Here’s a transcript of the video.
Manny: YouTube is arguably the largest and most influential social media platform out there. But gone are the days when YouTube exported funny cat videos. Today, YouTube is the leading platform for all things video, from workout tutorials to fights between good-looking gurus and more.
Carlos Maza: There are many attractive things here, but I am an expert in power politics, so I have questions.
Steven Crowder: What were you holding, gay Latino from Vox?
Manny: That’s Steven Crowder, a popular conservative YouTuber making a name for himself on the platform. That video was a rebuttal to this video by Carlos Maza, a producer at Vox.
Maza: Trump had tweeted a bulls— claim that the Green New Deal would somehow ban cars, cows, and the military. How would you ban a cow?
Manny: As the two commentators throw punches at each other across the aisle, the difference between their languages couldn’t be clearer.
Crowder: That’s what Mr. Gay Vox needs to do. Queer Lispy by Vox. Vox’s homosexual elf is wrong. Now he may simply be a transsexual, your honor.
Manny: In a viral tweet thread, Maza complained to YouTube about this harassment and removed the videos in question from the site, signaling an effort to ensure they host a safe and inclusive platform for creators. I’m sorry, what? YouTube has done the opposite. YouTube responded to Maza saying that while it found Crowder’s language to be hurtful, it had not violated its policies.
The question here is why not? Does YouTube have an obligation to do this? Under YouTube’s own harassment policy, videos in which Crowder ridicules Maza for being gay must be removed from the site immediately. If you take a look at YouTube’s policy language, it says it’s “hurtful. ” Language is a possible justification for cutting a video, and YouTube literally used the word “hurtful” to describe Crowder’s content in its first reaction to Maza.
As the story continued to gain traction, YouTube posted a second response. The site has to remove classified ads from the Crowder channel, but this is a bad punishment for two reasons. First, YouTube already limits the monetization of videos that deal with hot topics that aren’t considered “brand-safe,” even when those videos originate from valid media outlets. Second, Crowder doesn’t just make money from YouTube classified ads. Below his videos, he includes a link to his online store, where you can buy t-shirts like this one.
To further soften this penalty, YouTube said it would monetize its channel again if it got rid of the link. What’s the point of punishing Crowder for creating hurtful content if that content is still available to the public?This total scenario calls into question YouTube’s willingness to limit the accounts that suit them.
Steven Crowder has millions of subscribers and gets millions of views from his videos. Thanks to YouTube, their influence is strong and their participation is high. Punishing him would restrict his influence, which would restrict YouTube’s success as a platform.
With great power comes great responsibility. YouTube might have started as just a tool for content creators, but the company acts as much more than that today. It has an algorithm that recommends and surfaces videos that lots of people have already watched, dictating what gets in front of eyeballs. It’s already doing things that influence what people do and don’t watch, which means it’s behaving much more like a media company than a simple publishing platform. Nearly 500 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute, and we watch 1 billion hours of YouTube content every day. So yeah, the power is there, but where is the responsibility?
In a blog post, YouTube gave another explanation for why it wouldn’t remove Crowder’s videos. He says it is because the objective of the videos is not to degrade Carlos Maza. This creates confusion and allows other users to make hurtful comments without any repercussions, under the pretext that the hurtful comments are not the point of the video. YouTube says it will review its harassment policy, but all signs point to Crowder’s videos remaining on the site.
By refusing to limit Crowder’s homophobic and racist comments, YouTube is inadvertently giving the green light to the use of this language elsewhere on its platform. I didn’t even mention the fact that Crowder’s followers harassed Maza for days. That’s not right. For a company whose influence is growing exponentially, this could set a damaging precedent.
Here is a transcript of the video.
Manny: YouTube is arguably the largest and most influential social media platform out there. But gone are the days when YouTube exported funny cat videos. Today, YouTube is the leading platform for all video topics, from exercise tutorials to good-looking guru fights and more.
Carlos Maza: There are many interesting things here, but I am an expert in energy policy, so I have some questions.
Steven Crowder: What were you holding, gay Latino from Vox?
Manny: This is Steven Crowder, a popular conservative YouTuber who is calling himself out on the platform. This video is a refutation of that of Carlos Maza, manufacturer of Vox.
Mace: Trump had been tweeting nonsense, claiming that the Green New Deal would ban cars, cows, and the military. How to banish a cow?
Manny: As the two commentators take jabs at each other from across the aisle, the difference in their language couldn’t be clearer.
Crowder: That’s what Mr. Gay Vox needs to do. Mr. Lispy Queer from Vox. Vox’s homosexual elf is wrong. Now he may simply be a transsexual, your honor.
Manny: In a viral tweet thread, Maza complained to YouTube about this harassment, and it removed the videos in question from the site, underlining an effort to make sure they’re hosting a safe and inclusive platform for creators. I’m sorry, what? YouTube actually did the complete opposite. YouTube responded to Maza by saying that while it found Crowder’s language hurtful, he did not violate its policies.
The question here is why not? Does YouTube have a duty to do this? In accordance with YouTube’s own harassment policy, videos in which Crowder ridicules Maza for being gay must be removed from the site immediately. If you look at YouTube’s policy language, it says it’s “hurtful. ” Language is a possible justification for cutting a video, and YouTube literally used the word “hurtful” to describe Crowder’s content in its first reaction to Maza.
As the story continued to gain traction, YouTube issued a second response. The site decided to remove ads from Crowder’s channel, but it’s a lousy punishment for two reasons. First, YouTube already limits monetization on videos about hot-button issues that aren’t deemed “brand safe,” even when those videos come from legitimate news outlets. Secondly, Crowder doesn’t just make money from YouTube ads. Under his videos, he includes a link to his online store, where you can buy shirts like this.
To further soften this penalty, YouTube said it would re-monetize his channel if he got rid of the link. What’s the point of punishing Crowder for creating hurtful content if that content is still available to the public? This total scenario calls into question YouTube’s willingness to limit accounts that suit them.
Steven Crowder has millions of subscribers and banks millions of views with his videos. Because of YouTube, his influence is strong, and his engagement is high. Punishing him would limit his influence, which in turn limits YouTube’s reach as a platform.
With wonderful strength comes wonderful responsibility. YouTube might have started out just as a tool for content creators, but the company now does much more than that. It has a set of rules that it recommends and features videos that many other people have already seen, dictating what happens in front of your eyes. It already does things that influence what other people do and don’t see, which means it behaves much more like a media company than simply a publishing platform. Nearly 500 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute, and we watch 1 billion hours of YouTube Content every day. So yes, the strength is there, but where is the responsibility?
In a blog post, YouTube gave another explanation for why it wouldn’t remove Crowder’s videos. He says it’s because the purpose of the videos is not to degrade Carlos Maza. This creates confusion and allows other users to make hurtful comments without any repercussions, under the pretext that the hurtful comments are not the point of the video. YouTube says it will review its harassment policy, but all signs point to Crowder’s videos remaining on the site.
By refusing to limit Crowder’s homophobic and racist comments, YouTube is inadvertently giving the green light to the use of this language elsewhere on its platform. I didn’t even mention the fact that Crowder’s followers harassed Maza for days. That’s not right. For a company whose influence is growing exponentially, this could set a damaging precedent.
Go to