• The closing ceremony for TBT's Farewell to New Leaf event has been posted! View the winning entries and other closing announcements here. Thanks for joining in on the fun and nostalgia. We'll see you this Friday night for the start of our annual Easter Egg Hunt!

YouTube Block LGBT+ Content with New "Restricted Mode" Feature

Because SJW's would be the type of people simply looking for things to be mad and angry about, going out of their way to be offended, often causing issues and arguments where there literally are none simply to attain the nourishment found in a false sense of moral superiority.

People who see something 'wrong' and just say "hey, that's racist/homophobic/misogynist/somethingist and that's not cool, so I won't support it", well, we just call them 'people', because you don't need a special abbreviation to describe somebody who's acting like a normal well adjusted individual.

Those damn somethingists.

Genuinely homophobic/transphobic/racist people are quick to draw the SJW wrath victim card out like the post you quoted was referring to.. People have a right to be upset or outraged, but there's a line when you rage for no particular reason and make a ****ty point. But imo it's even worse to pull out your Master Shield and play the victim when someone's using both halves of their brain and calling you out on something *insert label here* that you've said.

- - - Post Merge - - -

I'm not even sure how YouTube classifies things as LGBT+... Do they go around asking YouTubers "hey are these people in your video homosexual?" I'm sure two guys holding hands doesn't mean gay. Would they go around blocking perfectly good stuff like this from kids if they thought it was too "inappropriate"?:

czY8I1E.png

Disney only just made that canon this year, though. I think if this was confirmed by Disney after the release of the original cartoon, many people would have hated it and thought it was gross and NOT A NORMAL RELATIONSHIP lol.

- - - Post Merge - - -

Here come the SJWs! The anger in these responses is so apparent.

Seriously?
ac3.jpg
 
to be honest, i'm okay with it.

if it covers the whole restriction mode in youtube, i can see why this is a huge problem.
yes, i understand it is kinda discrimination. (i mean it is.)

but i don't see any problem between it. it would keep homophobes away right?
 
to be honest, i'm okay with it.

if it covers the whole restriction mode in youtube, i can see why this is a huge problem.
yes, i understand it is kinda discrimination. (i mean it is.)

but i don't see any problem between it. it would keep homophobes away right?

Homophobes aren't going to use a kids mode filter.
 
to be honest, i'm okay with it.

if it covers the whole restriction mode in youtube, i can see why this is a huge problem.
yes, i understand it is kinda discrimination. (i mean it is.)

but i don't see any problem between it. it would keep homophobes away right?

It was made for kids though, so not really. The problem is that these parents seem to be sheltering their kids into homophobia/transphobia. The same homophobes who run rampage on LGBT weddings are the same ugly creeps who watch butt-tapping ASMR and the softpawn (im trying ok pls don't ban me) on YouTube.

Because God forbid a children's filter blocks your access to adult content that shouldn't be on YouTube.
 
Last edited:
to be honest, i'm okay with it.

if it covers the whole restriction mode in youtube, i can see why this is a huge problem.
yes, i understand it is kinda discrimination. (i mean it is.)

but i don't see any problem between it. it would keep homophobes away right?

Most of your post reads like gibberish to me so I'll only comment on the last bit.

you know there actually are people who are homophobic just out of ignorance, right? Not willful ignorance but just regular/innocent ignorance. Letting them see LGBT people do normal things on youtube like review games/tv shows (because I do know someone who reviews TV shows with her girlfriend and all of her videos have been effected by this restricted mode) or play pranks or vlog helps them learn that hey, LGBT people aren't immoral or whathaveyou and they stop being homophobes. It is a thing that has happened before and can continue to happen.
 
-- snip --

Do we really think somebody specifically restricted a lesbian wedding vow video, or is it more likely that some moron set the perimeters on what counts as 'inappropriate' a little too wide?


I'm not agreeing with videos being restricted, but I'm not seeing any links floating around to any hard evidence of what exactly constitutes as 'inappropriate' under this system, just assumptions, so I'm not 'shooting first' when the highly likely explanation is "somebody ****ed up and it's not working as intended...As per usual.

-- snip --

Because SJW's would be the type of people simply looking for things to be mad and angry about, going out of their way to be offended, often causing issues and arguments where there literally are none simply to attain the nourishment found in a false sense of moral superiority.

People who see something 'wrong' and just say "hey, that's racist/homophobic/misogynist/somethingist and that's not cool, so I won't support it", well, we just call them 'people', because you don't need a special abbreviation to describe somebody who's acting like a normal well adjusted individual.

I started typing something about how complex YouTube and especially google are to run, then deleted when I realised I was getting sidetracked. In defence of my IT partner and his colleagues, however, suffice it to say that the people working at that level are almost universally obscenely talented, skilled, and hardworking. **** ups that end users see are almost always the result of poor management and/or poor business decisions being made elsewhere in the chain.

---

This article I shared here earlier contains specific examples of videos that are accessible and restricted using this setting :

http://gizmodo.com/youtubes-restricted-mode-is-hiding-some-lgbt-content-1793382337

Another YouTuber, NeonFiona, posted side-by-side screenshots showing which videos were restricted. Titles including words like ?gay,? ?lesbian,? and ?bisexual? were hidden: [link to twitter post]

In another tweet, NeonFiona pointed out that her other video, ?An Honest Chat About Being Single,? actually discusses sex, whereas her ?bi videos don?t.?

NeonFiona told Gizmodo that her videos focused on ?normalising LGBT+ stuff and especially bisexuality.? She worries that young people who turn to YouTube for information on LGBT issues will miss out:

Kids who want to know about different orientations and definitions and about the history of LGBT people, etc, they can?t access that when their videos are being restricted. Restricting these videos makes it harder for these kids to find information they need and the community that they?ve been missing.


---

There is a discrepancy between content being restricted because it's *actually* not appropriate for younger children, and content that has a word in the title that some people object to. I've clicked through and watched much of the linked content and it checks out from what I can see.

I try not to leap to conclusions, but I also don't disregard the information to hand.

---

I dunno if I count as an SJW per your definition or not then, since I am a pacifist by nature and certainly do not feel "morally superior" to anyone else. Intellectually, yes, as are most people by definition since intelligence is quantifiable in various ways (and someone always has to be "less" for another to be "more" when ranking people). I don't see how morals can be effectively measured and ranked, not like in the way intelligence can be measured. So I don't really understand how one can be morally superior to someone else.
 
I don't think their intention was to block anything LGBT related, I assume they were aiming at videos that had gays or lesbians doing inappropriate things like not kid-friendly stuff. There may have been a loophole for that kind of stuff and they may have found a way to get rid of it for straight coupled things and just hadn't for LGBT? I'm not certain, but to me YouTube seems like a pretty liberal and accepting company, so I doubt they would do something like that as an act of homphobia.
Also, I understand why some parents wouldn't want their young kids exposed to people talking about different sexualities, they can be too young to need to know about sexual relationships.
All in all, it's the parents choice, and I don't believe it was intended as an act of homophobia. There is some stuff on YouTube relating to the LGBT community that's inappropriate, even with straight couples. It's easy for kids to be accidentally exposed to something they're too young to know about.
 
Most of your post reads like gibberish to me so I'll only comment on the last bit.

you know there actually are people who are homophobic just out of ignorance, right? Not willful ignorance but just regular/innocent ignorance. Letting them see LGBT people do normal things on youtube like review games/tv shows (because I do know someone who reviews TV shows with her girlfriend and all of her videos have been effected by this restricted mode) or play pranks or vlog helps them learn that hey, LGBT people aren't immoral or whathaveyou and they stop being homophobes. It is a thing that has happened before and can continue to happen.

This. I know so many people who were happily ignorant of how LGBT+ people live their lives (so, the same way heterosexual people do). Then they came across a random video/article/news clip showing a normal lesbian woman or whatever discussing ___ issue, just like any heterosexual person would, and suddenly things just *clicked* for them : gay people are people too. It sounds patronising, but it happens.

It's very similar to how so many "ignorant racists" (not a term I use but it works here) are oblivious to how people from other cultures live. It's amazing to see a middle-aged man suddenly see the humanity in a person they'd previously have written off as *less than*. Heartbreaking, too, since that means they've been running around treating whole bunches of people terribly their whole life.
 
This article I shared here earlier contains specific examples of videos that are accessible and restricted using this setting :

http://gizmodo.com/youtubes-restricted-mode-is-hiding-some-lgbt-content-1793382337

Another YouTuber, NeonFiona, posted side-by-side screenshots showing which videos were restricted. Titles including words like “gay,” “lesbian,” and “bisexual” were hidden: [link to twitter post]

In another tweet, NeonFiona pointed out that her other video, “An Honest Chat About Being Single,” actually discusses sex, whereas her “bi videos don’t.”

NeonFiona told Gizmodo that her videos focused on “normalising LGBT+ stuff and especially bisexuality.” She worries that young people who turn to YouTube for information on LGBT issues will miss out:

Kids who want to know about different orientations and definitions and about the history of LGBT people, etc, they can’t access that when their videos are being restricted. Restricting these videos makes it harder for these kids to find information they need and the community that they’ve been missing.

This is actually scary. Not in a woooooo spoopy homophobe way, but in a scary-sad way. Imagine if you've got to secondary school/high school and you realise "i think i like boys/girls/dogs/cats/hexagons". Young people use YouTube a lot, so a young person would think to look it up on YouTube or something. So imagine you get to YouTube and there's nothing. Nothing helpful or explanatory but instead videos promoting hate crimes. Imagine how alone you'd feel, at the ripe age of 12 or 13 or maybe younger/older, to be demonised for something you won't learn and come to understand is normal and okay because of censorship. Imagine if the entire internet did this too.
 
Last edited:
I don't think their intention was to block anything LGBT related, I assume they were aiming at videos that had gays or lesbians doing inappropriate things like not kid-friendly stuff. There may have been a loophole for that kind of stuff and they may have found a way to get rid of it for straight coupled things and just hadn't for LGBT? I'm not certain, but to me YouTube seems like a pretty liberal and accepting company, so I doubt they would do something like that as an act of homphobia.
Also, I understand why some parents wouldn't want their young kids exposed to people talking about different sexualities, they can be too young to need to know about sexual relationships.
All in all, it's the parents choice, and I don't believe it was intended as an act of homophobia. There is some stuff on YouTube relating to the LGBT community that's inappropriate, even with straight couples. It's easy for kids to be accidentally exposed to something they're too young to know about.

Sexuality doesn't literally mean sexual. It also is what we use to describe who we are romantically attracted to. They literally blocked the words "gay", "lesbian", and anything ending in "sexual". I would possibly get blocking the word sexual, however it was more than that. Kids have romantic orientations, whether parents want to acknowledge it or not, and to block non-heterosexual orientations is a bit much.

Here is a question, if these ass-backwards parents care so much, why not monitor what their kids watch themselves?
 
I don't think their intention was to block anything LGBT related, I assume they were aiming at videos that had gays or lesbians doing inappropriate things like not kid-friendly stuff. There may have been a loophole for that kind of stuff and they may have found a way to get rid of it for straight coupled things and just hadn't for LGBT? I'm not certain, but to me YouTube seems like a pretty liberal and accepting company, so I doubt they would do something like that as an act of homphobia.
Also, I understand why some parents wouldn't want their young kids exposed to people talking about different sexualities, they can be too young to need to know about sexual relationships.
All in all, it's the parents choice, and I don't believe it was intended as an act of homophobia. There is some stuff on YouTube relating to the LGBT community that's inappropriate, even with straight couples. It's easy for kids to be accidentally exposed to something they're too young to know about.

Sexuality doesn't literally mean sexual stuff is involved. It also is what we use to describe who we are romantically attracted to. They literally blocked the words "gay", "lesbian", and anything ending in "sexual". I would possibly get blocking the word sexual, however it was more than that. Kids have romantic orientations, whether parents want to acknowledge it or not, and to block non-heterosexual orientations is a bit much.

Here is a question, if these ass-backwards parents care so much, why not monitor what their kids watch themselves?
 
Disney only just made that canon this year, though. I think if this was confirmed by Disney after the release of the original cartoon, many people would have hated it and thought it was gross and NOT A NORMAL RELATIONSHIP lol.

Oh really? I haven't seen or heard much about the new Beauty and the Beast, so I wouldn't have guessed (shows how completely oblivious I am to romance).
 
Oh really? I haven't seen or heard much about the new Beauty and the Beast, so I wouldn't have guessed (shows how completely oblivious I am to romance).

ya me neither, i don't get out much. but during the brexit crisis i saw on the BBC that disney had announced that the side-plot in the new live-action remake of beauty and the beast is going to be LeFou coming to terms with his feelings for Gaston. apparently there's a gay scene that people think are doing more harm than good but idk i haven't seen it.

- - - Post Merge - - -

Sexuality doesn't literally mean sexual stuff is involved. It also is what we use to describe who we are romantically attracted to. They literally blocked the words "gay", "lesbian", and anything ending in "sexual". I would possibly get blocking the word sexual, however it was more than that. Kids have romantic orientations, whether parents want to acknowledge it or not, and to block non-heterosexual orientations is a bit much.

Here is a question, if these ass-backwards parents care so much, why not monitor what their kids watch themselves?

Yeah, ignoring what your kids are doing online is bad parenting. I get if it's pawn or various other things, but censoring what they should be seeing and is suitable for them to see online just because people don't agree with it isn't right.

- - - Post Merge - - -

And I quote; "Beauty and the Beast, Disney’s fairytale romance, is the story of a bison-human hybrid who falls in love with a human woman; of servants cursed and turned into flatware and other household items; of Stockholm syndrome; of an abusive misogynist who eats five dozen eggs a day. But the thing that has gotten people really upset about the new film — a live-action remake of the 1991 animated classic — is that one of its characters is gay.
 
I'd also agree with this.

Now take that statement, and put in any minority. "I don't want my kid seeing colored folk because I don't like them!!"

If parents want to promote non-progressive, outdated ideals, they can do it on their own time, not make it the standard for a kid's filter.
 
Last edited:
Now take that statement, and put in any minority. "I don't want my kid seeing colored folk because I don't like them!!"

If parents want to promote non-progressive, outdated ideals, they can do it on their own time, not make it the standard for a kid's filter.

Okay, you have a point sure. What I meant to say in my last post was to have two modes for the kids filter like one with LBGQ+ and without it. What's wrong with that? Why not have a restricted mode where you can check off which content you want children to see?
 
Okay, you have a point sure. What I meant to say in my last post was to have two modes for the kids filter like one with LBGQ+ and without it. What's wrong with that? Why not have a restricted mode where you can check off which content you want children to see?

Because gay and lesbians and bisexuals are not inappropriate. Not only that, but PARENTS decide the modes, not the kids, therefore they shouldn't exclude content that is not inherently vulgar.
 
lol yikes...

i don't think people understand the actual problem with this at all. it's legitimate discrimination toward a group of people who aren't doing anything wrong at all. that's like saying "hey guys, let's make a filter for black people!! that'll work out smooth!!" like it's not that hard to understand what the actual problem is with it lol.. first of all, a kid is gonna be eventually exposed to things on the internet. i was exposed to everything, and i know everyone isn't like me. but you can't keep the eyes and mind of a child sheltered forever. i never liked the idea of sheltering, and in this day and age where people of the LGBT community are everywhere, i don't think keeping children in the dark will last for a very long time.

sure, they can put their little cutesy filter on and stuff and try to block out reality but eventually they'll (wow!) grow up and see what the world is really like and if you don't expose your kid to that eventually, they'll literally just collapse in on themselves because they won't know how the real world works. just delaying it makes life more complicated is how i feel. i feel like youtube just put themselves in a hole. they have so many LGBT people working on their platform that i can imagine some kind of uprising against it will happen.

the point is, i think the filter is pointless. surely things will get around the filter. all it's really doing is sheltering kids and also insulting a large group of people who were thought to be accepted by youtube. if i were in the LGBT community myself, i would be profoundly offended that people were literally attempting to filter me out. the filter is doing more harm than good.
 
Last edited:
I thought that restricted mode was YT Kids? (well , YT Kids has some ****ed up **** too)
I honestly couldn't care less , if its sexual LGBT+ content that gets blocked then good , very good. But if its totally SFW LGBT+ content then i don't know why it could get blocked?
Probably too religious families , idk.
 
Okay, you have a point sure. What I meant to say in my last post was to have two modes for the kids filter like one with LBGQ+ and without it. What's wrong with that? Why not have a restricted mode where you can check off which content you want children to see?

But gay people have done nothing wrong and it shouldn't even be encouraging Christian non-progressive views such as gay people = wrong. Next they'll be trying to tell the new generation again that HIV and AIDS are LGBT+ diseases only.

- - - Post Merge - - -

I thought that restricted mode was YT Kids? (well , YT Kids has some ****ed up **** too)
I honestly couldn't care less , if its sexual LGBT+ content that gets blocked then good , very good. But if its totally SFW LGBT+ content then i don't know why it could get blocked?
Probably too religious families , idk.

apparently LGBT+ content is NSFL either.
 
Back
Top