I've played videogames where I turn people into fine red mist, where I decapitate people or deglove them, where blood and gore are practically features. I've watched movies with scenes so brutal that I've felt sick.
But full nudity and sex? Noooo, we can't have that! Thanks, Puritan America.
The right to have tools for killing people is considered essential to maintain their democracy. Unfortunately, their constitution doesn't say anything about the right of being naked or having large breasts or other visible appendages shall not be infringed upon.
It's all the fault of those damn Puritans: people who were such sticks in the mud they were essentially kicked out of Europe because nobody wanted to hear their prudish nonsense. They were all about the "fire & brimstone".
Why do people insist on conflating demonitization with censorship? Google isn't saying she can't put her body on YouTube, they're saying they don't think they can sell ads on that content. If advertisers would pay for controversial content, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Advertisers would pay for controversial content. They'd pay less, but they'd pay. TPB keeps selling ads somehow.
I think the reason people see demonization as censorship follows the same lines as seeing non-government censorship or "ceasing to do business" (in an industry that generally does business with everybody) as censorship. They aren't exactly going out and burning books, sure, but it's certainly exclusionary and it's certainly targeted.
What's wrong with demonitizing all the videos of gay people? "It's not censorship." Still seems to have most of the negative impacts of censorship. It's a spade to me.
>Google isn't saying she can't put her body on YouTube, they're saying they don't think they can sell ads on that content. If advertisers would pay for controversial content, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The assumption being in this case that advertisers will pay for ads when a man creates a nude female torso and not when a woman creates a nude female torso and YouTube is simply acting on their behalf?
Seems like a dumb move on YouTubes part. Instead just only show ads from advertiser's who want to be associated with this kind of content. There aren't many of that kind of advertiser, so prices will be low. YouTubers will then soon find out that while that sort of content might get lots of views, it earns few dollars, so will produce other content.
Having a binary 'you have been demonetized' flag just seems like a way to stir discontent.
Not defending YouTube, but I think that the letter said that some advertisers won't accept "sexual" content and thus her income would go down? The big question here, as I see it, is whether it's fair to call that "sexual" content.
Advertising-funded adult sites are extremely common, though. If you have adult content and want a site to host your content and share ad revenue with you, you have lots (lots!) of choice. The problem is that there's a lot less money available to people funded by sex toy ads on PornHub or whereever than there is to people who sit behind Liberty Mutual ads on Youtube.
So SexyCyborg would, unsurprisingly, prefer to be on youtube. But she's also dancing on the edge of what people call "adult" (again, I'm presenting no personal opinion here: take it up with Liberty Mutual if you don't like the definition). So naturally she's going to have trouble with those boundaries. PornHub never would have kicked her off, but she doesn't want to be on PornHub.
It's all about money here, not freedom. That was my point.
Same in Germany and Austria. It's not unusual to see fully naked actors on TV, even on the afternoon program. That's because we can see a difference between nudity and (graphical) sex.
Dailymotion, the French youtube competitor, used to have a "Red" section on its front page, next to "Sport" "News" etc, where they kept all the nudity. That all got deleted in one of their acquisitions.
