
YouTube Defines “Hate Speech” For Purposes Of Ad Revenue Eligibility - gnicholas
https://arstechnica.com/business/2017/06/what-is-hate-speech-on-youtube-video-site-offers-clarity/
======
gnicholas
The definition of "Hateful Content" (one of the three categories of "Hate
Speech" that YouTube defines) strikes me as quite broad. I wonder how this
will be applied in the following circumstances:

1) Disparagement of majority-race individual for being insensitive or lacking
understanding of racial issues. For example: "celebrity X needs to check his
white privilege. He clearly doesn't understand the struggles of black and
brown people and his opinion on police shootings is therefore irrelevant"

2) Disparagement of majority-religion individuals for their beliefs around
LGBTQ issues. For example: "We should boycott Chick Fil A because the owner is
a homophobic right-wing bible-thumper who donates his profits to anti-LGBTQ
organizations."

3: Disparagement based on age. For example: "The voting age should not be
lowered because young people lack life experience necessary to make informed
decisions"

Each of these statements disparages a person or group of people based on one
of YouTube's protected classes. But many people would argue that they are very
different from statements like "America has too many Muslims" or "Mexicans are
lazy." Would YouTube treat these statements the same? According to their
policy, would they have grounds for treating them differently?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Each of these statements disparages a person or group of people based on one
> of YouTube's protected classes

That's dubious. The third isn't reasonably describable as disparagement, and
the first two are doubtful; more importantly, perhaps, the description of the
categories admits of at least two plausible different readings, one of which
(in which the entire list is modified by "associated with systematic
discrimination") would seem to _not_ cover socially-dominant groups (such as
those in the first two examples) as protected at all.

> But many people would argue that they are very different from statements
> like "America has too many Muslims" or "Mexicans are lazy."

Well, yes, even aside from the target feature, they are self-evident
structurally different.

> According to their policy, would they have grounds for treating them
> differently?

Almost certainly. If you want to compare analogous statements targeting
different features, you need to start with analogous statements.

~~~
gnicholas
Interesting perspective. The statement about youths is certainly borderline in
terms of disparagement — it's designed to show that there's a fine line
between descriptiveness and disparagement in some cases. It is an indisputable
fact that young people have less life experience than older people; it is a
logical leap to say that younger people ought not be able to vote because of
this.

The last two statements, which target ethnic/religious minorities, were
structured differently to be crisp — but I think that if you create analogs to
1-3 using these groups, the result would be the same:

1b) "Black celebrity X shouldn't try to compare her life experience to that of
poor urban whites — her opinions are uninformed and irrelevant."

2b) "Hijabs create distractions in an education environment and should not be
worn in public schools" (as is the case in France)

3b) "Old people are more likely to have dementia and should have to take a
cognitive test before allowed to vote"

These are structured like the original 1-3, and I think each would elicit a
very negative reaction from many people (including those who work at YouTube).
Do you think the policy offers a rationale for treating 1b-3b differently from
1-3?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Do you think the policy offers a rationale for treating 1b-3b differently
> from 1-3?

Potentially (assuming, _arguendo_ , that all are viewed as being disparaging,
which I still think is dubious in all 6 cases—if they aren't, then there is no
basis for different treatment and none are actually problematic under the
policy), and I already explained the reading that the policy language admits
that supports this in the grandparent post.

~~~
gnicholas
I guess we have different senses of what is considered disparaging. Appreciate
seeing your perspective!

------
forgottenpass
And The Internet turning into Cable TV marches on.

The real TV is for old people to watch soaps, but we finally cracked how to
take the raw and unfiltered branding of the Internet and constrain the content
into our boring safe-for-advertizer risqué.

People should never stumble upon things that might upset them. People should
watch our boring, artificial representation of mundane acts, and feel that
they're outrageous because we presented it as such.

