Not being funny, but there are plenty of western countries that don't go around censoring this stuff. There's one massive leader in it.

Ironically the same county that doesn’t see an issue with guns and graphic violence.

I’ll never understand how a nipple is more offensive than shooting someone.

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.

Violent content and almost anything with guns also gets demonetized very easily on YouTube.

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".

Female breasts were, are, and will be secondary sexual characteristics. With whatever implication.

Male and female bodies will never be the same, and they shouldn't be.

That should have zero implications on equality though. It means that it is trickier to achieve

And so are hairy arms on men.

Do you have a point?

I think beards would be a better analogy.

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.

"My channel got demonetised but my videos shows ads."

https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/105920334/my-chann...

This is the big one imo. Youtube's monopoly status is making creators sign unfair contracts, after which stealing from them becomes legal.

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.

That's what their email says. You will receive less revenue because less advertisers will want them on adult content.

She has not been demonetised, despite the clickbait title, but classified as adult which means roughly 99% less ad revenue.

>She has not been demonetised, despite the clickbait title, but classified as adult which means roughly 99% less ad revenue.

Correct

End effect is essentially the same thing though, less ad revenue for Naomi

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.

Would it be hard for Google, for all their greatness, to have adds for...adults?

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.

The same country that gave us Dexter.

"Name three"

Netherlands. Literally all of our classic movies features a dick in plain sight. Yes, even Rutger Hauer shows all his features in Turks Fruit

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.

France, Denmark, Germany.

and Italy, Netherlands, Czech Republic. I'm sure other commenters can give even more examples.

Isn't it understandable that people want separate spaces for sexual and non sexual content?

I wouldn't jump the gun on allowing sexualization everywhere since it can have pretty bad effects on some people.

Now whether this is sexual or not is another matter.

Not really. Sexuality is and ought to be a normal part of human life and the repressed puritanism of US culture in particular is kind of awful.

There's a distinction worth making between voyeurism and sexualizing others but when someone portrays themselves as they want to be seen I have no idea why that needs to be put in some sort of box. Because there ought to be nothing offensive about sex, which is just about the most natural thing on earth.

And of course for some reason everything is assumed to be sexualized, from a sculpture of a torso to even breastfeeding mothers, I still remember 'female presenting nipples' on what was it, tumblr? It's like some sort of cursed feedback loop where the repression leads people to be horny about every sight of a nipple.

> repressed puritanism of US culture in particular is kind of awful.

Have you seen other cultures? US culture is one of the LEAST repressed cultures.

Except sexually. The US is significantly repressed there compared to all other aspects.

Worldwide I’d put the US just on the conservative Side of the middle line regarding sexuality.

I was curious to find which countries oppress sexuality, and found this interesting map:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-95129...

I think most naturists would argue that nude and topless sunbathing has nothing to do with sex or sexuality. If they are political at all they would say they are taking back nudity from sexuality.

But nude and topless sunbathing are mostly banned because of laws based on sex or sexuality.

So more centrist then puritan.

We’re far left Puritan? I guess. (I visialize Puritan being the 50-75 %ile for the scale)

But if says there's more prepressed than Puritan.

US doesn't really have a unified culture. Compared to countries that have a strong cultural weight on the world, the US is pretty puritan.

>US doesn't really have a unified culture.

I disagree. Yes it's multicultural; but there are unified attitudes and cultural behaviors that purvey the country. Foreigners who come from abroad to live here maintain their own cultural identity while adopting American culture.

What do you mean by strong cultural weight? You mean like Japan or China?

Japan definitely has a strong cultural weight, but in animated content in English speaking countries.

China has no cultural weight on English speaking countries.

Not in popular culture like television or media. Media seems like an important part of culture but it is by far one of the smallest aspects of culture. Product and business infrastructure of the entire world is tightly integrated with China and that is definitely culture.

> Compared to countries that have a strong cultural weight on the world

This thread is a goldmine of the most politically correct ways to say "the middle east doesn't count"

I'm literally Iranian. Our cultural machine does not exist outside of the country.

This isn't the same as Turkey, but their cultural weight does not impact English speaking countries.

The core of the problem here seems to be that the video was classified as adult because her breasts are larger (that's also what she hints at), while other videos with smaller breast dummies are not classified as such.

I would also probably feel offended if Google told me that my breasts are pornographic just because of their size.

> Isn't it understandable that people want separate spaces for sexual and non sexual content?

I think it’s kind of like when you read “public is outraged” and in reality there’re three people writing angry tweets.

Have you seen the way way people dress on American media? Dunno where you would find this non-sexual content.

There is no such thing as Western civilization, cultures are different. This one is all on America.

> we as a western civilization

You can say "USA", no need to bring the whole "western civilization" generalization into this.

Actually "western civilization" if you just count it as having begun in ancient Rome (if not earlier) didn't really have such a problem with nudity intrinsically.

We have long come to terms with this, and the general opinion seems to be that there should be limits to public nudity and sex. These are not culturally invariant, but the internet happens to be a thing that is accessed from all over the world, so there's a kind of lowest common denominator where money is concerned. A bit hypocritical at times, but quite understandable, really. I don't know why you think that's insane.