VolkswagenX
(Banned)
- 1,532
- Netherlands
What is hate speech?
Youtube Recent Copyright Strikes Controversy
- Thread starter FoRiZon
- 147 comments
- 9,593 views
What is hate speech?
- 4,019
- Riga
Only YouTube know....
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
VolkswagenX
(Banned)
- 1,532
- Netherlands
Yeah I know about that link...
Can you explain what promoting violence is? Is doing let's plays on YouTube of violent video games, promoting violence? And can you explain what promoting hatred is? Some ( easily offended) people will see telling the truth as "promoting" hatred.
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
You must be confusing me with YouTube - they're a private company which extend no public rights. I've provided the information you've asked for.
VolkswagenX
(Banned)
- 1,532
- Netherlands
I'm not cofusing you with YouTube, I asked you what hate speech is. If I go by the link you provided, hate speech could be anything that isn't video's of cute cats.
I absolutely agree and this goes for all private companies (even bakeries) in my opinion. But with the way things are going it really is time for an alternative to YouTube.
edit:
They should have left this part out..
Last edited:
- 87,536
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
I can help, though by the way you've bolded that and then extracted just 'promoting violence', you seem to have read a comma in that copy where there isn't one. "Promoting violence or hate" is a single phrase.
The full text reads:
Now, according to that, promoting violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on attributes such as race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity would be actively suggesting that a race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity should be openly abused, physically attacked or have property damaged or destroyed on the basis of being that race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity.
The line that follows suggest that it's okay to do so if the target is a country (though I'm not sure how a country has a race or ethnic origin, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity), but not if it's the people of the country - although nationality isn't listed as one of the 'certain attributes', I don't imagine that's a complete and final list, rather a set of examples.
By the terms of the above, no, as when you play a 'violent' video game you are not promoting violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on attributes such as race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity.
If, every time you killed someone you yelled "YES, I KILLED ANOTHER 🤬 MUZZIE COCKROACH! THEY ALL NEED TO DIE!", then you probably would be promoting violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on the attribute of religion.
Hope that helps.
VolkswagenX
(Banned)
- 1,532
- Netherlands
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Have you any evidence of that happening? Why shouldn't it happen when it's a clear free speech issue?
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
You mean like what's been happening on US college campuses lately?
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
I can actually see it happening when YouTube actively promotes The Young Turks over content provided by Steven Crowder who provides an opposing view.
In a bit of unrelated news, two YouTubers are suing Google over the Adpocalypse. Read the complaint.
Actual lawyer dissecting the complaint...
zzz_pt
Premium
- 8,188
- Porto living in Hamburg
- zzz_pt
Jordan Peterson had an issue with Google / Youtube just a couple of days ago:
Youtube claimed "your account is not eligible to be reinstated due to a violation of our terms of service" but didnt't back up that with any examples and how to avoid it (even if that could be interpreted as a way of limiting free speech). Also, they gave no explanation for why he couldn't access his private e-mail, since the supposed infringement was associated with Youtube, not private e-mails, of course.
Google shut down free speech advocate Jordan Peterson on Tuesday, blocking him from his popular YouTube channels and tens of thousands of e-mails.
Later, after the issue attracted media attention, Google abruptly reversed its position and reinstated the Gmail account.
Peterson said the reason was never made clear to him, and it could have been a technical issue with his newly-launched YouTube channel — Jordan Peterson Clips — or a mistake on Google’s part.
“It’s impossible to tell,” he said. “My suspicion is that there were political reasons for shutting it down. I made a fuss about it, someone noticed, and turned it back on.”
A Google spokesman said in an email that the company was not able to comment on the details of individual accounts but had responded directly to the user.
Peterson drew international attention after objecting — in a YouTube video he posted — to changes in human rights legislation that he argued would compel Canadians to use gender-neutral pronouns at risk of fines and imprisonment.
The University of Toronto professor and clinical psychologist has been shouted down at public speaking events by protesters and at one point was cautioned by his employer.
But Peterson has attracted a large following as a champion of free speech, especially online where his YouTube videos have 18 million hits and 350,000 subscribers.
So Peterson was surprised Tuesday when Google abruptly shut down his Gmail account without warning, locking him out of his YouTube channels, although they remained up.
When he complained formally to Google, Peterson received a reply from the “Google Accounts Team.”
“We understand you’ve recently been unable to access your Google account, and we appreciate you contacting us,” Google replied in the e-mail. “After review, your account is not eligible to be reinstated due to a violation of our terms of service.”
Peterson said he was given no real explanation for why he was frozen out of his e-mail account of some 15 years, or why it was returned.
“Maybe Google could be a little clearer in its communications with its users when they decide to do something as radical as shut down their e-mail account, especially when they send a second indicator saying that they’re not going to reinstate it ... and they don’t provide any information,” he said. ”I do attract a lot of traffic to YouTube. They sent me one of their little silver awards which you get after you climb past 100,000 subscribers.”
Peterson’s new YouTube channel received 15,000 views in its first day.
“It wasn’t handled with any degree of caution nor transparency,” Peterson said. “I think the lack of transparency is one of the things that’s most worrisome. They sent me very opaque messages.”
Later, after the issue attracted media attention, Google abruptly reversed its position and reinstated the Gmail account.
Peterson said the reason was never made clear to him, and it could have been a technical issue with his newly-launched YouTube channel — Jordan Peterson Clips — or a mistake on Google’s part.
“It’s impossible to tell,” he said. “My suspicion is that there were political reasons for shutting it down. I made a fuss about it, someone noticed, and turned it back on.”
A Google spokesman said in an email that the company was not able to comment on the details of individual accounts but had responded directly to the user.
Peterson drew international attention after objecting — in a YouTube video he posted — to changes in human rights legislation that he argued would compel Canadians to use gender-neutral pronouns at risk of fines and imprisonment.
The University of Toronto professor and clinical psychologist has been shouted down at public speaking events by protesters and at one point was cautioned by his employer.
But Peterson has attracted a large following as a champion of free speech, especially online where his YouTube videos have 18 million hits and 350,000 subscribers.
So Peterson was surprised Tuesday when Google abruptly shut down his Gmail account without warning, locking him out of his YouTube channels, although they remained up.
When he complained formally to Google, Peterson received a reply from the “Google Accounts Team.”
“We understand you’ve recently been unable to access your Google account, and we appreciate you contacting us,” Google replied in the e-mail. “After review, your account is not eligible to be reinstated due to a violation of our terms of service.”
Peterson said he was given no real explanation for why he was frozen out of his e-mail account of some 15 years, or why it was returned.
“Maybe Google could be a little clearer in its communications with its users when they decide to do something as radical as shut down their e-mail account, especially when they send a second indicator saying that they’re not going to reinstate it ... and they don’t provide any information,” he said. ”I do attract a lot of traffic to YouTube. They sent me one of their little silver awards which you get after you climb past 100,000 subscribers.”
Peterson’s new YouTube channel received 15,000 views in its first day.
“It wasn’t handled with any degree of caution nor transparency,” Peterson said. “I think the lack of transparency is one of the things that’s most worrisome. They sent me very opaque messages.”
Youtube claimed "your account is not eligible to be reinstated due to a violation of our terms of service" but didnt't back up that with any examples and how to avoid it (even if that could be interpreted as a way of limiting free speech). Also, they gave no explanation for why he couldn't access his private e-mail, since the supposed infringement was associated with Youtube, not private e-mails, of course.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
zzz_pt
Premium
- 8,188
- Porto living in Hamburg
- zzz_pt
That's a good question to which I don't have a definite answer. I think no one does tbh. It's one of those cases where we have to cut short and say "it's a private company, they can do whatever they want". But the issue is not a black and white one, imo. Youtube (or FB or Titter) are not in the business of retailing or fast food. They're on the public sphere and live of what people say in the end. If no one records any of their thoughts / ideas and uploads them to youtube there's no content at all to see and no money to make (even if YT doesn't bring Google that much money).
And it's not because of the size and power that a company like google has in the world. It's not like if someone has a channel taken down on Youtube they can just go somewhere else and do the exact same thing.
Youtube guidelines say:
Hate speech
We encourage free speech and try to defend your right to express unpopular points of view, but we don't permit hate speech.
Hate speech refers to content that promotes violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on certain attributes, such as:
- race or ethnic origin
- religion
- disability
- gender
- age
- veteran status
- sexual orientation/gender identity
There is a fine line between what is and what is not considered to be hate speech. For instance, it is generally okay to criticize a nation-state, but not okay to post malicious hateful comments about a group of people solely based on their ethnicity.
Harassment and cyberbullying
We want you to use YouTube without fear of being subjected to malicious harassment. In cases where harassment crosses the line into a malicious attack it can be reported and will be removed. In other cases, users may be mildly annoying or petty and should simply be ignored.
Harassment may include :
- Abusive videos, comments, messages
- Revealing someone’s personal information
- Maliciously recording someone without their consent
- Deliberately posting content in order to humiliate someone
- Making hurtful and negative comments/videos about another person
- Unwanted sexualization, which encompasses sexual harassment or sexual bullying in any form
- Incitement to harass other users or creators
Now, I posted specifically about Jordan Peterson because, if you've seen any of his videos, you know how ridiculous it is to block him because he has broken the community guideline. Incidently one of his last videos before the blocking was precisely about free speech. Ironic to say the least.
The issue is not so much about free speech, in general, in this case but what are the reasons for them to take down a channel if they do not explain why they did it. That doesn't do anything to foment a healthy environment in the community and it doesn't encourage free speech or show YT is trying to defend the right to express unpopular points of view.
When I said: "even if that could be interpreted as a way of limiting free speech"
I was pointing to the fact that, if YT tells JP what he can't say if he wants to continue on the platform, that's limiting his free speech. And I'm speaking only about this case and based on his content, that I know for sure, is not hateful in any way shape or form, doesn't incite violence, doesn't promote hatred, etc, etc. If he's not doing any of that, and even then they tell him "your account was blocked because X, and you can't do X again", at least they were being transparent about their disregard of their own rules and guidelines.
ps: this might be a bit off-topic
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
That's a big issue with any mass publisher - they can use their first-party free speech powers for good (subjective opinion) or bad (subjective opinion). Google would no doubt say in their usual altruistic manner that they promote speech from people whose voices might never have otherwise been heard. That's true, in itself. A cynic would add that the information Google collects from posters and viewers has allowed them to make internet advertising their own. They're making a shed load of money from it too. Ultimately anybody who speaks privately or publicly through a Google platform is not exercising their own right to free speech but is speaking with Google's easily withdrawable goodwill.
It goes to YouTube holding ultimate publishing power over any speech rights of the sub-publishers, for me it's on topic. I'm not a mod, obviously
- 13,907
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Wrong.
It's Youtube's platform, and they can do what they like with it. Including limiting free speech as much as they like. Everything that they have in place regarding rules or anything else is a construct to try and allow them to retain as many viewers and content creators as they can even through disagreements, but at the end of the day their word is law on their own servers. They can break all their own rules, and then reverse themselves the next day. They don't have to provide excuses, reasons, or even talk to you at all. They do so because they see a commercial benefit to being forthright and consistent, and rightly so, but there's no moral requirement that you seem to be trying to make out.
While you're in their sandpit, you play by their rules, even if they're making up the rules as they go along to suit their own interests. It's unfortunate that they're essentially a monopoly, but them's the breaks. It's the internet. If Youtube doesn't want you they don't have to take you, and there's a whole wide electronic wonderland out there of other places that you can be.
BS copyright strikes are one thing, Youtube exercising it's right to choose what sort of content it displays on it's network (and by extension, is associated with it's advertising partners) is another thing entirely. Take that away from them and you might as well just nationalise the company, because they're no longer allowed to choose how they do business and with whom.
zzz_pt
Premium
- 8,188
- Porto living in Hamburg
- zzz_pt
I know Youtube can do whatever they want. I said that because it is what it is and it's more practical that way. For me it's one of those issues like "when does a fetus becomes a person"? There's no simple answer but it's easier to say "at birth" and make a law out of it. And I think it's Ok, otherwise we wouldn't move forward. This question of free speech and apparent inconsistencies applying internal policies by giant social media companies (monopolies as you've mentioned) brings up some grey areas, IMO.
If every company that deals with public space and opinions online, for example GTplanet, starts banning or blocking people without a reason, will you still think there's nothing wrong (wouldn't use the word immoral) with it? Braking their own rules and possibly affecting people's livelihoods?
When I say it's not a black and white thing I'm referring to Jordan Peterson type cases, where it's clear they didn't break any guideline. We could end up with platforms that function like straight up censorship - or state sponsored censorship as it happens in some countries around the world. In my opinion some of these youtube, facebook and twitter bans are more political than anything else.
Back to JP case, do you think there's anything wrong with his content? Don't you find it's better for the world to have access to it? Again, I wouldn't say it's immoral to block him from accessing his channel and continuing to share content, but it's close. Because his content is good (I'm not a christian for example, so I find his religious comments out of place sometimes, but some of his insights into religion and the bible stories are pretty damn interesting from an intellectual pov, even for an atheist).
It's one of those situations we might end up agreeing to disagree.
If every company that deals with public space and opinions online, for example GTplanet, starts banning or blocking people without a reason, will you still think there's nothing wrong (wouldn't use the word immoral) with it? Braking their own rules and possibly affecting people's livelihoods?
When I say it's not a black and white thing I'm referring to Jordan Peterson type cases, where it's clear they didn't break any guideline. We could end up with platforms that function like straight up censorship - or state sponsored censorship as it happens in some countries around the world. In my opinion some of these youtube, facebook and twitter bans are more political than anything else.
Back to JP case, do you think there's anything wrong with his content? Don't you find it's better for the world to have access to it? Again, I wouldn't say it's immoral to block him from accessing his channel and continuing to share content, but it's close. Because his content is good (I'm not a christian for example, so I find his religious comments out of place sometimes, but some of his insights into religion and the bible stories are pretty damn interesting from an intellectual pov, even for an atheist).
It's one of those situations we might end up agreeing to disagree.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
YouTube don't have to have grey areas - it's their right to do as they please. If people don't like it they shouldn't sign up.
It is a black and white thing, and they have his signature to prove it. I'd say that his views on transgender issues were enough to prompt YouTube to stop distributing his thoughts. Still their right - and his thoughts would clearly break the guidelines that were linked for you earlier in the thread.
zzz_pt
Premium
- 8,188
- Porto living in Hamburg
- zzz_pt
Imagine you have internet but every private owned website, from YouTube to gtplanet to every single one you use basically, would block you or ban you. Would that still be OK? If that happened for no apparent reason and without an explanation? Just because they're private companies?
His views on transgender issues? Clearly you don't watch his channel. His issue is with state imposed speech regarding made up gender pronouns. Nothing to do with individuals being transgender. That's why he went to the Canadian senate. To present his view on the bill. As other people have done, such as Gad Saad. His views only "clearly break the guidelines" if you're playing politics.
If those videos were a problem, YT would have taken them down and give the channel a strike. They didn't do that. They block JP the access to the channel and to his email.
His views on transgender issues? Clearly you don't watch his channel. His issue is with state imposed speech regarding made up gender pronouns. Nothing to do with individuals being transgender. That's why he went to the Canadian senate. To present his view on the bill. As other people have done, such as Gad Saad. His views only "clearly break the guidelines" if you're playing politics.
If those videos were a problem, YT would have taken them down and give the channel a strike. They didn't do that. They block JP the access to the channel and to his email.
Last edited:
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
The Complaint pg. 2 (emphasis added):
In or around March 2017, including specifically on March 20, 2017, in response to growing concerns, YouTube released a new set of guidelines which purported to set forth a set of restrictions upon the placement of advertisements through YouTube’s content providers’ videos, which did not meet YouTube guidelines. Such guidelines included sexually explicit, racist, hateful, incendiary or overtly violent videos. These guidelines were never provided to or explained to content providers, such as Plaintiffs, nor were they ever agreed to by content providers. The guidelines were applied retroactively across all content that had previously been created at the expense of the content providers, including content which had been on YouTube without complaint from advertisers or content viewers for years.
See my previous post for the link.
Edit to add that if continued use of the site is an acceptance of the new terms, in some states (excluding California: see Asmus v. Pacific Bell (2000)) that isn't considered consideration.
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
That's a matter for each individual business to decide. Imagine you're allowed on every street but no shops or pubs will let you in because of your history of violence.
Good spot!
Surely he's playing politics - he went to the senate for starters. It's moot now given that he has all his access back.
Quite. It seems (and this is obviously a guess) that they were concerned about public comments made in other places. As I said: it's moot.
Google are a private business with their own first amendment rights held by their board and employees. The ToCs also said, did they not, that each signed agreement could be changed at any time with or without notice?
The test there was for a change in personnel employment rights - I don't see the relevance?
- 13,907
- Adelaide
- Neomone
You're wrong. The fetus->person argument arises because there are two totally accepted states where an object is and is not a person. Clearly at some point there's a change, but there's disagreement over where exactly to draw the line.
With Youtube's right to run their service as they see fit, there's nothing of the sort. That right has always existed, unchanged. You may not like it, and you may find it distressing to have your livelihood depend on the goodwill of someone else, but that's part of the risk of being a Youtuber.
Put it the other way; what benefit would there be for people who are not Youtube get to dictate what Youtube does? How does one select which people get to dictate? In the event of disagreements, how are they resolved? Let's try following your proposed system a little further and see if we can't illustrate more clearly exactly the problems that it faces.
It would be annoying, but it's their right. Imagine if every store in your town refused you service. That would be annoying, but it would also be their right to do so. You'd have no basis for complaining that they should be forced to serve you. Imagine if all your friends refused to let you into their houses. Annoying, but again, it's their right.
You do not have rights to someone else's stuff, be it physical or a service. If Youtube wants to cherry pick who stays on their service, best of luck to them.
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
H3H3 Wins! The judge a little over an hour ago ruled in favor of H3H3 in dueling motions of Summary Judgement. I am reading through the ruling now with Leonard French, who was apparently caught off guard by the decision.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
The TL
R (and standing precedent) is "For...the reasons set forth below, defendants' use of clips from the Hoss video constitutes fair use". The whole reading's over an hour long Similar threads
