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

[KarlaKGB]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 - - -

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

 

[Dwayne Johnson]

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

 

[Bowie]

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]

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?

 

[Dwayne Johnson]

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]

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]

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 - - -

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]

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

 

[Dwayne Johnson]

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 - - -



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

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

 

[visibleghost]

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.

 

[Dwayne Johnson]

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]

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

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

 

[visibleghost]

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?