Well you saved me a video, LOL. I was going to point out the same thing plus Historical examples too. Hitler was a great public speaker but, look what he did and what his message REALLY meant... then finnish off saying something like "and since Actions speak loud than Words..." *begin a slideshow of numerous middle fingers plus my own* Can't get us if we type it out or use visuals right? XD
But you are not teaching children to ignore messages with swearing in it. You are just not showing them the swearing.
Should kids tv programs contain swearing? Should teachers use swearing? Going by your view if we don't swear at our children we are raising them wrong?
I live in an area where everyone is a Jew Lawyer or a Irish cop. So I learned that in a free country you have the right to be a communist. And if you don't like it, you open your own youtube swear site. Just don't use the name youtube and you should be good to go. My opinion, 1st it's not my website to judge, 2nd, some of the profanity is way overboard, Yea Expression, of just distasteful filth some of it. Then there's the majority factor. So if it was my site where do I draw the line? Dah
Most profanity nowadays aren't even used in an offensively. English has evolved to the extent where words like "shit" have at least ten different contextual meanings ( and only one means poop).
Also, if children are neglected enough that they can just click the "over 18" button, demoting a video won't mean anything. I remember that we used to put google images on strict filtering in schools and try to make naughty pics come up by searching innocent words.Curious kids will always find other ways
I think that some deep pockets are molding YT to be like the TV, or at least it's money making internet counterpart. Think, some HUGE sponsors prob opt out of YT advertisements because of mature content. This Feature is simply a way to control content, and mainstream YT.
This feature should be optional, defaulted OFF... It is a legit feature for parents. Then again, you could have someone very eloquently discuss murder or rape and elude the 'machine.'
Two points that I would like to add is the following:
1/ Unsupervised children should not be surfing on the net, parents are being irresponsible by via negligence of their duties as parents. And older children probably are around or use more profanity in their school yards than they find on YT.
2/ On the other hand, it would force people to polish up on their language skills...LMAO
It is very rare that I use profanity, but at times profanities edge has it's usefulness.
Sorry to sound like I'm bringing in an extraneous anecdote, but as I was growing up, my father, as a good Mormon, cursed all the time. "As long as I'm not taking the lord's name in vain," was his justification. One of the reasons I have grown up largely to reject profanity is due to a certain mental fatigue I developed for it thanks to him.
I wonder, though, at the precedent this might set.
Using children as an excuse to limit personal freedoms (in this case free speech) seems to be an excuse that is getting a bit tiresome. Obviously, YouTube wishes to become more profitable and instead of being honest they use excuses based on doing what's good for kids or whatever to make their agenda seem more acceptable. If all they cared about were kids then they'd just use simple filtering that they would make optionally available to all users!
Yeah. I think a few have caught on to the fact that YouTube is heading for the self-destruct button. This it the right time for those to step up to the mark. I haven't found one that is REALLY good though, yet. And most seem to have quite a lot of monitoring (read: censorship) going on.
You sir raise a valid point on this oh-so controversial subject. My fear is the "slippery slope" effect wherein, Youtube may decide to ban videos with other content that they deem inappropriate. I fear that they have forgotten their place in all this, namely that of host. Their job is to host the video not determine what goes in them. It all comes back to personal responsibility, people have the option of blocking those they do not like and avoiding videos they find offensive.
Exactly. I found blocking a VERY effective tool on a few occasions. I don't use it often, but I don't hesitate to if I feel the situation warrants it. The thing is to always remember that it's YOUR channel and you don't owe anybody any explanations on how you decide to run it. Realising that is very liberating indeed.
righteousham, does YouTube have a responsibility to censore rape and death threats? If so, this contradicts you.
Text filters can check for simple swear words but would have difficulty checking for complex content. This doesn't have the problem of the slippery slope.
Scott aka globetrvllr2
PS
I agree YouTube should not manipulate ratings but it should limit abuse.
I think you're missing the point completely. You're focusing on the language as if that has anything to do with anything. I could go and comment on AngryLittleGirI's videos and say this:
"FUCK yeah! You're DAMN right! Tell those DICKHEADS exactly how you feel and that you won't be taking any SHIT from any CUNT or BASTARD!!!", and whilst that may be an extremely crass way of expressing oneself, I bet she will not have any problem with it.
The problem isn't the language. The problem is harrassment. And I have absolutely NO issue with YouTube taking action against harrassment.
But they won't be able to achieve that by installing a fuckometer that automatically demotes videos based on how many times a person uses a naughty word. The truly nasty characters will just learn how to get under a person's skin without using such language, and it will do nothing to stop harrassment.
Rozeboosje, language has everything to do with it.
Hate videos are far more aggressive when the words *cunt,* *bitch,* *fucking whore* are added to titles and tags.
I have seen comment boards turn very nasty for mildly critical videos when they are loaded with thousands of swear words.
YouTube can't monitor every individual and conscientious members of the community can't fight sadistic users because videos are posted for years and new haters view them daily.
I am afraid that my conclusion has to be that you are severely lacking in mental capacity. Not only that, you are determined to oppress the YouTube community with dictatorial edicts that have no foundation in reality. This smacks of delusion of grandeur. I also have my doubts about your engagement in this quixotic quest to come to the aid of someone you perceive to be a helpless maiden, and I cannot help but wonder what your true motives may be.
I imagine you as a slightly malodorous, perspiring middle aged male, sitting in front of his monitor, in a state of undress, whilst fondling his dangly bits, lecherously leering at AngryLittleGirI's pretty face, and as glutinous globs of your essence ooze out from between your fingers you smear them over the monitor imagining things that should not be spoken aloud ...
See? I can not only be insulting, but positively disgusting without uttering a single "swear word".
My motives are sincere. My alternate site is FightGlobalPoverty. My videos there show my values.
Actually, your comments were very mild compared to the hate campaigns with abusive language. Removing swear words forces people to intellectualize even the most abusive arguments and will probably greatly improve the quality of YouTube.
Now if I knew you very well - but I don't - and if I were so inclined - which I am not - and if I had the time and energy - which I have not - to go after you, I could start to get to know you, and learn what buttons to press. And then I would start making comments that get under your skin. That REALLY hurt. And if I keep that up, relentlessly ... then it turns into harrassment.
You need to keep handing me the ammunition. You started to do this by talking about your other page. Did you think that a troll would care about that? Well, they would. It's more information about you. More potential buttons to push. And they WOULD find them. And they WOULD use them.
But a string of expletives? That's just funny. In a sad sort of way. But not very impressive.
Nope. You are trying to curb freedom of expression, and I am not tolerating that. And the sad thing is that you are so focused on "bad language" that you cease to see the forest for the trees. You even fail to see where we DO agree. I will support YouTube in clamping down on harrassment, cyber-stalking and so on. But installing a fuckometer and automatically demoting videos based on nothing other than their use of colourful language is unacceptable.
I am not just focused on bad language. I also am focused on reuploads of users' videos.
You also may be failing to see where we agree. I don't support demoting videos to manipulate ratings.
I don't expect people to agree with me. They do need to be aware that abuse is a serious problem and YouTube may need to take proactive, preventative strategies to truly deal with it.
YouTube probably doesn't have the resources to clamp down on every reupload and comment.
Except in this case, Scott, I'm right. You're wrong. Abuse does not consist of uttering naughty words. I'm happy to concede that such language can ADD to abuse, but it doesn't MAKE abuse. And as long as you can't get your head around that distinction you will always be barking up the wrong tree on this topic.
I am also quite happy to accept that using expletives all the time can be quite "infantile" and whatever else you said about that. But if you suggest that a person's contribution to YouTube should be censored for NO OTHER REASON than that they use expletives, if you suggest that that should happen EVEN in a context where there is no abuse involved whatsoever, then you're wrong. End of.
If you can point out where I demand that you should face any type of consequence for being wrong I shall be happy to concede that point. As you will NOT be able to find such an occurrence I shall now declare you to be a retard. Thank you.
Swear words indicate that you have nothing more to say. That's all. You can use them for effect (I do, occasionally), or as punctuation. Sometimes there is no better full stop than a heart felt "FUCK". Or you can use them to indicate defiance. Even to capitulate. But fight? Nah. Sorry. A dirty fighter doesn't swear. A dirty fighter hits you below the belt when you're not looking.
YouTube has a responsibility to set up a safe environment. That's why it doesn't allow rape and death threats. That's why long-term public abuse is a real problem.
Hi rozeboosje, there are major problems with profanity demoting software. It will not be applied consistently and it will dishonestly manipulate ratings.
I do strongly believe, however, YouTube does need to limit foul language in order to prevent long-term abuse.
Not at all. Abuse has nothing to do with language. You can terrorise a person without ever using a single bad word. And you can be hilariously and innocuously funny with a video that consists of end-to-end obscenities. It is not our job to protect others from their sensitivities.
I think Mel is a great person, but she has to accept that the world is full of arseholes, and Mel should have just blocked the fuckers where she could, and ignored them where she couldn't. It really is true what they say about not feeding the trolls. It really DOES work. And it really is the only thing that works.
I found Mel somewhere else. I'm not going to divulge that information here. And I hope she is happier there than she was here.
I made my site to defend angrylittlegirl from the site angrylittlegir1. There were over 1,000 abusive comments on its reuploaded video for a year. I have had to fight it every day for six months to finally tame it.
Angrylittlegirl couldn't handle the abuse and practically stopped making videos a year ago.
I have called people "cunt" and worse. Usually after they gleefully condemn me to eternal suffering or some other happy fate. They deserved it.
I VEHEMENTLY disagree with your take on the use of users' speeches. They uploaded it first, they should expect others to criticise it, and there are plenty of users (VenomFangX springs to mind) who have had a long documented history of surreptitiously removing the videos in which they shat themselves, pretending it never happened.
Actually, I do not agree with you, rozeboosje. I don't disagree either though. But it seems to me that this may also teach people that it pays to format the message you want to bring across in an acceptable manner.
In fact, I think that algorithmic demotion may be more desirable than demotion based on user-input. It is difficult to weigh user input, and likely easier for the content managers of youtube to demote videos based on the number of complaints than it is to ...
... actually look at the content. This opens up the way for censorship barrages like those of the creationist community lately. Now if this algorithmic demotion means that the weight of user-input is lessened, compared to algorithmic determination of the content of a video, then the effect of the implementation of this system may well be the reverse of what is feared: demotion campains by groups of users intent on censoring certain videos may become increasingly difficult to implement.
... Of course, this means that there would *have* to be a counterbalancing lessening of weight of user input. I could not find specifics on the algorithm that Youtube proposes. It may be worthwhile to look into this.
Yup. But at least you can present your case to a human being, and if they're reasonable they might listen. A fuck-o-meter will just count the number of fucks and automatically demote, and there's no comeback. However, your point in 2/3 is a good one.
I very much doubt they are doing any content based searching and classification - rather they will rely on the traditional flagging system and have human ears/eyes "grade" the flagged video...
I would be amazed (from a professional standing) if they have anything halfway decent at doing this automatically... Put up or shut up - publish a few papers!
> and have human ears/eyes "grade" the flagged video...
If only they did it wouldn't be half as bad a mess. It's exactly because they think they can automate this that it's going to go horribly wrong. See the video I posted yesterday.
You've got a valid point there, rozeboosje! On a sidenote: As soon as this demoting process has been fully implemented, we might as well have a little fun with it. For example record the deflation of a ballon and then right afterwards the chucking of wood - which would amount to....yeah right, FFFFFFFFFF-UCK! ;-)
Of je kan voor een gedecentraliseerde oplossing gaan waarbij iedereen zijn eigen video's maakt en beheerd op zijn ruimte op een webserver.
Als voorbeeld wil ik WordPress nemen waar je een netwerk van blogs kan vormen. Deze zijn decentraal georganiseerd, maar behouden toch onderling (dmv een protocol) goed contact. Updates krijg je op elkaars blog te zien.
Maar goed, dit is mijn 2 (euro)cent. Ik ga er vanuit dat een groep atheïsten zich op 1 (of 2) alternatieven op youtube stort en ik mee ga.
I would rather teach a child (and adults) that there will always be wrong in this world rather than raise a socially inept human being totally unprepared for what is to come in life.
You are not always guaranteed success in this venture. If you don't at least make that effort, who do you have to blame when things go wrong?
You were able to make your point without using any profanity or vulgar language. Too often people don't realize how vicius the language can seem. To me, the use of profanity has become so common that is really just annoying. Especially at work when grown men have to shout "F--K" at the top of their lungs whenever anything goes wrong. They sound ignorant and infantile.
I have never understood how limiting one's vocabularly makes one seem less ignorant and less infantile than someone who is willing to use all the words they know, even the "grown up words".
When I have heard curse words they don't sound grown up. Mostly I hear grownups limiting themselves to one or two,
four-lettered-one syllable words. They are not using a full vocabulary. You made your point in your video with many words that did not have to include profanity. I'm not talking aboput limiting words I'm talking about choosing words that help you make a point without having to assault anyone. Just like you and I have in our discussion here.
Do you have another problem with the word besides claiming the linguistic high-ground?
I rarely use "curse words", but I have no problem repeating them, or with the people that use them. It is a cultural thing.
"I need to shit"
"I need to poop"
Difference? very little. I let my 2 year old child hear whatever words are around. The only reason I would tell him not to use them, is to avoid having to debate every single person that hears it.
Personally I decided to stop cursing because I did not want my children to learn those words from me. Unfortunately in moments of anger those words have slipped out. I don't like curse words. My daughters are grown now and they both curse. That is their choice. Curse words don't add anything to my life or my ability to communicate. When I use them in anger it tends to make people around me very incomfortable and they tend to stop listening.
You're right I have decided not to say or type that word. I find that if I repeat it or refer to it it often slips out when I would rather not say it. Perhaps it is a cultural thing. If so it is a cultural thing that I have decided to go along with. My choice.
Infantile? "Fuck" is just a word. Depending on how you use it, it could be referring to sex, or just an expression of anger (or many other things). What makes use of it more 'infantile' than any other word? You've simply been conditioned to find it distasteful. _You're_ sounding ignorant and infantile.
Now we've gotten to the level of name calling. I guess I wasn't clear often when I hear that word it is during a grown man's tantrum at work regarding a common mishap or the fact the task that he has been assigned is not as simple as he would like. That is infintile. The word is used so often and in so many contexts that it really means everything and therefore means nothing. Frankly I am just tired of hearing it and reading it.
Let's say we agreed that using such language is indeed infantile. Let's say we agreed that hearing it and reading it all the time is tiring. Let's say we all agree that we're fed up with it. I'm not quite there, but for the sake of argument, let's agree.
Should such videos then be demoted? Should such language be banned? Should such people be made to shut up? Is that your position? Then I disagree vehemently.
You don't like bad language? Use the "x" button. It really is as simple as that.
I don't agree with censorship. I just don't like profanity. I understand that I am in the minority in my belief. I don't correct people when they curse. I don't even insist that my grown daughters not curse around me. I just don't join in. My non use of profanity seems to speak volumes at times. People often notice without having to announce that I don't curse.
Ah, then we're probably, if not on the same page, then not in different chapters either. I DO use profanity, I will readily admit to that, but I try not to do it too often. I have been using it more than usual lately, but the pendulum will swing the other way again.
I don't think anybody is opposed to this because they just want to swear freely. They just don't want to be censored IF they do. And I think you actually agree to that.
Are you as active arguing against gratuitous condemnation of human beings by Christians all over YouTube? Or are you just focusing on infantile use of the f-word?
To tell the truth the title of your video caught my attention so I watched it. Then I thought I would offer up my two cents. I guess the focus of my two cents became teh infantile use of the f-word. I'm glad we could discuss this in a civil manner. I have much less civil discussions online than this one.
I would like you to watch my follow on video, "algorithmically demote THIS if you dare". Despite what the title may suggest, it's not a foam-at-the-mouth rant.
> I have much less civil discussions online than this one.
So have I, and I'm no innocent [blush]; my mirror neurons are firing over time, and I usually respond in a similar vein to how I am approached. Some people are not aware, however, how insulting or despicable their on line behaviour is. Many a Christian has started tutting at me after I respond to them condemning me to eternal damnation with an unrestrained string of expletives (more ...)
... what such folks don't seem to understand is that NOTHING I could say could even come close to them saying that another human being could actually be DESERVING of eternal suffering. A hundred million F-words couldn't begin to scratch the surface of that nugget of vileness.
I am well aware that many Christians don't act much like Christ. My closest dearest friends are not Christian. I have reconciled myself to that fact by remembering that their hypocracy does not affect the reality of God or of his son Jesus. There I said it.
Wait ... I think I misunderstood your comment. By "their hypocracy" I meant anyone who claims Christianity and yet speaks with cruelty. Jesus preached kindness and peace.
"their hypocracy..." I was refering to the fact that in church as any place else there are hypocrites. I continue to believe despite the fact that some Christians do not live up to their claims.
Yes, indeed. There are many different types of Christians. Most are kind, decent people. Some are fundamentalists who think it's Ok to go about condemning people.
Level of name-calling? The only 'names' I've called you were names you used to refer to people who swear. You wouldn't consider it childish if he called something innocuous like "damn", but for some reason the word "fuck" is childish. They mean the same thing in that context, but you're uncomfortable hearing 'profanity'.
Sorry I guess that I over reacted. Actually I would find damn just as childish if it were in the context of an adult tantrum. If you have read some my other responses you would know that I have said that I hear grown men at work cursing over the slightest thing that goes wrong. To me (my opinion) curse words are like a verbal assault. Even when I use them.
While I am totally against any form of censorship, I rarely watch any of the popular videos. I have a list of people that I subscribe to. Will these algorithms affect the videos that come up on my new videos by subscribed to list, or just the popular videos list? This is the question that has me really concerned.
I find myself in this dilemma often, as I run websites/forums/groups. One has to be aware of the legal implications, also in context to a particular sites. I dislike moderating but find I cannot avoid this.
YouTube is no different in this, and as previously suggested by another comment here, there are many ways this could be achieved without causing "profanity demoting" of a video, including the right of individuals to free speech in a way that is cool, not negative or 'Big Bro' etcetera.
I know; but that is the problem. I've been a moderator too, and often the site managers just get lazy. They boil it down to "if there's a 'fuck' or a 'shit' or whatnot in the thread/video/or whatever then it's taken out". And that leads to all sorts of problems. Check out the video I just uploaded... once it's live.
Checked out the video and yes point well made, and I do not agree that video should be demoted using a mathematical algorithm (Left a comment there). Perhaps the simple and effective 'Flag' is sufficient so that children of a young age do not see this without parental permission.
In fact, have you seen VoicesInTheHead's recent videos on this topic?
I like the idea of self-regulation. We set our own flags, and YouTube can use this to plant the appropriate metadata in the HTML headers. That way parents can apply their browser's native parental control system, and YouTube doesn't need to put any controls in place other than allowing people to flag when the self-imposed rating wasn't applied correctly. Everybody wins.
"Lying starts when you say 'excrement' instead of 'shit'."
The view of profanity changes. A few hundred years ago the only profanity condemned was blasphemy. Foul language was mostly judged in the context of God, not in the context of sexuality and other bodily functions. How would a medieval Youtube look like?
Rather funny I dare say. You would have the usual people doing silly stuff. And then of course the YouTube Christians. And then the live videos of people being burnt at the stake
Re: "You fight it by confronting it head on and showing with reason and sense why it is unacceptable."
I 100% agree with that statement, but there are those amongst us who neither have any sense or are reasonable, and sites like this are dogged with the problem on how to deal with such individuals, because of their lack of intelligence and inability to reason.
YouTube and many other sites have to find a way to moderate such individuals, as they are unable to moderate themselves. Sad !
Sure, but the actual choice of words is not the real difference, is it? I see no difference, NONE whatsoever, between saying ""Hope your mother fucking Muslim arse and all your followers are all nuked and burn in hell, you Muslim scum bag fucking retard, the US rules...." and saying "If you don't take Jesus in your heart you deserve to suffer eternally after you die". If you accept that the utterer really believes what they are saying, the latter is actually worse than the former.
Yup for sure, but then it kinda takes us in a full circle, why use that kinda language/expression in the first place. It is socially unacceptable to many/few, not all, but isn't that the point. That is if you want to reach a larger audience that is socially acceptable then use language appropriately/properly to make your point.
I sometimes use profanities myself in a comment, usually out of exasperation in attempting to reason.
I agree with you to a point. When I see postings, when messages are bordering on hate speech which usually includes a string of profanities, then something needs to be done.
Profanities are a part (like it or not) of human interaction/communication. I do not think the outright ban on the use of such words, an example is Microsoft xBox forums, where even the word Hell is displayed as **** ! Should we protect children from reality? To a point yes, but that is a parents responsibility yes?
Hate speech is easily discerned by those intelligent amongst us.
When we see for example, a Muslim makes a comment, then we read a reply from a person. "Hope your mother fucking Muslim arse and all your followers are all nuked and burn in hell, you Muslim scum bag fucking retard, the US rules...." etcetera.
You get the idea and all of us read such comments.
That's hate speech. It is unacceptable behaviour of a member of our global society to make such comments.
Now they went and got rid of Bulletins. YouTube's Second most used feature for communication. I strongly believe their going to chase everyone to LiveVideo(dot)com.
I think that is HILARIOUS!!! once you go to middle school you start to hear 'strong' language, the child will eventually learn the words regardless of what the parent does. If someone wants to protect their child they should censor their internet activities or not even let them use the internet.
Well the poor kid would be socially inept, but I was just saying that if the parent wants to be that inhospitable about it then the child has no business on the net anyway. There are things that are plenty worse on the net than 'curse words'.
I'm wondering what Variablast will think of this new deal, who suggested people should change their name to "Fuck Censorship". He could be supporting it, no?
.. actually that is EXACTLY the mentality of MANY people.. and what they want to teach "our" children.
One of my co-workers had even suggested that when she hears a curse word, she automatically holds the belief they are stupid. And that swear words have "no place in a intelligent discussion"
fuck youtube
ninlandon 2 years ago
nannytube
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Well you saved me a video, LOL. I was going to point out the same thing plus Historical examples too. Hitler was a great public speaker but, look what he did and what his message REALLY meant... then finnish off saying something like "and since Actions speak loud than Words..." *begin a slideshow of numerous middle fingers plus my own* Can't get us if we type it out or use visuals right? XD
MusicMyLife2112 2 years ago
Don't rely on just ONE video to get the message across, so don't let the fact that I've already done one stop you from doing one too ;-)
rozeboosje 2 years ago
I wrote "Broken Arrow" when I was only nineteen.
BrokenChair88 2 years ago
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand this comment. What is "Broken Arrow"? Is it a book? A poem? Sounds interesting.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
It's actually a song by Neil Young. I just wish I wrote it.
BrokenChair88 2 years ago
Ah yes, I knew it sounded familiar but without the context I couldn't think of it. Yeah.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
wow!! this guy is good, very logical and well thought out, added this to my favs...this is actually quite scary in why was it done
so once more with feeling FUCK YOU youtube
feministdestroyer 2 years ago
[grin] and thank you
rozeboosje 2 years ago
very, very well thought out. 5/5 definately
Phatal1011 2 years ago
Cheers
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Ok then, YouTube, you wanna play hardball? Ok then, lemme bust out my Microsoft Word
...
...
...
...
...
Fυck you YouTube, fυck you.
StyIesOfBeyond 2 years ago
LOL
rozeboosje 2 years ago
FUCK, that's a test, just checkin' if I can swear, but yeah, nice vid
StyIesOfBeyond 2 years ago
Either they undid it or I don't know, but I can see it just fine.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Ramen.
sputnikowns 2 years ago
Cheers
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Very fucking awesome point :D
BloodiedHorror 3 years ago
Whoa! How did I manage to miss this comment? A belated "thank you".
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Preach brother!
xZDaveZx 3 years ago
Ramen!
rozeboosje 3 years ago
But you are not teaching children to ignore messages with swearing in it. You are just not showing them the swearing.
Should kids tv programs contain swearing? Should teachers use swearing? Going by your view if we don't swear at our children we are raising them wrong?
maxspank 3 years ago
I live in an area where everyone is a Jew Lawyer or a Irish cop. So I learned that in a free country you have the right to be a communist. And if you don't like it, you open your own youtube swear site. Just don't use the name youtube and you should be good to go. My opinion, 1st it's not my website to judge, 2nd, some of the profanity is way overboard, Yea Expression, of just distasteful filth some of it. Then there's the majority factor. So if it was my site where do I draw the line? Dah
hangemhigh2000 3 years ago
Most profanity nowadays aren't even used in an offensively. English has evolved to the extent where words like "shit" have at least ten different contextual meanings ( and only one means poop).
Also, if children are neglected enough that they can just click the "over 18" button, demoting a video won't mean anything. I remember that we used to put google images on strict filtering in schools and try to make naughty pics come up by searching innocent words.Curious kids will always find other ways
sannin3 3 years ago
I think that some deep pockets are molding YT to be like the TV, or at least it's money making internet counterpart. Think, some HUGE sponsors prob opt out of YT advertisements because of mature content. This Feature is simply a way to control content, and mainstream YT.
This feature should be optional, defaulted OFF... It is a legit feature for parents. Then again, you could have someone very eloquently discuss murder or rape and elude the 'machine.'
It kills the spirit of Youtube. Parents!
Psilo007 3 years ago
YouTube should have done this long before now!
TheBionicTeen 3 years ago
Two points that I would like to add is the following:
1/ Unsupervised children should not be surfing on the net, parents are being irresponsible by via negligence of their duties as parents. And older children probably are around or use more profanity in their school yards than they find on YT.
2/ On the other hand, it would force people to polish up on their language skills...LMAO
It is very rare that I use profanity, but at times profanities edge has it's usefulness.
Aegialeus 3 years ago
Sorry to sound like I'm bringing in an extraneous anecdote, but as I was growing up, my father, as a good Mormon, cursed all the time. "As long as I'm not taking the lord's name in vain," was his justification. One of the reasons I have grown up largely to reject profanity is due to a certain mental fatigue I developed for it thanks to him.
I wonder, though, at the precedent this might set.
lazyperfectionist1 3 years ago
If "protecting the chldren" can be used as an excuse to devalue profanity today, maybe it can be applied to the threat of eternal torture tomorrow.
lazyperfectionist1 3 years ago
Using children as an excuse to limit personal freedoms (in this case free speech) seems to be an excuse that is getting a bit tiresome. Obviously, YouTube wishes to become more profitable and instead of being honest they use excuses based on doing what's good for kids or whatever to make their agenda seem more acceptable. If all they cared about were kids then they'd just use simple filtering that they would make optionally available to all users!
blackturtleus 3 years ago
Exactly. As a corporation they are free to run their channel any way they see fit, but this blatant lying about it is just pathetic.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
the underlying reason, I believe, for the banning and sensored vids is because someone like Oprah Winfrey is gonna buy youtube out.
1ojak1 3 years ago
LOL. That would be the end of the world alright XD
rozeboosje 3 years ago
man, i hope youtube takes down this BS law!
i mean, what's next comments being Algorithmically demoted??
(2009 i think that might happen!)
if they don't take it down, then i'm going to another video site!!!
FutileFreakX 3 years ago
Yeah. I think a few have caught on to the fact that YouTube is heading for the self-destruct button. This it the right time for those to step up to the mark. I haven't found one that is REALLY good though, yet. And most seem to have quite a lot of monitoring (read: censorship) going on.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
You sir raise a valid point on this oh-so controversial subject. My fear is the "slippery slope" effect wherein, Youtube may decide to ban videos with other content that they deem inappropriate. I fear that they have forgotten their place in all this, namely that of host. Their job is to host the video not determine what goes in them. It all comes back to personal responsibility, people have the option of blocking those they do not like and avoiding videos they find offensive.
righteousham 3 years ago
Exactly. I found blocking a VERY effective tool on a few occasions. I don't use it often, but I don't hesitate to if I feel the situation warrants it. The thing is to always remember that it's YOUR channel and you don't owe anybody any explanations on how you decide to run it. Realising that is very liberating indeed.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
righteousham, does YouTube have a responsibility to censore rape and death threats? If so, this contradicts you.
Text filters can check for simple swear words but would have difficulty checking for complex content. This doesn't have the problem of the slippery slope.
Scott aka globetrvllr2
PS
I agree YouTube should not manipulate ratings but it should limit abuse.
angrylitlegir1 3 years ago
Scott,
I think you're missing the point completely. You're focusing on the language as if that has anything to do with anything. I could go and comment on AngryLittleGirI's videos and say this:
"FUCK yeah! You're DAMN right! Tell those DICKHEADS exactly how you feel and that you won't be taking any SHIT from any CUNT or BASTARD!!!", and whilst that may be an extremely crass way of expressing oneself, I bet she will not have any problem with it.
(more...)
rozeboosje 3 years ago
The problem isn't the language. The problem is harrassment. And I have absolutely NO issue with YouTube taking action against harrassment.
But they won't be able to achieve that by installing a fuckometer that automatically demotes videos based on how many times a person uses a naughty word. The truly nasty characters will just learn how to get under a person's skin without using such language, and it will do nothing to stop harrassment.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Rozeboosje, language has everything to do with it.
Hate videos are far more aggressive when the words *cunt,* *bitch,* *fucking whore* are added to titles and tags.
I have seen comment boards turn very nasty for mildly critical videos when they are loaded with thousands of swear words.
YouTube can't monitor every individual and conscientious members of the community can't fight sadistic users because videos are posted for years and new haters view them daily.
Scott globetrvllr2
angrylitlegir1 3 years ago
Why don't you actually ask her rather than pontificate here? Run that comment I just posted by her, and ask her.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Scott,
I am afraid that my conclusion has to be that you are severely lacking in mental capacity. Not only that, you are determined to oppress the YouTube community with dictatorial edicts that have no foundation in reality. This smacks of delusion of grandeur. I also have my doubts about your engagement in this quixotic quest to come to the aid of someone you perceive to be a helpless maiden, and I cannot help but wonder what your true motives may be.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
I imagine you as a slightly malodorous, perspiring middle aged male, sitting in front of his monitor, in a state of undress, whilst fondling his dangly bits, lecherously leering at AngryLittleGirI's pretty face, and as glutinous globs of your essence ooze out from between your fingers you smear them over the monitor imagining things that should not be spoken aloud ...
See? I can not only be insulting, but positively disgusting without uttering a single "swear word".
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Hi rozeboosje,
My motives are sincere. My alternate site is FightGlobalPoverty. My videos there show my values.
Actually, your comments were very mild compared to the hate campaigns with abusive language. Removing swear words forces people to intellectualize even the most abusive arguments and will probably greatly improve the quality of YouTube.
angrylitlegir1 3 years ago
This is how your example would appear in swear words towards other people in general.
Scott
**
That guy is a real cock sucking fucking pig. I hope that shithead eat shit and dies! Drop dead you fucking asshole!
Fucking arrogant, stupid pretentious whore! Shove a cock down your throat and beat you with it! You stupid cunt fucking bitch. Die bitch!
Get a life you fucking asshole! Ring that pencil dicked neck of yours, you fucking bastard. Beat the crap out of you shitless!
angrylitlegir1 3 years ago
Your comment would get boring as it filled up the comment boards. These types of comments grow in intensity because swear words are fighting words.
Scott aka globetrvllr2
angrylitlegir1 3 years ago
ROTFLMAO
Sorry, Scott, but can't you see it? You've got it exactly the wrong way around. Your example was completely meaningless. It just reads like this:
fuckety-fuckety-fuckdickarseholecuntboohissshiteblahblahblah
It means nothing. And that is exactly why there is nothing wrong with it. Sure. It's vulgar, it's crass, and in fact it's, shock, horror ... BORING.
But look at my comment. And look at it closely.
(more...)
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Now if I knew you very well - but I don't - and if I were so inclined - which I am not - and if I had the time and energy - which I have not - to go after you, I could start to get to know you, and learn what buttons to press. And then I would start making comments that get under your skin. That REALLY hurt. And if I keep that up, relentlessly ... then it turns into harrassment.
And it takes participation. (more...)
rozeboosje 3 years ago
You need to keep handing me the ammunition. You started to do this by talking about your other page. Did you think that a troll would care about that? Well, they would. It's more information about you. More potential buttons to push. And they WOULD find them. And they WOULD use them.
But a string of expletives? That's just funny. In a sad sort of way. But not very impressive.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Combine those swear words with humiliating video uploads, and you get a very aggressive hate campaign.
I have made my point. We respectfully disagree and that is where we should leave it.
Scott aka globetrvllr2
angrylitlegir1 3 years ago
> We respectfully disagree
Nope. You are trying to curb freedom of expression, and I am not tolerating that. And the sad thing is that you are so focused on "bad language" that you cease to see the forest for the trees. You even fail to see where we DO agree. I will support YouTube in clamping down on harrassment, cyber-stalking and so on. But installing a fuckometer and automatically demoting videos based on nothing other than their use of colourful language is unacceptable.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
I am not just focused on bad language. I also am focused on reuploads of users' videos.
You also may be failing to see where we agree. I don't support demoting videos to manipulate ratings.
I don't expect people to agree with me. They do need to be aware that abuse is a serious problem and YouTube may need to take proactive, preventative strategies to truly deal with it.
YouTube probably doesn't have the resources to clamp down on every reupload and comment.
Scott aka globetrvllr2
angrylitlegir1 3 years ago
And I will not tolerate an environment with horrible public abuse. That is *unacceptable.*
We do respectfully disagree and it is actually ok for people to disagree on issues they sincerely feel strongly about.
Scott aka globetrvllr2
angrylitlegir1 3 years ago
Except in this case, Scott, I'm right. You're wrong. Abuse does not consist of uttering naughty words. I'm happy to concede that such language can ADD to abuse, but it doesn't MAKE abuse. And as long as you can't get your head around that distinction you will always be barking up the wrong tree on this topic.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
I am also quite happy to accept that using expletives all the time can be quite "infantile" and whatever else you said about that. But if you suggest that a person's contribution to YouTube should be censored for NO OTHER REASON than that they use expletives, if you suggest that that should happen EVEN in a context where there is no abuse involved whatsoever, then you're wrong. End of.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Except in this case, you sound like a religious zealot that thinks everyone that disagrees with him is going to hell.
Scott aka globetrvllr2
angrylitlegir1 3 years ago
LOL
If you can point out where I demand that you should face any type of consequence for being wrong I shall be happy to concede that point. As you will NOT be able to find such an occurrence I shall now declare you to be a retard. Thank you.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
LOL
You are always right.
Scott
angrylitlegir1 3 years ago
Actually no. But this time, yes.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Swear words indicate that you have nothing more to say. That's all. You can use them for effect (I do, occasionally), or as punctuation. Sometimes there is no better full stop than a heart felt "FUCK". Or you can use them to indicate defiance. Even to capitulate. But fight? Nah. Sorry. A dirty fighter doesn't swear. A dirty fighter hits you below the belt when you're not looking.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Just received this response. Couldn't have put it better: watch?v=4V808xn_2As
rozeboosje 3 years ago
YouTube has a responsibility to set up a safe environment. That's why it doesn't allow rape and death threats. That's why long-term public abuse is a real problem.
Scott aka globetrvllr2
angrylitlegir1 3 years ago
*sigh*
In one ear, out the other.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
I said it already
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Hi rozeboosje, there are major problems with profanity demoting software. It will not be applied consistently and it will dishonestly manipulate ratings.
I do strongly believe, however, YouTube does need to limit foul language in order to prevent long-term abuse.
angrylitlegir1 3 years ago
Not at all. Abuse has nothing to do with language. You can terrorise a person without ever using a single bad word. And you can be hilariously and innocuously funny with a video that consists of end-to-end obscenities. It is not our job to protect others from their sensitivities.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
I respectfully disagree rozeboosje.
If I reupload a video, graphically distort it, and title it *bitch,* *cunt,* or *cock sucking whore,* it wil dramatically intensify the abuse.
Haters keep speeches posted for many years, even after the user has left. This is outrageous.
Haters twist their speeches in hideous ways
/watch?v=B2R4VJjPK3U
/watch?v=lTNVukjG3-g
We can engage in intelligent discussion without destroying people. You are intellectually defending vulgar abuse.
Scott
angrylitlegir1 3 years ago
> We can engage in intelligent discussion
Exactly. Think about it. ;-)
I have had what I've said distorted, twisted and misrepresented too. You know what? It's not actually MY problem.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Users are facing massive public abuse over long periods now. This is the type of abuse that used to only be reserved for famous celebrities.
This is our problem and our children's problem.
Private companies have a responsibility to set up a safe environment.
Scott aka globetrvllr2
angrylitlegir1 3 years ago
LOL. Sorry. No.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Tell that to melsbasketcase.
angrylitlegir1 3 years ago
I think Mel is a great person, but she has to accept that the world is full of arseholes, and Mel should have just blocked the fuckers where she could, and ignored them where she couldn't. It really is true what they say about not feeding the trolls. It really DOES work. And it really is the only thing that works.
I found Mel somewhere else. I'm not going to divulge that information here. And I hope she is happier there than she was here.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
There are other cases too.
I made my site to defend angrylittlegirl from the site angrylittlegir1. There were over 1,000 abusive comments on its reuploaded video for a year. I have had to fight it every day for six months to finally tame it.
Angrylittlegirl couldn't handle the abuse and practically stopped making videos a year ago.
Scott aka globetrvllr2
angrylitlegir1 3 years ago
Sadists repost users' embarrasing videos, twist them, title them *cunt* or whore, and trash users in front of thousands for years.
YT needs to filter bad words from posting in comments and video titles.
YT needs to remove uploads of users' speeches taken without their permission.
Scott globetrvllr2
angrylitlegir1 3 years ago
I have called people "cunt" and worse. Usually after they gleefully condemn me to eternal suffering or some other happy fate. They deserved it.
I VEHEMENTLY disagree with your take on the use of users' speeches. They uploaded it first, they should expect others to criticise it, and there are plenty of users (VenomFangX springs to mind) who have had a long documented history of surreptitiously removing the videos in which they shat themselves, pretending it never happened.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
(1/3)
Actually, I do not agree with you, rozeboosje. I don't disagree either though. But it seems to me that this may also teach people that it pays to format the message you want to bring across in an acceptable manner.
In fact, I think that algorithmic demotion may be more desirable than demotion based on user-input. It is difficult to weigh user input, and likely easier for the content managers of youtube to demote videos based on the number of complaints than it is to ...
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
(2/3)
... actually look at the content. This opens up the way for censorship barrages like those of the creationist community lately. Now if this algorithmic demotion means that the weight of user-input is lessened, compared to algorithmic determination of the content of a video, then the effect of the implementation of this system may well be the reverse of what is feared: demotion campains by groups of users intent on censoring certain videos may become increasingly difficult to implement.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
(3/3)
... Of course, this means that there would *have* to be a counterbalancing lessening of weight of user input. I could not find specifics on the algorithm that Youtube proposes. It may be worthwhile to look into this.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
Yup. But at least you can present your case to a human being, and if they're reasonable they might listen. A fuck-o-meter will just count the number of fucks and automatically demote, and there's no comeback. However, your point in 2/3 is a good one.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
So this Google censoring only applies to ENGLISH WORDS ONLY? What about cursing people in different languages?
meatisneat 3 years ago
Exactly, or, conversely, if somebody speaks a foreign language in which "fuck" is just a word for something plain and ordinary?
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Very good point. I do respect people's opinion's and offense taken towards, but I think whoever got this decision the go ahead has taken it too far.
oliverscott2007 3 years ago
Yup
rozeboosje 3 years ago
watch?v=M9vP1GUmK8o
Anon1696 3 years ago
watched, 5-starred and favourited. And I SHALL be making a video response.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
I totally agree
lordcheetah 3 years ago
ta very much
rozeboosje 3 years ago
I very much doubt they are doing any content based searching and classification - rather they will rely on the traditional flagging system and have human ears/eyes "grade" the flagged video...
I would be amazed (from a professional standing) if they have anything halfway decent at doing this automatically... Put up or shut up - publish a few papers!
themilitantatheist 3 years ago
> and have human ears/eyes "grade" the flagged video...
If only they did it wouldn't be half as bad a mess. It's exactly because they think they can automate this that it's going to go horribly wrong. See the video I posted yesterday.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
You've got a valid point there, rozeboosje! On a sidenote: As soon as this demoting process has been fully implemented, we might as well have a little fun with it. For example record the deflation of a ballon and then right afterwards the chucking of wood - which would amount to....yeah right, FFFFFFFFFF-UCK! ;-)
thinkhardcore 3 years ago
lol
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Ik denk dat het tijd wordt om te verhuizen van video dienst...
ligthert 3 years ago
Misschien wel, ja. Een met een diverse gemeenschap, niet te veel controle, goede kwaliteit video en veel gemeenschaps gerichte functionaliteit.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Of je kan voor een gedecentraliseerde oplossing gaan waarbij iedereen zijn eigen video's maakt en beheerd op zijn ruimte op een webserver.
Als voorbeeld wil ik WordPress nemen waar je een netwerk van blogs kan vormen. Deze zijn decentraal georganiseerd, maar behouden toch onderling (dmv een protocol) goed contact. Updates krijg je op elkaars blog te zien.
Maar goed, dit is mijn 2 (euro)cent. Ik ga er vanuit dat een groep atheïsten zich op 1 (of 2) alternatieven op youtube stort en ik mee ga.
ligthert 3 years ago
I would rather teach a child (and adults) that there will always be wrong in this world rather than raise a socially inept human being totally unprepared for what is to come in life.
You are not always guaranteed success in this venture. If you don't at least make that effort, who do you have to blame when things go wrong?
TronixGuy93 3 years ago
Well stated! 3 Thumbs up!
TronixGuy93 3 years ago
I wonder if I can search for the least rated videos instead of the best.
magicpet 3 years ago
You were able to make your point without using any profanity or vulgar language. Too often people don't realize how vicius the language can seem. To me, the use of profanity has become so common that is really just annoying. Especially at work when grown men have to shout "F--K" at the top of their lungs whenever anything goes wrong. They sound ignorant and infantile.
pearmanator 3 years ago
I have never understood how limiting one's vocabularly makes one seem less ignorant and less infantile than someone who is willing to use all the words they know, even the "grown up words".
SouthernRaisedAtheis 3 years ago
When I have heard curse words they don't sound grown up. Mostly I hear grownups limiting themselves to one or two,
four-lettered-one syllable words. They are not using a full vocabulary. You made your point in your video with many words that did not have to include profanity. I'm not talking aboput limiting words I'm talking about choosing words that help you make a point without having to assault anyone. Just like you and I have in our discussion here.
pearmanator 3 years ago
Thats a cop out, the words umm, stuff, you know. Fill the exact same role as do many "vulgar" words.
What is this "shit"
What is this "stuff"
What it often amounts to is the prejudice of people based on where they were raised. Poor urban area's meaningless words are offensive.
willowtreephoto 3 years ago
FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK!!!!!!!!!
xXAkridXx 3 years ago
You won't even type the word fuck?
Do you have another problem with the word besides claiming the linguistic high-ground?
I rarely use "curse words", but I have no problem repeating them, or with the people that use them. It is a cultural thing.
"I need to shit"
"I need to poop"
Difference? very little. I let my 2 year old child hear whatever words are around. The only reason I would tell him not to use them, is to avoid having to debate every single person that hears it.
willowtreephoto 3 years ago
Personally I decided to stop cursing because I did not want my children to learn those words from me. Unfortunately in moments of anger those words have slipped out. I don't like curse words. My daughters are grown now and they both curse. That is their choice. Curse words don't add anything to my life or my ability to communicate. When I use them in anger it tends to make people around me very incomfortable and they tend to stop listening.
You are an adult, curse if you want to.
pearmanator 3 years ago
You're right I have decided not to say or type that word. I find that if I repeat it or refer to it it often slips out when I would rather not say it. Perhaps it is a cultural thing. If so it is a cultural thing that I have decided to go along with. My choice.
pearmanator 3 years ago
Infantile? "Fuck" is just a word. Depending on how you use it, it could be referring to sex, or just an expression of anger (or many other things). What makes use of it more 'infantile' than any other word? You've simply been conditioned to find it distasteful. _You're_ sounding ignorant and infantile.
jimztar 3 years ago
Now we've gotten to the level of name calling. I guess I wasn't clear often when I hear that word it is during a grown man's tantrum at work regarding a common mishap or the fact the task that he has been assigned is not as simple as he would like. That is infintile. The word is used so often and in so many contexts that it really means everything and therefore means nothing. Frankly I am just tired of hearing it and reading it.
pearmanator 3 years ago
Let's say we agreed that using such language is indeed infantile. Let's say we agreed that hearing it and reading it all the time is tiring. Let's say we all agree that we're fed up with it. I'm not quite there, but for the sake of argument, let's agree.
Should such videos then be demoted? Should such language be banned? Should such people be made to shut up? Is that your position? Then I disagree vehemently.
You don't like bad language? Use the "x" button. It really is as simple as that.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
I don't agree with censorship. I just don't like profanity. I understand that I am in the minority in my belief. I don't correct people when they curse. I don't even insist that my grown daughters not curse around me. I just don't join in. My non use of profanity seems to speak volumes at times. People often notice without having to announce that I don't curse.
pearmanator 3 years ago
Ah, then we're probably, if not on the same page, then not in different chapters either. I DO use profanity, I will readily admit to that, but I try not to do it too often. I have been using it more than usual lately, but the pendulum will swing the other way again.
I don't think anybody is opposed to this because they just want to swear freely. They just don't want to be censored IF they do. And I think you actually agree to that.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Are you as active arguing against gratuitous condemnation of human beings by Christians all over YouTube? Or are you just focusing on infantile use of the f-word?
rozeboosje 3 years ago
To tell the truth the title of your video caught my attention so I watched it. Then I thought I would offer up my two cents. I guess the focus of my two cents became teh infantile use of the f-word. I'm glad we could discuss this in a civil manner. I have much less civil discussions online than this one.
pearmanator 3 years ago
I would like you to watch my follow on video, "algorithmically demote THIS if you dare". Despite what the title may suggest, it's not a foam-at-the-mouth rant.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
> I have much less civil discussions online than this one.
So have I, and I'm no innocent [blush]; my mirror neurons are firing over time, and I usually respond in a similar vein to how I am approached. Some people are not aware, however, how insulting or despicable their on line behaviour is. Many a Christian has started tutting at me after I respond to them condemning me to eternal damnation with an unrestrained string of expletives (more ...)
rozeboosje 3 years ago
... what such folks don't seem to understand is that NOTHING I could say could even come close to them saying that another human being could actually be DESERVING of eternal suffering. A hundred million F-words couldn't begin to scratch the surface of that nugget of vileness.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Anyway. I digress. Sorry :-)
rozeboosje 3 years ago
I am well aware that many Christians don't act much like Christ. My closest dearest friends are not Christian. I have reconciled myself to that fact by remembering that their hypocracy does not affect the reality of God or of his son Jesus. There I said it.
pearmanator 3 years ago
Ooops I think I digresses as well.
pearmanator 3 years ago
> their hypocrisy
Beg pardon?
rozeboosje 3 years ago
I'm not sure what you are getting at. I am sure that you don't know me well enough. Here I thought we were having a friendly conversation.
pearmanator 3 years ago
Wait ... I think I misunderstood your comment. By "their hypocracy" I meant anyone who claims Christianity and yet speaks with cruelty. Jesus preached kindness and peace.
pearmanator 3 years ago
"their hypocracy..." I was refering to the fact that in church as any place else there are hypocrites. I continue to believe despite the fact that some Christians do not live up to their claims.
pearmanator 3 years ago
Yes, indeed. There are many different types of Christians. Most are kind, decent people. Some are fundamentalists who think it's Ok to go about condemning people.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Level of name-calling? The only 'names' I've called you were names you used to refer to people who swear. You wouldn't consider it childish if he called something innocuous like "damn", but for some reason the word "fuck" is childish. They mean the same thing in that context, but you're uncomfortable hearing 'profanity'.
jimztar 3 years ago
Sorry I guess that I over reacted. Actually I would find damn just as childish if it were in the context of an adult tantrum. If you have read some my other responses you would know that I have said that I hear grown men at work cursing over the slightest thing that goes wrong. To me (my opinion) curse words are like a verbal assault. Even when I use them.
pearmanator 3 years ago
A+ for this video bro.
Not surprisingly Jezuzfreek777 made a vid more or less supporting it. I just posted my own video and lets see if he accepts my responses. (doubtful)
bcj999 3 years ago
While I am totally against any form of censorship, I rarely watch any of the popular videos. I have a list of people that I subscribe to. Will these algorithms affect the videos that come up on my new videos by subscribed to list, or just the popular videos list? This is the question that has me really concerned.
xxxchaindrive 3 years ago
That's a VERY good question indeed.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
I find myself in this dilemma often, as I run websites/forums/groups. One has to be aware of the legal implications, also in context to a particular sites. I dislike moderating but find I cannot avoid this.
YouTube is no different in this, and as previously suggested by another comment here, there are many ways this could be achieved without causing "profanity demoting" of a video, including the right of individuals to free speech in a way that is cool, not negative or 'Big Bro' etcetera.
ziparmux 3 years ago
I know; but that is the problem. I've been a moderator too, and often the site managers just get lazy. They boil it down to "if there's a 'fuck' or a 'shit' or whatnot in the thread/video/or whatever then it's taken out". And that leads to all sorts of problems. Check out the video I just uploaded... once it's live.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Checked out the video and yes point well made, and I do not agree that video should be demoted using a mathematical algorithm (Left a comment there). Perhaps the simple and effective 'Flag' is sufficient so that children of a young age do not see this without parental permission.
ziparmux 3 years ago
In fact, have you seen VoicesInTheHead's recent videos on this topic?
I like the idea of self-regulation. We set our own flags, and YouTube can use this to plant the appropriate metadata in the HTML headers. That way parents can apply their browser's native parental control system, and YouTube doesn't need to put any controls in place other than allowing people to flag when the self-imposed rating wasn't applied correctly. Everybody wins.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
I read a nice aphorism, something like this:
"Lying starts when you say 'excrement' instead of 'shit'."
The view of profanity changes. A few hundred years ago the only profanity condemned was blasphemy. Foul language was mostly judged in the context of God, not in the context of sexuality and other bodily functions. How would a medieval Youtube look like?
lovasip 3 years ago
Rather funny I dare say. You would have the usual people doing silly stuff. And then of course the YouTube Christians. And then the live videos of people being burnt at the stake
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Re: "You fight it by confronting it head on and showing with reason and sense why it is unacceptable."
I 100% agree with that statement, but there are those amongst us who neither have any sense or are reasonable, and sites like this are dogged with the problem on how to deal with such individuals, because of their lack of intelligence and inability to reason.
YouTube and many other sites have to find a way to moderate such individuals, as they are unable to moderate themselves. Sad !
ziparmux 3 years ago
Sure, but the actual choice of words is not the real difference, is it? I see no difference, NONE whatsoever, between saying ""Hope your mother fucking Muslim arse and all your followers are all nuked and burn in hell, you Muslim scum bag fucking retard, the US rules...." and saying "If you don't take Jesus in your heart you deserve to suffer eternally after you die". If you accept that the utterer really believes what they are saying, the latter is actually worse than the former.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Re: rozeboosje
"Sure, but the actual choice of words......"
Yup for sure, but then it kinda takes us in a full circle, why use that kinda language/expression in the first place. It is socially unacceptable to many/few, not all, but isn't that the point. That is if you want to reach a larger audience that is socially acceptable then use language appropriately/properly to make your point.
I sometimes use profanities myself in a comment, usually out of exasperation in attempting to reason.
ziparmux 3 years ago
I agree with you to a point. When I see postings, when messages are bordering on hate speech which usually includes a string of profanities, then something needs to be done.
Profanities are a part (like it or not) of human interaction/communication. I do not think the outright ban on the use of such words, an example is Microsoft xBox forums, where even the word Hell is displayed as **** ! Should we protect children from reality? To a point yes, but that is a parents responsibility yes?
ziparmux 3 years ago
> when messages are bordering on hate speech
And who decides what is "hate speech"? What criteria are applied?
You don't fight hate speech by banning it. You fight it by confronting it head on and showing with reason and sense why it is unacceptable.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Hate speech is easily discerned by those intelligent amongst us.
When we see for example, a Muslim makes a comment, then we read a reply from a person. "Hope your mother fucking Muslim arse and all your followers are all nuked and burn in hell, you Muslim scum bag fucking retard, the US rules...." etcetera.
You get the idea and all of us read such comments.
That's hate speech. It is unacceptable behaviour of a member of our global society to make such comments.
ziparmux 3 years ago
Not just Islam
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Cheers
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Not attacking the thing but attacking the IMAGE of the thing. Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
WizardJim 3 years ago
C'est quite right
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Congrats.... You just described AMERICA :P
makaisenki 3 years ago
LOL
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Now they went and got rid of Bulletins. YouTube's Second most used feature for communication. I strongly believe their going to chase everyone to LiveVideo(dot)com.
wolfeedarkfang 3 years ago
The sooner there is a REALLY popular alternative to here, the better.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Agreed. I've been searching but nothing comes all that close without lacking in some department.
wolfeedarkfang 3 years ago
Lol, "ostentatiously?" You mean ostensibly
robshred66 3 years ago
No. I meant ostentatiously. Honestly. Really! It was a very subtle use o... ah fuck it. Yes. My bad. :P
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Unique and insightful, as always.
TreeStreetPraiser 3 years ago
Thank you
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Sounds like the same logic christians in particular apply to swearing.
"Yeah, I'll debate with you. But if you use the word 'fuck', the debate is over." My answer: "Fuck you."
Or, in other words: I agree completely.
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
> But if you use the word 'fuck', the debate is over.
Yeah. Like Saddam Hussein saying "stop cursing while I'm torturing you". Ridiculous.
rozeboosje 3 years ago
in your last vid I was thinking bout this point when you were saying bout the name calling VS the message..I agree
IraqIsWhack 3 years ago
Thanks
rozeboosje 3 years ago
I think that is HILARIOUS!!! once you go to middle school you start to hear 'strong' language, the child will eventually learn the words regardless of what the parent does. If someone wants to protect their child they should censor their internet activities or not even let them use the internet.
Purplegoddess656 3 years ago
Yeah, and then what sort of a person will such a child turn into when they grow up?
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Well the poor kid would be socially inept, but I was just saying that if the parent wants to be that inhospitable about it then the child has no business on the net anyway. There are things that are plenty worse on the net than 'curse words'.
Purplegoddess656 3 years ago
I'm wondering what Variablast will think of this new deal, who suggested people should change their name to "Fuck Censorship". He could be supporting it, no?
Censeo 3 years ago
LOL
rozeboosje 3 years ago
.. actually that is EXACTLY the mentality of MANY people.. and what they want to teach "our" children.
One of my co-workers had even suggested that when she hears a curse word, she automatically holds the belief they are stupid. And that swear words have "no place in a intelligent discussion"
thefakeyeti 3 years ago
Ask her to define "curse word"
rozeboosje 3 years ago
awesome point! great video!
jakluk4 3 years ago
Thank you
rozeboosje 3 years ago
You make a great point. Geez they are just words! It is the intent that can be offensive, or humorous or..
montaramike 3 years ago