YouTube removes 'gender identity' from hate speech policy
-
"you're not a leftist unless you have daddies money to support you wasting 100 hours on a 20m video." Certainly is... a take. But anyways, I'm not even talking about being leftist or not or whatever. I just mean, people. Period. It's not selfish to want to get paid for making something. People need money to live.
Are there content creators who fucking suck? Yes. But there's also ones that don't. They're allowed to make money.
you're not a leftist unless you have daddies money to support you wasting 100 hours on a 20m video.
I didn't say that, though. Clearly it's not worth engaging with you.
-
You are welcome to disagree and people are welcome to tell you off. That's how speech works. Or should we tip to around disagreeing with you?
Of course everyone is allowed to speak their mind. But being called names for not supporting a particular point of view sounds like hate speech to me, wouldn't you agree?
-
Sure, if your issue is that it's okay for corporations to remove protections for hate speech towards marginalized groups, then yes, go get bent. This kind of false equivalence between normalizing hate and ostraciszing progressives for speaking out against oppression is EXACTLY what we're fighting against. What in the hell is the 'rhetoric' do you disagree with? Have empathy for lgbtq+ people? Jesus. If so, this is definitely not the place for you.
Speaking about false equivalence, how did you came to the conclusion that just because I don't find a corporation removing gender stuff from their policies relevant from a technological stand point - makes me an LGBT hater? You seem to already have made your mind, you probably did assume that I'm a trump supporter who wanna see gays being hanged, even though I was saying that I expected more tech and less gender politics from this sub.
There are a lot of subs dedicated to LGBT, I came here for tech. Which sub would in your opinion be more appropriate for tech talk if not this one?
-
Do you think the same thing about people who work for basically any company? Because they are way more directly responsible for the actions of their corporation than the average person that makes 50k a year between AdSense and sponsors.
No, my point specifically relates to creative work. You said in your comment:
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.
This is false, basically. They can do other types of work. Creative work can be done without making money for it. Plenty of people have a day job and make creative work in their free time. The same option is not available for most other types of work, such as government, doctors, lawyers, etc. If you try to do these types of jobs outside of the framework of a regulated business, you'll get the book thrown at you.
The issue I'm getting at isn't "are you responsible for the actions you take to make a living". Rather, I'm getting at the issue of "does creative work require becoming an employee of a capitalist company, thereby siding with its shareholders in having a vested interest in increasing that company's profits regardless of the societal damage caused?"
The answer to that question is a resounding "no". Creatives need to grow a spine and get a day job.
-
No, my point specifically relates to creative work. You said in your comment:
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.
This is false, basically. They can do other types of work. Creative work can be done without making money for it. Plenty of people have a day job and make creative work in their free time. The same option is not available for most other types of work, such as government, doctors, lawyers, etc. If you try to do these types of jobs outside of the framework of a regulated business, you'll get the book thrown at you.
The issue I'm getting at isn't "are you responsible for the actions you take to make a living". Rather, I'm getting at the issue of "does creative work require becoming an employee of a capitalist company, thereby siding with its shareholders in having a vested interest in increasing that company's profits regardless of the societal damage caused?"
The answer to that question is a resounding "no". Creatives need to grow a spine and get a day job.
Why specifically creatives? There are so many other professions that are more important to someones everyday life and no one seems to hold the same vitriol at them valuing their time that people do for creatives. I don't see people suggesting that nurses get a day job and do nursing on the side.
-
More proof Rainbow Capitalism was a lie/ad campaign to take more money from queers.
I wish I could rub this in the face of every cishet who said Rainbow Capitalism was actual progress.
Haha absolutely, I'm also one of the people who always said all this rainbow and green washing is bullshit. As if they ever cared for anything.
Capitalism has no values, except for one: shareholder value. Yesterday they help sending people to concentration camps, today they help saving the world and increasing diversity, yeah, totally convincing.
There is one thing to rely on with capitalism - if you convince people you can make good money with it or it is good for the brand, they will jump onto it and squeeze the shit out of it. An abstract, amoral force, made from a large number of concrete shitty people.
-
Stop using youtube.
No, I won't.
-
Idk what to tell you man, I was just saying it would be cool if more people made a personal Peertube. Didn't say everyone and their mother needed to make one, just that it would be nice if as many people as possible could make one. Again, I get that it can be hard, or not possible for most people, but if more people could make one, and made one, that would be cool.
And I agree wholeheartedly. I'm just saying, that the idea of replacing YouTube with something federated fails due to lack of upload speeds, as cool as it would be. Still, having it even just as a small scale alternative would be cool
-
Of course everyone is allowed to speak their mind. But being called names for not supporting a particular point of view sounds like hate speech to me, wouldn't you agree?
abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or most importantly against people who have just the worst takes.
Hmmm, checks out. I guess the technology platform, YouTube, should get right on that after they straighten out this horrible policy change.
-
PeerTube isn’t bad, it just has no content
It seems so difficult to use though
-
Man this whole anticipatory compliance with the fascist regime shit is fucking awful
It's like Roko's Basilisk playing out in real time, except instead of building a malignant computer out of fear it's accelerating a fascist takeover.
-
No, but I think most of the people on Lemmy should know better than that.
Looks at Hexbear, .ml, and to some extent Blahaj
Oh, who am I kidding.
Yeah its quite echo chambery here
-
More proof Rainbow Capitalism was a lie/ad campaign to take more money from queers.
I wish I could rub this in the face of every cishet who said Rainbow Capitalism was actual progress.
(For reference: I am cishet, but have family & friends in the LGBTQ+ community and consider myself an ally.) Usually just lurk, but I feel you so badly.
I've been saying it forever as well. They're spending millions, to specifically target/advertise/appeal to the community... out of the goodness of their hearts? Right.
Then as soon as its "over", the facade drops and its on to the next big event/target market. Rinse and repeat.
-
Sure, you can't always separate the technology from the politics, my issue was that this is what most posts around here are about. I took a look and most content comes a few accounts, and it's always about the "nazi this" and "fascist that". Is that really only thing that happens in the tech space, what Musk said and what YouTube changed in their policy?
Most of the top feed I see is against AI
-
More proof Rainbow Capitalism was a lie/ad campaign to take more money from queers.
I wish I could rub this in the face of every cishet who said Rainbow Capitalism was actual progress.
I mean, in the past companies wouldn't be caught dead associating with LGBTQ+ people, let alone take their money. Now LGBTQ+ is acceptable enough for predatory advertising so...idk progress from like a fucked up capitalist perspective I guess?
-
Speaking about false equivalence, how did you came to the conclusion that just because I don't find a corporation removing gender stuff from their policies relevant from a technological stand point - makes me an LGBT hater? You seem to already have made your mind, you probably did assume that I'm a trump supporter who wanna see gays being hanged, even though I was saying that I expected more tech and less gender politics from this sub.
There are a lot of subs dedicated to LGBT, I came here for tech. Which sub would in your opinion be more appropriate for tech talk if not this one?
When big Tech, especially the biggest video platform in the world, does something lile this it is relevant to tech. The better question is, if you do support lgbtq+ people, why the public freakout about mentioning a far reaching tech policy, by one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) tech companies against them on a tech sub?
-
So, sundar pinchai can be added to the list of CEOs that suck?
Because a lot of the time, it's weird that when the company does nasty shit, nobody names him as the head asshole in charge the way that other companies and ceos get handled.
The dude has been in the driver's seat for pretty much every major deterioration of Google/alphabet for years.
it’s weird that when the company does nasty shit, nobody names him as the head asshole in charge the way that other companies and ceos get handled.
hard to remember name (for americans, europeans, or at least me) i assume
compare that to "Spez" which is very, very easy to remember and plaster around as the one evil to blame for a systems behavior -
It's almost impressive how quickly the whole of the business world capitulated to Donald Trump.
They didn't capitulate. They never fought. They just did what was the best shot at earning money and gaining ground at the time.
Don't ever expect moral based behavior in capitalism or geopolitics.
-
It's always a question of money. It costs money to make quality content. YouTube has content because they share ad revenue to their content providers. That expands the more popular the content is because there are more ads displayed. That revenue lets the creators expand their capabilities with better gear and stage sets. Federated networks usually depend initially on volunteers and alternative ways of earning revenue for those instances besides ads.
Tbh money could be the initiative. So many content creators nowadays have platforms beside YouTube. If a federated alternative would come up, they could just set up an own server and keep all the earnings.
This would somehow need to get started though. No idea how.
-
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's because some people don't actually support workers, especially creative workers, regardless or their political identity.
