Forums

Topic: YouTube Is Demonizing Violence In Video Games Videos

Posts 1 to 20 of 22

Haru17

A sort-of confusing title leading to a post stating a two-sentence opinion stated as a fact without so much as a link to the proper context to give readers even a chance of understanding where the poster is coming from.

Yup, I'm on a Nintendo forum.

Edited on by Haru17

Don't hate me because I'm bnahabulous.

Eel

There's really nothing much confusing about the title. He simply means that apparently youtubers won't be making any money from videos featuring "video game violence".

Now, what constitutes "video game violence" is the the thing, since basically all video games feature violence in a form or another.

The rest is true though, there's no way to know if this is some sort of new site wide rule, or if it's a thing that happened to some person, etc. There's not much information or context.

Edited on by Eel

Bloop.

<My slightly less dead youtube channel>

SMM2 Maker ID: 69R-F81-NLG

My Nintendo: Abgarok | Nintendo Network ID: Abgarok

MarcelRguez

@Meowpheel Getting "demonetizing" and "demonizing" mixed up isn't confusing? I had no idea what he was talking about until I read your post, and I'm assuming you inferred that because you had previous info about that.

MarcelRguez

3DS Friend Code: 3308-4605-6296 | Nintendo Network ID: Marce2240 | Twitter:

JasonRDT

Offering some clarity on this subject:

The new YouTube advertiser-friendly guidelines, found here, states (emphasis mine):

Violence: Video content where the focal point is on blood, violence, or injury, when presented without additional context, is not eligible for advertising. Violence in the normal course of video gameplay is generally acceptable for advertising, but montages where gratuitous violence is the focal point is not. If you're showing violent content in a news, educational, artistic, or documentary context, that additional context is important.

In other words, they are demonetizing (that 'et' is important!) videos that show violence for the sake of violence; video games included.

(EDIT: Whoops, spelled demonetizing wrong. I'm tired.)

Edited on by JasonRDT

Google-Fu black belt.

Eel

Oh hah I totally read it as demonitizing. I guess the title was a bit confusing after all.

Good to hear it was the right interpretation though. Thanks for the context, makes it more clear.

Edited on by Eel

Bloop.

<My slightly less dead youtube channel>

SMM2 Maker ID: 69R-F81-NLG

My Nintendo: Abgarok | Nintendo Network ID: Abgarok

MarcelRguez

@JasonRDT I'm for it. Nothing wrong with violence, but sadism should not be rewarded.

MarcelRguez

3DS Friend Code: 3308-4605-6296 | Nintendo Network ID: Marce2240 | Twitter:

Dezzy

JasonRDT wrote:

Violence in the normal course of video gameplay is generally acceptable for advertising, but montages where gratuitous violence is the focal point is not.

In quite a few games, those are indistinguishable. Well I guess Nintendo will be fine. Except you have to give them your ad money. Lol.

It's dangerous to go alone! Stay at home.

StuTwo

Good.

Google (and other tech companies) don't yield their power anywhere near enough - given their resources I personally feel they could (and should) be employing moderators to seek out and remove patently inappropriate content. There is a debate about censorship and where the line should be drawn but cutting off funding for content like this is a first small step.

StuTwo

Switch Friend Code: SW-6338-4534-2507

Octane

@StuTwo But who decides what's ''inappropriate''? It's subjective, and that's the problem. I've seen YouTube demonetise videos that weren't even controversial. This means content creators will avoid certain topics and discussions, creating a ''safe-space'' bubble on YouTube. Eventually people will move to another platform, so I don't see the point. If someone is allowed to monetise a ''safe'' game like FIFA, then I don't see why they're not allowed to monetise a game like Battlefield.

Octane

StuTwo

@Octane I've seen videos from Mortal Kombat where one character performs a finishing move by grabbing the other character by the legs and pulling them through a circular saw on the ground. Infact the sidebar was advertising a really classy montage of the move being performed on all of the female characters in the game.

That no-one at Google has decided that that's "inappropriate" for YouTube is astounding.

Basically YouTube appeals disproportionately to younger children and makes no more than a ham fisted attempt to filter out content based on age. They should assume that anyone of any age could be watching at any time. In which case any content should be age appropriate.

There's nothing new in this - TV companies don't (and aren't legally allowed) to air 18-rated films during the day (many of which are far less explicit or violent than footage from some games) so why should YouTube be a free for all?

If people want to monetise Battlefield on YouTube then the solution should be simple - lobby EA to create a "clean" version of Battlefield in the way that film studios create "clean" versions of films for broadcast. Would it be the settings that most fans of those games would choose to play? No, clearly not, but they'd still be able to play the version they wanted (just not to broadcast it to the world).

StuTwo

Switch Friend Code: SW-6338-4534-2507

Octane

@StuTwo I think that's a parent's problem if we're talking about young children. If they have access to YouTube, they also have access to the rest of the internet... In that sense, there's nothing stopping them from looking up other stuff.

Octane

StuTwo

@Octane I understand that argument - I just don't agree with it.

For a start off YouTube is available on everything. It's baked in to a lot of TVs and set-top boxes - you don't automatically have access to the wider internet if you have access to YouTube.

Secondly there's a naive expectation from a lot of parents that YouTube - backed by Google - is a big respectable company and that they do some form of "due diligence" on what's available there.

Thirdly YouTube is the first point of call and for many it's the only point of call. If something isn't on YouTube or Facebook a good majority of people using the internet will never see it.

I just don't think it's impossible or at all pointless to subject YouTube to the same standards as broadcast TV.

You're a mod on this site and if someone posted violent or sexually explicit images here you'd (hopefully!) remove them promptly - even though they can be easily found anywhere else and there's nothing stopping anyone from looking up the same content. You have standards that you work towards and on the balance of what I've seen the standards at NL are much tougher than the standards on YouTube.

StuTwo

Switch Friend Code: SW-6338-4534-2507

Octane

@StuTwo I'm mostly indifferent towards the standards on NLife. The rules are what they are, but I do think that most of the rules do help the forums to be what they are. On the other hand, I'm also of the opinion that a forum needs higher standards than a video sharing website.

It's just that the last couple of years have seen a tendency to over-censor things on the internet and I'm not sure if I'm a big fan of that. But hey, those are just my two cents.

Octane

CrazedCavalier

@Dezzy @MarcelRguez Stuff like Fatality montages from Mortal Kombat is probably what they're talking about.

Edited on by CrazedCavalier

"There's a very fine line between not listening and not caring. I like to think I walk that line every day of my life." -Leonard Church Jr.

Nintendo Network ID: thedanman88

skywake

I think what youtube is doing here isn't a horrible thing but to be clear they're not doing this to "protect the children". This isn't the kind of "family friendly" censorship of content than @StuTwo is talking about. Sure youtube does remove content from their site that violates the ToS. But the demonetisation stuff that has happened recently isn't about that.

What is actually happening is a push from advertisers. Advertisers don't want to pay money just to see their ad next to questionable content. Whether you agree with the advertisers doing that or not it's just the way things work. If youtube limits advertising to videos advertisers are more comfortable putting their brand next to? They'll pay more. Which means more money for google and more money for youtubers who fit into those more advertiser friendly categories.

It's a by-product of youtube being a service largely paid for by advertising. Them not wanting certain kinds of content? It's the same reason why shows on pay-TV services are less kid friendly. It's the same reason why there are radio friendly edits of music that cut out bad language. It's like when sports sponsors pull the pin when it becomes known that an athlete is using performance enhancing drugs. They're not "protecting the children", they're protecting brands.

Edited on by skywake

Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"

MarcelRguez

@CrazedCavalier I was thinking more along the lines of 'compilation of every death animation/sequence
in Tomb Raider 2013'. Even if it puts more emphasis on gore, I think it's easier to give MK a pass because violence in that series is (as far as I know) more cartoony.

MarcelRguez

3DS Friend Code: 3308-4605-6296 | Nintendo Network ID: Marce2240 | Twitter:

StuTwo

@Octane That's the value of a forum like this - I appreciate reading your opinion but I feel completely the opposite. I don't see why a video sharing website owned and run by one of the biggest companies in the world shouldn't be held to a higher standard than a forum of people discussing videogames.

I also don't see why people posting video, making money off video and in some cases making vast fortunes off video can be held to a much lesser standard than broadcast TV.

That's not advocating censorship - I just don't see why it's passively accepted.

subpopz wrote:

Ignorance isn't an excuse. If parents choose to assume youtube is filtered for their kids without looking into it at all, so they don't have to bother doing their own "due diligence" in what their kids are doing, that's on them. As I said earlier, Youtube offers a kids app for Android and Apple devices (yes, I realize this doesn't cover all devices). This app offers a ton of features for parents to control what their kids are watching, timers and other features and can be streamed to TV's as well. For browsers, you can enable "restricted" mode to filter out inappropriate content (everything deemed 'mature').
The tools are there. People need to stop relying on a "big respectable company" to take care of their kids for them, especially when the tools are available for them to do it themselves.

You mean the YouTube Kids app that lets kids watch demonic Pe...

There is obviously a role for parents to play (and I agree many are at fault) but these tech companies know that the percentage of people who change default settings is tiny. Their default settings could reflect this without removing any chance for you - as a tech savvy adult - to watch your snuff if you really want to.

There is also a cultural expectation built up over decades that big broadcasters are subject to the law and the law wouldn't let, say, the BBC or ITV, broadcast stuff that's obviously inappropriate for kids during the day so it's not unnatural to expect that Google should be subject to the same constraints.

StuTwo

Switch Friend Code: SW-6338-4534-2507

Joeynator3000

Ugh, why don't they just shut down Youtube already....before we know it NOTHING will be allowed.

My Monster Hunter Rise Gameplay
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzirEG5duST1bEJi0-9kUORu5SRfvuTLr

Discord server: https://discord.gg/fGUnxcK
Keep it PG-13-ish.

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/Joeynator3000

This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.