YouTube removes 'gender identity' from hate speech policy
-
This post did not contain any content.
Man this whole anticipatory compliance with the fascist regime shit is fucking awful
-
I will never understand people who identify as leftist that refuse to understand that under our current economic model people require money to survive and if they do not get money for doing their creative work they might not be able to continue making that work.
It is not selfish to want to be payed for working on something like a video that in some cases takes hundreds of man hours of work to complete. There is a reason that the quality of content available on youtube has gone up massively. Say what you want about the writing but there is no way that something like helluva boss could ever have been made entirely online before youtube.
It is not selfish to want to be payed for working on something like a video that in some cases takes hundreds of man hours of work to complete
Yes, it is, if your desire to get paid causes you to remain on corporate-controlled social media, to the detriment of society.
Not to mention, plenty of people can and do put hundreds of hours of work into projects that they don't ask for payment for.
"Content creators" who get paid through advertisements are class traitors whose interests are aligned with the capitalist class. They will fuck over society to make a buck for themselves.
-
While I hate Google, this seems like one of those much ados over nothing. They specifically mention 'sex, gender, or sexual orientation', which to most reasonable people would cover gender identity.
"Gender" means nothing without context. By a MAGAs definition of gender this policy doesn't protect trans people, for example. We don't know how this rule will be interpreted in practice. Even if you don't consider the intent behind making this change, this is objectively a weaker guarantee of protection than what we had with "gender identity and expression".
-
"Gender" means nothing without context. By a MAGAs definition of gender this policy doesn't protect trans people, for example. We don't know how this rule will be interpreted in practice. Even if you don't consider the intent behind making this change, this is objectively a weaker guarantee of protection than what we had with "gender identity and expression".
This is not a legal contract, it's a general guideline for users about what is or isn't acceptable. The intent and spirit of the terms are clear, the only question is whether Google will enforce them not. If the enforcement is crappy, like what Facebook is famous for, it doesn't matter a damn what exact terminology they use in the guidelines.
-
While I hate Google, this seems like one of those much ados over nothing. They specifically mention 'sex, gender, or sexual orientation', which to most reasonable people would cover gender identity.
What matters is how this affects enforcement.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
Lots of popular Youtubers are already there, and they strip the sponsor segments out of their content too.
I refuse to support them after they kicked Second Thought off the platform for supporting Palestinians over the GDF
-
Most of them are literally Nazis. Anytime I go to youtube and finish a video all the suggested videos to watch after are obscene "anti-woke" trash.
The youtube to right-wing pipeline is real.
-
Still not that great, I rely on the companion to redirect me to channels through YouTube.
Yeah best we have right now is subscribing to the lemmy/piefed communities like /c/peertube and seeing what you like. For better or for worse, there is no algorithm. Moreso in peertube than others.
-
This post did not contain any content.
It's almost impressive how quickly the whole of the business world capitulated to Donald Trump.
-
Man this whole anticipatory compliance with the fascist regime shit is fucking awful
Welcome to how the world has always worked and always will. There's gin to help wash the black pill down.
-
I'm not in favor of YouTube, but what exactly missing here?
 -
What matters is how this affects enforcement.
It doesn't. It's not like this page gets used internally. They have their own internal guidelines for that.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
It's time to boycott Google as well now hu? Already ditched their search engine and moved to kagi
Boycotts are performative stunts that feel good but don't have impact on companies and even gets more attention ON those companies.
No really, this is a phenomenon that's known. When people were protesting Blizzard, I swear to fucking god, people I knew for years who hadn't played WoW since they were kids suddenly decided to reactivate their accounts because all the talk about blizzard "made them nostalgic" and despite being sympathetic to the people hurt by the company, they simply didn't have the mental value-system to draw lines between those two things. Their own desires to escape and recapture youth was far, far stronger than the social messaging they honestly just felt was finger-wagging and parental scolding, so they rejected the idea of protesting without conscious thought.
If we put that much energy into volunteering with groups raising funds for primaries, getting to know our neighbors and forming communities, we would abolish this fascist empire in a single election cycle. (Assuming we have elections again.)
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
Boycotts are performative stunts that feel good but don't have impact on companies and even gets more attention ON those companies.
No really, this is a phenomenon that's known. When people were protesting Blizzard, I swear to fucking god, people I knew for years who hadn't played WoW since they were kids suddenly decided to reactivate their accounts because all the talk about blizzard "made them nostalgic" and despite being sympathetic to the people hurt by the company, they simply didn't have the mental value-system to draw lines between those two things. Their own desires to escape and recapture youth was far, far stronger than the social messaging they honestly just felt was finger-wagging and parental scolding, so they rejected the idea of protesting without conscious thought.
If we put that much energy into volunteering with groups raising funds for primaries, getting to know our neighbors and forming communities, we would abolish this fascist empire in a single election cycle. (Assuming we have elections again.)
Boycotts are performative stunts that feel good but don’t have impact on companies and even gets more attention ON those companies.
No they aren't? People just haven't actually been pissed off enough to actually wield the weapon of "ok, fine, now I will not buy ANYTHING from you".
Boycotts most definitely work, Tesla's stock is plummeting, and one of the major reasons is an aggressive and enthusiastic boycott of buying Telsas (also they suck).
This isn't to say in any given situation a boycott is the best strategy to use, or that your organizing energy isn't better spent elsewhere, but don't dismiss boycotts when we are seeing one of the most effective high profile ones in recent memeory be VERY successful.
-
Boycotts are performative stunts that feel good but don’t have impact on companies and even gets more attention ON those companies.
No they aren't? People just haven't actually been pissed off enough to actually wield the weapon of "ok, fine, now I will not buy ANYTHING from you".
Boycotts most definitely work, Tesla's stock is plummeting, and one of the major reasons is an aggressive and enthusiastic boycott of buying Telsas (also they suck).
This isn't to say in any given situation a boycott is the best strategy to use, or that your organizing energy isn't better spent elsewhere, but don't dismiss boycotts when we are seeing one of the most effective high profile ones in recent memeory be VERY successful.
Strikes do a lot more damage to companies. I think a lot of people mix the two ideas up.
The last most successful boycotts were mostly ones you never heard of, and at least one you rather not hear of. We managed to get tuna companies to pretend to harm fewer dolphins in 1988. Before that is was things like the 1965 Delano Grape Strike and the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott. The most recent boycott that actually got a company to change its marketing and outreach was the Bud Lite/Dylan Mulvaney boycott by the anti-trans right.
If you think you can get enough people as worked up about an issue as the chuds were about a single commercial featuring someone they were scared of, then by all means let's fire up all the engines and get boycotting. Otherwise, I would encourage people who work at these tech companies to start talking about unions and making change from the inside. But none of that does as much damage to a company as getting politicians installed who are already taking bribes from other companies. Yes this is a dark perspective, you're welcome to disagree but in my nearly five decades on Earth this is just what I've seen over and over.
-
Why can you not give me a straight answer?
I'll say this.
When I weigh the choice of handing over my personal videos to a company that is explicitly and actively going to use them to:
- train and improve their massive corporate AI tools
- develop their targeted ad platform (which is their real product)
- build a comprehensive profile about me and my family
Or
Putting a NAS at a friends house, or paying a couple bucks a month for some block storage.
I end up preferring the second set of options. It's fine if you don't, but don't pretend you have no idea that your personal videos and information are valuable to Google.
-
I wonder if Tim Cook is there too. It would make sense for him and Apple to resist this at least somehow but...
Tim Cook is just as fucking evil as the rest of them.
