Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Dylan16807 1354 days ago
I like how fast this thread went from a complaint about cheap memes to a call to cover the swearing with "some funny content".

Anyway, sure he could do that. Youtube said he didn't need to, then punished him harshly for being well within the rules.
1 comments
encryptluks2 1354 days ago
YouTube didn't say he didn't need to. Show me in the terms of service where it says that as long as they follow specific guidelines that they don't reserve the right to flag or remove content.
link
Dylan16807 1354 days ago
That's an impossible standard. Why are you demanding that?

As far as possible standards go, he was very far inside the relevant rule.

I don't know why you would interpret "said he didn't need to" as "legally bound themselves to inaction in such a case".

link
encryptluks2 1353 days ago
He wasn't even in the rule though. The rule states:

> Abbreviated, censored, or light profanity (like “hell” or “damn”) in the title, thumbnail, or video.

People are just making up rules here.

link
Dylan16807 1353 days ago
You accidentally only got the first third of the rule?

> You can turn on ads for this content:

> Abbreviated, censored, or light profanity (like “hell” or “damn”) in the title, thumbnail, or video. Moderate profanity (like “shit” or “bitch”) used in the video. Infrequent usage of strong profanity (like the "f-word”) after the opening or up to twice in approx. the first 30 seconds of the video; or strong profanity in a music video.

There was one single burst of fucks. That's infrequent use of strong profanity.

The next category up, which is still the intermediate category for advertiser friendliness, is "Focal usage of strong profanity throughout a video (e.g. mentioned in every sentence)."

link
encryptluks2 1353 days ago
So that still breaks the first section and I don't think they are claiming the second section applies here as you'd need to label the video correctly.
link
Dylan16807 1353 days ago
It does not break the first section.

The first sentence is not "light profanity, and only light profanity, can be in these places".

The first sentence is "light profanity, ignoring other profanity, can be in these places".

The structure of the rule is "light profanity can do A, moderate profanity can do B, and strong profanity can do C".

The strong profanity in the video follows the strong profanity rules for being advertiser friendly.

And I have no idea what you mean by "label the video correctly". Are you talking about the fact that light profanity is allowed inside titles?

link