I think it's something about recreating a likeness of a victim. A paid actor may look similar to a victim, but not exactly. Their image will evoke a totally different emotion from the victim's friends and family.
I'm pretty sure that's what the person you are replying to was commenting on.
If you're just continuing the discussion and talking about whether or not the policy is a good move on YouTube's part, fair enough. But it kind of reads like you're shifting the goal post.
My opinion is that I'm honestly not sure if it "matters" or not. YouTube has every right to make their content policies according to whatever drives them, be it business forces or their own values. As an adult consumer of YouTube I would personally prefer if there were a "as long as it is legal" policy, but I get why YouTube may have reasons to adopt different policies and it's not up to me. I recognize their right to do what they think is best with their business and product.
A paid actor may look similar to a victim, but not exactly. Their image will evoke a totally different emotion from the victim's friends and family.
In that specific case the digital recreation - if you can even call it that - was quite off and far from depicting what the real victim looked like. It would certainly have been possible to do an reenactment which more closely matched what the actual victim looked like. Therefore I think any argument along the lines that an exact digital recreation might evoke feelings that a reenactment could not does - at least in this specific case - not apply.
Otherwise I have really no opinion on the entire matter. Putting children into an oven is certainly in the range of things that you could find in horror movies. Context of course matters and also the presentation and intention and target audience, but I just do not know anything besides skimming three articles about this phenomenon to properly judge this.
or for that matter popular children's fairy tales
These things happen not only in horror movies. They happen today, in real life.
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/28/parent...
This is a hard thing to figure out. I'm against true crime repros that are disgusting and pandering, but that's completely personal and ambiguous.
You can make such videos all day long, but you would have to deliver them yourself, which is consistent with how free speech works in America.
They're "banned" on youtube, which many people would argue is a monopoly. Certainly banning specific types of content on the largest and most popular video platform will have a massive impact on how many people will ever see that kind of content
I don't think it's unreasonable to raise concerns about censorship on platforms that have a disproportionate impact on what most people will or won't see.
But it is unreasonable and against the core free market principles of our capitalist society for you to be too concerned about what I publish with my web site. I have a first amendment right and you can’t force me, my company, or my property to carry speech.
Which isn’t to say you can’t be concerned about lack of visibility for content that’s banned by big platforms. You can. You probably should! But compelled private speech is not the answer, which is why you will, for example, frequently get pushback against the idea that this is even censorship. (I’m pedantic, but not enough so to adopt that view).