# YouTube Block LGBT+ Content with New "Restricted Mode" Feature



## Bowie (Mar 19, 2017)

YouTube have unveiled a new "Restricted Mode" feature which intends to keep inappropriate content away from children and anyone who may be offended by it in general.

Among the type of videos included in the filter are all of Lady Gaga's music videos, many of David Bowie's, Rihanna's, Beyonc?'s, etc., and also many LGBT+ content creators. Pretty much any remotely "gay" thing you can imagine has been blocked under the new system.

Obviously, the content is still accessible with the mode turned off, but people have been rightfully going crazy about it on social media. Thoughts? (I'm sure mine are pretty obvious.)​


----------



## opalskiies (Mar 19, 2017)

oh no!!!!!! gay people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i can't believe I LOOKED AT ONE! I WILL NEVER BE THE SAME AGAIN!!!!!!


----------



## Xerolin (Mar 19, 2017)

gosh whatever will we do


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 19, 2017)

Wow @.@ - they are targeting the content rather than the comments, really?? Holy guacamole.

I found this article that explains what's happening : http://gizmodo.com/youtubes-restricted-mode-is-hiding-some-lgbt-content-1793382337 : 

The video [shown in article] is among those that is hidden in restricted mode, and Gizmodo verified that other channels had LGBT-related videos that disappeared on restricted mode. *Other restricted videos include a video of a lesbian couple reading each other their wedding vows.*

Ellis told Gizmodo that while she doesn’t know why this is happening, it’s troubling regardless, because it implies “*there is a bias somewhere within that process equating LGBTQ+ with ‘not family friendly.*’” Regardless of “how innocent or unintentional the ‘hows’ or ‘whys’ are, the effects cannot be ignored,” she added.

According to Rowan Ellis, the fact that innocuous LGBT videos are being hidden is troubling, because it implies there’s something inherently offensive about being LGBT. “*Videos about LGBTQ+ life, love, history, friendships etc are no more inappropriate than videos with straight couples or telling the history of straight figures*,” she told Gizmodo. “*Yet they are apparently being treated differently.*”

And :

While the [google] spokesperson noted that the feature is fully optional, the feature’s own help page warns that “*Computers in libraries, universities, and other public institutions may have Restricted Mode enabled by the system administrator.*” That could pose a problem for kids whose main access to the internet is through computers at school.

*headdesk*


----------



## DarkDesertFox (Mar 19, 2017)

So? Maybe parents don't want their kids to be exposed to that kind of thing. Just keep it off if it bugs you.


----------



## Ichiban (Mar 19, 2017)

Welcome to the internet, where nothing is perfect.


----------



## opalskiies (Mar 19, 2017)

DarkDesertFox said:


> So? Maybe parents don't want their kids to be exposed to that kind of thing. Just keep it off if it bugs you.



parents don't want their kids exposed to normal love? lmao

- - - Post Merge - - -

i mean, i get the intense, sexual LGBT videos (Anything sexual should be censored for kids), but like... lesbians reading wedding vows? really? why should kids not see something as simple and sweet as _that_


----------



## Ichiban (Mar 19, 2017)

opalskiies said:


> parents don't want their kids exposed to normal love? lmao



Wouldn't shock me, especially since Christianity is still a big thing.


----------



## boujee (Mar 19, 2017)

opalskiies said:


> parents don't want their kids exposed to normal love? lmao
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> i mean, i get the intense, sexual LGBT videos (Anything sexual should be censored for kids), but like... lesbians reading wedding vows? really? why should kids not see something as simple and sweet as _that_



why would a kid look up lesbians reading wedding vows?


----------



## Rasha (Mar 19, 2017)

ah youtube going crazy again, it's getting old


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 19, 2017)

FreeHelium said:


> Wouldn't shock me, especially since Christianity is still a big thing.



The practising Christians I know personally (who are not fundamentalists* aka extremists) are actually actively campaigning for LGTBQIA+ rights including - especially - to marry. There are Christian extremists in Australia, but they are not the majority (albeit too many of them are currently politicians in government).

*I've met people who hold those beliefs, but as a very active advocate for LGBTQIA+ rights, as well as being an early childhood educator (who has vast experience in working with all kinds of families) I'm less likely to have random people start talking to me about how *those people* don't deserve to get married/hold hands in public/be treated as equals/exist. Outside of specific events to doscuss these issues I've only heard very occasional, random commentary along those lines. I'm lucky to be a part of such an open-minded and aware community.


----------



## Ichiban (Mar 19, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> The practising Christians I know personally (who are not fundamentalists aka extremists) are actually actively campaigning for LGTBQIA+ rights including - especially - to marry. There are Christian extremists in Australia, but they are not the majority (albeit too many of them are currently politicians in government).


Keep in mind the large amount of Christian "extremists" in the midwestern US


----------



## DarkDesertFox (Mar 19, 2017)

opalskiies said:


> parents don't want their kids exposed to normal love? lmao
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> i mean, i get the intense, sexual LGBT videos (Anything sexual should be censored for kids), but like... lesbians reading wedding vows? really? why should kids not see something as simple and sweet as _that_



Hate to burst your bubble, but not everyone sees that as "normal" love. Welcome to the real world.


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 19, 2017)

FreeHelium said:


> Keep in mind the large amount of Christian "extremists" in the midwestern US



Ya, that's certainly important to keep in mind. It's bizarre to me how so many Americans seemingly see no conflict with demanding so much freedom of speech and self determination (ability to have religon in schools, less taxes, et al), and yet insist upon trying to censor so much for everyone (other religons, LGBTQIA+, et al). The cognitive dissonance just baffles me.


----------



## Ichiban (Mar 19, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> Ya, that's certainly important to keep in mind. It's bizarre to me how so many Americans seemingly see no conflict with demanding so much freedom of speech and self determination (ability to have religon in schools, less taxes, et al), and yet insist upon trying to censor so much for everyone (other religons, LGBTQIA+, et al). The cognitive dissonance just baffles me.



People just don't like change i guess


----------



## Corrie (Mar 19, 2017)

What the actual ****...


----------



## Soigne (Mar 19, 2017)

i hope christian videos are next i would hate for my child to be exposed to those


----------



## DarkDesertFox (Mar 19, 2017)

Roh said:


> i hope christian videos are next i would hate for my child to be exposed to those



Funny thing is if that did happen there would be no outcry. It's only when the LGBT+ is affected when it's actually newsworthy to the media.


----------



## Ichiban (Mar 19, 2017)

DarkDesertFox said:


> Funny thing is if that did happen there would be no outcry. It's only when the LGBT+ is affected when it's actually newsworthy to the media.



Yet 3 years ago nobody cared. Strange.


----------



## Mink777 (Mar 19, 2017)

I smell an argument coming...


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 19, 2017)

DarkDesertFox said:


> Hate to burst your bubble, but not everyone sees that as "normal" love. Welcome to the real world.



In this real world of ours, there are indeed people who can't/won't accept that gay etc love is normal. There also many, many people who see that love as completely normal - and the numbers for the latter group are growing, as acceptance and understanding of the LGBTQIA+ community continues to grow.

In the real world, you get to live your own live as you please within the bounds of your circumstances and societal norms and laws. Generally speaking, your freedom *stops* when it impacts another person, just as their freedom ends when it impacts you.

A private company choosing to implement a censorship system which disproportionately targets LGBTQIA+ content on the world's biggest video sharing platform is a big deal in the real world.

The biggest problem I have with this "restricted" mode is that such modes are the default used in educational and public settings. Schools and libraries routinely activate any "safe mode" settings in order to restrict inappropriate or questionable content (for liability as well as duty-of-care reasons). I have worked in these settings nd the impact for this youtube restriction mode is going to be significant.

I think it's a terrible shame that there are people in 2017 that don't believe this love is "normal". That is their choice to remain ignorant (which is not an insult, just an assessment). I disagree adamantly with the idea that society in general should tolerate those beliefs, regardless of the religion involved.


----------



## Bowie (Mar 19, 2017)

I think by saying "this could be offensive to somebody, so let's make it optional to keep away from it" is a way of condoning prejudice. People should be discouraged from thinking that it's wrong to fall in love with people. Love is a beautiful thing, and I think everyone can agree that we need it more than ever in the world we live in today.

Sex and violence and drug abuse? Put that in there. But don't generalise a whole community just because you're worried you'll see a guy kissing a guy or a girl kissing a girl and it's going to make you cry or something. Grow up for a start.


----------



## Twisterheart (Mar 19, 2017)

I don't know if this is true or not, but I heard that youtube is trying to make the site more """kid friendly""" so they are setting up all channels in "age groups". So like for example, someone like Pewdiepie would be in an older age group because he's considered offensive, but those toy channels would be a lower age group for like little kids. And then they are planning on blocking channels based on your age group. So like a 10 year old won't be able to view videos in a higher age group or even see the videos in suggested. They'd only be able to see videos in the 10 years old age group.

I don't know if this is true, but if it is maybe this is a part of it.


----------



## keef_kogane (Mar 19, 2017)

All of this is getting old.  Worldwide acceptance is all the LGBT+ community wants.  I will say that YouTube hasn't been the best with acceptance and being fair to everyone.  It would be ridiculous to say that I was surprised.


----------



## Twisterheart (Mar 19, 2017)

Okay, so I'm confused. I just went onto youtube (I don't have an account, so keep that in mind) and I searched up several of the videos that are supposedly blocked and none of them are age restricted at all. Does this only apply to people with accounts or what?


----------



## Bowie (Mar 19, 2017)

Twisterheart said:


> Okay, so I'm confused. I just went onto youtube (I don't have an account, so keep that in mind) and I searched up several of the videos that are supposedly blocked and none of them are age restricted at all. Does this only apply to people with accounts or what?



You have to go down to the very bottom of the screen and turn the mode on. The videos will simply not come up in the search results once you have turned it on.


----------



## tumut (Mar 19, 2017)

too beautiful for heterosexual eyes


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 19, 2017)

Daddie said:


> why would a kid look up lesbians reading wedding vows?



I can think of many reasons (for the sake of argument I'm assuming the child is old enough to read enough to type a search query, so around 8 is the youngest without assistance) :

- it may appear as a recommendation based on other videos watched and searches made, just like anything else can.

- their parents or other family members/friends are getting married and they are looking into different types of ceremonies.

- their parents and/or family member/friend is gay or lesbian and they are curious about what a wedding might look like for them.

- they themselves are gay etc and want to see if "people like them" can do normal grown up stuff like get married.

- research for homework on different types of families, celebrations, minorities, societal changes and trends - or anything related to those topics.

My concern is not *why* a child would be looking at content that gets them to this video. I'm not even concerned with those children whose access to such videos is already restricted due to parental choice (well, I am, but that's irrelevant to this topic). My concern is : *why not* allow this video to be freely available for a child to see just as the equivalent male-and-female ceremonies are? On what basis does the company think imposing this restriction on our children is a reasonable thing to do in our global society?


----------



## seliph (Mar 19, 2017)

DarkDesertFox said:


> Hate to burst your bubble, but not everyone sees that as "normal" love. Welcome to the real world.



Ok but it is. Hate to burst your bubble but gay people don't love any differently than straight people and shouldn't be censored because some ignorant buttholes can't accept that. Welcome to the real world.


----------



## boujee (Mar 19, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> I can think of many reasons (for the sake of argument I'm assuming the child is old enough to read enough to type a search query, so around 8 is the youngest without assistance) :
> 
> - it may appear as a recommendation based on other videos watched and searches made, just like anything else can.
> 
> ...



what actual child will still do this tho
all my nephew cares about is review videos of toys


----------



## N e s s (Mar 19, 2017)

not in my christian youtube, block all gay content!!!

(kidding, of course.)


----------



## oath2order (Mar 19, 2017)

DarkDesertFox said:


> Hate to burst your bubble, but not everyone sees that as "normal" love. Welcome to the real world.



News flash: If you don't see it as normal love, you're a douche. Just sayin'.



DarkDesertFox said:


> Funny thing is if that did happen there would be no outcry. It's only when the LGBT+ is affected when it's actually newsworthy to the media.



Oh you mean like how Christians piss and moan about how there's a "war on Christmas" or how "muslims are taking over!" or how everything that involves equal rights is somehow an "attack on their faith"?



Daddie said:


> what actual child will still do this tho
> all my nephew cares about is review videos of toys



There's estimated to be about 74 million children in the US and 21 million of those are under 5.

A ****-ton of those are going to only care about toy review videos but some will look this stuff up.


----------



## seliph (Mar 19, 2017)

Ok I said to myself to just leave it at that little reply but the "Parents don't want their kids exposed to this _kind of thing_" is rubbing me in a Real Bad Way.

Wording it as "that sort of thing" as if it's something inhuman and alien aside, do you not realize that kids are LGBT too? Being LGBT isn't something that solely happens during adulthood or middle-late teenage years. Do you know how damaging and dangerous it is to keep LGBT kids from LGBT media? It's freaking horrifying. You grow up thinking you're messed up or broken or that your brain is deficient or something and then you hate yourself for years. It's cruel.


----------



## keef_kogane (Mar 19, 2017)

Daddie said:


> what actual child will still do this tho
> all my nephew cares about is review videos of toys



Not every child has the same mindset as your nephew.  Children are super curious.  Just because you have children in your life that wouldn't look/haven't looked anything like that up doesn't mean all children are the same.


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 19, 2017)

Daddie said:


> what actual child will still do this tho
> all my nephew cares about is review videos of toys



I can think of 6 children that age or older that I know who would do this, just off the top of my head. If I included the ones who would have reasonable homework (so, all the kids aged 8+ I know, as even the private and religious schools I know of would cover these issues even if indirectly).. I dunno, 50+ kids, probably more, that I know directly. This kind of video would be usable in so many subjects, and for so many assignments, I honestly can't think of a child I know who would *not* be exposed to this or similar content. Our school curriculum has many faults, but inclusion and diversity education is one thing we tend to do well.

Of course there are children who would never go looking for anything like this. But I think you're vastly underestimating the general curiousity and thirst for knowledge that children inherently have if you think a child would never go looking for a video like this.


----------



## boujee (Mar 19, 2017)

when i was little i didn't feel alienate cause literally every other kid i met on the internet was "bisexual XD"


----------



## seliph (Mar 19, 2017)

Daddie said:


> when i was little i didn't feel alienate cause literally every other kid i met on the internet was "bisexual XD"



Cool! If only the whole entire world related to your personal experiences!


----------



## boujee (Mar 19, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> I can think of 6 children that age or older that I know who would do this, just off the top of my head. If I included the ones who would have reasonable homework (so, all the kids aged 8+ I know, as even the private and religious schools I know of would cover these issues).. I dunno, 50+ kids, probably more, that I know directly. This kind of video would be usable in so many subjects, and for so assignments, I honestly can't think of a child I know who would *not* be exposed to this or similar content. Our school curriculum has many faults, but inclusion and diversity education is one thing we tend to do well.
> 
> Of course there are children who would never go looking for anything like this. But I think you're vastly underestimating the general curiousity and thirst for knowledge that children have if you think a child would never go looking for a video like this.



im not sitting here denying that children won't look up anything

- - - Post Merge - - -



gyro said:


> Cool! If only the whole entire world related to your personal experiences!



HA! What are you referencing to?

- - - Post Merge - - -



keef_kogane said:


> Not every child has the same mindset as your nephew.  Children are super curious.  Just because you have children in your life that wouldn't look/haven't looked anything like that up doesn't mean all children are the same.



I know that lmao


----------



## keef_kogane (Mar 19, 2017)

Daddie said:


> when i was little i didn't feel alienate cause literally every other kid i met on the internet was "bisexual XD"



There are times where personal experiences can really help you look at things, but there are other times where you have to think outside of what you have experienced.


----------



## boujee (Mar 19, 2017)

keef_kogane said:


> There are times where personal experiences can really help you look at things, but there are other times where you have to think outside of what you have experienced.



why would I do that


----------



## Mink777 (Mar 19, 2017)

I think that this is an important topic, and nowadays parents should always encourage their kids to be open about anything. But really, should kids even be allowed on YouTube in the first place?


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 19, 2017)

Daddie said:


> im not sitting here denying that children won't look up anything
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> ...



Then I apologise for misunderstanding your comments (particularly the quoted one). It read to me as though you were genuinely sitting there denying that children would look up this video or it's ilk. My reply was written on the premise.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Mar 19, 2017)

Wow, another screw-up of Youtube's.

First, they have turned into copyright police, taking down videos left and right containing content that they deem "copyrighted", even when it's partial or fanart and not the whole thing. Though I would blame Viacom for making Youtube do this for being overprotective of what they own.

Then they add this restricted mode to block LGBT content if people don't like it. I understand on the hardcore content, but on safe content involving homosexuality, really? They're putting a filter that encourages discrimination, not discourage it.


----------



## tumut (Mar 19, 2017)

DarkDesertFox said:


> Hate to burst your bubble, but not everyone sees that as "normal" love. Welcome to the real world.


HOMOSEXUAL LOVE? 


D:





Spoiler



*ZOO WEE MAMA*


----------



## DarkDesertFox (Mar 19, 2017)

Here come the SJWs! The anger in these responses is so apparent.


----------



## tumut (Mar 19, 2017)

DarkDesertFox said:


> Funny thing is if that did happen there would be no outcry. It's only when the LGBT+ is affected when it's actually newsworthy to the media.


UMMMM THERE ARE WAY MORE CHRISTIANS THAN GAYS LMFAO 

TRY AGAIN

- - - Post Merge - - -



DarkDesertFox said:


> Here come the SJWs! The anger in these responses is so apparent.


those darn sjws...


----------



## boujee (Mar 19, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> Then I apologise for misunderstanding your comments (particularly the quoted one). It read to me as though you were genuinely sitting there denying that children would look up this video or it's ilk. My reply was written on the premise.



No need to apologize lmao. I'm not that close-minded to think that every child is my nephew. I was more on the line thinking why would they still looking up LBGT weddings base off your reasonings. I was thinking if a kid were to find out that sucha such was going to get marry regardless of that person's sexuality, they wouldn't care. Kids are more on the line of finding love etc gross. 
Now if their guardians were like, homophobic, I can see the curioisity of venturing out more information. But I also see that to be alientating itself cause it's normal to love somebody and typing in "LESBIAN WEDDING" make it seem like it's entirely different than a heterosexual marriage. Like as if they have to act a certain way to attend a LBGT wedding than a heterosexual marriage.


----------



## Dogemon (Mar 19, 2017)

DarkDesertFox said:


> Here come the SJWs! The anger in these responses is so apparent.



Glad you pulled the social justice warrior card when a lot of people here have legitimate arguements. Tons of kids are gay, should we not allow them in public elementary schools lest the pure straight kids be exposed to them lol? Replace gay with POC and it becomes very clear how ridiculous it is to block things such as a totally sfw, non-swearing, non-vulgar video about a gay person.


----------



## seliph (Mar 19, 2017)

DarkDesertFox said:


> Here come the SJWs! The anger in these responses is so apparent.



Yeah how dare people hate homophobia!

I haven't read any of the responses angrily, maybe you should actually think about peoples' responses rather than assuming they're being angry SJWs?


----------



## tumut (Mar 19, 2017)

gyro said:


> Yeah how dare people hate homophobia!
> 
> I haven't read any of the responses angrily, maybe you should actually think about peoples' responses rather than assuming they're being angry SJWs?


I'm a sjw and I'm angry rn


also lol imagine if they made a filter so you could block other minority groups, its not any different


----------



## keef_kogane (Mar 19, 2017)

Daddie said:


> No need to apologize lmao. I'm not that close-minded to think that every child is my nephew. I was more on the line thinking why would they still looking up LBGT weddings base off your reasonings. I was thinking if a kid were to find out that sucha such was going to get marry regardless of that person's sexuality, they wouldn't care. Kids are more on the line of finding love etc gross.
> Now if their guardians were like, homophobic, I can see the curioisity of venturing out more information. But I also see that to be alientating itself cause it's normal to love somebody and typing in "LESBIAN WEDDING" make it seem like it's entirely different than a heterosexual marriage.



I apologize as well.  I definitely misunderstood what you were saying.


----------



## boujee (Mar 19, 2017)

keef_kogane said:


> I apologize as well.  I definitely misunderstood what you were saying.



lol no need to apologize babe jaja


----------



## forestyne (Mar 19, 2017)

Big companies love to bring it home that we (gay/LGBT people) will never really be accepted into this society.


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 19, 2017)

DarkDesertFox said:


> Here come the SJWs! The anger in these responses is so apparent.



I have never, and will never, understand why on earth some people think "SJW" is an insult, and that being one is a problem.

Ignorance upset me, particularly the wilfull kind. And discrimination angers me, yes. In my job as an advocate for children, I see and work with all kinds of families. Seeing prejudice that will negatively impact certain families due to circumstances out of their control (sexuality, socio-economic factors, medical conditions, country of origin) infuriates me. I believe those are worthy things to feel upset and angry about. I believe those are things worth my time and effort to work to change.

Not all of my feelings are worth acting upon. Not all things I disagree with are worth arguing. If only because time is limited and I try to spend mine wisely. Everyone is free to spend their's as they please*. I am constantly amazed that some people choose to spend so much of their time criticising the choices of others with no apparent interest in having a deeper conversation about the issue/s. But that is their choice and that's fine. Smug, dismissive comments on the internet annoy me. But if it's not doing any harm then I don't care.

*Conditions apply


----------



## forestyne (Mar 19, 2017)

lol these non-LGBT people thinkin they can pretend we aren't opressed and none o' this matters cause Straight People Matter More lol

- - - Post Merge - - -



DarkDesertFox said:


> So? Maybe parents don't want their kids to be exposed to that kind of thing. Just keep it off if it bugs you.



But parents _should._ Exposure to this kind of stuff (not sexually explicit content, obviously) at a young age will, eventually, reduce the amount of hate crimes and murders against the LGBT community. Just because you think it's "abnormal" to be gay/bisexual/trans doesn't make it so.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Dixx said:


> HOMOSEXUAL LOVE?
> 
> 
> D:
> ...



IK ITS SHOCKING. *NOT IN MY DAMN LOBBY.*


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 19, 2017)

Daddie said:


> No need to apologize lmao. I'm not that close-minded to think that every child is my nephew. I was more on the line thinking why would they still looking up LBGT weddings base off your reasonings. I was thinking if a kid were to find out that sucha such was going to get marry regardless of that person's sexuality, they wouldn't care. Kids are more on the line of finding love etc gross.
> Now if their guardians were like, homophobic, I can see the curioisity of venturing out more information. But I also see that to be alientating itself cause it's normal to love somebody and typing in "LESBIAN WEDDING" make it seem like it's entirely different than a heterosexual marriage. Like as if they have to act a certain way to attend a LBGT wedding than a heterosexual marriage.



I see where you're coming from and I think we're definitely starting from two different places.

I work with children and feel reasonably confident with my understanding of children both in theory and in practice.

Children and their supervising adults routinely look up random things like wedding videos, cultural celebrarions around the world, natural disasters, animal habitat information, dinosaurs, how-to videos of all kinds (barring 18+ content, of course), history, the weather, genetics... the list is endless, but I have personally done each of those things dozens of times in the classroom and outside of those times with hundreds of children.

Searching google (or siri) is the default research technique young children learn to use these days. I take great pains to use other methods (encyclopedias, library trips, asking experts) and encourage their use as well. But we live in the digital age, and our children grow up using technology to learn more about the world and answer many of their questions.

There's usually no judgement attached to random searches like this, though responsible adults vet the content prior to letting the child view it.

I don't really agree with your premise that someone looking up "lesbian wedding" thinks that those must be different from heterosexual weddings. As an educator I have used such terms to quickly find suitable content for my program, and I know most of my colleagues and the parents I work with do the same thing. If you know a keyword that will cut down your search time, you'll probably use it when you're pressed for time.

That said : people don't have to type in "lesbian wedding" to see this video. The algorithms use criteria including previous history, key words, and demographic data to generate the "recommended" content. This video can appear in that list and in searches without the word "lesbian" - provided the restricted setting is off.

Children are born inquisitive and eager to learn. I don't believe that access to content such as "lesbian weddings" should be restricted from children, regardless of whether or not a particular child will ever go looking for that content.


----------



## radical6 (Mar 19, 2017)

Wow, this is woke.


----------



## nintendofan85 (Mar 19, 2017)

I thought YouTube supported LGBT causes?


----------



## Tao (Mar 19, 2017)

...I mean, given how often Youtube releases new features that screws up in a variety of dumbass ways, it's hard to believe anybody is doing this "because screw LGBT people" when it's probably that they just yet again released a broken system that this time is flagging videos as inappropriate when they shouldn't be.

Do we *really* think somebody specifically restricted a lesbian wedding vow video, or is it more likely that some moron set the perimeters on what counts as 'inappropriate' a little too wide?


I'm not agreeing with videos being restricted, but I'm not seeing any links floating around to any hard evidence of what exactly constitutes as 'inappropriate' under this system, just assumptions, so I'm not 'shooting first' when the highly likely explanation is "somebody ****ed up and it's not working as intended...As per usual". 

If anything, Youtube/Google need to stop releasing things in a state that can only be described as "half baked" and crap like this probably wouldn't happen.


Now if some time goes by, this isn't changed/fixed and it is indeed working as intended, I'll have a different opinion.




amanda1983 said:


> I have never, and will never, understand why on earth some people think "SJW" is an insult, and that being one is a problem.



Because SJW's would be the type of people simply looking for things to be mad and angry about, going out of their way to be offended, often causing issues and arguments where there literally are none simply to attain the nourishment found in a false sense of moral superiority. 

People who see something 'wrong' and just say "hey, that's racist/homophobic/misogynist/somethingist and that's not cool, so I won't support it", well, we just call them 'people', because you don't need a special abbreviation to describe somebody who's acting like a normal well adjusted individual.


----------



## Mega_Cabbage (Mar 19, 2017)

I'm not even sure how YouTube classifies things as LGBT+... Do they go around asking YouTubers "hey are these people in your video homosexual?"  I'm sure two guys holding hands doesn't mean gay.  Would they go around blocking perfectly good stuff like this from kids if they thought it was too "inappropriate"?:


----------



## forestyne (Mar 19, 2017)

Tao said:


> Because SJW's would be the type of people simply looking for things to be mad and angry about, going out of their way to be offended, often causing issues and arguments where there literally are none simply to attain the nourishment found in a false sense of moral superiority.
> 
> People who see something 'wrong' and just say "hey, that's racist/homophobic/misogynist/somethingist and that's not cool, so I won't support it", well, we just call them 'people', because you don't need a special abbreviation to describe somebody who's acting like a normal well adjusted individual.



_Those damn somethingists._

Genuinely homophobic/transphobic/racist people are quick to draw the SJW wrath victim card out like the post you quoted was referring to.. People have a right to be upset or outraged, but there's a line when you rage for no particular reason and make a ****ty point. But imo it's even worse to pull out your Master Shield and play the victim when someone's using both halves of their brain and calling you out on something *insert label here* that you've said.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Mega_Cabbage said:


> I'm not even sure how YouTube classifies things as LGBT+... Do they go around asking YouTubers "hey are these people in your video homosexual?"  I'm sure two guys holding hands doesn't mean gay.  Would they go around blocking perfectly good stuff like this from kids if they thought it was too "inappropriate"?:



Disney only just made that canon this year, though. I think if this was confirmed by Disney after the release of the original cartoon, many people would have hated it and thought it was gross and *NOT A NORMAL RELATIONSHIP* lol.

- - - Post Merge - - -



DarkDesertFox said:


> Here come the SJWs! The anger in these responses is so apparent.



Seriously?


----------



## ApolloJusticeAC (Mar 19, 2017)

to be honest, i'm okay with it.

if it covers the whole restriction mode in youtube, i can see why this is a huge problem.
yes, i understand it is kinda discrimination. (i mean it is.)

but i don't see any problem between it. it would keep homophobes away right?


----------



## Dogemon (Mar 19, 2017)

twentyonepilots said:


> to be honest, i'm okay with it.
> 
> if it covers the whole restriction mode in youtube, i can see why this is a huge problem.
> yes, i understand it is kinda discrimination. (i mean it is.)
> ...



Homophobes aren't going to use a kids mode filter.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 20, 2017)

twentyonepilots said:


> to be honest, i'm okay with it.
> 
> if it covers the whole restriction mode in youtube, i can see why this is a huge problem.
> yes, i understand it is kinda discrimination. (i mean it is.)
> ...



It was made for kids though, so not really. The problem is that these parents seem to be sheltering their kids into homophobia/transphobia. The same homophobes who run rampage on LGBT weddings are the same ugly creeps who watch butt-tapping ASMR and the softpawn (im trying ok pls don't ban me) on YouTube.

Because God forbid a children's filter blocks your access to adult content that shouldn't be on YouTube.


----------



## brutalitea (Mar 20, 2017)

twentyonepilots said:


> to be honest, i'm okay with it.
> 
> if it covers the whole restriction mode in youtube, i can see why this is a huge problem.
> yes, i understand it is kinda discrimination. (i mean it is.)
> ...



Most of your post reads like gibberish to me so I'll only comment on the last bit.

you know there actually are people who are homophobic just out of ignorance, right? Not willful ignorance but just regular/innocent ignorance. Letting them see LGBT people do normal things on youtube like review games/tv shows (because I do know someone who reviews TV shows with her girlfriend and all of her videos have been effected by this restricted mode) or play pranks or vlog helps them learn that hey, LGBT people aren't immoral or whathaveyou and they stop being homophobes. It is a thing that has happened before and can continue to happen.


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 20, 2017)

Tao said:


> -- snip --
> 
> Do we *really* think somebody specifically restricted a lesbian wedding vow video, or is it more likely that some moron set the perimeters on what counts as 'inappropriate' a little too wide?
> 
> ...



I started typing something about how complex YouTube and especially google are to run, then deleted when I realised I was getting sidetracked. In defence of my IT partner and his colleagues, however, suffice it to say that the people working at that level are almost universally obscenely talented, skilled, and hardworking. **** ups that end users see are almost always the result of poor management and/or poor business decisions being made elsewhere in the chain.

---

This article I shared here earlier contains specific examples of videos that are accessible and restricted using this setting :

http://gizmodo.com/youtubes-restricted-mode-is-hiding-some-lgbt-content-1793382337

Another YouTuber, NeonFiona, posted side-by-side screenshots showing which videos were restricted. Titles including words like ?gay,? ?lesbian,? and ?bisexual? were hidden: [link to twitter post]

In another tweet, NeonFiona pointed out that her other video, ?An Honest Chat About Being Single,? actually discusses sex, whereas her ?bi videos don?t.?

NeonFiona told Gizmodo that her videos focused on ?normalising LGBT+ stuff and especially bisexuality.? She worries that young people who turn to YouTube for information on LGBT issues will miss out:

*Kids who want to know about different orientations and definitions and about the history of LGBT people, etc, they can?t access that when their videos are being restricted. Restricting these videos makes it harder for these kids to find information they need and the community that they?ve been missing.
*

---

There is a discrepancy between content being restricted because it's *actually* not appropriate for younger children, and content that has a word in the title that some people object to. I've clicked through and watched much of the linked content and it checks out from what I can see.

I try not to leap to conclusions, but I also don't disregard the information to hand.

---

I dunno if I count as an SJW per your definition or not then, since I am a pacifist by nature and certainly do not feel "morally superior" to anyone else. Intellectually, yes, as are most people by definition since intelligence is quantifiable in various ways (and someone always has to be "less" for another to be "more" when ranking people). I don't see how morals can be effectively measured and ranked, not like in the way intelligence can be measured. So I don't really understand how one can be morally superior to someone else.


----------



## acmohn (Mar 20, 2017)

I don't think their intention was to block anything LGBT related, I assume they were aiming at videos that had gays or lesbians doing inappropriate things like not kid-friendly stuff. There may have been a loophole for that kind of stuff and they may have found a way to get rid of it for straight coupled things and just hadn't for LGBT? I'm not certain, but to me YouTube seems like a pretty liberal and accepting company, so I doubt they would do something like that as an act of homphobia.
Also, I understand why some parents wouldn't want their young kids exposed to people talking about different sexualities, they can be too young to need to know about sexual relationships.  
All in all, it's the parents choice, and I don't believe it was intended as an act of homophobia.  There is some stuff on YouTube relating to the LGBT community that's inappropriate, even with straight couples. It's easy for kids to be accidentally exposed to something they're too young to know about.


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 20, 2017)

Tae said:


> Most of your post reads like gibberish to me so I'll only comment on the last bit.
> 
> you know there actually are people who are homophobic just out of ignorance, right? Not willful ignorance but just regular/innocent ignorance. Letting them see LGBT people do normal things on youtube like review games/tv shows (because I do know someone who reviews TV shows with her girlfriend and all of her videos have been effected by this restricted mode) or play pranks or vlog helps them learn that hey, LGBT people aren't immoral or whathaveyou and they stop being homophobes. It is a thing that has happened before and can continue to happen.



This. I know so many people who were happily ignorant of how LGBT+ people live their lives (so, the same way heterosexual people do). Then they came across a random video/article/news clip showing a normal lesbian woman or whatever discussing ___ issue, just like any heterosexual person would, and suddenly things just *clicked* for them : gay people are people too. It sounds patronising, but it happens.

It's very similar to how so many "ignorant racists" (not a term I use but it works here) are oblivious to how people from other cultures live. It's amazing to see a middle-aged man suddenly see the humanity in a person they'd previously have written off as *less than*. Heartbreaking, too, since that means they've been running around treating whole bunches of people terribly their whole life.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 20, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> This article I shared here earlier contains specific examples of videos that are accessible and restricted using this setting :
> 
> http://gizmodo.com/youtubes-restricted-mode-is-hiding-some-lgbt-content-1793382337
> 
> ...



This is actually scary. Not in a woooooo spoopy homophobe way, but in a scary-sad way. Imagine if you've got to secondary school/high school and you realise "i think i like boys/girls/dogs/cats/hexagons". Young people use YouTube a lot, so a young person would think to look it up on YouTube or something. So imagine you get to YouTube and there's _nothing._ Nothing helpful or explanatory but instead videos promoting hate crimes. Imagine how _alone_ you'd feel, at the ripe age of 12 or 13 or maybe younger/older, to be demonised for something you won't learn and come to understand is normal and okay because of censorship. *Imagine if the entire internet did this too.*


----------



## Dogemon (Mar 20, 2017)

acmohn said:


> I don't think their intention was to block anything LGBT related, I assume they were aiming at videos that had gays or lesbians doing inappropriate things like not kid-friendly stuff. There may have been a loophole for that kind of stuff and they may have found a way to get rid of it for straight coupled things and just hadn't for LGBT? I'm not certain, but to me YouTube seems like a pretty liberal and accepting company, so I doubt they would do something like that as an act of homphobia.
> Also, I understand why some parents wouldn't want their young kids exposed to people talking about different sexualities, they can be too young to need to know about sexual relationships.
> All in all, it's the parents choice, and I don't believe it was intended as an act of homophobia.  There is some stuff on YouTube relating to the LGBT community that's inappropriate, even with straight couples. It's easy for kids to be accidentally exposed to something they're too young to know about.



Sexuality doesn't literally mean sexual. It also is what we use to describe who we are romantically attracted to. They literally blocked the words "gay", "lesbian", and anything ending in "sexual". I would possibly get blocking the word sexual, however it was more than that. Kids have romantic orientations, whether parents want to acknowledge it or not, and to block non-heterosexual orientations is a bit much. 

Here is a question, if these ass-backwards parents care so much, why not monitor what their kids watch themselves?


----------



## Dogemon (Mar 20, 2017)

acmohn said:


> I don't think their intention was to block anything LGBT related, I assume they were aiming at videos that had gays or lesbians doing inappropriate things like not kid-friendly stuff. There may have been a loophole for that kind of stuff and they may have found a way to get rid of it for straight coupled things and just hadn't for LGBT? I'm not certain, but to me YouTube seems like a pretty liberal and accepting company, so I doubt they would do something like that as an act of homphobia.
> Also, I understand why some parents wouldn't want their young kids exposed to people talking about different sexualities, they can be too young to need to know about sexual relationships.
> All in all, it's the parents choice, and I don't believe it was intended as an act of homophobia.  There is some stuff on YouTube relating to the LGBT community that's inappropriate, even with straight couples. It's easy for kids to be accidentally exposed to something they're too young to know about.



Sexuality doesn't literally mean sexual stuff is involved. It also is what we use to describe who we are romantically attracted to. They literally blocked the words "gay", "lesbian", and anything ending in "sexual". I would possibly get blocking the word sexual, however it was more than that. Kids have romantic orientations, whether parents want to acknowledge it or not, and to block non-heterosexual orientations is a bit much. 

Here is a question, if these ass-backwards parents care so much, why not monitor what their kids watch themselves?


----------



## Mega_Cabbage (Mar 20, 2017)

forestyne said:


> Disney only just made that canon this year, though. I think if this was confirmed by Disney after the release of the original cartoon, many people would have hated it and thought it was gross and *NOT A NORMAL RELATIONSHIP* lol.



Oh really? I haven't seen or heard much about the new Beauty and the Beast, so I wouldn't have guessed (shows how completely oblivious I am to romance).


----------



## ApolloJusticeAC (Mar 20, 2017)

DarkDesertFox said:


> So? Maybe parents don't want their kids to be exposed to that kind of thing. Just keep it off if it bugs you.



I'd also agree with this.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 20, 2017)

Mega_Cabbage said:


> Oh really? I haven't seen or heard much about the new Beauty and the Beast, so I wouldn't have guessed (shows how completely oblivious I am to romance).



ya me neither, i don't get out much. but during the brexit crisis i saw on the BBC that disney had announced that the side-plot in the new live-action remake of beauty and the beast is going to be LeFou coming to terms with his feelings for Gaston. apparently there's a gay scene that people think are doing more harm than good but idk i haven't seen it.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Dogemon said:


> Sexuality doesn't literally mean sexual stuff is involved. It also is what we use to describe who we are romantically attracted to. They literally blocked the words "gay", "lesbian", and anything ending in "sexual". I would possibly get blocking the word sexual, however it was more than that. Kids have romantic orientations, whether parents want to acknowledge it or not, and to block non-heterosexual orientations is a bit much.
> 
> Here is a question, if these ass-backwards parents care so much, why not monitor what their kids watch themselves?



Yeah, ignoring what your kids are doing online is bad parenting. I get if it's pawn or various other things, but censoring what they should be seeing and is suitable for them to see online just because people don't agree with it isn't right.

- - - Post Merge - - -

And I quote; "Beauty and the Beast, Disney’s fairytale romance, is the story of a bison-human hybrid who falls in love with a human woman; of servants cursed and turned into flatware and other household items; of Stockholm syndrome; of an abusive misogynist who eats five dozen eggs a day. But the thing that has gotten people really upset about the new film — a live-action remake of the 1991 animated classic — *is that one of its characters is gay*.


----------



## Dogemon (Mar 20, 2017)

twentyonepilots said:


> I'd also agree with this.



Now take that statement, and put in any minority. "I don't want my kid seeing colored folk because I don't like them!!"

If parents want to promote non-progressive, outdated ideals, they can do it on their own time, not make it the standard for a kid's filter.


----------



## ApolloJusticeAC (Mar 20, 2017)

Dogemon said:


> Now take that statement, and put in any minority. "I don't want my kid seeing colored folk because I don't like them!!"
> 
> If parents want to promote non-progressive, outdated ideals, they can do it on their own time, not make it the standard for a kid's filter.



Okay, you have a point sure. What I meant to say in my last post was to have two modes for the kids filter like one with LBGQ+ and without it. What's wrong with that? Why not have a restricted mode where you can check off which content you want children to see?


----------



## Dogemon (Mar 20, 2017)

twentyonepilots said:


> Okay, you have a point sure. What I meant to say in my last post was to have two modes for the kids filter like one with LBGQ+ and without it. What's wrong with that? Why not have a restricted mode where you can check off which content you want children to see?



Because gay and lesbians and bisexuals are not inappropriate. Not only that, but PARENTS decide the modes, not the kids, therefore they shouldn't exclude content that is not inherently vulgar.


----------



## Hopeless Opus (Mar 20, 2017)

lol yikes...

i don't think people understand the actual problem with this at all. it's legitimate discrimination toward a group of people who aren't doing anything wrong at all. that's like saying "hey guys, let's make a filter for black people!! that'll work out smooth!!" like it's not that hard to understand what the actual problem is with it lol.. first of all, a kid is gonna be eventually exposed to things on the internet. i was exposed to everything, and i know everyone isn't like me. but you can't keep the eyes and mind of a child sheltered forever. i never liked the idea of sheltering, and in this day and age where people of the LGBT community are everywhere, i don't think keeping children in the dark will last for a very long time. 

sure, they can put their little cutesy filter on and stuff and try to block out reality but eventually they'll (wow!) grow up and see what the world is really like and if you don't expose your kid to that eventually, they'll literally just collapse in on themselves because they won't know how the real world works. just delaying it makes life more complicated is how i feel. i feel like youtube just put themselves in a hole. they have so many LGBT people working on their platform that i can imagine some kind of uprising against it will happen.

the point is, i think the filter is pointless. surely things will get around the filter. all it's really doing is sheltering kids and also insulting a large group of people who were thought to be accepted by youtube. if i were in the LGBT community myself, i would be profoundly offended that people were literally attempting to filter me out. the filter is doing more harm than good.


----------



## ZekkoXCX (Mar 20, 2017)

I thought that restricted mode was YT Kids? (well , YT Kids has some ****ed up **** too)
I honestly couldn't care less , if its sexual LGBT+ content that gets blocked then good , very good. But if its totally SFW LGBT+ content then i don't know why it could get blocked?
Probably too religious families , idk.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 20, 2017)

twentyonepilots said:


> Okay, you have a point sure. What I meant to say in my last post was to have two modes for the kids filter like one with LBGQ+ and without it. What's wrong with that? Why not have a restricted mode where you can check off which content you want children to see?



But gay people have done nothing wrong and it shouldn't even _be_ encouraging Christian non-progressive views such as gay people = wrong. Next they'll be trying to tell the new generation again that HIV and AIDS are LGBT+ diseases only.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Taiko said:


> I thought that restricted mode was YT Kids? (well , YT Kids has some ****ed up **** too)
> I honestly couldn't care less , if its sexual LGBT+ content that gets blocked then good , very good. But if its totally SFW LGBT+ content then i don't know why it could get blocked?
> Probably too religious families , idk.



apparently LGBT+ content is NSFL either.


----------



## radical6 (Mar 20, 2017)

https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/19/youtube-lgbt-restricted-mode/



> “We are so proud to represent LGBTQ+ voices on our platform—they’re a key part of what YouTube is all about. The intention of Restricted Mode is to filter out mature content for the tiny subset of our users who want a more limited experience. LGBTQ+ videos are available in Restricted Mode, but videos that discuss more sensitive issues may not be. We regret any confusion this has caused and are looking into your concerns. We appreciate your feedback and passion for making YouTube such an inclusive, diverse, and vibrant community.”


----------



## LambdaDelta (Mar 20, 2017)

I honestly thought this was a parody thing mocking shortsighted and awful business decisions when I first saw it, but nope

- - - Post Merge - - -



DarkDesertFox said:


> Funny thing is if that did happen there would be no outcry. It's only when the LGBT+ is affected when it's actually newsworthy to the media.



I guess "Christians" are just too busy *****ing and moaning about how everything else offends and is an attack on their bigoted beliefs to find the time for this

- - - Post Merge - - -



amanda1983 said:


> I have never, and will never, understand why on earth some people think "SJW" is an insult, and that being one is a problem.



"oh, you advocate for better representation, rights, and protections of marginalized and minority groups?.... uhh.... how can we use this against you? wait I know! since this is calling for social change to give these groups of people fair justice in the system, we will call you a social justice warrior! yeah, take that, u damn sjw!!!!"


----------



## oath2order (Mar 20, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> I have never, and will never, understand why on earth some people think "SJW" is an insult, and that being one is a problem.



I know, right? Especially when "keyboard warrior" is a much better term to mock people.


----------



## LambdaDelta (Mar 20, 2017)

keyboard warrior actually sounds rather ridiculously cool in a strange silly way

just imagining someone beating somebody over the head with a keyboard like its some battle axe or something


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 20, 2017)

oath2order said:


> I know, right? Especially when "keyboard warrior" is a much better term to mock people.



Ya I don't really get that insult (?) either - people have always used the tools at hand to get things done. In today's world, basic computing skills are a necessity.

Granted, "warrior" sounds pretentious to me, but I don't see why using the tools available is a bad thing.


----------



## AnimalCrossingPerson (Mar 20, 2017)

Meh, it's probably based on certain keywords.

At my school there are two Smoothwall filters: A strict one and a pretty relaxed one. Most people get thrown under the strict one. The strict one blocks all sorts of things, from social media to certain newspaper websites. The pretty relaxed one doesn't block much at all - only Tumblr and some of the more extreme websites on the internet.

Anyway, they both block gay stuff, under "pornography". Someone complained on Reddit in 2014. A friend of mine even searched for "help me im gay" (under the pretty relaxed filter) and it was blocked. Unsurprisingly, "help me im straight" wasn't.


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 20, 2017)

LambdaDelta said:


> keyboard warrior actually sounds rather ridiculously cool in a strange silly way
> 
> just imagining someone beating somebody over the head with a keyboard like its some battle axe or something



Oooooh now that is imagery that I'll remember! I don't often get called either directly, I'm not the easiest target to pin facile descriptions like that on. But I'll get a laugh - or at least a smile - out of that mental image whenever I see those terms thrown around. Thanks!


----------



## AnimalCrossingPerson (Mar 20, 2017)

Also, both block Imgur. I find that more ridiculous. It's not a bandwidth thing because video streaming websites are only blocked under the strict one.


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 20, 2017)

AnimalCrossingPerson said:


> Also, both block Imgur. I find that more ridiculous. It's not a bandwidth thing because video streaming websites are only blocked under the strict one.



School filters are usually appalling. In year 8 my health class had an assignment that included researching breast cancer. We had class time scheduled in the library to use the computers, and that is the day our teacher, 2 other teachers, all 3 librarians, the year level coordinator, the junior school coordinator, 2 assistant principals, and the principal herself found out that the word "breast" and any variation thereof had been blocked on the school computers. It was fascinating to see the debate and discussion that took place. In the end I consider it a valuable learning experience, although having to complete the assignment outside of school sucked (1996/7 wasn't a great time for easy internet access..).


----------



## visibleghost (Mar 20, 2017)

lol u all trying to defend this like Lmao Wat

youtube shouldnt encourage homophobia or  transphobia 

i get the need for a filter for schools and whatever where u dont want kids to see sexy or violent stuff but not everything abt the lgbtq community is Sexy Sex Dot Com Slash Sex. cishets keep sexualizing the lgbtq community so much and i want 2 Die . if theyre going to censor lgbtq videos  for being 2 Innapropriate thats Extremely anti the colmunity. they claim it isnt intended to be homophobia and transphobia but if it was the same for cishets theydcremove all straight stories about Love and every cis person who talks about being a boy or a girl !!! but thats not happening and you all who are defending it of saying that it's understandable or not homophobic are Rly Not Great. 

this is censoring of a community that has had to fight for such a long time to be seen, heard, accepted and get their rights. i am seriously disgusted by the people in this thread who are defending it.


----------



## AnimalCrossingPerson (Mar 20, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> School filters are usually appalling. In year 8 my health class had an assignment that included researching breast cancer. We had class time scheduled in the library to use the computers, and that is the day our teacher, 2 other teachers, all 3 librarians, the year level coordinator, the junior school coordinator, 2 assistant principals, and the principal herself found out that the word "breast" and any variation thereof had been blocked on the school computers. It was fascinating to see the debate and discussion that took place. In the end I consider it a valuable learning experience, although having to complete the assignment outside of school sucked (1996/7 wasn't a great time for easy internet access..).



Yeah... I guess a lot of your class had to go the library.


----------



## boujee (Mar 20, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> I see where you're coming from and I think we're definitely starting from two different places.
> 
> I work with children and feel reasonably confident with my understanding of children both in theory and in practice.
> 
> ...



You're not understanding where I'm coming from still lmao.


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 20, 2017)

AnimalCrossingPerson said:


> Yeah... I guess a lot of your class had to go the library.



Haha at least one local library had the same filter on (I think it was based on their age), so those girls who tried that were out of luck.

In the end we were given an extention and the assignment was adapted to not require online research. Which was a shame since part of the point was for us to be searching for genuine health information online..

- - - Post Merge - - -



Daddie said:


> You're not understanding where I'm coming from still lmao.



I'm sorry. Where are you coming from then?


----------



## boujee (Mar 20, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> Haha at least one local library had the same filter on (I think it was based on their age), so those girls who tried that were out of luck.
> 
> In the end we were given an extention and the assignment was adapted to not require online research. Which was a shame since part of the point was for us to be searching for genuine health information online..
> 
> ...



That I'm not directly talking about LBGT content being block and that children shouldn't look them up. If you specifically program your computer to cut down specific searches then I honestly don't see how a child can still look up "lesbian weddings" not that you mention a supervisor adult is next to them. When I made that comment awhile back mentioning how growing up I didn't have a problem with my sexuality because a lof of kids on the internet was "XD bisexual". I honestly thought the "XD" took it away because during my time, literally every kid was into being "bisexual" (that emo phrase, rawr dinosuar ****) and honestly still didn't know what being bisexual meant even if they went to a random definition site and gave you the term. 
I agree that this content shouldn't be block from kids but I honestly think that them looking at information wouldn't still "help" them. 
When you gave the example of a wedding, I honestly thought that they had to be "specific" with their search because that would still make them feel indifferent to the point that they have to look up something highly specific. "Is this normal?". When you mention the adult, that to me just show the the adult look it up, not the kid cause the kid honestly doesn't ****ing know. Even if their curioisity cave in, they still wouldn't know. If 8 year old me was conflicting their sexuality and a "supervision adult" decided to give me a article about sexualities, I would honestly be bored out of my ****ing mind. My whole inclination is that it's normal for anybody to love whatever. A wedding is a wedding. If two of my Aunts were to get married to their spouse, by the end of the day, it's a wedding. I would still have to wear a dress or a gown and be bored out of my mind while I can be home playing toys or whatever(still 8 year old me lmao).

But I think all we're doing is listing "experiences", and I honestly don't see the world as black and white tbh.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 20, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> lol u all trying to defend this like Lmao Wat
> 
> youtube shouldnt encourage homophobia or  transphobia
> 
> ...



chillax fam.

- - - Post Merge - - -



AnimalCrossingPerson said:


> Meh, it's probably based on certain keywords.
> 
> At my school there are two Smoothwall filters: A strict one and a pretty relaxed one. Most people get thrown under the strict one. The strict one blocks all sorts of things, from social media to certain newspaper websites. The pretty relaxed one doesn't block much at all - only Tumblr and some of the more extreme websites on the internet.
> 
> Anyway, they both block gay stuff, under "pornography". Someone complained on Reddit in 2014. A friend of mine even searched for "help me im gay" (under the pretty relaxed filter) and it was blocked. Unsurprisingly, "help me im straight" wasn't.



Wait, your schools block internet access by _words?_

Every school I've been to only blocks certain sites and domains. Such as adult sites, forums, social media, shock sites, yahoo questions (or whatever that site is), video streaming sites and variations of search engines. At my first school they blocked Google, so we could only use Bing. Then the IT team blocked Bing so we couldn't search for anything at all (we had to use a Russian Google) and then they unblocked Google but set the default search engine to Bing, so every time we put something into the search bar it would be blocked. So we had to go to Google's domain via the search bar and then search from there. It was crazy.


----------



## AnimalCrossingPerson (Mar 20, 2017)

forestyne said:


> Wait, your schools block internet access by _words?_
> 
> Every school I've been to only blocks certain sites and domains. Such as adult sites, forums, social media, shock sites, yahoo questions (or whatever that site is), video streaming sites and variations of search engines. At my first school they blocked Google, so we could only use Bing. Then the IT team blocked Bing so we couldn't search for anything at all (we had to use a Russian Google) and then they unblocked Google but set the default search engine to Bing, so every time we put something into the search bar it would be blocked. So we had to go to Google's domain via the search bar and then search from there. It was crazy.



We've had some annoying experiences with search engines being blocked. I'm just grateful we're no longer forced to use Internet Explorer 8.

And yeah, it's filtered based on words, but I'm not sure to what extent. Right now, I'm posting this at school, and this is under the stricter filter which blocks my own profile and the Gamers' Lounge section on here. I'm actually surprised this thread isn't being blocked, as one discussing gambling (I think) was.


----------



## LambdaDelta (Mar 20, 2017)

forestyne said:


> At my first school they blocked Google, so we could only use Bing.



this is actually hilarious, given how bing is basically porn search engine


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 20, 2017)

forestyne said:


> chillax fam.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> ...



Blocking keywords was how schools in my area did things back when I was in school. Particular sites were also banned, but the internet was a lot different before search engines became as powerful as they are now. I remember when "Ask Jeeves" (a kind of butler website that would go and search for results for you, with quite a narrow scope) was *revolutionary* lol.

Yikes, that sounds crazy - and such a waste of time.


----------



## AnimalCrossingPerson (Mar 20, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> Ask Jeeves



I'm disappointed that Jeeves is gone. Now it's just _Ask_.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 20, 2017)

AnimalCrossingPerson said:


> I'm disappointed that Jeeves is gone. Now it's just _Ask_.



Poor Jeeves. #justice4jeeves 

A sidenote, as someone who has experience with hacking and being hacked, Ask/Ask Jeeves is normally the go-to search engine to steal user's information (not that I've ever done that or needed to). If your computer's been hacked, hackers will install Ask/Ask Jeeves and use your information. It's like a death sentence, not only because it's a rubbish search engine. Not to mention your name, everything you've searched and information goes to the government/FBI's databases when you use it and can be accessed by third-parties/hackers.

- - - Post Merge - - -



LambdaDelta said:


> this is actually hilarious, given how bing is basically porn search engine



True. It's also a good one-sentence horror story.

"I went to her computer and her default search engine was Bing." dundundunnnn


----------



## visibleghost (Mar 20, 2017)

Daddie said:


> That I'm not directly talking about LBGT content being block and that children shouldn't look them up. If you specifically program your computer to cut down specific searches then I honestly don't see how a child can still look up "lesbian weddings" not that you mention a supervisor adult is next to them. When I made that comment awhile back mentioning how growing up I didn't have a problem with my sexuality because a lof of kids on the internet was "XD bisexual". I honestly thought the "XD" took it away because during my time, literally every kid was into being "bisexual" (that emo phrase, rawr dinosuar ****) and honestly still didn't know what being bisexual meant even if they went to a random definition site and gave you the term.
> I agree that this content shouldn't be block from kids but I honestly think that them looking at information wouldn't still "help" them.
> When you gave the example of a wedding, I honestly thought that they had to be "specific" with their search because that would still make them feel indifferent to the point that they have to look up something highly specific. "Is this normal?". When you mention the adult, that to me just show the the adult look it up, not the kid cause the kid honestly doesn't ****ing know. Even if their curioisity cave in, they still wouldn't know. If 8 year old me was conflicting their sexuality and a "supervision adult" decided to give me a article about sexualities, I would honestly be bored out of my ****ing mind. My whole inclination is that it's normal for anybody to love whatever. A wedding is a wedding. If two of my Aunts were to get married to their spouse, by the end of the day, it's a wedding. I would still have to wear a dress or a gown and be bored out of my mind while I can be home playing toys or whatever(still 8 year old me lmao).
> 
> But I think all we're doing is listing "experiences", and I honestly don't see the world as black and white tbh.



not every kid is like that tho. like for me personally, the internet helped me find out things abt my gender and sexuality when i was 10 or 11. i didnt look up lesbian weddings on youtube but, like, anything that normalizes being lgbtq for kids is good and if i had seen lesbian weddings on my youtube front page i would have probably felt more "normal" for not identifying as straight. like, there's no reason to hide those videos except if you dont want kids to see things about lgbtq people. like, if youre going to be like "well but why would kids want to look at those videos" like Yeah Sure but why not put everything kids arent interested in under that filter? because people dont think kids looking at videos about taxes is inappropriate but apparently looking at videos of lgbtq people is. 
this isnt a filter for schools to only let kids watch school stuff, it is to remove inappropriate content from being seen by kids. the problem imo isnt that kids cant look up wedding videos at school, it is that lgbtq youtubers and their videos are labelled as inappropriate.

forestyne: what


----------



## forestyne (Mar 20, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> forestyne: what



wot

- - - Post Merge - - -

Thing is, if baby boomers keep blocking children's access to content normalising the LGBT community and being gay/bi/trans, you're gonna have kids growing up hating LGBT people, which will only cause us more grief and hatred in the future.


----------



## LambdaDelta (Mar 20, 2017)

forestyne said:


> "I went to her computer and her default search engine was Bing." dundundunnnn



you vs the search engine she told you not to worry about



forestyne said:


> Thing is, if baby boomers keep blocking children's access to content normalising the LGBT community and being gay/bi/trans, you're gonna have kids growing up hating LGBT people, which will only cause us more grief and hatred in the future.



their goals are so utterly transparent

and to say nothing of how this stuff an open rejection of the freedom for children to explore their own sexual and gender identities as well


----------



## N a t (Mar 20, 2017)

Okay, that is seriously so silly. YouTube what are you doin???


----------



## Nightmares (Mar 20, 2017)

Uhh...what? LMAO YouTube you "done goofed XD"


----------



## cornimer (Mar 20, 2017)

That is so, so wrong, we should be working to normalize LGBTQ+ (because after all, it's just love) and not showing it as something to be tabooed and blocked. Especially coming from such a big and influential platform as YouTube, this could be extremely damaging to some. This is a huge step backwards and is very disappointing imo. Seeing videos on YouTube and such supporting LGBTQ+ is one if the ways people (especially kids) can come to term with their identities and the identities of others and it needs to be something that is openly discussed, not restricted.


----------



## carp (Mar 20, 2017)

if someone cares they can turn it off nbd


----------



## moonford (Mar 20, 2017)

I'm really hurt by this. :'(

YouTube is a big platform which brings entertainment to billions of people so when it does something like this its basically saying "you're different so you aren't welcome here" to a large portion of members and viewers. Hopefully this is reversed because its already creating an outrage amongst the community and its just an opening for trolls to be disgusting human beings.

And to the people who say "maybe parents just don't want their kids to see these things" 1. Children should know that we are normal human beings. 2. What things? That's not helping us at all, we should be trying to normalize the LGBT+ community because we are normal people who have some differences which aren't harmful to anyone because we are normal people.
Its not like we shove our identities in your face, the only people doing that are you, you say "that's not normal, we are normal, you should be us" when you say and do things like that its making things worse and we will never achieve satisfaction and peace if you continue to say things like that and do things like what YouTube is doing.

I said what I felt like saying and this has annoyed me deeply, I thought YouTube was a place were you could express yourself but it clearly isn't.


----------



## LambdaDelta (Mar 20, 2017)

carp said:


> if someone cares they can turn it off nbd



point is it shouldn't even be a thing to begin with


----------



## KarlaKGB (Mar 20, 2017)

isnt restricted content supposed to be for violence, nudity etc..


----------



## moonford (Mar 20, 2017)

KarlaKGB said:


> isnt restricted content supposed to be for violence, nudity etc..



Yes it is so that's why its dumb.

- - - Post Merge - - -



LambdaDelta said:


> point is it shouldn't even be a thing to begin with



I loved that video.


----------



## KarlaKGB (Mar 20, 2017)

well turns out restricted mode is also for anything sexual. and lgbt stuff is naturally of a sexual nature. i dont think youtube is deliberately targeting the lgbt community here


----------



## acmohn (Mar 20, 2017)

My school district blocked the word "babe" so, consequentially, you couldn't look up "Babe Ruth" because it would be blocked.


----------



## visibleghost (Mar 20, 2017)

KarlaKGB said:


> well turns out restricted mode is also for anything sexual. and lgbt stuff is naturally of a sexual nature. i dont think youtube is deliberately targeting the lgbt community here



No It Is Not? if youre going to censor anything relate to lgbtq issues then censor every mention of straight love and cis ppl's gender. if they think that talking sexuality or gender identity is so Gosh Darn Inappropriate they have  to censor cishets too. the lgbtq community is constantly oversexualized and while sex Obviously is a  part of many lgbtq individuals lives it's not like being lgbtq is always centered around sex. lgbtq people talking about being in love with someone isnt nsfw sexy time it's someone talking about being in love.


----------



## moonford (Mar 20, 2017)

KarlaKGB said:


> well turns out restricted mode is also for anything sexual. and lgbt stuff is naturally of a sexual nature. i dont think youtube is deliberately targeting the lgbt community here



Yes they are otherwise they wouldn't have done it?
It's not like all LGBT+ people are porn stars on YouTube?


----------



## Dogemon (Mar 20, 2017)

KarlaKGB said:


> well turns out restricted mode is also for anything sexual. and lgbt stuff is naturally of a sexual nature. i dont think youtube is deliberately targeting the lgbt community here



Heterosexual desires and love are still allowed. Gay people with completely normal sfw videos are/have been blocked by this filter. They were not even using the word "homosexual"


----------



## carp (Mar 20, 2017)

LambdaDelta said:


> point is it shouldn't even be a thing to begin with



yeah, it shouldnt, but companies having racist/sexist/homophobic policies isnt a new thing, and filtering the internet deffo isnt new


----------



## Dogemon (Mar 20, 2017)

carp said:


> yeah, it shouldnt, but companies having racist/sexist/homophobic policies isnt a new thing, and filtering the internet deffo isnt new



It is for YouTube, who is supposed to be openly against hate acts/speech and pro LGBTQ+. Actions speak louder than words in this case.


----------



## Soda Fox (Mar 20, 2017)

Honestly if the videos are NSFW/gore/overly sexual they should be restricted, but that goes for any relationship type.

However it doesn't seem to be the case here. I disagree with it but I think a company can do what it wants. If this upsets you, write in to YouTube voicing your opinion, and stop using their services if they do something you don't like. Money talks.


----------



## LambdaDelta (Mar 20, 2017)

carp said:


> yeah, it shouldnt, but companies having racist/sexist/homophobic policies isnt a new thing, and filtering the internet deffo isnt new



I fail to see how this is an excuse


----------



## KarlaKGB (Mar 20, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> No It Is Not? if youre going to censor anything relate to lgbtq issues then censor every mention of straight love and cis ppl's gender. if they think that talking sexuality or gender identity is so Gosh Darn Inappropriate they have  to censor cishets too. the lgbtq community is constantly oversexualized and while sex Obviously is a  part of many lgbtq individuals lives it's not like being lgbtq is always centered around sex. lgbtq people talking about being in love with someone isnt nsfw sexy time it's someone talking about being in love.



can u show me examples of cishet videos that have sexual references that are not restricted? and also examples of lgbt videos that have no sexual references being restricted? the real issue is that the youtube algorithm is awful, not that it's specifically targeting lgbt


----------



## easpa (Mar 20, 2017)

Ohhh dear, this is very worrying.
I'd like to hear the logic behind Youtube blocking certain videos from being viewed while in restricted mode. 
Blocking a video because it's sexually graphic or explicit in nature? Sure, why not. 
Blocking a video featuring a gay couple, for example, on-screen together talking to the camera or vlogging about everyday life? Nah. 
Unless they plan on doing the same to all similar videos involving straight couples, then that's a double standard and it's not right. 
Hell, taking that video someone uploaded of them petting their cat with the pride flag in the background as an example, that video getting blocked for users in restriced mode has some pretty horrible implications. 
Speaking as a bi(?) person, a video as innocent as that being considered too "inappropriate" for younger audiences just by virtue of it containing a symbol that is associated with my sexuality seems to imply that I myself am "inappropriate" or whatever synonym you might prefer.
Now thank GOD I'm at a stage in my life where I'm old enough and comfortable enough with who I am to know that there is nothing inappropriate about me, but my heart goes out to all the younger kids and teenagers out there that are struggling with their gender identity/sexuality and are going to take this to heart and believe that, because these videos are being blocked, then there must be something wrong with them as human beings.


...Or maybe I'm just overreacting and these videos were blocked by mistake and Youtube are going to fix this whole mess ASAP. I really hope that's the case, but I have my doubts.


----------



## keef_kogane (Mar 20, 2017)

KarlaKGB said:


> well turns out restricted mode is also for anything sexual. *and lgbt stuff is naturally of a sexual nature*. i dont think youtube is deliberately targeting the lgbt community here



I was going to try and stay out of all of this because gathering my thoughts is difficult, but I saw this and had to say something.  On all forms of media you see cisgendered, heterosexual people grinding on one another, making out, talking about sex, etc.  All forms.  Websites centered around pornography, TV, YouTube, things like that.  Then, you have LGBT+ people.  Many have sex, yes.  Many are sexual, yes.  But I don't understand how a YouTuber talking to their younger viewers about loving someone of the same gender/sex is sexual at all.  Or how a YouTuber coming out, talking about video games, singing a song, etc is sexual.

People in the LGBT+ community face so much judgement.  Many things are said, but if you just take a step back and actually get to know LGBT+ people, you'll find that we're (shockingly) not all that different from cishet people!  The only difference is our sexual identity and gender identification (and, let's face it, we're not as judgmental).  Some of us like having sex, but cuddling and cute kisses are the best too.

Keep in mind that this block blocked a lesbian couple simply reading wedding vows.  What does that say to you?  How is that sexual?  There are compilation videos of straight couples getting married *everywhere*.

(Once again, I apologize if this didn't make sense.)


----------



## LambdaDelta (Mar 20, 2017)

KarlaKGB said:


> lgbt videos that have no sexual references being restricted



go check the video I embedded earlier in this thread. in fact it barely even qualifies as an lgbt video!

and honestly, regardless of rather it's intentional or just a poorly executed thing, it still doesn't change the fact that it just adds to the cisnormative problems of society


----------



## KarlaKGB (Mar 20, 2017)

LambdaDelta said:


> go check the video I embedded earlier in this thread. in fact it barely even qualifies as an lgbt video!
> 
> and honestly, regardless of rather it's intentional or just a poorly executed thing, it still doesn't change the fact that it just adds to the cisnormative problems of society



the video of the person petting their cat? it isn't restricted. i could watch it on incognito mode (not logged in, no cookies)


----------



## LambdaDelta (Mar 20, 2017)

KarlaKGB said:


> the video of the person petting their cat? it isn't restricted. i could watch it on incognito mode (not logged in, no cookies)



ok, so you neither know what you're talking about *or* what you're doing

restricted mode is a settings option at the bottom of the site's pages, not private browsing


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 20, 2017)

KarlaKGB said:


> the video of the person petting their cat? it isn't restricted. i could watch it on incognito mode (not logged in, no cookies)



I think you've misunderstood how this censorship is working. The video is restricted once the restriction setting is activated on the site. This can be done by people logged in or not, I believe.

So why is an optional censorship setting a problem? Because children, even teenagers, often have their access to the internet restricted by these settings being turned on - schools, public libraries, home computers, mobile phones ... which means that policies in place to protect children from *actually* inappropriate content (graphic violence, sexual nudity, drug and other illicit/adult-only stuff) will now also "protect" them from such content as 2 women reciting their wedding vows.

Directly or indirectly, the result is censorship, discrimination, and a debate as to whether LGBTQIA+ people *deserve* to have their content viewable under the same terms heterosexual people enjoy. Being gay and having that be a known fact isn't always a sexual thing - any more than my being a hetero woman and having that be a known fact is. Because my sexuality is the default, generally people don't give it any thought.


----------



## KarlaKGB (Mar 20, 2017)

LambdaDelta said:


> ok, so you neither know what you're talking about *or* what you're doing
> 
> restricted mode is a settings option at the bottom of the site's pages, not private browsing



my bad, didn't know that. looks like it just filters sexuality related keywords. videos with 'heterosexual' are restricted as well. like i said, the algorithm is terrible.

- - - Post Merge - - -



amanda1983 said:


> I think you've misunderstood how this censorship is working. The video is restricted once the restriction setting is activated on the site. This can be done by people logged in or not, I believe.
> 
> So why is an optional censorship setting a problem? Because children, even teenagers, often have their access to the internet restricted by these settings being turned on - schools, public libraries, home computers, mobile phones ... which means that policies in place to protect children from *actually* inappropriate content (graphic violence, sexual nudity, drug and other illicit/adult-only stuff) will now also "protect" them from such content as 2 women reciting their wedding vows.
> 
> Directly or indirectly, the result is censorship, discrimination, and a debate as to whether LGBTQIA+ people *deserve* to have their content viewable under the same terms heterosexual people enjoy. Being gay and having that be a known fact isn't always a sexual thing - any more than my being a hetero woman and having that be a known fact is. Because my sexuality is the default, generally people don't give it any thought.



being a heterosexual and having that be a known fact would also be restricted under youtube's algorithm. the only reason 'straight' isnt blacklisted is because it has very common non-sexual meanings too


----------



## Ichiban (Mar 20, 2017)

Honestly it all comes back to Youtube supporting the majority over minority.


----------



## Bowie (Mar 20, 2017)

Vine videos have bait breasts in their thumbnails all the time, intended for "straight audiences". If LGBT videos had the same bait I'd be on YouTube right now instead of The Bell Tree, I can tell you that. And straight people call _us_ perverts.

If you're intending to be sexual, it's almost always going to try and appeal to your average straight man, because that's just the majority. Look up "straight" on YouTube and tell me how many pages you have to go down to find something that isn't related to sex. I bet you can't even on Restricted Mode.

Take away sexuality from YouTube and you aren't really left with anything other than videos that have slipped through the cracks. It seems like YouTube are only targeting videos with a lot of views, because I can still access some of my more obscure music on the new mode, which features breasts and explicit words.


----------



## opalskiies (Mar 20, 2017)

DarkDesertFox said:


> Hate to burst your bubble, but not everyone sees that as "normal" love. Welcome to the real world.



oh no two people with penises are in love, how abnormal

"welcome to the real world" do you have anything original to say?


----------



## Ichiban (Mar 20, 2017)

opalskiies said:


> oh no two people with penises are in love, how abnormal
> 
> "welcome to the real world" do you have anything original to say?



Welcome to a planet with a very large population where the entire planet will never all agree on anything?


----------



## LambdaDelta (Mar 20, 2017)

Bowie said:


> Look up "straight" on YouTube and tell me how many pages you have to go down to find something that isn't related to sex. I bet you can't even on Restricted Mode.



2nd video in results, restricted mode on looks like







sorry, I don't mean to undermine your valid criticism or anything. I was just honestly curious


----------



## visibleghost (Mar 20, 2017)

KarlaKGB said:


> can u show me examples of cishet videos that have sexual references that are not restricted? and also examples of lgbt videos that have no sexual references being restricted? the real issue is that the youtube algorithm is awful, not that it's specifically targeting lgbt



lol it's not about straights not being censored im not going to go thru every video on youtube it's about censoring totally not sexual videos made by lgbtq people

- - - Post Merge - - -



FreeHelium said:


> Welcome to a planet with a very large population where the entire planet will never all agree on anything?



Wow Revolutionary I Had Never Thought About This Before 
if your opinion is that it is wrong, weird, abnormal or unnatural for people to be lgbtq then youre gross. it's really that easy. i wont agree on disagreeing with people who hate lgbtq people for just existing. it's like people who disagree with science like Lmao Okay but thats not how it works bethany


----------



## forestyne (Mar 20, 2017)

KarlaKGB said:


> well turns out restricted mode is also for anything sexual. and *lgbt stuff is naturally of a sexual nature*. i dont think youtube is deliberately targeting the lgbt community here



NOT ALL LGBT FOLK ARE SEXUAL DEVIANTS

WE DON'T WEAR 6 INCH LONG ACRYLICS DURING THE WOOHOOS

WHY IS IT AUTOMATICALLY DIRTY WHEN A GAY PERSON IS INVOLVED


----------



## Ichiban (Mar 20, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> lol it's not about straights not being censored im not going to go thru every video on youtube it's about censoring totally not sexual videos made by lgbtq people
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> ...



Who said it was my opinion, you just got to keep in mind there are still countries where it's illegal.


----------



## visibleghost (Mar 20, 2017)

FreeHelium said:


> Honestly it all comes back to Youtube supporting the majority over minority.



lol please explain
do you mean majority as in non lgbtq people? if so how is this supporting cishets? to me it just looks like lgbtq hate. or do you mean that homphobes and transphobes are a majority? i dont get it.


----------



## Ichiban (Mar 20, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> lol please explain
> do you mean majority as in non lgbtq people? if so how is this supporting cishets? to me it just looks like lgbtq hate. or do you mean that homphobes and transphobes are a majority? i dont get it.



I mean the latter of course.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 20, 2017)

KarlaKGB said:


> isnt restricted content supposed to be for violence, nudity etc..



Yes, so it shouldn't be blocking LGBT+ content.


----------



## visibleghost (Mar 20, 2017)

FreeHelium said:


> Who said it was my opinion, you just got to keep in mind there are still countries where it's illegal.



i used your as a  general word like "one" (as in One Would Think That .. and whatever) but alrighty

yes i know there are countries where being lgbtq is illegal. i'm kind of Aware of the discrimination the lgbtq community experiences. why would this filter be alright just because there are countries where gay people are put in jail or killed?


----------



## Ichiban (Mar 20, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> i used your as a  general word like "one" (as in One Would Think That .. and whatever) but alrighty
> 
> yes i know there are countries where being lgbtq is illegal. i'm kind of Aware of the discrimination the lgbtq community experiences. why would this filter be alright just because there are countries where gay people are put in jail or killed?



To increase viewership/ad revenue in those countries? I don't know, you'd probably know more about it than I do.


----------



## visibleghost (Mar 20, 2017)

FreeHelium said:


> I mean the latter of course.



why should youtube (a company that claims to support the lgbtq community) help transphobes and homophobes with their grossness like this.......


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 20, 2017)

KarlaKGB said:


> my bad, didn't know that. looks like it just filters sexuality related keywords. videos with 'heterosexual' are restricted as well. like i said, the algorithm is terrible.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> ...



Eh? I'm sorry I wasn't more clear : I meant that, because I am heterosexual, me casually referencing my relationship with my partner would in no way be controversial or "inappropriate". Mentioning "him" in passing whilst discussing something else would be utterly mundane. People reference their partner all the time in all kinds of unrelated videos : gaming, makeup, how-to tutorials, unboxings .. 

Yet - now - if I made that same innocuous reference to "her", my content is able to be restricted? That's wrong. Flat out wrong. 

And YouTube has publicly acknowledged that the restricted content is determined by a variety of things _*including users reporting "inappropriate" content*_. Which gives further ammunition to the trolling trolls that already enjoy so much freedom on that site.

YouTube would be a very different site if it started "restricting" access to videos made by heterosexual married couples - those videos don't necessarily have anything sexual or "adult" in them, a fact so obvious it's ridiculous. To assume that videos made by LGBTQIA+ couples (married or otherwise) all have such content worthy of restriction is not just ridiculous, it's obscene.

Being gay isn't inappropriate.


----------



## Ichiban (Mar 20, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> why should youtube (a company that claims to support the lgbtq community) help transphobes and homophobes with their grossness like this.......



They only claim to.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 20, 2017)

how tf do you even turn this on lmao


----------



## visibleghost (Mar 20, 2017)

FreeHelium said:


> To increase viewership/ad revenue in those countries? I don't know, you'd probably know more about it than I do.



the filter is available in every language tho. lgbtq content in swedish is censored too. why do they need to be censored when swedish is literally only spoken in sweden and finland where it is legal to be lgbtq...,
i get that they want That Money but if they want to support the lgbtq community they can't do this kinda stuff. besides i think they make a lot of money from their lgbtq youtubers so doing stuff like this might hurt their income from those ppl idk. like, i get that Real Capitalism doesnt care about people but like ,,.,,. maybe they shouldnt encourage and engage in discrimination

- - - Post Merge - - -



forestyne said:


> how tf do you even turn this on lmao



scroll to the bottom (i think it is visible on every page on youtube).

- - - Post Merge - - -



FreeHelium said:


> They only claim to.



yes that's clear to see when they do stuff like this. i just thinkt it would be great if they actually supported lbtq ppl and didnt do **** like this


----------



## ccee633 (Mar 20, 2017)

FreeHelium said:


> Wouldn't shock me, especially since Christianity is still a big thing.



Not all Christians hate gays. In my Christian church we accept everyone and I have visited other Christian churches that are the same

Not sure about it down in the states though.


----------



## Akira-chan (Mar 20, 2017)

Guys we gotta protect the all the"totally hetro" children since they can't be converted to the evil gay claws of society goD FORBID A CHILD LIKES SOMETHING OTHER THAN HETRO STUFF OH MY GOD.

lol sarcasm


----------



## Ichiban (Mar 20, 2017)

ccee633 said:


> Not all Christians hate gays. In my Christian church we accept everyone and I have visited other Christian churches that are the same
> 
> Not sure about it down in the states though.



It's different in the states, and a large majority of Youtube revenue comes from Americans.


----------



## KarlaKGB (Mar 20, 2017)

forestyne said:


> NOT ALL LGBT FOLK ARE SEXUAL DEVIANTS
> 
> WE DON'T WEAR 6 INCH LONG ACRYLICS DURING THE WOOHOOS
> 
> WHY IS IT AUTOMATICALLY DIRTY WHEN A GAY PERSON IS INVOLVED



who said anything about sexual deviancy? lgbt stuff is sexual in nature. u cant deny that. it's like trying to argue that steak isn't related to food. youtube's algorithm (which i disagree with) is looking for stuff that is sexual in nature, amongst other stuff, and is restricting it. there isn't a team of cishet fascists actively looking to ban videos by lgbt


----------



## visibleghost (Mar 20, 2017)

forestyne said:


> NOT ALL LGBT FOLK ARE SEXUAL DEVIANTS
> 
> WE DON'T WEAR 6 INCH LONG ACRYLICS DURING THE WOOHOOS
> 
> WHY IS IT AUTOMATICALLY DIRTY WHEN A GAY PERSON IS INVOLVED



well you know, every time a lgbtq person goes outside they're actually naked*
*under their clothes

- - - Post Merge - - -



KarlaKGB said:


> who said anything about sexual deviancy? lgbt stuff is sexual in nature. u cant deny that. it's like trying to argue that steak isn't related to food. youtube's algorithm (which i disagree with) is looking for stuff that is sexual in nature, amongst other stuff, and is restricting it. there isn't a team of cishet fascists actively looking to ban videos by lgbt



?????????
no????
im transgender???  there are exactly 0 Seckz involved ??? 
sexuality isnt nsfw or inappropriate. straights dont get censored for kissing in a video, yet their sexuality is as sexual as lgbtq people's sexuality.


----------



## hamster (Mar 20, 2017)

genuinely speaking, i really don't like how groups/individuals label LGBT as sexual. i don't think Youtube's intention was to cause harm but nonetheless it was careless. people who say kids shouldn't be concerned with this, i see where you're coming from but from my experience and others too i was very curious at a very young age and things like this actually helped me a lot.


----------



## KarlaKGB (Mar 20, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> well you know, every time a lgbtq person goes outside they're actually naked*
> *under their clothes
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> ...



like i said, i dont agree with youtube's algorithm, but it isn't specifically targeting the lgbt community.

i went on youtube and searched 'kissing' with restricted mode off. most of the videos were of straight ppl kissing. i then tried to view them on a different browser with restricted mode on. most of them were blocked. try it yourself.

here: i'll get u started https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=kissing


----------



## AnimalCrossingPerson (Mar 20, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> scroll to the bottom (i think it is visible on every page on youtube).



Oh, that's what restricted mode is? It's been there for ages. Why's it now a big fuss?

Just tried it and every single PewDiePie video is blocked, lol. I don't watch him but it seemed like an obvious choice to try.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 20, 2017)

KarlaKGB said:


> who said anything about sexual deviancy? lgbt stuff is sexual in nature. u cant deny that. it's like trying to argue that steak isn't related to food. youtube's algorithm (which i disagree with) is looking for stuff that is sexual in nature, amongst other stuff, and is restricting it. there isn't a team of cishet fascists actively looking to ban videos by lgbt



MY POINT IS THAT IT'S NOT SEXUAL CONTENT. PORNOGRAPHY, BUTT-TAPPING ASMR AND VIOLENCE SHOULD BE CENSORED FOR CHILDREN, *NOT NORMAL ASPECTS OF THE WORLD AND SOCIETY.*

- - - Post Merge - - -



visibleghost said:


> well you know, every time a lgbtq person goes outside they're actually naked*
> *under their clothes



can confirm; i do, indeed, go outside wearing nothing but a trench coat and flash kids on the street obviously.. i am a sinner.


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 20, 2017)

KarlaKGB said:


> who said anything about sexual deviancy? lgbt stuff is sexual in nature. u cant deny that. it's like trying to argue that steak isn't related to food. youtube's algorithm (which i disagree with) is looking for stuff that is sexual in nature, amongst other stuff, and is restricting it. there isn't a team of cishet fascists actively looking to ban videos by lgbt



By that logic, "heterosexual stuff" is also sexual in nature. It's accurate from one very incredibly specific perspective, and then there's all the ways it's  *not* accurate.

A video featuring a young hetero couple sitting down and chatting with someone for an interview about how they've just moved in together is not "sexual" unless one of those people actively introduces the topic of sex. Sex may or may not happen between this couple, and that's none of anyone's business but their's.

If it was a young gay (etc) couple ... it's exactly the same but they might choose to address the additional hurdles they face due to their sexuality. Much as the young hetero couple might discuss their age as well as societal expectations (marriage, kids, mortgage) with different emphasis than an older couple may. Or a couple from different countries/cultures/ethnic backgrounds may talk about the particular challenges they face. 

Being gay whilst in a video doesn't make the video "sexual" in nature, unless a video featuring a young christian couple who are proudly practicing abstinence is also sexual. Is any mention of sex - or lack thereof - being censored? Because my understanding is *no* it is most definitely not. Videos advocating abstince are not being targeted. Videos that *reference* being gay (etc) are.


----------



## Envy (Mar 20, 2017)

What a time. Deeming being LGBT as inappropriate to children is incredibly dangerous. Unlike what the conservatives think, children not being exposed to LGBT people will NOT prevent those children from growing up to be LGBT. It will only do a bunch of incredibly harmful things.

First, for those who are LGBT:
Having no exposure to the concept of being LGBT does not prevent them from knowing they are LGBT. Instead, it will lead them to be confused when those feelings become evident to them and they don't understand. They'll think that they're a freak. This may be a wet dream for some conservative Christians, but this doesn't just lead to the self-hating homosexuals who claim to be "ex-gays" that they love to use as examples. This leads to depression, this leads to suicide. Especially among youth who may find no outlet for acceptance, and especially for transgender people.

For those who are not LGBT, sheltering them from the concept of LGBT can lead to confusion. "What are these people? I haven't seen them in my media, they aren't normal." Then it gets worse, because LGBT-negative churches, organizations, families, etc. just make it worse by taking their ignorance and demonizing LGBT people, which they've never really had any real encounter with real LGBT people to understand that they're just normal people living their life in the world, too.

I know I've gotten pretty serious here, but I just don't think this is funny. I don't think it is to be taken lightly. It's not gay and lesbian sex scenes that these people want censored. It's not intricate details about sex changes that these people want censored. It's the very existence of LGBT people being normal people, living normal lives, and being represented that way that these people want censored. Just look at the recent Beauty and the Beast movie if you want an example. No sex scenes. No nothing... Just a gay person existing and liking another man. It's perfectly clear what is going on here and we must fight it. It can only lead to more hate, more violence, more suicide. Stop it right now. LGBT people exist, what they are is not harmful.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 20, 2017)

AnimalCrossingPerson said:


> Oh, that's what restricted mode is? It's been there for ages. Why's it now a big fuss?
> 
> Just tried it and every single PewDiePie video is blocked, lol. I don't watch him but it seemed like an obvious choice to try.



ah yes, youtube has finally censored the modern day fuhrer


----------



## visibleghost (Mar 20, 2017)

AnimalCrossingPerson said:


> Oh, that's what restricted mode is? It's been there for ages. Why's it now a big fuss?
> 
> Just tried it and every single PewDiePie video is blocked, lol. I don't watch him but it seemed like an obvious choice to try.



well yeah but it's been getting more attention because lgbtq youtubers have realized that it is kinda Not That Great at not being homophobic ....


----------



## forestyne (Mar 20, 2017)

OMG IT ACTUALLY DOES THOUGH WHAT

IT EVEN GOT RID OF EVERYBODY ON HIS SIDE-BAR (EXCEPT MARZIA)


----------



## ZetaFunction (Mar 20, 2017)

Awwww no more Steven Universe clips/leaks/parodies (at least no Garnet and no fusions)


Lol I honestly don't see what the big deal is.  I mean, if you wanna look up LGBT+ stuff, turn off the blocker.  If your Lady Gaga or Bowie song ain't up, turn off the blocker.  Simple.  If you use a school or library computer, use a friend's instead or sneak on incognito if possible?  There's ways around this.  I'm assuming it's mainly for youngins who spend all their time on YouTube, and they're making sure what kids see is actually safe.

Of course, just scroll down into the comments and you've got yourself some TBT quality ****posts, no doubt about that.


----------



## keef_kogane (Mar 20, 2017)

AnimalCrossingPerson said:


> Oh, that's what restricted mode is? It's been there for ages. Why's it now a big fuss?
> 
> Just tried it and every single PewDiePie video is blocked, lol. I don't watch him but it seemed like an obvious choice to try.



It makes sense that Pewdiepie is blocked.  I heard Markiplier and Jack-something were blocked as well, but I haven't actually checked (mostly because I don't watch their videos- can't you tell? lmao).

As for the restricted mode itself, they might have just updated it to encompass more.


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 20, 2017)

AnimalCrossingPerson said:


> Oh, that's what restricted mode is? It's been there for ages. Why's it now a big fuss?
> 
> Just tried it and every single PewDiePie video is blocked, lol. I don't watch him but it seemed like an obvious choice to try.



Because it didn't used to censor LGBTQIA+ content like this? YouTube themselves have acknowledged the issue.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 20, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> well yeah but it's been getting more attention because lgbtq youtubers have realized that it is kinda Not That Great at not being homophobic ....



stop nina-ing me ;u;

A different debate entirely but why PewDiePie? did wsj do this


----------



## Envy (Mar 20, 2017)

KarlaKGB said:


> lgbt stuff is sexual in nature.



Yet being straight and straight relationships are just allowed to be expressed everywhere in media with little limit. Tell me what makes being gay/lesbian inherently sexual in any way that straight does not?


----------



## keef_kogane (Mar 20, 2017)

Lucanosa said:


> Awwww no more Steven Universe clips/leaks/parodies (at least no Garnet and no fusions)
> 
> 
> Lol I honestly don't see what the big deal is.  I mean, if you wanna look up LGBT+ stuff, turn off the blocker.  If your Lady Gaga or Bowie song ain't up, turn off the blocker.  Simple.  If you use a school or library computer, use a friend's instead or sneak on incognito if possible?  There's ways around this.  I'm assuming it's mainly for youngins who spend all their time on YouTube, and they're making sure what kids see is actually safe.
> ...



Yes, there are ways around it.  Yes, you could just turn it off.  But the fact that LGBT+ people/videos are blocked in the first place is the problem everyone has, you know?  It's not right.


----------



## ZetaFunction (Mar 20, 2017)

keef_kogane said:


> Yes, there are ways around it.  Yes, you could just turn it off.  But the fact that LGBT+ people/videos are blocked in the first place is the problem everyone has, you know?  It's not right.



Well I understand it, and I also get your concern.  Kids should know about sexuality and stuff, but at an early age when they're immature and not the most intelligent?  Kids are curious and if they find out about any LGBT+ stuff, they'll want to know more about it.  Soon enough you'll have all kids questioning their sexuality, when in reality, most kids are too young to actually truly understand their sexuality and view on love.  Like.... you wouldn't explain how sex works to a kid, and sexuality is sorta on the same lines.  The kid might have a gravitation towards certain people (say he's gay), but he doesn't know he's gay.  Nothing will change the gayness.  It won't change or hurt him if he waits, but it _can_ hurt him if he learns too much too early, since, sexuality.  It's more so because sexuality regardless of how bad it is, is sexuality.  Kids don't need to be studying it.  Period.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 20, 2017)

keef_kogane said:


> Yes, there are ways around it.  Yes, you could just turn it off.  But the fact that LGBT+ people/videos are blocked in the first place is the problem everyone has, you know?  It's not right.



And if your parents dictate what you do on the computer and monitor your internet searches, the browser lock feature means that you _can't_ turn it off. So not only are they censoring content that should be on YouTube, but it's censoring content that has the right to be on YouTube as well.

*LGBT+ content is not sexual in any nature whatsoever.* Why can straight cis people openly express their PDAs in a sexual manner, but if a gay/bisexual/lesbian/transgender person talks about their love life with no mentions of sex or inappropriate details at all, it's gross and wrong and too sexual? Double standards, people.


----------



## LambdaDelta (Mar 20, 2017)

if a kid is old enough to feel some level of attraction to another, then they're old enough to explore and gain a better understanding of that attraction. anything less is just detrimental to their growth

will they stumble around with it? of course, but so does just about everyone else with this sort of stuff. you can't claim "immaturity" when kids both in reality and media explore heterosexual attraction all the time and nobody bats an eye about it


----------



## keef_kogane (Mar 20, 2017)

Lucanosa said:


> Well I understand it, and I also get your concern.  Kids should know about sexuality and stuff, but at an early age when they're immature and not the most intelligent?  Kids are curious and if they find out about any LGBT+ stuff, they'll want to know more about it.  Soon enough you'll have all kids questioning their sexuality, when in reality, most kids are too young to actually truly understand their sexuality and view on love.  Like.... you wouldn't explain how sex works to a kid, and sexuality is sorta on the same lines.  The kid might have a gravitation towards certain people (say he's gay), but he doesn't know he's gay.  Nothing will change the gayness.  It won't change or hurt him if he waits, but it _can_ hurt him if he learns too much too early, since, sexuality.  It's more so because sexuality regardless of how bad it is, is sexuality.  Kids don't need to be studying it.  Period.



I do see where you're coming from, but you also have to think about the countless kids that have figured out who they are.  Jazz Jennings for example.  She's done countless interviews talking about how relieved and happy she is with herself.  Many parents are looking into the benefits of starting their children on estrogen and testosterone.  Imagine how many teenagers/children there are that hate who they are, that don't understand what's going on.  They might feel like they're freaks.  Not understanding, bullying, made to feel horrible is part of what drives those people to suicide, feeling hopeless, etc.

As for what you said about parents not explaining sex to their child... times are changing. More and more parents are starting to explain these things to their children at a younger age.  These kids need to be able to research different things.  The spreading of awareness is a beautiful thing.


----------



## Bowie (Mar 20, 2017)

I think these sort of results say it all.


----------



## ZetaFunction (Mar 20, 2017)

keef_kogane said:


> I do see where you're coming from, but you also have to think about the countless kids that have figured out who they are.  Jazz Jennings for example.  She's done countless interviews talking about how relieved and happy she is with herself.  Many parents are looking into the benefits of starting their children on estrogen and testosterone.  Imagine how many teenagers/children there are that hate who they are, that don't understand what's going on.  They might feel like they're freaks.  Not understanding, bullying, made to feel horrible is part of what drives those people to suicide, feeling hopeless, etc.
> 
> As for what you said about parents not explaining sex to their child... times are changing. More and more parents are starting to explain these things to their children at a younger age.  These kids need to be able to research different things.  The spreading of awareness is a beautiful thing.



This basically sums it up.  The part that concerns me though, is that _not all_ kids these days are mature enough to really understand sexuality, nonetheless love.  God knows I still don't know my own sexuality, and I don't even understand love completely, but it doesn't really hinder me because I'm fine with waiting till I meet the right person.  And either way, giving a kid the sex-ed talk _plus_ LGBT+ rundown is on the lines of as much to learn as a school course.

The only way I can see the world changing completely and for more awareness and acceptance is by teaching this in more schools at an earlier age, and by teaching it in a way they won't be 'tainted' (sorry, but I can't think of a better term for it), resulting in sooner sex-ed talks, and the world reverting back to the ancient days when kids/teens could marry and start families.  But I do agree, kids need to learn this stuff sooner.  Modern society isn't perfect and clean though, and kids should at least enjoy their childhood without worrying about what gender they'll end up marrying with, or trying to get off a porn addiction.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 20, 2017)

Lucanosa said:


> This basically sums it up.  The part that concerns me though, is that _not all_ kids these days are mature enough to really understand sexuality, nonetheless love.  God knows I still don't know my own sexuality, and I don't even understand love completely, but it doesn't really hinder me because I'm fine with waiting till I meet the right person.  And either way, giving a kid the sex-ed talk _plus_ LGBT+ rundown is on the lines of as much to learn as a school course.
> 
> The only way I can see the world changing completely and for more awareness and acceptance is by teaching this in more schools at an earlier age, and by teaching it in a way they won't be *'tainted'* (sorry, but I can't think of a better term for it), resulting in sooner sex-ed talks, and the world reverting back to the ancient days when kids/teens could marry and start families.  But I do agree, kids need to learn this stuff sooner.  Modern society isn't perfect and clean though, and kids should at least enjoy their childhood without worrying about what gender they'll end up marrying with, or trying to get off a porn addiction.



I don't really know what you mean by tainted? Teaching younger kids about sexuality, safe sex to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases later on in life, safe and healthy relationships, periods, birth and that it's okay to not be cis or straight isn't going to scar them for life or make them little demon children.


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 20, 2017)

Lucanosa said:


> Well I understand it, and I also get your concern.  Kids should know about sexuality and stuff, but at an early age when they're immature and not the most intelligent?  Kids are curious and if they find out about any LGBT+ stuff, they'll want to know more about it.  Soon enough you'll have all kids questioning their sexuality, when in reality, most kids are too young to actually truly understand their sexuality and view on love.  Like.... you wouldn't explain how sex works to a kid, and sexuality is sorta on the same lines.  The kid might have a gravitation towards certain people (say he's gay), but he doesn't know he's gay.  Nothing will change the gayness.  It won't change or hurt him if he waits, but it _can_ hurt him if he learns too much too early, since, sexuality.  It's more so because sexuality regardless of how bad it is, is sexuality.  Kids don't need to be studying it.  Period.



@.@ that's.... not how children process concepts such as sexuality. At all.

Newsflash : children have natural, normal biological responses of a sexual nature. And by "children" I mean as young as toddlers. Boys can - and many do - get erections and feel pleasure from touching their genitals. Girls can - and many do - feel pleasure from touching their genitals. In no way does this mean children (in the legal sense of the word) are ready to have sexual interaction of any kind with any other person. But to say that children "don't need to be studying [sexuality]" in an age-and-developmentally-stage-appropriate way is unacceptable in the real world of 2017. to put it mildly.

It seems like you've had a very different childhood to mine, and certainly a drastically different education. In my country it is the societal norm for children to have a basic understanding of "how sex works" well before puberty. Not because we're teaching children to have sex. But because children deserve to have accurate, relevant information about their bodies and how babies are made.

"Where Did I Come From?" is the most popular book on this topic, and has been used by parents since before I was born to introduce children to this topic. I was 4 when my questions let my mum know I was ready for that kind of information. We've got a copy ready for when my 5 year old nephew is ready.

As an early childhood educator I don't do "sex education" in the room (I work with primarily toddlers to kindergartners). But we have books such as Where Did I Come From? and other resources available for parents to use at home (or privately with them and their child if asked). We use the correct name for genitalia when talking about those body parts. We talk about consent in terms of personal space and respecting people's answer when they say "no". And on and on. These things form the foundation of children's later understanding of their own and other people's sexuality.

I object, strenuously, to the perception of children as fragile creatures who must be protected from their own feelings and thoughts for as long as humanly possible. As a very wise dad once told me - children don't need us to help them be children. They need us to help them grow to be grown-ups.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Mar 20, 2017)

LambdaDelta said:


> 2nd video in results, restricted mode on looks like
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow! That is really strict. If even searching for "straight" gives you something irrelevant to LGBT subjects and only irrelevant videos to LGBT, then restricted mode is too strong.

This year isn't a good year for LGBT. Trump undone Obama's executive order on the bathroom debate and has nominated Gorsuch to the Supreme Court (who has little to no respect). And a theater in Alabama refuses to screen Beauty and the Beast because of one character (which I find insensitive). Now Youtube is doing it with restricted mode.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 20, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> @.@ that's.... not how children process concepts such as sexuality. At all.
> 
> Newsflash : children have natural, normal biological responses of a sexual nature. And by "children" I mean as young as toddlers. Boys can - and many do - get erections and feel pleasure from touching their genitals. Girls can - and many do - feel pleasure from touching their genitals. In no way does this mean children (in the legal sense of the word) are ready to have sexual interaction of any kind with any other person. But to say that children "don't need to be studying [sexuality]" in an age-and-developmentally-stage-appropriate way is unacceptable in the real world of 2017. to put it mildly.
> 
> ...



Best Dad Of The Last 12 Milleniums Award Goes To...

I completely agree. Sheltering children at a young age from topics that they will face as they get older will only cause many more problems. It is why domestic abuse happens and why rape culture still exists. Sheltering children like this is why women are beaten by their partners and killed; because they weren't taught about safe sex, relationships and that 'no means no'.

Even I read "Where Did I Come From?" when I was little lol. Does this not exist in North America/other parts of the world or something?


----------



## ZetaFunction (Mar 20, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> @.@ that's.... not how children process concepts such as sexuality. At all.
> 
> Newsflash : children have natural, normal biological responses of a sexual nature. And by "children" I mean as young as toddlers. Boys can - and many do - get erections and feel pleasure from touching their genitals. Girls can - and many do - feel pleasure from touching their genitals. In no way does this mean children (in the legal sense of the word) are ready to have sexual interaction of any kind with any other person. But to say that children "don't need to be studying [sexuality]" in an age-and-developmentally-stage-appropriate way is unacceptable in the real world of 2017. to put it mildly.
> 
> ...



This is exactly what I want to see, but I guess it's because of how I was raised as far as why I'm worried about sex education.  It might be different for every country, and for different people, but something on the lines of this is what I'd love to see across the world.  And less of how I was taught and learned on my own about it.  My parents sheltered me, which has basically resulted in me learning more and more about this stuff everyday through social media and online (the way no one should learn it tbh), and half I still don't get.  It also doesn't help that my parents are homophobic/transphobic/lgbtphobic, as are quite a few people where I live from what I've noticed, so whatever I am or was is suppressed and replaced with the ideal of 'straight is normal.'  Like I said, I think this is mostly a regional issue.

On a side note, I wonder if the actual YouTube block doesn't exist or is stricter for certain countries?


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 20, 2017)

Apple2012 said:


> And a theater in Alabama refuses to screen Beauty and the Beast because of one character (which I find insensitive).



The movie is called "Beauty and the Beast" and there are people who are actually disturbed most by the same-sex relationship in the movie...


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 20, 2017)

Lucanosa said:


> This is exactly what I want to see, but I guess it's because of how I was raised as far as why I'm worried about sex education.  It might be different for every country, and for different people, but something on the lines of this is what I'd love to see across the world.  And less of how I was taught and learned on my own about it.  My parents sheltered me, which has basically resulted in me learning more and more about this stuff everyday through social media and online (the way no one should learn it tbh), and half I still don't get.  It also doesn't help that my parents are homophobic/transphobic/lgbtphobic, as are quite a few people where I live from what I've noticed, so whatever I am or was is suppressed and replaced with the ideal of 'straight is normal.'  Like I said, I think this is mostly a regional issue.
> 
> On a side note, I wonder if the actual YouTube block doesn't exist or is stricter for certain countries?



It must have been incredibly difficult for you growing up in an environment like that. I am so sorry that happened to you, and sorry for your parents as well as they missed out on a great deal themselves by sheltering you from this information. I hope you continue to try to make sense of yourself and the world around you - and please know that you absolutely deserve to be supported whilst you do so. If your parents can't help you with that (and they clearly cannot), then try to find other supportive adults and/or peers. You don't have to do this alone.

I want to apologise for my snarky "@.@..." and "Newsflash" lines. That was rude of me to have posted and I shouldn't have done so. I was writing this before I saw your reply  - whilst I thank you for not focusing on my rudeness and instead responding to the substance of the rest of my comment, I would owe the apology in any case.


----------



## KarlaKGB (Mar 20, 2017)

Envy said:


> Yet being straight and straight relationships are just allowed to be expressed everywhere in media with little limit. Tell me what makes being gay/lesbian inherently sexual in any way that straight does not?



all i was saying is gay/lesbian/straight are sexual orientations therefore they are all inherently sexual. and youtube, for some reason, doesnt like anything sexual in nature. even if it's as innocuous as orientation.


----------



## Dogemon (Mar 20, 2017)

KarlaKGB said:


> all i was saying is gay/lesbian/straight are sexual orientations therefore they are all inherently sexual. and youtube, for some reason, doesnt like anything sexual in nature. even if it's as innocuous as orientation.



straight is ALSO a sexual orientation, yes, but it is still very allowed in the new system and videos using the words "straight" have been bypassing the filter constantly. Gay is literally the equivalent to straight in terms of being used in a non-sexual way to describe people. I would POSSIBLY get if it was "homosexual", because "heterosexual" is blocked too, but we are damn well kidding ourselves if in 2017 we think the legitimate term to describe someone who is into the same sex is immediately a TOO SEXUAL 4 KIDS term. My cousin, who is 9, says he likes boys and not really girls, and from my understanding from his parents, he knows nothing sexual and just knows how he feels. In the same way there are many kids who have little 'straight' relationships long before they learn anything about sex, the same goes for bi, lesbian, and gay kids. 

My favorite part of this is that these SAME PEOPLE who want this garbage censorship are the ones who laugh and roll their eyes when they see words like "aromantic or "heteromantic" on tumblr. That is literally the only way to describe yourself under this new system if you REALLY don't want ANY sexuality terms used infront of ya damn kids.


----------



## LambdaDelta (Mar 20, 2017)

stop giving corporations a free pass just because of some convenient excuse like a poorly executed filtering algorithm

fact of the matter is that regardless of if this an algorithm issue or something more, they saw it as good enough to roll out in the first place. so they are still 100% at fault, no matter what the reason is


----------



## vel (Mar 20, 2017)

oh no , sexual orientation has the word sexual in it well i'll be darned


----------



## Farobi (Mar 20, 2017)

this is p dope yo

swiggity swaggity P

but either way i dont really care about this youtube drama. feel for u guys though


----------



## radical6 (Mar 20, 2017)

Why are people still arguing about this

YouTube said sorry and will change it

Yes its a greedy org, but this is capitalism, there is no ethics or morals.


----------



## Hopeless Opus (Mar 20, 2017)

Lucanosa said:


> Lol I honestly don't see what the big deal is.  I mean, if you wanna look up LGBT+ stuff, turn off the blocker.  If your Lady Gaga or Bowie song ain't up, turn off the blocker.  Simple.  If you use a school or library computer, use a friend's instead or sneak on incognito if possible?  There's ways around this.  I'm assuming it's mainly for youngins who spend all their time on YouTube, and they're making sure what kids see is actually safe.



again, the problem is more with the filter's existence itself. it's discriminatory toward a group of people (the LGBT community) with its mere presence. youtube, a site that has previously stated that they stand with the LGBT community yet suddenly out of the blue filter any videos having to do with even the simple word 'gay' is disgustingly discriminatory toward so many people. i can understand if you don't want your children to see sexual content - that's what it _should_ be used for, but what is so wrong or unsafe about a gay person? i will never understand the homophobe point of view of 'yeah talk about a guy and girl having sexual relations with one another, but omg dont mention a girl and a girl kissing... that's B A D' it makes 0 sense lol.

the filter poses a problem because not only does it put youtube in a sour light but it also has upset the LGBT video creators and made them feel unwelcome. and it promotes homophobia as well.


----------



## visibleghost (Mar 21, 2017)

forestyne said:


> stop nina-ing me ;u;
> 
> A different debate entirely but why PewDiePie? did wsj do this



he's Offensive and i think  many parents would rather have their children watch random minecraft youtubers than pewdiepie who has a reputation for being  Inappropriate

- - - Post Merge - - -



Lucanosa said:


> Well I understand it, and I also get your concern.  Kids should know about sexuality and stuff, but at an early age when they're immature and not the most intelligent?  Kids are curious and if they find out about any LGBT+ stuff, they'll want to know more about it.  Soon enough you'll have all kids questioning their sexuality, when in reality, most kids are too young to actually truly understand their sexuality and view on love.  Like.... you wouldn't explain how sex works to a kid, and sexuality is sorta on the same lines.  The kid might have a gravitation towards certain people (say he's gay), but he doesn't know he's gay.  Nothing will change the gayness.  It won't change or hurt him if he waits, but it _can_ hurt him if he learns too much too early, since, sexuality.  It's more so because sexuality regardless of how bad it is, is sexuality.  Kids don't need to be studying it.  Period.


if kids want to find out more about sexuality why should they be stopped
are you going to stop kids who want to learn more about space, their culture or how to make a super cool braid? they dont Need to know that, we should protect their innocent brains from it !!!

also kids can know their sexuality. kids see straight people everywhere from the moment they jump out of a vagina. why is it suddenly unnecessary and weird to let them watch lgbtq youtubers

- - - Post Merge - - -



Lucanosa said:


> This basically sums it up.  The part that concerns me though, is that _not all_ kids these days are mature enough to really understand sexuality, nonetheless love.  God knows I still don't know my own sexuality, and I don't even understand love completely, but it doesn't really hinder me because I'm fine with waiting till I meet the right person.  And either way, giving a kid the sex-ed talk _plus_ LGBT+ rundown is on the lines of as much to learn as a school course.
> 
> The only way I can see the world changing completely and for more awareness and acceptance is by teaching this in more schools at an earlier age, and by teaching it in a way they won't be 'tainted' (sorry, but I can't think of a better term for it), resulting in sooner sex-ed talks, and the world reverting back to the ancient days when kids/teens could marry and start families.  But I do agree, kids need to learn this stuff sooner.  Modern society isn't perfect and clean though, and kids should at least enjoy their childhood without worrying about what gender they'll end up marrying with, or trying to get off a porn addiction.



?? no?? just take 15 minutes to explain what it means, that it is normal ecen tho there are gross homophobes and transphobes, give kids resources if they wanna find out more. it's not that hard.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Apple2012 said:


> Wow! That is really strict. If even searching for "straight" gives you something irrelevant to LGBT subjects and only irrelevant videos to LGBT, then restricted mode is too strong.
> 
> This year isn't a good year for LGBT. Trump undone Obama's executive order on the bathroom debate and has nominated Gorsuch to the Supreme Court (who has little to no respect). And a theater in Alabama refuses to screen Beauty and the Beast because of one character (which I find insensitive). Now Youtube is doing it with restricted mode.


wait what lmao what character in beauty and the beast?? is it bc of the furry bc lgbtqF ppl are so Bad
/s but seriously is there an lgbtq character And Dude Wow Alabama Great

- - - Post Merge - - -



Lucanosa said:


> This is exactly what I want to see, but I guess it's because of how I was raised as far as why I'm worried about sex education.  It might be different for every country, and for different people, but something on the lines of this is what I'd love to see across the world.  And less of how I was taught and learned on my own about it.  My parents sheltered me, which has basically resulted in me learning more and more about this stuff everyday through social media and online (the way no one should learn it tbh), and half I still don't get.  It also doesn't help that my parents are homophobic/transphobic/lgbtphobic, as are quite a few people where I live from what I've noticed, so whatever I am or was is suppressed and replaced with the ideal of 'straight is normal.'  Like I said, I think this is mostly a regional issue.
> 
> On a side note, I wonder if the actual YouTube block doesn't exist or is stricter for certain countries?


it exists in every language but might not work as well in them.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Red Cat said:


> The movie is called "Beauty and the Beast" and there are people who are actually disturbed most by the same-sex relationship in the movie...



DONT KINKSHAME !!!! kinksters r more oppressed than lgbtq UwU

no but srsly i want 2 Die dont they dislike the fact that a human falls in love with a ****ing bear guy


----------



## AnimalCrossingPerson (Mar 21, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> Because it didn't used to censor LGBTQIA+ content like this? YouTube themselves have acknowledged the issue.



Fair enough.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 21, 2017)

LambdaDelta said:


> stop giving corporations a free pass just because of some convenient excuse like a poorly executed filtering algorithm
> 
> fact of the matter is that regardless of if this an algorithm issue or something more, they saw it as good enough to roll out in the first place. so they are still 100% at fault, no matter what the reason is



YouTube, a company that claims to support the LGBT movement, should not be censoring LGBT content that has the right to be on YouTube. If it's not sexually explicit, it shouldn't be censored. LGBT awareness content is *not* sexually explicit.


----------



## ZekkoXCX (Mar 21, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> DONT KINKSHAME !!!! kinksters r more oppressed than lgbtq UwU
> 
> no but srsly i want 2 Die dont they dislike the fact that a human falls in love with a ****ing bear guy


bc
furries
we uwu they will dominate the world!!11 owo


----------



## KarlaKGB (Mar 21, 2017)

Dogemon said:


> straight is ALSO a sexual orientation, yes, but it is still very allowed in the new system and videos using the words "straight" have been bypassing the filter constantly. Gay is literally the equivalent to straight in terms of being used in a non-sexual way to describe people. I would POSSIBLY get if it was "homosexual", because "heterosexual" is blocked too, but we are damn well kidding ourselves if in 2017 we think the legitimate term to describe someone who is into the same sex is immediately a TOO SEXUAL 4 KIDS term. My cousin, who is 9, says he likes boys and not really girls, and from my understanding from his parents, he knows nothing sexual and just knows how he feels. In the same way there are many kids who have little 'straight' relationships long before they learn anything about sex, the same goes for bi, lesbian, and gay kids.
> 
> My favorite part of this is that these SAME PEOPLE who want this garbage censorship are the ones who laugh and roll their eyes when they see words like "aromantic or "heteromantic" on tumblr. That is literally the only way to describe yourself under this new system if you REALLY don't want ANY sexuality terms used infront of ya damn kids.



straight is also a word that has a very commonly used non-sexual meaning. and the youtube system mostly uses an algorithm, which is by its very nature automated. that's why it can't just blanket censor the word 'straight'


----------



## visibleghost (Mar 21, 2017)

KarlaKGB said:


> straight is also a word that has a very commonly used non-sexual meaning. and the youtube system mostly uses an algorithm, which is by its very nature automated. that's why it can't just blanket censor the word 'straight'


gay isnt a sexual word
trans isnt a sexual word
lgbtq words arent sexual bc they can b related to sexuality



Taiko said:


> bc
> furries
> we uwu they will dominate the world!!11 owo


just glomp me to death already .


----------



## Soda Fox (Mar 21, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> gay isnt a sexual word
> trans isnt a sexual word
> lgbtq words arent sexual bc they can b related to sexuality
> 
> ...



To be fair gay is a sexual word now,  although it used to commonly be defined as happy, I haven't heard anyone use gay to mean happy in a long time. Transsexual is also a sexual word (sexual is in the word after all) and transgender is also arguably sexual since gender and sex go HD sand (*lol phone you so crazy,  I'm leaving it - meant to say : hand in hand). Trans by itself is not sexual because trans is also commonly used to describe getting one place to another. 

And of course lgbtq words are sexual because even you said they are related to sexuality, which is inherently sexual - it's in the name. Even asexual is sexual because it's in regards to sexuality. If youtube is using an algorithm that also explains why so much of that is getting restricted. 

Honestly this is why I don't really like algprithms. Algorithms don't truly think. Honestly what youtube should do is go by user feedback on videos and have staff investigate. But that takes time, money, reliance on staff to do their jobs and viewers to leave appropriate feedback. An algorithm is just easier. 

Like I said before, if you have a problem with it, contact youtube and let them know what you think or stop using the service until they fix the algorithm or go with a different plan.


----------



## KarlaKGB (Mar 21, 2017)

Soda Fox said:


> And of course lgbtq words are sexual because even you said they are related to sexuality, which is inherently sexual - it's in the name. Even asexual is sexual because it's in regards to sexuality. If youtube is using an algorithm that also explains why so much of that is getting restricted.



it's baffling how many ppl dont understand the definition of 'sexual':
adjective
1.
relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals.
"she had felt the thrill of a sexual attraction"
synonyms:	carnal, erotic, coital, venereal; sensual
"sexual pleasure"

2.
relating to the two sexes or to gender.
"sensitivity about sexual stereotypes"

something doesnt have to be 'dirty' or related to actual sex or sex acts or any form of sexual deviancy in order to be sexual


----------



## forestyne (Mar 21, 2017)

KarlaKGB said:


> it's baffling how many ppl dont understand the definition of 'sexual':
> adjective
> 1.
> relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals.
> ...



But it's not sexually explicit, therefore it should not be blocked.


----------



## Dogemon (Mar 21, 2017)

It's baffling how people don't realize saying you are straight is JUST AS SEXUAL AS SAYING YOU ARE GAY.


----------



## AnimalCrossingPerson (Mar 21, 2017)

forestyne said:


> But it's not sexually explicit, therefore it should not be blocked.




*Stuff that should be blocked from restricted mode YouTube*​*Stuff that should be blocked from YouTube full stop*​"I am gay""Me and my partner of the same gender have sex"
*they undress...*"I am straight""Me and my partner of the opposite gender have sex"
*they undress...*

People are focussed on restricted mode blocking videos about being gay, but I assume a video where someone comes out as straight (if anything like that exists without being a joke) would also be blocked, so it *should* work either way.


----------



## KarlaKGB (Mar 21, 2017)

Dogemon said:


> It's baffling how people don't realize saying you are straight is JUST AS SEXUAL AS SAYING YOU ARE GAY.



it's baffling how people don't realise that I AGREE


----------



## Bella789 (Mar 21, 2017)

I'm really upset that YouTube would make the LGBTQ community feel like this


----------



## cIementine (Mar 21, 2017)

i don't see why it's so hard to be tolerant and not homophobic on a non-restrictive platform. love is love is love is love and the fact this can't be encouraged by a huge website like youtube is pretty terrible.
how about homophobes go to vimeo or something so they can watch videos on a platform just as irrelevant and unnecessary as homophobia


----------



## Tao (Mar 21, 2017)

Dogemon said:


> It's baffling how people don't realize saying you are straight is JUST AS SEXUAL AS SAYING YOU ARE GAY.



In that context, yes, that is what those words mean...Who's saying it doesn't? Nobody.

But you can also say "this line is straight", "I'll take that drink straight", "turn left and go straight", "that shelf isn't straight", "her hair is straight", "with a straight face", "I'm off the drugs, I'm going straight", "you're damn straight!", "that homosexual mans penis is really straight". 

'Gay' is only used in reference to sexual orientation, which by its very definition comes under the term 'sexual', sos even if most of us probably wouldn't actually class the term by itself as something sexually explicit, it's still sexual...The only other thing it means (carefree) is so dated that it's really a waste of time mentioning it ever meant that, it's basically grasping at straws to do so. Sexual orientation is the only thing it means these days, unless you're from 1862.



If we're just throwing words into a filter because in a certain context they're 'sexual', we better throw 'balls', 'commando' and 'footlong' into the algorithm too.

The Youtube filter is crap, that's been well documented over the last 20 pages, but by the rules of their system it at least makes sense that 'gay' is in there as a blanket term and 'straight' isn't.


----------



## Soda Fox (Mar 21, 2017)

Although balls can also mean any spherical object and could make scientific videos get blocked too. And footlong would cause them to list any sandwich shop advertisement. I agree with commando being blocked though.


----------



## LambdaDelta (Mar 21, 2017)

so decided to check, and "heterosexual" gets plenty of actual het(-related) stuff by the filter

anyone want to try their flimsy ass "it's because gay is primarily about the sexual orientation" argument again?

update: same for "sexual". in fact the first result is some "sexual assault is funny" cartoon ****


----------



## forestyne (Mar 21, 2017)

pumpkins said:


> i don't see why it's so hard to be tolerant and not homophobic on a non-restrictive platform. love is love is love is love and the fact this can't be encouraged by a huge website like youtube is pretty terrible.
> how about homophobes go to vimeo or something so they can watch videos on a platform just as irrelevant and unnecessary as homophobia



Exactly. YouTube should not be catering to homophobes and straight people who think that gay people shouldn't exist, like a lot of people on this thread.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Soda Fox said:


> Although balls can also mean any spherical object and could make scientific videos get blocked too. And footlong would cause them to list any sandwich shop advertisement. I agree with commando being blocked though.



But they *shouldn't be blocking anything that isn't sexually explicit.* Blocking anything to do with homo/bisexuality is a huge slap in the face to the LGBT community who _aren't_ doing anything wrong.


----------



## Soda Fox (Mar 21, 2017)

LambdaDelta said:


> so decided to check, and "heterosexual" gets plenty of actual het(-related) stuff by the filter
> 
> anyone want to try their flimsy ass "it's because gay is primarily about the sexual orientation" argument again?
> 
> update: same for "sexual". in fact the first result is some "sexual assault is funny" cartoon ****



Thanks for checking. I never use youtube so I haven't tested the filter. I encourage everyone to send angry emails to youtube and/or stop going there until they change. 

Other than visibility, complaining about it here does nothing to change youtube's new policy.

- - - Post Merge - - -



forestyne said:


> Exactly. YouTube should not be catering to homophobes and straight people who think that gay people shouldn't exist, like a lot of people on this thread.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> ...



Right, as I said before staff and users should be flagging and removing things by the letter actual content but algorithms based on keywords or titles are easier so that's probably why they're doing it this way.


----------



## Bowie (Mar 21, 2017)

Aside from the homophobic stuff, I'm pretty that this is just an easier way for YouTube to deal with inappropriate content without actually doing anything. In my experience with YouTube, they are absolutely terrible in relation to support. There _is_ no support. There's a community forum where other users can talk about stuff, but no actual support system.


----------



## Soda Fox (Mar 21, 2017)

Bowie said:


> Aside from the homophobic stuff, I'm pretty that this is just an easier way for YouTube to deal with inappropriate content without actually doing anything. In my experience with YouTube, they are absolutely terrible in relation to support. There _is_ no support. There's a community forum where other users can talk about stuff, but no actual support system.



Aka one of the many reasons I don't use youtube and with this added nonsense I suggest everyone put their money where their mouth is and stop supporting youtube if they're doing something that pisses you off.


----------



## Ghost Soda (Mar 21, 2017)

Anyone who knows me should know how I feel about this. Censorship like this is grounded in pure hate, nothing else. There's no good reason to be censoring perfectly innocent videos simply because they're not straight and cis. And anybody who thinks this doesn't matter needs to remember that plenty of kids themselves that are LGBT or questioning and youtube basically told them all that their existence needs to be censored.



DarkDesertFox said:


> So? Maybe parents don't want their kids to be exposed to that kind of thing. Just keep it off if it bugs you.



Gotta love that double standard. When people (e.g. LGBTQ+ people) want to just live their lives without having hate spewed towards them, we're "whiny SJWs" that are "censoring free speech", but when bigoted parents can't handle their kids being exposed to anybody different then them, suddenly we all have to bend over backwards for them? lel



DarkDesertFox said:


> Funny thing is if that did happen there would be no outcry. It's only when the LGBT+ is affected when it's actually newsworthy to the media.



Ummm, was there not a time not even that long ago when people saying "happy holidays" instead of "merry christmas" caused an outcry of "war on christianity!!!111"? Did I dream that up?



Lucanosa said:


> Well I understand it, and I also get your concern.  Kids should know about sexuality and stuff, but at an early age when they're immature and not the most intelligent?  Kids are curious and if they find out about any LGBT+ stuff, they'll want to know more about it.  Soon enough you'll have all kids questioning their sexuality, when in reality, most kids are too young to actually truly understand their sexuality and view on love.  Like.... you wouldn't explain how sex works to a kid, and sexuality is sorta on the same lines.  The kid might have a gravitation towards certain people (say he's gay), but he doesn't know he's gay.  Nothing will change the gayness.  It won't change or hurt him if he waits, but it _can_ hurt him if he learns too much too early, since, sexuality.  It's more so because sexuality regardless of how bad it is, is sexuality.  Kids don't need to be studying it.  Period.



And kids questioning themselves is bad... how? Last time I checked, LGB people aren't all about "doing the do". They get childhood crushes just like hetero kids do. Why are kids allowed to be straight without argument but if they say they're gay suddenly they're "too young to really know"?


----------



## DarkDesertFox (Mar 22, 2017)

Ghost Soda said:


> Gotta love that double standard. When people (e.g. LGBTQ+ people) want to just live their lives without having hate spewed towards them, we're "whiny SJWs" that are "censoring free speech", but when bigoted parents can't handle their kids being exposed to anybody different then them, suddenly we all have to bend over backwards for them? lel



Isn't that a double standard trying to force us to accept what the LGBT+ feel is right when we feel it is wrong? I don't hate anyone that's part of the LGBT+ because I don't agree it. Christianity isn't about shunning or treating a group differently. We're supposed to love everyone. That doesn't mean I'm going to accept your beliefs. Anyways, wasn't the filter removed? It's time to move on people. Can't complain about something forever.



Ghost Soda said:


> Ummm, was there not a time not even that long ago when people saying "happy holidays" instead of "merry christmas" caused an outcry of "war on christianity!!!111"? Did I dream that up?



Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about here.


----------



## N e s s (Mar 22, 2017)

DarkDesertFox said:


> Isn't that a double standard trying to force us to accept what the LGBT+ feel is right when we feel it is wrong? I don't hate anyone that's part of the LGBT+ because I don't agree it. Christianity isn't about shunning or treating a group differently. We're supposed to love everyone. That doesn't mean I'm going to accept your beliefs.



If you truly, honestly follow those morals everyday, then I respect you; you're doing christianity correctly. The other day a christian boy in my grade said that gays deserve to go to hell, and another christian boy in my grade said that "democrats deserve to be shot by ISIS". So yeah, thats just one of the things that peeves me about christianity, not everyone follows what Jesus taught them yet they think they're the most innocent perfect people.


----------



## Dogemon (Mar 22, 2017)

DarkDesertFox said:


> Isn't that a double standard trying to force us to accept what the LGBT+ feel is right when we feel it is wrong? I don't hate anyone that's part of the LGBT+ because I don't agree it. Christianity isn't about shunning or treating a group differently. We're supposed to love everyone. That doesn't mean I'm going to accept your beliefs. Anyways, wasn't the filter removed? It's time to move on people. Can't complain about something forever.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about here.



When "right" is them just living their damn lives, no, it isn't a double standard. When "right" is them being an average human who also HAPPENS to be gay, no, it's not a double standard either. They aren't asking for people of different moral compasses to change what they feel, but to just not use their beliefs as a weapon/excuse to degrade others, which I see far too often from fellow Christians and conservatives in real life, versus lgbtq people in real life insulting others.  

Just because the filter is being looked at now because people caused a ruckus, doesn't mean we can't discuss the underlying issue of why/how these things happen. No one is forcing Christians to put gays or lesbians or trans people on a pedestal, what people are saying is that *forcing* a blindfold over your child's eyes to LGBTQ+ community is in itself hateful and breeds ignorance because they literally block access to acquiring knowledge about it. I don't see non-religious folks blocking videos on religion or people trying to block kids from accessing information about Christians, a religion many are not a fan of.


----------



## AnimalCrossingPerson (Mar 22, 2017)

Surprised this thread hasn't been locked yet from the fuss it's creating.

Anyway, seeing as everyone's banging on about words having double meanings, has anyone tested the filter in other languages?

- - - Post Merge - - -

Also, who actually uses restricted mode? "Protecting" your child on YouTube isn't going to stop them finding particular content in the great vastness of the internet. Honestly, either hover over their shoulder or don't even try.

"_Welp, I can no longer watch Onision because my mum's a pain and I'm not smart enough to think of switching browsers, clearing cookies, using an incognito window or any of those easy solutions, so I'll just play some GTA V instead._"

- - - Post Merge - - -

And while we're post merging, as I rant about overprotective parents, kids are going to hear and see things at school.

I don't think anything on YouTube could be more traumatising than our primary school's sex ed video (we were like 10) that had a family of fully naked people wandering about the house with Bowie's "ch- ch- ch- changes" song.


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 22, 2017)

LambdaDelta said:


> so decided to check, and "heterosexual" gets plenty of actual het(-related) stuff by the filter
> 
> anyone want to try their flimsy ass "it's because gay is primarily about the sexual orientation" argument again?
> 
> update: same for "sexual". in fact the first result is some "sexual assault is funny" cartoon ****



Yep, I've found the same thing. I know a couple of people who've checked in other languages and of course other countries - in addition to the checking that's happened in this thread from many people.

This is a real thing. A real problem. YouTube acknowledge this. The problem is widely - and very disproportionately -affecting the LGBTQIA+ content on YouTube, and is happening right now, all over the world.

If someone wants to try and argue those facts, they'd need a significant amount of evidence to back that stance up.

This is real. If you don't *care* or don't think anything should be done to address this issue, then those are different discussions to have. Though, this thread has covered most angles including some highly objectionable ones.

- - - Post Merge - - -



AnimalCrossingPerson said:


> Surprised this thread hasn't been locked yet from the fuss it's creating.
> 
> Anyway, seeing as everyone's banging on about words having double meanings, *has anyone tested the filter in other languages*?
> 
> ...



Bolded sections in order :

1. Yes. In this thread alone, off the top of my head, visibleghost has. I personally know people who have tested in it italian and french.

2. I feel like this has been pretty well answered already, the answer is almost all schools, preschool/kindergarten/early learning centres, public libraries, neighbourhood houses, community centres, and many/lots of universities/colleges/tafes. Most parents have this restricted mode turned on from the time children can access the internet (supervised or not, no responsible adult wants random videos showing up as recommendations with children watching).

2. I'm not at all sure why seeing a family of people walk around their home naked - with a song by Bowie or any other artist - would be traumatising, but I'm sorry it was for you. I can't really relate to your experience as my own sex ed was excellent. The programs I've seen and heard about as an educator are all well designed, properly implemented and the nudity involved is carefully chosen and used appropriately.


----------



## AnimalCrossingPerson (Mar 22, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> 1. Yes. In this thread alone, off the top of my head, visibleghost has. I personally know people who have tested in it italian and french.
> 
> 2. I feel like this has been pretty well answered already, the answer is almost all schools, preschool/kindergarten/early learning centres, public libraries, neighbourhood houses, community centres, and many/lots of universities/colleges/tafes. Most parents have this restricted mode turned on from the time children can access the internet (supervised or not, no responsible adult wants random videos showing up as recommendations with children watching).



Oh. Sorry for being a little ignorant, lol.



amanda1983 said:


> 2. I'm not at all sure why seeing a family of people walk around their home naked - with a song by Bowie or any other artist - would be traumatising, but I'm sorry it was for you. I can't really relate to your experience as my own sex ed was excellent. The programs I've seen and heard about as an educator are all well designed, properly implemented and the nudity involved is carefully chosen and used appropriately.



I wasn't serious about it being traumatic, but it did leave a lasting impression. I don't know anyone who has seen that video and can still listen to that song without thinking about it. I think the video was shown too soon.


----------



## Buster Bunny (Mar 22, 2017)

I'm mostly neutral about LGBT people, I don't mind their life style as long one doesn't go wanting to flirt with me.

However, I cannot accept the attitude of an heterophobe who is angry just because I don't like LGBT shipping, read mangas or watch videos featuring LGBT people.

After all heterophobes double themselves as homophobes and are not worth of anyone's time.

Nobody should be ever blamed for not wanting to watch these videos.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Mar 22, 2017)

I have a question about restricted mode. While it blocks anything inappropriate for children and lgbt content, how does it handle other controversial content. Like racial topics, global warming, political correctness, economic systems (such as capitalism and communism), or anything else like that? Do they get blocked too, or just the lgbt stuff?


----------



## tumut (Mar 22, 2017)

DarkDesertFox said:


> Isn't that a double standard trying to force us to accept what the LGBT+ feel is right when we feel it is wrong? I don't hate anyone that's part of the LGBT+ because I don't agree it. Christianity isn't about shunning or treating a group differently. We're supposed to love everyone. That doesn't mean I'm going to accept your beliefs. Anyways, wasn't the filter removed? It's time to move on people. Can't complain about something forever.
> 
> 
> Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about here.


1. Anime is a sin. 
2. You literally can pick and choose what to believe from the bible and still be Christian, so I guess its convenient to choose to not accept gays and shame them from being who they are. Or you might just be a bigot who can't wrap their heads about someone being different.
3. My family is Catholic and my religious beliefs put me in denial and guilt of being gay for a good five years. Thankfully they were accepting, but not being accepting is wrong and ****ty, and it doesn't make you a good person. Not to mention that there is nothing morally wrong with being gay, and not something you can control. 
4. Get &#55357;&#56399; woke&#55357;&#56399;


----------



## Noir (Mar 22, 2017)

Nah, man. I can't believe they would do this in the first place. This isn't cool.


Just because of it may not be "typical" and actually "taboo" in the major religions that happen to condemn it, most likely because of mistranslations and cherry picking, doesn't mean it makes it okay to majorly and focus-censor that specific category. I mean, we have this problem with censorship, already. if you want to actually shield children, shield them from explicit videos. Not something as innocent as a couple making marriage vows. And no, I refuse to call them lesbians out and out at this point. Really, it makes no sense. They are human beings, like us. It doesn't make a difference.

Although I'm Christian, this is practically one of the reasons I refuse a lot of the bible's beliefs, and rather read the actual ancient text that was made... But unfortunately, I doubt even that was the pure copy since the Catholics like to remove books from that book itself. But, whatever. I digress. However, if they want to actually "restrict" properly, they should restrict things that promote misogyny, sexism, racism, prejudism at its finest, sexual graphics, violence and gore. Also gang related things. I mean, honestly. If you want to go that far, go do the others. it'll make you look far less bigoted and hypocritical.


----------



## AnimalCrossingPerson (Mar 22, 2017)

Dixx said:


> You literally can pick and choose what to believe from the bible and still be Christian



Not a very good one if you really want to go for it and become Ned Flanders. Granted, I think there are contradictions between some stuff - I've not really looked into it too deeply.


----------



## visibleghost (Mar 22, 2017)

Apple2012 said:


> I have a question about restricted mode. While it blocks anything inappropriate for children and lgbt content, how does it handle other controversial content. Like racial topics, global warming, political correctness, economic systems (such as capitalism and communism), or anything else like that? Do they get blocked too, or just the lgbt stuff?



idk you can turn it on yourself to see what videos are blocked. i dont think theyve released any key words or how the restricted mode algorithm works. it sounds like it is mostly a filter for sexual content and violence so idk sbout politicsl issues


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Mar 22, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> idk you can turn it on yourself to see what videos are blocked. i dont think theyve released any key words or how the restricted mode algorithm works. it sounds like it is mostly a filter for sexual content and violence so idk sbout politicsl issues



Well restricted mode might block racist videos at least. I hope it does block them. In fact, why would anyone upload that kind of video online anyway? Especially since race is a much hotter topic than LGBT. Always has, and always will.

But for the other political ones, I'm not so sure. I was only wondering because of its blocking of LGBT content. But hey, Youtube is considering on fixing this issue.


----------



## DarkDesertFox (Mar 22, 2017)

Dogemon said:


> When "right" is them just living their damn lives, no, it isn't a double standard. When "right" is them being an average human who also HAPPENS to be gay, no, it's not a double standard either. They aren't asking for people of different moral compasses to change what they feel, but to just not use their beliefs as a weapon/excuse to degrade others, which I see far too often from fellow Christians and conservatives in real life, versus lgbtq people in real life insulting others.
> 
> Just because the filter is being looked at now because people caused a ruckus, doesn't mean we can't discuss the underlying issue of why/how these things happen. No one is forcing Christians to put gays or lesbians or trans people on a pedestal, what people are saying is that *forcing* a blindfold over your child's eyes to LGBTQ+ community is in itself hateful and breeds ignorance because they literally block access to acquiring knowledge about it. I don't see non-religious folks blocking videos on religion or people trying to block kids from accessing information about Christians, a religion many are not a fan of.



People that are doing what you say they are and claim to be Christians are not following Jesus's words. You guys have to please understand that. I have gay friends, trans friends, bi friends. I don't persecute them for their decision. It's theirs, not mine. I just don't want to be forced to accept it as God's intention and that it's a "normal" thing. You can call me a bigot, a hater, oppressor, I don't really care. That's not what I am though. I just want to see people be saved like any other Christian should. Whether you believe in a Heaven or not, it's what we believe in. I'm not going to force you to accept my beliefs either. Someone has to be open and willing to accept God's word.


----------



## Dogemon (Mar 22, 2017)

Buster Bunny said:


> I'm mostly neutral about LGBT people, I don't mind their life style as long one doesn't go wanting to flirt with me.
> 
> However, I cannot accept the attitude of an heterophobe who is angry just because I don't like LGBT shipping, read mangas or watch videos featuring LGBT people.
> 
> ...



How do heterophobes double themselves as homophobes.  Also once again, take your logic and think how "I don't mind black people as long as they don't hit on me and I don't have to watch videos of them" sounds???

You should be blamed if you are blocking OTHERS from being able to see videos of them if they are following guidelines correctly.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 22, 2017)

AnimalCrossingPerson said:


> --snip snip--
> And while we're post merging, as I rant about overprotective parents, kids are going to hear and see things at school.
> 
> I don't think anything on YouTube could be more traumatising than our primary school's sex ed video (we were like 10) that had a family of fully naked people wandering about the house with Bowie's "ch- ch- ch- changes" song.



Christ. We watched a 70's 'pornographic film' and a woman giving birth, camera angle completely head-on into the abyss. I am still scarred.


There's always gonna be young kids who see things on the internet or hear it from their parents and then talk about it at school. That's how I learnt about my period (the joys of living with a single father) and ''sinners'' according to the Americans, aka gay people. Even though my parents never told me about being gay or bisexual, or told me it was wrong or gross, I still realised that gay people are still human. And you can only shelter your superior race children into being cis straight people before they grow up and see the world.


----------



## keef_kogane (Mar 22, 2017)

Buster Bunny said:


> I'm mostly neutral about LGBT people, *I don't mind their life style as long one doesn't go wanting to flirt with me.*
> 
> However, I cannot accept the attitude of an heterophobe who is angry just because I don't like LGBT shipping, read mangas or watch videos featuring LGBT people.
> 
> ...



I have seen _so many_ straight people say this and it's just baffling to think that there are people out there, like you, that think the world revolves around them and that every gay person will automatically think you're hot **** and want to flirt with you.  It doesn't work like that.  In fact, most LGBT+ people are quite cautious when it comes to flirting.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 22, 2017)

Buster Bunny said:


> I'm mostly neutral about LGBT people, I don't mind their life style as long one doesn't go wanting to flirt with me.
> 
> However, I cannot accept the attitude of an heterophobe who is angry just because I don't like LGBT shipping, read mangas or watch videos featuring LGBT people.
> 
> ...



*Translated for the normal minds:*

I don't mind homosexual people in my locker rooms, but if they look at me in a certain way or try to make a move I will gather a gang of other straight white males, beat him to a pulp and leave him for dead.

- - - Post Merge - - -



keef_kogane said:


> I have seen _so many_ straight people say this and it's just baffling to think that there are people out there, like you, that think the world revolves around them and that every gay person will automatically think you're hot **** and want to flirt with you.  It doesn't work like that.  In fact, most LGBT+ people are quite cautious when it comes to flirting.



Before I even _try_ to flirt I make it clear that I'm bi, or wait for them to make a move because I'm too socially awkward to do anything.

Like I said before, we aren't all sexual deviants. No 6-inch acrylics here 

- - - Post Merge - - -



DarkDesertFox said:


> People that are doing what you say they are and claim to be Christians are not following Jesus's words. You guys have to please understand that.* I have gay friends, trans friends, bi friends. I don't persecute them for their decision. It's theirs, not mine.* I just don't want to be forced to accept it as God's intention and that it's a "normal" thing. You can call me a bigot, a hater, oppressor, I don't really care. That's not what I am though. I just want to see people be saved like any other Christian should. Whether you believe in a Heaven or not, it's what we believe in. I'm not going to force you to accept my beliefs either. Someone has to be open and willing to accept God's word.



*Being gay isn't a decision.* And why would you have LGBT friends if you thought that way?  I, for one, wouldn't want to be friends with someone who suppressed, abhorred and detested my existence because of some book. Believe what you want, but how can you have gay and trans friends if you hate their existence so much?

Homo/transphobes tend to pull the "I have LGBT friends" card too often. Do you have any cards left?


----------



## Bowie (Mar 22, 2017)

"I'm not racist, I have black friends!"


----------



## visibleghost (Mar 22, 2017)

DarkDesertFox said:


> People that are doing what you say they are and claim to be Christians are not following Jesus's words. You guys have to please understand that. I have gay friends, trans friends, bi friends. I don't persecute them for their decision. It's theirs, not mine. I just don't want to be forced to accept it as God's intention and that it's a "normal" thing. You can call me a bigot, a hater, oppressor, I don't really care. That's not what I am though. I just want to see people be saved like any other Christian should. Whether you believe in a Heaven or not, it's what we believe in. I'm not going to force you to accept my beliefs either. Someone has to be open and willing to accept God's word.



cool but you Are a bigot if you cant accept lgbtq people as normal lmao Pls 
if you feel Personally Attacked when youre called out on being oppressive and bigoted youre rly ,. not Great .



Buster Bunny said:


> I'm mostly neutral about LGBT people, I don't mind their life style as long one doesn't go wanting to flirt with me.
> 
> However, I cannot accept the attitude of an heterophobe who is angry just because I don't like LGBT shipping, read mangas or watch videos featuring LGBT people.
> 
> ...



afbbnfvfvdsfjkkyrsvbdss i want to Die are u for real ? . where are these heterophobes. did they come in another bus together with the down with cis bus?

- - - Post Merge - - -

also the thing about "as long as they dont flirt with me xD" lol dont worry anyone who says that is automatically ugly like full offense but gay people probably dont want to flirt with homophobes so Yeah

- - - Post Merge - - -



forestyne said:


> *Translated for the normal minds:*
> 
> I don't mind homosexual people in my locker rooms, but if they look at me in a certain way or try to make a move I will gather a gang of other straight white males, beat him to a pulp and leave him for dead.
> 
> ...



HahaHhHah the first part sounds like the violent homophobes and transphobesin my last school :')) when we were taught about lgbtq (well it was only Homosexual Bisexual Transsexual and the Normal, Heterosexual) some boys spent over 15 minutes talking about how they would beat any guy who flirted with them HaHaHa then they said that if any of their friends cane out as lgbtq theyd try to Cure them from the evil disease :')


----------



## forestyne (Mar 22, 2017)

Bowie said:


> "I'm not racist, I have black friends!"



"I don't mind black people, I have black friends, but I don't want to be forced to accept it as a "normal" thing.."


----------



## fenris (Mar 22, 2017)

DarkDesertFox said:


> People that are doing what you say they are and claim to be Christians are not following Jesus's words. You guys have to please understand that. I have gay friends, trans friends, bi friends. I don't persecute them for their decision. It's theirs, not mine. I just don't want to be forced to accept it as God's intention and that it's a "normal" thing. You can call me a bigot, a hater, oppressor, I don't really care. That's not what I am though. I just want to see people be saved like any other Christian should. Whether you believe in a Heaven or not, it's what we believe in. I'm not going to force you to accept my beliefs either. Someone has to be open and willing to accept God's word.



dude, how can you call these people your friends and say things like that about them?

also, being LGBT isn't a _decision_.  I definitely wouldn't have chosen to be trans, especially not living in Mississippi, right on the buckle of the Bible Belt...  do you know what it's like when so many people around you are convinced that you deserve to go to hell because you're _different_?  do you know what it's like to grow up feeling _wrong_ and disgusting and having no idea why, because your schools never discuss LGBT-related matters, so you don't even learn what a trans person is until you're 18 and meet a trans guy on the internet, and finally realize in your 20s that you're trans yourself?  do you know what it's like having to pretend to be someone you're not, to stay in the closet and be misgendered constantly because the alternative is risking being murdered or worse?

it's not a life anyone would choose.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 22, 2017)

Imagine if God or the crazy stoner who wrote the bible didn't realise they left the "man shall not lie with another man" line in the book and he's now rolling in Heaven/his grave and kicking himself like









SHOULD'VE GONE TO SPECSAVERS​
- - - Post Merge - - -



fenris said:


> dude, how can you call these people your friends and say things like that about them?
> 
> also, being LGBT isn't a _decision_.  I definitely wouldn't have chosen to be trans, especially not living in Mississippi, right on the buckle of the Bible Belt...  do you know what it's like when so many people around you are convinced that you deserve to go to hell because you're _different_?  do you know what it's like to grow up feeling _wrong_ and disgusting and having no idea why, because your schools never discuss LGBT-related matters, so you don't even learn what a trans person is until you're 18 and meet a trans guy on the internet, and finally realize in your 20s that you're trans yourself?  do you know what it's like having to pretend to be someone you're not, to stay in the closet and be misgendered constantly because the alternative is risking being murdered or worse?
> 
> it's not a life anyone would choose.



This is where the "I have LGBT friends" card backfires, because nobody would ever say that about their friends' life choices. If I had to guess, these LGBT friends do not exist, because nobody would ever be friends with someone who despises their existence and wants to "free them" from their """"deadly disease""""


----------



## DarkDesertFox (Mar 22, 2017)

fenris said:


> dude, how can you call these people your friends and say things like that about them?
> 
> also, being LGBT isn't a _decision_.  I definitely wouldn't have chosen to be trans, especially not living in Mississippi, right on the buckle of the Bible Belt...  do you know what it's like when so many people around you are convinced that you deserve to go to hell because you're _different_?  do you know what it's like to grow up feeling _wrong_ and disgusting and having no idea why, because your schools never discuss LGBT-related matters, so you don't even learn what a trans person is until you're 18 and meet a trans guy on the internet, and finally realize in your 20s that you're trans yourself?  do you know what it's like having to pretend to be someone you're not, to stay in the closet and be misgendered constantly because the alternative is risking being murdered or worse?
> 
> it's not a life anyone would choose.



Honestly, I've said all I really needed to say. I don't expect everyone to be on the same page I am. I don't really want to go deeper on this at the risk of igniting flames. All I can say is that I'm sorry if Christians have made you feel that way. That's not what Jesus taught us to do. I don't know what that's like and I'm not going to pretend I do. It's a difficult world we live in.


----------



## Dogemon (Mar 22, 2017)

forestyne said:


> This is where the "I have LGBT friends" card backfires, because nobody would ever say that about their friends' life choices. If I had to guess, these LGBT friends do not exist, because nobody would ever be friends with someone who despises their existence and wants to "free them" from their """"deadly disease""""



Or he isn't honest/open about how he feels to them. I was actually surprised considering how I have seen him talk to trans/gay/lesbian people before. I'm sure they would be none too happy if he actually did talk about how he feels their 'lifestyle' is wrong.


----------



## Bowie (Mar 22, 2017)

I would never have chosen to be gay if I had known I was going to be persecuted by people like that. Told that what I am is a disease, and that it is wrong for me to feel and give love because a magic man in the sky is going to burn me for it. People with that philosophy deserve to have the tables turned on them and see how they like it. I don't need a cure and I certainly don't need "friends" who tell me that my "decision" is "sinful".


----------



## DarkDesertFox (Mar 22, 2017)

forestyne said:


> This is where the "I have LGBT friends" card backfires, because nobody would ever say that about their friends' life choices. If I had to guess, these LGBT friends do not exist, because nobody would ever be friends with someone who despises their existence and wants to "free them" from their """"deadly disease""""



Honestly, I don't care if you believe me or not. I don't even know what I said was wrong. I said I'm okay with their choices. There is a lot of negative responses, but that's to be expected.


----------



## Bowie (Mar 22, 2017)

DarkDesertFox said:


> Honestly, I don't care if you believe me or not. I don't even know what I said was wrong. I said I'm okay with their choices. There is a lot of negative responses, but that's to be expected.



It's not a choice. That's the problem with what you're saying.


----------



## Red Cat (Mar 22, 2017)

DarkDesertFox said:


> People that are doing what you say they are and claim to be Christians are not following Jesus's words. You guys have to please understand that. I have gay friends, trans friends, bi friends. I don't persecute them for their decision. It's theirs, not mine. I just don't want to be forced to accept it as God's intention and that it's a "normal" thing. You can call me a bigot, a hater, oppressor, I don't really care. That's not what I am though. I just want to see people be saved like any other Christian should. Whether you believe in a Heaven or not, it's what we believe in. I'm not going to force you to accept my beliefs either. Someone has to be open and willing to accept God's word.



I have Christian friends. I don't persecute them for their decision. It's theirs, not mine. I just don't want to be forced to accept that believing in a god is a "normal" thing. You can call me a bigot, a hater, oppressor, I don't really care. That's not what I am though. I just want to see people be saved from their own ignorance like any other atheist should. Whether you believe it's all just a fictional story or not, it's what we believe in. I'm not going to force you to accept my beliefs either. Someone has to be open and willing to accept that all religion is fake and pretentious and teaches people to hate each other.


----------



## Dogemon (Mar 22, 2017)

Bowie said:


> I would never have chosen to be gay if I had known I was going to be persecuted by people like that. Told that what I am is a disease, and that it is wrong for me to feel and give love because a magic man in the sky is going to burn me for it. People with that philosophy deserve to have the tables turned on them and see how they like it. I don't need a cure and I certainly don't need "friends" who tell me that my "decision" is "sinful".



Agreed. Honestly I think more people should realize it would be more of a "cure" to toss out religion, considering gay people existing has never started a war, just saying. I'm able to keep my own religious beliefs in check and not let it affect how I view or treat others. Then again I don't think homosexuality is a sin, considering it is proven to not be a choice and hardwired into the brain from birth.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 22, 2017)

DarkDesertFox said:


> Honestly, I don't care if you believe me or not. I don't even know what I said was wrong. I said I'm okay with their choices. There is a lot of negative responses, but that's to be expected.



But you can't like someone/something that you hate.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Dogemon said:


> Or he isn't honest/open about how he feels to them. I was actually surprised considering how I have seen him talk to trans/gay/lesbian people before. I'm sure they would be none too happy if he actually did talk about how he feels their 'lifestyle' is wrong.



But that is a fake friend and they are the worst. WORSTTYPEOFFRIEND.COM. Nobody should have to be cursed with people who secretly hate you and everything that you were from birth, but pretends to like you and understand your struggles and tells you that you are normal and okay. Nobody deserves friends like that.


----------



## Bowie (Mar 22, 2017)

Imagine having a friend who talked behind your back like that, about such an integral, personal part of you? That would really make me feel sick.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 22, 2017)

Bowie said:


> I would never have chosen to be gay if I had known I was going to be persecuted by people like that. Told that what I am is a disease, and that it is wrong for me to feel and give love because a magic man in the sky is going to burn me for it. People with that philosophy deserve to have the tables turned on them and see how they like it. I don't need a cure and I certainly don't need "friends" who tell me that my "decision" is "sinful".



If I had a choice of being straight and being bisexual, knowing what I do now, I would've picked to be straight. Not only does the LGBT community not even accept me, but I am constantly called a cheater and that I'm not truly LGBT. People are scared to stay with me because they automatically think I'll cheat on them with someone of the opposite sex as they are. But alas, I did not have a say in what I am and what I am not in this world.


----------



## DarkDesertFox (Mar 22, 2017)

You all need to take a chill pill, like seriously. I'm done here. It's clear rational conversation is going nowhere.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 22, 2017)

DarkDesertFox said:


> Honestly, I don't care if you believe me or not. I don't even know what I said was wrong. I said I'm okay with their choices. There is a lot of negative responses, but that's to be expected.



Everything you said is wrong and, if you have LGBT friends on this forum or anywhere else, I'm certain they would be disgusted with what you've written in this thread.

- - - Post Merge - - -



DarkDesertFox said:


> You all need to take a chill pill, like seriously. I'm done here. It's clear rational conversation is going nowhere.



Sorry pal, you've already drawn the victim card too many times. Draw another one.


----------



## keef_kogane (Mar 22, 2017)

DarkDesertFox said:


> You all need to take a chill pill, like seriously. I'm done here. It's clear rational conversation is going nowhere.



Whether you realize it or not, what you're saying is hateful.  You should have known that coming on here and saying what you did would have elicited a response.  That was your choice.  You chose to come onto a public forum and speak your hateful words.


----------



## Dogemon (Mar 22, 2017)

forestyne said:


> If I had a choice of being straight and being bisexual, knowing what I do now, I would've picked to be straight. Not only does the LGBT community not even accept me, but I am constantly called a cheater and that I'm not truly LGBT. People are scared to stay with me because they automatically think I'll cheat on them with someone of the opposite sex as they are. But alas, I did not have a say in what I am and what I am not in this world.



Tell me about it, I'm pansexual and polygamous and people  always think it is fine to call it cheating and that they "COULD NEVER" handle their significant other doing that much less with someone of a different sex. Like ok, it isn't for you then, pal.

- - - Post Merge - - -



DarkDesertFox said:


> You all need to take a chill pill, like seriously. I'm done here. It's clear rational conversation is going nowhere.



I'm pretty sure we are all chill, you are one I have seen flinging insults like "SJW" and constantly insulting our LGBTQ+ members with saying they choose to be different.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 22, 2017)

Dogemon said:


> Tell me about it, I'm pansexual and polygamous and people  always think it is fine to call it cheating and that they "COULD NEVER" handle their significant other doing that much less with someone of a different sex. Like ok, it isn't for you then, pal.



It's a different discussion but I always find it strange that a community that flaunts love and support always tries to disown people who choose to be in hetero relationships. Only when I'm with a girl am I a 'true member of the LGBT community". It hurts. Not to mention these bloody Christians always trying to "cure me". The only thing I've been cursed with is being a narcissist, an extreme failure and a disappointment to everybody who loves me too cool .

- - - Post Merge - - -

why would you walk onto a battlefield just to shoot somebody and run?


----------



## Ghost Soda (Mar 22, 2017)

DarkDesertFox said:


> Isn't that a double standard trying to force us to accept what the LGBT+ feel is right when we feel it is wrong? I don't hate anyone that's part of the LGBT+ because I don't agree it. Christianity isn't about shunning or treating a group differently. We're supposed to love everyone. That doesn't mean I'm going to accept your beliefs. Anyways, wasn't the filter removed? It's time to move on people. Can't complain about something forever.
> 
> Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about here.



Having different beliefs doesn't give you the right to abuse people. You don't have to come to our pride parades and wear out colors, just treat us like human beings. It's not even hard.

Link 1



Buster Bunny said:


> I'm mostly neutral about LGBT people, I don't mind their life style as long one doesn't go wanting to flirt with me.
> 
> However, I cannot accept the attitude of an heterophobe who is angry just because I don't like LGBT shipping, read mangas or watch videos featuring LGBT people.
> 
> ...



a. How is a LGBT person flirting with you any different than a cis+het doing so?

b. Heterophobia doesn't exist. 

c. Nobody's being blamed for not wanting to watch LGBT videos. You don't want to watch videos because they're LGBT? Fine. You do you, pal. Nobody's being forced to watch these videos Clockwork Orange style. People are upset because they're being blocked from kids for no good reason.



DarkDesertFox said:


> People that are doing what you say they are and claim to be Christians are not following Jesus's words. You guys have to please understand that. I have gay friends, trans friends, bi friends. I don't persecute them for their decision. It's theirs, not mine. I just don't want to be forced to accept it as God's intention and that it's a "normal" thing. You can call me a bigot, a hater, oppressor, I don't really care. That's not what I am though. I just want to see people be saved like any other Christian should. Whether you believe in a Heaven or not, it's what we believe in. I'm not going to force you to accept my beliefs either. Someone has to be open and willing to accept God's word.



You do realize that forcing LGBT people to convert into your perfect straight cis people has literally caused hundreds of people to fall into depression and kill themselves, right? Being LGBT is. Not. A. Choice. You say you're not a hater, but you're basically telling us that we deserve to rot down below just for _existing the the way we are._ How is that not hateful?

Again, *conversion therapy doesn't work. All it does is cause LGBT people to kill themselves.*



DarkDesertFox said:


> You all need to take a chill pill, like seriously. I'm done here. It's clear rational conversation is going nowhere.



Ah yes, how dare people get angry at being told that they're options are being forced into spiraling depression trying to pretend to be straight/cis or burn in heck. _You tell them!_

Also, it bugs me when people argue "I would choose to be straight if I could." because honestly? As an LGBT person, I'd never choose to be different. Self love shouldn't be a bad thing!


----------



## keef_kogane (Mar 22, 2017)

Ghost Soda said:


> Also, it bugs me when people argue "I would choose to be straight if I could." because honestly? As an LGBT person, I'd never choose to be different. Self love shouldn't be a bad thing!



The thing is, some LGBT+ people would rather be straight and cisgender rather than who they really are simply because of the hate they face every day.  Not to mention the fear of living with who they are, or having to do so in secret.  Self-love is definitely a good thing, but it's hard to love yourself when you feel like the world is against you, you know?

I'm not sure if this is exactly what the people above are feeling, but these are my thoughts on the matter.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 22, 2017)

Ghost Soda said:


> Also, it bugs me when people argue "I would choose to be straight if I could." because honestly? As an LGBT person, I'd never choose to be different. Self love shouldn't be a bad thing!



But we also get so much **** just for existing and but through conversion therapy that sometimes we think we'd have had a better life being born straight/cis.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Ghost Soda said:


> You do realize that forcing LGBT people to convert into your perfect straight cis people has literally caused hundreds of people to fall into depression and kill themselves, right? Being LGBT is. Not. A. Choice. You say you're not a hater, but you're basically telling us that we deserve to rot down below just for _existing the the way we are._ How is that not hateful?
> Again, *conversion therapy doesn't work. All it does is cause LGBT people to kill themselves.*



Conversion therapy made me want to die. Imo people who provide conversion therapy services should be charged with murder.


----------



## LambdaDelta (Mar 22, 2017)

DarkDesertFox said:


> I have gay friends, trans friends, bi friends. I don't persecute them for their decision.



I know plenty of people have already called you out on this, but why in the **** would anyone *choose* to be looked down upon, oppressed, and potentially even harmed, if not outright killed? Do you even *think* about what you say?

"today I think I'll make life harder for myself, because that sounds like a great idea", said literally nobody


----------



## visibleghost (Mar 22, 2017)

keef_kogane said:


> The thing is, some LGBT+ people would rather be straight and cisgender rather than who they really are simply because of the hate they face every day.  Not to mention the fear of living with who they are, or having to do so in secret.  Self-love is definitely a good thing, but it's hard to love yourself when you feel like the world is against you, you know?
> 
> I'm not sure if this is exactly what the people above are feeling, but these are my thoughts on the matter.



i feel like .. idk. i would never want to be cis because thats not just who i am?? but if i got to choose vetween being trans and cis i would choose cis because of the discrimination. i think really most people who want to be cis or het want it because of the discrimination and fear and stuff. for lgbtq ppl it is a political statement to  just exist and you always have to be afraid of cishets who want to hurt you.
like, if cishets werent like this we wouldnt have to wish to be someone we are not.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 22, 2017)

keef_kogane said:


> The thing is, some LGBT+ people would rather be straight and cisgender rather than who they really are simply because of the hate they face every day.  Not to mention the fear of living with who they are, or having to do so in secret.  Self-love is definitely a good thing, but it's hard to love yourself when you feel like the world is against you, you know?
> 
> I'm not sure if this is exactly what the people above are feeling, but these are my thoughts on the matter.



You hit the nail on the head there.

I can't speak for everybody, but in my experiences I have felt like I am alienesque, like I don't belong on this planet. I got to a point where I genuinely believed I deserved to be dead, that I am a sinner, that I would have been better of born being straight, because enough people had told me so enough to make me believe that it was a fact.


----------



## visibleghost (Mar 22, 2017)

LambdaDelta said:


> I know plenty of people have already called you out on this, but why in the **** would anyone *choose* to be looked down upon, oppressed, and potentially even harmed, if not outright killed? Do you even *think* about what you say?
> 
> "today I think I'll make life harder for myself because that sounds like a great idea", said literally nobody



well u know these Tumblrinas just want to be oppressed so they can complain lololololol :')

- - - Post Merge - - -



DarkDesertFox said:


> Honestly, I've said all I really needed to say. I don't expect everyone to be on the same page I am. I don't really want to go deeper on this at the risk of igniting flames. All I can say is that I'm sorry if Christians have made you feel that way. That's not what Jesus taught us to do. I don't know what that's like and I'm not going to pretend I do. It's a difficult world we live in.



u are making the world more difficult :')

- - - Post Merge - - -



DarkDesertFox said:


> You all need to take a chill pill, like seriously. I'm done here. It's clear rational conversation is going nowhere.



bc people being upset about discrimination is So Unchill ....


----------



## Ghost Soda (Mar 22, 2017)

forestyne said:


> But we also get so much **** just for existing and but through conversion therapy that sometimes we think we'd have had a better life being born straight/cis.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> ...





keef_kogane said:


> The thing is, some LGBT+ people would rather be straight and cisgender rather than who they really are simply because of the hate they face every day.  Not to mention the fear of living with who they are, or having to do so in secret.  Self-love is definitely a good thing, but it's hard to love yourself when you feel like the world is against you, you know?
> 
> I'm not sure if this is exactly what the people above are feeling, but these are my thoughts on the matter.



I think I'll edit that because I didn't word it as well as a could have! What I meant was I don't want people to think that it's only okay to be LGBT if they're hating being LGBT and treat it like a character flaw. I want being LGBT to be something that's embraced!

Sorry if it came off like I was shaming people with internalized homophobia, I swear I'm terrible at articulating my own thoughts sometimes!


----------



## forestyne (Mar 22, 2017)

Ghost Soda said:


> I think I'll edit that because I didn't word it as well as a could have! What I meant was I don't want people to think that it's only okay to be LGBT if they're hating being LGBT and treat it like a character flaw. I want being LGBT to be something that's embraced!
> 
> Sorry if it came off like I was shaming people with internalized homophobia, I swear I'm terrible at articulating my own thoughts sometimes!



It's okay, don't worry about it. A lot of people who are gay or trans experience internalised homo/transphobia, mainly because our existence is often unjustified by straight/cis people, as well as Christians and what some mythical man in the sky told some crazy bloke that wrote a book about it.


----------



## SensaiGallade (Mar 22, 2017)

Honestly, this isn't something that shouldn't be overlooked. It's quite disgusting that Youtube finds it acceptable to barr LGBT friendly channels to restricted mode, considering the kind of platform it is and how publically viewed it is. 

Surely, knowing what kind of platform Youtube is and their broad audience, shouldn't they be encouraging the LGBT community? Shouldn't younger generations be aware that it's okay to be different and be themselves? We should be embracing it and accepting it, not rejecting the community.

I can't express how much this angers me. This is taking a whole step back rather than progressing.


----------



## Oblivia (Mar 22, 2017)

We're closing this thread down temporarily to give people a bit of a breather.  While none of the posts here are _too_ bad as of yet, some of you are choosing to talk down to and/or patronize one another rather than speak rationally and factually to get your point(s) across.  

People are going to disagree.  It's a part of life.  Just keep in mind that if you want to debate or disagree with people *here*, you have to do it in a respectful manner, even if you see something that upsets you.  People are allowed to share their opinions as long they're doing it in a way that doesn't break the rules, and likewise, any replies must also be within the rules and guidelines.

Keep the above in mind if you want to continue discussing this, or this thread will be permanently closed and warnings will be handed out to those who can't keep their temper under control or refrain from being rude to others.


----------



## Oblivia (Mar 23, 2017)

We're back.  Keep it chill, guys.


----------



## oath2order (Mar 23, 2017)

forestyne said:


> It's okay, don't worry about it. A lot of people who are gay or trans experience internalised homo/transphobia, mainly because our existence is often unjustified by straight/cis people, as well as Christians and what some mythical man in the sky told some crazy bloke that wrote a book about it.



speak for yourself pls


----------



## Soda Fox (Mar 23, 2017)

oath2order said:


> speak for yourself pls



Pretty sure forestyne was and for* others who feel the same way.


----------



## keef_kogane (Mar 23, 2017)

oath2order said:


> speak for yourself pls



I agree with *forestyne*.  I know many people (myself included) that experience internalized homo/transphobia.  It's more common than you might think.  However, I also understand that it isn't that way for _everyone_.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 23, 2017)

oath2order said:


> speak for yourself pls



I'm sorry, but what in my original post upset you?

I am someone who feels internalised 'biphobia' (if it can even be called that) against myself, because my sexuality is often unjustified and belittled even in the LGBT community. I wasn't trying to upset anybody.

- - - Post Merge - - -



keef_kogane said:


> I agree with *forestyne*.  I know many people (myself included) that experience internalized homo/transphobia.  It's more common than you might think.  However, I also understand that it isn't that way for _everyone_.



Yes, I feel like I should've clarified that not everybody experiences homo/transphobia. But I don't see why oath2order was upset. 

- - - Post Merge - - -

aaa i feel bad


----------



## keef_kogane (Mar 23, 2017)

forestyne said:


> Yes, I feel like I should've clarified that not everybody experiences homo/transphobia. But I don't see why oath2order was upset.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> aaa i feel bad



I mean, you did a pretty good job, imo.  In your post you said _a lot of people_.  I understood where you were coming from, but I can also understand why others would think of it as a generalization.

On the flip-side, they could have misunderstood where you were coming from.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 23, 2017)

keef_kogane said:


> I mean, you did a pretty good job, imo.  In your post you said _a lot of people_.  I understood where you were coming from, but I can also understand why others would think of it as a generalization.
> 
> On the flip-side, they could have misunderstood where you were coming from.



Yeah, I didn't mean to generalise anybody. I could've clarified that better.

Wasn't much of a civil start.


----------



## seliph (Mar 23, 2017)

I haven't been reading the thread so sorry if someone mentioned it but apparently the "inappropriate" flags were user placed, as in the YT userbase are the ones who deemed what video tags would be restricted. So now YouTube's trying to fix everything.

Granted this doesn't mean the outcry was pointless or unnecessary. YT messed up and should have figured this would be taken advantage of but nonetheless apparently they are trying to fix it.


----------



## forestyne (Mar 23, 2017)

gyro said:


> I haven't been reading the thread so sorry if someone mentioned it but apparently the "inappropriate" flags were user placed, as in the YT userbase are the ones who deemed what video tags would be restricted. So now YouTube's trying to fix everything.
> 
> Granted this doesn't mean the outcry was pointless or unnecessary. YT messed up and should have figured this would be taken advantage of but nonetheless apparently they are trying to fix it.



I find it more upsetting that they just let users willy-nilly nitpick LGBT friendly content without reviewing it. At least they're sorting out the mess that they made.


----------



## amanda1983 (Mar 24, 2017)

gyro said:


> I haven't been reading the thread so sorry if someone mentioned it but apparently the "inappropriate" flags were user placed, as in the YT userbase are the ones who deemed what video tags would be restricted. So now YouTube's trying to fix everything.
> 
> Granted this doesn't mean the outcry was pointless or unnecessary. YT messed up and should have figured this would be taken advantage of but nonetheless apparently they are trying to fix it.



I've mentioned that is one of the main factors determining which videos get restricted (through users reporting content as inappropriate), and I think a couple of other people have as well. Mostly that's been ignored in favour of  putting the blame on a) "bad algorithims", b) YouTube choosing to censor "certain words" in the title of videos which wasn't their fault (says they) since apparently "gay" content = inappropriately sexual regardless of the actual content (and that devolved into a mindbending discussion of exactly what does and does not constitute "inappropriate sexual content" with dictionary definitions being thrown right and left), c) acknowledging YouTube ****ed up but they're going to fix it now so why are people even still talking about it anyway?? and d) some combination of the above.

Oh and we've had plenty of random "do we even know if this is a thing around the world (yes, we do), and in other languages (yes, we do), and that any actual child might EVER be affected by this censorship (I've answered this at least twice now as have other people - yes, LOTS of children, and even 1 is too many for a reason like this) questions.

There, I think that's most of the thread covered in a nutshell!


----------

