• Guest, can you feel the love in the air? Valentine's Week at The Bell Tree has begun with a new mini-event featuring four activities to enjoy -- new and returning collectibles are up for grabs! Dive in to the love here.

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

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?
 
Daddie said:
im not sitting here denying that children won't look up anything

- - - Post Merge - - -



HA! What are you referencing to?

- - - Post Merge - - -



I know that lmao
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
those darn sjws...
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
DarkDesertFox said:
Here come the SJWs! The anger in these responses is so apparent.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DarkDesertFox said:
Here come the SJWs! The anger in these responses is so apparent.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

I apologize as well. I definitely misunderstood what you were saying.
 
Big companies love to bring it home that we (gay/LGBT people) will never really be accepted into this society.
 
DarkDesertFox said:
Here come the SJWs! The anger in these responses is so apparent.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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:



ZOO WEE MAMA
Click to expand...

IK ITS SHOCKING. NOT IN MY DAMN LOBBY.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
...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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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"?:

czY8I1E.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top