Hacker News Reader

Comment by throw_m239339 | Hacker News Reader

> To be restricted to 18+? If your kid goes to public school they learn these words in 1st grade.

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.

View on HN

Summoning Salt does not include any memes in their videos. The footage that included the profanities was of a speedrunner celebrating that they had just broken the world record. This sort of footage is important for his documentaries because their whole purpose is in showing who were the key participants in the speedrunning communities for the game the video is about. You can’t do that nearly as well if you don’t actually show the speedruns.

You can bleep the swear words out, or mute them and put some funny content over it.

I like how fast this thread went from a complaint about cheap memes to a call to cover the swearing with "some funny content".

Anyway, sure he could do that. Youtube said he didn't need to, then punished him harshly for being well within the rules.

YouTube didn't say he didn't need to. Show me in the terms of service where it says that as long as they follow specific guidelines that they don't reserve the right to flag or remove content.

That's an impossible standard. Why are you demanding that?

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".

He wasn't even in the rule though. The rule states:

> Abbreviated, censored, or light profanity (like “hell” or “damn”) in the title, thumbnail, or video.

People are just making up rules here.

You accidentally only got the first third of the rule?

> 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)."

So that still breaks the first section and I don't think they are claiming the second section applies here as you'd need to label the video correctly.

It does not break the first section.

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?

No, I'm talking about monetizing the video. And the strong profanity rule was not followed. I think you need to reread it.

One three second burst per entire hour is infrequent.

SummoningSalt is a documentarian and it seems entirely reasonable to show the footage unaltered. Especially considering the context and the how little was actually shown.

Then that is why it is flagged as adult content.

My problem is, six rapid f bombs in the span of 3 seconds as celebration of winning a speed run just does not warrant an adult rating.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com