One benefit of them having done that is I cannot possibly imagine giving a fuck if somebody says “fuck.” Context is what matters. Saying “fuck yeah dude!” in front of kids does absolutely no harm.
Learning about a word is not the same as using it appropriately. Swearing is fine, but there is a time and a place for it, and children are not well equipped to know when that is. And whether you agree with it or not, in most cultures, any kind of swearing by children in public is considered extremely rude and reflects poorly on the parents. The simplest solution is to teach children that yes, these words exist, and adults use them but children should not. That teaching is much easier when the parents limit exposure to swearing in media and other day-to-day life because children imitate what they are exposed to.
Swearing in isolation doesn't hurt anyone. There's much worse things that can be spoken. It's much healthier to encourage children to not conceal things around their parents. Teaching them to censor themselves is counter protective to an open, trusting dialogue.
Teaching them kids to behave publicly without resorting to profanities at every opportunity is the best thing a parent can teach their kids if the goal is to prepare them to enter professional life. It's about self-control, not censorship.
Any idea or opinion, even the most controversial ones, can be expressed without resorting to vulgarity.
It's anything but counter productive, quite the opposite.
If the price to pay is some random youtuber getting less ad revenue then it's a very small price.
That's irrelevant, that's about parents controlling what they kids can or cannot watch on family devices. I would not want my kids to watch any content with swearing. Inserting that footage was probably unnecessary for the purpose of that documentary at first place.
The fact that some youtuber gets less money from ads because one of his video was flagged as inappropriate is a non story.
I personally despise youtubers who fill their otherwise potentially interesting videos with cheap memes.
Anyway, sure he could do that. Youtube said he didn't need to, then punished him harshly for being well within the rules.
As far as possible standards go, he was very far inside the relevant rule.
I don't know why you would interpret "said he didn't need to" as "legally bound themselves to inaction in such a case".
> Abbreviated, censored, or light profanity (like “hell” or “damn”) in the title, thumbnail, or video.
People are just making up rules here.
> You can turn on ads for this content:
> Abbreviated, censored, or light profanity (like “hell” or “damn”) in the title, thumbnail, or video. Moderate profanity (like “shit” or “bitch”) used in the video. Infrequent usage of strong profanity (like the "f-word”) after the opening or up to twice in approx. the first 30 seconds of the video; or strong profanity in a music video.
There was one single burst of fucks. That's infrequent use of strong profanity.
The next category up, which is still the intermediate category for advertiser friendliness, is "Focal usage of strong profanity throughout a video (e.g. mentioned in every sentence)."
The first sentence is not "light profanity, and only light profanity, can be in these places".
The first sentence is "light profanity, ignoring other profanity, can be in these places".
The structure of the rule is "light profanity can do A, moderate profanity can do B, and strong profanity can do C".
The strong profanity in the video follows the strong profanity rules for being advertiser friendly.
And I have no idea what you mean by "label the video correctly". Are you talking about the fact that light profanity is allowed inside titles?
Edit: I grant that it’s not for young children, but can you really say it’s on the same level as Adults Only content because of this? Is it so bad that only 18+ year olds can handle how profane this is? The video shouldn’t show up on YouTube Kids, but this doesn’t warrant making it as restrictive as adults only.