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

[ZetaFunction]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I think these sort of results say it all.

 

[ZetaFunction]

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]

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]

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.

 

[-Apples-]

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

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]

@.@ 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.

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]

@.@ 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.

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]

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]

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]

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.