TariffTokers, Gen Z’s ‘it couple’, Easter potatoes, anti-MAGA hats, Zuck's D.C. mansion, Amazon's TikTok bid, Silicon Valley's cupid, and the fastest growing political channels on YouTube
  • GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml
    181·
    1 day ago

    Earlier today I went onto youtube in a private window and looked up a video for some old video game. Then I went back to the homepage. I was just smacked with rightwing and sexualized content in the recommendations once the home page was populated. There are a lot of good content makers on YouTube, but it’s an absolutely trash website.

    I don’t know if there have been studies on this, but I would not be surprised if social media platforms (particularly YouTube and Facebook) in the last two months have pivoted hard into promoting more reactionary content, and that they are responsible over the last 15 years for generally promoting conservatism.

  • bl4kers@lemmy.mlEnglish
    95·
    1 day ago

    A YouTube spokesperson said that the removal of “gender identity and expression” from the hate speech policy was part of regular copy edits to the website, and that the enforcement of the policy hasn’t changed. Hate speech toward someone over their “sex, gender, or sexual orientation” is still barred, however critics say that “gender” is very different than “gender identity and expression.”

    If this is a good faith statement it’s a non-issue IMO

    • Majestic@lemmy.ml
      25·
      1 day ago

      Bullshit. Why would you believe it’s good faith? Why wouldn’t you want rules written down if they’re to be enforced? Rules should be spelled out clearly to be fair and transparent.

      They may enforce it for a little while, but they can now quietly drop enforcing it and no one will notice because it will be a change documented internally only.

      This is a transparent attempt to manage the outrage.

      • bl4kers@lemmy.mlEnglish
        11·
        21 hours ago

        I don’t necessarily believe it’s in good faith. Just pointing out that it could be a simple misunderstanding and added back.

        They can quietly drop or add anything internally, or just be inconsistent. They don’t even have to have a public policy. So the words don’t mean much to begin with. Once there are examples of no enforcement is when it becomes a serious issue.

    • HumanPenguin@feddit.ukEnglish
      10·
      23 hours ago

      IM0 if that is in good faith. It is YouTube trying to not discorage anti trans b y not taking a public opinion that supports trans rights,

      So IMO they can get funked.

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      13·
      1 day ago

      I don’t believe it’s good faith. Google is trying to curry favor with the emperor, and if that means throwing women and trans people under the bus then so be it.