typically happens is someone makes a video about a specific issue. Let's say black on black crime... offers and opinion and facts. Because someone doesn't like the facts, it gets taken down even though nothing racist was actually said.

On the other hand, you also get the double standard. SJWs have plenty of videos talking down about white people, etc... calling other black people coons, etc. Their videos don't get flagged or removed.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Be that as it may, YouTube relies on ad revenue (a few other things as well), is it possible they are succumbing to pressure from their clients?

Either way, isn't this a good thing for the free market? If YouTube has gotten too big like many have suggested, this will give other people market space yea?

I personally think supremacists of all kinds should have free speech, and that includes in public spaces so long as they abide by the laws, however, how does this give someone the right to use a private service as their platform?

a reply to: UpIsNowDown

If I owned a shop and the person that makes/grows all my goods that I am selling for money, comes in and hangs up a poster against redheads, I let him, because without him I have no goods to sell or considerably less and not very diverse.

YouTubers are making YouTube content, if they ban all of those they don't like, they are going to end up with a smaller, very boring circle jerk and not a platform of a variety of information. Which, lets face it will be the death of YT.
You only ban something if you know they are capable of convincing others. If they are able to convince others, they must have a good point or nobody would be swayed.

Your argument that they can do what they want is not quite correct. Of course they can do what if they were a small niche shop, but they are not, they are a communal platform. If they are not a communal platform then they are a publisher and as such they can use publisher's rules, but they are not a publisher at the moment. [Making up mind time, can't have it both!]

However from where I stand, the more they ban opposing views, the quicker their demise. I can't wait.

a reply to: Edumakated

Let's say black on black crime... offers and opinion and facts. Because someone doesn't like the facts, it gets taken down even though nothing racist was actually said.

If that's the case, I don't agree with it. But I've seen plenty of videos that do what you said, though the new changes might remove them.

But I disagree with companies all the time.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Allow me to be blunt; I think places like YouTube and others are lying. Sure they can get away with claiming that they are just going against nazis and the kkk and only us die-hard constitutionalists will complain.

But they can and will censor pages and posts about nationalism, patriotism.

They will, in effect, be able to control the narrative because too many people will give their passive approval.

originally posted by: Hecate666
If I owned a shop and the person that makes/grows all my goods that I am selling for money, comes in and hangs up a poster against redheads, I let him, because without him I have no goods to sell or considerably less and not very diverse.

How sweet.

What happens when he hangs one up that says 'No Jews, No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs.....Oh, wait, you can have Dogs.'?

Breaking News: Youtube's new logo will now be a Snowflake.

If you are against an open border policy you are discriminating against illegals. By their definition you can be banned and subsequently silenced.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I've already suspected that, that is why I don't use Google owned services for certain things.

Like I said, I don't agree with them trying to load the conversation, and hypothetically the free market should correct it in one way shape or form.