Slipping down the slope of YouTube's new sex and language guidelines

Bad stuff.  (Photo courtesy Flickr user solidstate)

In an official blog post Tuesday, YouTube announced that it had enacted a new set of guidelines to sanitize its most viewed lists by cracking down on videos with "profanity" and "sexually suggestive" content.   

The changes, YouTube wrote, are meant to "help ensure that you're viewing content that's relevant to you, and not inadvertently coming across content that isn't."   

Let's remember first of all that YouTube has had trouble luring big bucks from advertisers, and so this clean-up undoubtedly has two eyes on the bottom line.

The way it works: If a video violates the guidelines, it will be demoted -- removed from the front pages and marked as "age restricted" -- so only registered YouTube users who claim they're over 18 can watch. YouTube's Most Viewed and Top Favorited pages are often where videos go to become mega-viral sensations, so if you want your vid to qualify for this viral launch pad, you'd better not break the rules.

That is, if you can find them.

YouTube is specific about what it means by sexually suggestive. But it says nothing about what profanity might mean in practice. (The site offered a similar nondefinition back when it banned drug-related videos.) Staying mum is a PR tactic, of course, because obscenity and profanity are notoriously fluid and slippery concepts. Any attempt to nail them down will bring a wave of examples the definer forgot to outlaw, or couldn't foresee. And that's why the definitions you do see ...

... skip specifics in favor of uselessly abstract notions of public taste.

Take this oft-cited attempt from an 1972 decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is sometimes employed by the Federal Communications Commission. Profane terms, it says, are "construable as denoting certain of those personally reviling epithets naturally tending to provoke violent resentment or denoting language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance."

Whoa, that sounds bad. Does YouTube really think its users find four-letter words -- like those for poopy, peewee, peepee, and whoopee -- "grossly offensive"? In all my YouTubing, I can't recall a single instance of YouTubers becoming "violently resentful" upon seeing a dirty word. By and large, actually, it's YouTube members that are using the dirty words.   

Even a cursory glance at the content of many original videos, and the comments on every video, shows that questionable language is baked into the YouTube aesthetic. Which means that if the company wants to help its users find content that's "relevant" to them, then burying that content may not be the best way to do it.

But most community-unfriendly of all is that YouTube is offering absolutely no hint to its users about what counts as profanity. Besides the refusal to offer a definition, guidelines or examples, it won't even send violators a message when their video gets the scarlet letter. It just happens quietly and automatically. So, basically, the idea is that you have to follow the rules even though the rules are secret, and when you're punished you won't know why or when. Sort of makes it hard to be a good citizen.

— David Sarno

Comments

[cybele]

I think Flickr has done a good job of this "self moderating" thing where users flag their own content but other users can also flag it when it's not consistent. Then you can opt-in to see stuff that's outside of the "safe for families & kittens" pre-set.

However, that's been a part of the community since the get go ... trying to institute that with so much pre-existing content and without any announcement or documenation is gonna go over like a lead balloon.

[Jason BH]

youtube just pretty much killed itself, and will be replaced by one of it's billion of imitators. it will be impossible to verify each video hasn't been flagged by rival marketers, organized special interest groups, hackers, or scientologists in an effort to delegate those videos to obscurity. that and most youtube viewers never bother making an account.

the internet is not 'hey let's take forever to fill out this useless registration to watch a 1min video'. google should know this. looks like they've hired too many clownshoes MBAs who must micromanage the entire google brand into blandness. might as well just sell youtube to microsoft.

I guarantee the front page will soon be only paid corporate ads disguised as viral videos, and laughtrack filled crap of dogs wearing hats filmed closeup, with a wide angle lens. Only then will google's corporate messiah arrive to bestow holy cash piles upon them.

failtube is fail

[Ben]

I am one of the users who complained about this. Basically, I was in a scholarship contest and had to get as many views as possible for my video. However, a completely unrelated porn video repeatedly came up in my related video list. It was offensive to me to the point that I personally contacted the contest administrator and expressed my disgust and alarm that this was happening. In addition, I wanted as many people as possible to watch and recommend the video, and offended people don't recommend things. They were unable to remove the video from the list, and as far as I know, it is still there.

I think they are attempting to keep that from happening. That said, this is the only time I've seen this happen. I don't know what the extent will be. Youtube is not thorough concerning content violations (especially as concerns copyrighted material) - I don't expect them to be especially stringent on this either.

[dan tynan]

YouTube's guidelines would be maddening if they weren't so friggin' comical.

to comply with YouTube's age-restricted standards you'd pretty much have to be dressed as a nun sitting in an uncomfortable chair with your legs crossed while thinking pure thoughts.

I poke some fun at them on my Culture Crash blog here: http://blogs.computerworld.com/youtube_porn

cheers,

dt

[Marian]

I also have complained to YouTube that they make their site so parent "unfriendly." Kids love YouTube's content and it can be such a great experience for them to view and to create videos with the site. But when I see "Recommended" videos that have nothing to do with the relatively benign content of what my children were seeking or viewing, I get angry. And right now, you either block the whole site or just cringe while knowing your child is getting a new education in language, perversion, deviancy and so on. Flamers can suggest they will get it anyway but the point is allowing parents to demonstrate their preferences while supporting an otherwise good website.

[Harold Maass]

Hi David,

I just wanted to let you know that THEWEEK.com linked to your blog today in a piece we wrote titled 'YouTube's new sex rules,' (http://www.theweek.com/article/index/91339/3/YouTubes_new_sex_rules). We enjoyed reading your take on this subject.

Thanks, and all the best,
Harold Maass
Editor
THEWEEK.com

[miltownkid]

Last time I checked YouTube's been paying me (although not that much ;) ) to make videos and everyone else gets an experience for free. I'm certain they're doing the best they can to keep advertisers happy and the community happy.

I haven't seen anyone mention it yet, but the good times aren't rolling for anyone these days (look at "the big three"), think Google and YouTube are any different? I'm sure the guys fronting the bills are like "OK you guys, do SOMETHING to make this thing profitable!"

[kelly]

I Just have a really bad feeling that this is going to set a bad precedent. I hate censorship in any form. Parents whining and complaining about what their children might see while they're watching. If you had any idea what they were hearing, seeing and doing while at school, you'd never let them be educated.

It isn't YouTube's job to parent your children. It's your job. Because, guess what? Eventually, they're going to find a way to see that stuff that you're crying to YouTube about. And the fact that you'd rather it not exist than it to exist as it does and you explain it? One of these days you'll look back and see that as a major flaw in your parenting when your kid comes home pregnant or with an STD.

Good luck, folks! You're gonna need it.

[squee]

It sounds like the complaints with youtube are with it's related videos feature and the strange suggestions it makes. I agree that this feature is very inaccurate, but why start censoring content because the related vidoes is poorly designed? Why not retool the related videos so they are actually related to the video your watching?