YoutubeVideo with no age restriction shows lynching of child

[Blasted Craigs]

First, a little background.
Youtube censors by "demonitizing", that is, not allowing content creators to profit from material if said material is considered hateful or promotes hate speech.
That said, this is the claim of Youtube/Google. (Since youtube is owned by Google.)
And many, MANY channels with conservative views or anti Leftist views are being demonitized.
(Basically, Youtube makes money from advertisers from ads seen when customers view content on their site, and if monitized, content creators receive a portion of that ad revenue from the traffic their content creates.
Demonitized means Youtube has withdrawn one's ability to receive ad revenue on their created content. Doesn't matter then how much traffic you generate, the content creator receives nothing for it.)
Now, many say Youtube is a private company, but when a company has over 75% of a market share under U.S. law, it is considered by law a monopoly, and google is already over 60%.
(63.8 % as of 2015.) And remember, Google owns Youtube. Thus giving Youtube search results a vast advantage over any competitors like Vimeo, Wistia, SproutVideo, Brightcove, and others. Even though these sites have content similar to Youtube, they will never, NEVER be in the front page of a google search. And it has been reported Google has been found guilty of manipulating search results, that is, search results are advertised by Google to be based on popularity of the search result based on traffic, except in reality it is not, but based on Google directive. In fact, the European Union has even filed a 2.7 billion lawsuit for Google manipulating search results.
Sources.

http://searchengineland.com/data-google-monthly-search-volume-dwarfs-rivals-mobile-advantage-269120

https://business-law.freeadvice.com/business-law/trade_regulation/monopoly_power.htm

https://www.recode.net/2017/6/27/15878980/europe-fine-google-antitrust-search

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en

Reasons for a video to lose advertiser money per Youtube's own Terms and conditions.
Controversial issues and sensitive events: Video content that features or focuses on sensitive topics or events including, but not limited to, war, political conflicts, terrorism or extremism, death and tragedies, sexual abuse, even if graphic imagery is not shown, is generally not eligible for ads. For example, videos about recent tragedies, even if presented for news or documentary purposes, may not be eligible for advertising given the subject matter.
Drugs and dangerous products or substances: Video content that promotes or features the sale, use, or abuse of illegal drugs, regulated drugs or substances, or other dangerous products is not eligible for advertising. Videos discussing drugs or dangerous substances for educational, documentary, and artistic purposes are generally eligible for advertising, so long as drug use or substance abuse is not graphic or glorified.
Harmful or dangerous acts: Video content that promotes harmful or dangerous acts that result in serious physical, emotional, or psychological injury is not eligible for advertising. Some examples include videos depicting painful or invasive surgical or cosmetic procedures, or pranks involving sexual harassment or humiliation.
Hateful content: Video content that promotes discrimination or disparages or humiliates an individual or group of people on the basis of the individual’s or group’s race, ethnicity or ethnic origin, nationality, religion, disability, age, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization is not eligible for advertising. Content that is satire or comedy may be exempt; however, simply stating your comedic intent is not sufficient and that content may still not be eligible for advertising.
Inappropriate language: Video content that contains frequent uses of strong profanity or vulgarity throughout the video may not be eligible for advertising. Occasional use of profanity won’t necessarily result in your video being ineligible for advertising, but context matters.
Inappropriate use of family entertainment characters: Videos depicting family entertainment characters or content, whether animated or live action, engaged in violent, sexual, vile, or otherwise inappropriate behavior, even if done for comedic or satirical purposes, are not eligible for advertising.
Incendiary and demeaning: Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning may not be eligible for advertising. For example, video content that shames or insults an individual or group may not be eligible for advertising.
Sexually suggestive content: Video content that features highly sexualized content, such as video content where the focal point is nudity, body parts, or sexual simulations, is not eligible for advertising. Content that features sex toys, sexual devices, or explicit conversation about sex may also not be eligible for advertising, with limited exceptions for non-graphic sexual education videos.
Violence: Video content where the focal point is on blood, violence, or injury, when presented without additional context, is not eligible for advertising. Violence in the normal course of video gameplay is generally acceptable for advertising, but montages where gratuitous violence is the focal point is not. If you're showing violent content in a news, educational, artistic, or documentary context, that additional context is important.

Now, According to Youtube's own policies, content can be demonitized at their descretion (fair to point out) but also, in black and white in their own company policies, when it shows violence, hateful content, or uses inappropriate language. Now, one may say since Google is nearly a monopoly, it is unethical to pick who receives monotization, since they have such a large impact on social commentary, being a near monopoly, and since they control search results for a large portion of society via search result manipulation. But that isn't the meat of this discussion. It is the hypocrisy of Youtube, in violating their own policies in favor of promoting their chosen ideology. Verbatim from Youtube's published terms and conditions regarding monitized content.
" Harmful or dangerous acts: Video content that promotes harmful or dangerous acts that result in serious physical, emotional, or psychological injury is not eligible for advertising."
Well, it must not be considered promoting violence to show a kid getting lynched, that is hanged. Because there is a video receiving full advertising funds that shows a mock hanging, in fact glorifies it, thus "promotes harmful or dangerous acts that result in serious physical, emotional, or psychological injury".
Why is this video, that has received full monitization, that shows the singer in the video putting a noose around the neck of a child, and then hanging the child, killing him, receiving full monotization?
Maybe, I don't' know, the killer hanging the child is black and the child killed is white? That makes it not hateful or dangerous, since one cannot be hateful to whites, right?
Also, this video, showing the gruesome horrific mock murder of a child, does not even receive an age warning for graphic content!
Oh, this video also shows

crude sexual material, it shows a frustrated white school teacher unable to control his black classroom. Then the rapper beats the white teacher with a dildo. Parts of the video contain crude sexually explicit lyrics. Other parts contain incitement of racial hatred against white people.

Spoiler-ed for graphic descriptions. Youtube might consider such material ok for minors to view, I do not.
The video has been viewed almost five million times. It is being praised by black supremacists. Thus, promoting violence and hatred, but doesn't violate policy for some reason.
And youtube has been quick and heavy handed in demonitization, but, it appears only if one isn't far left in the political spectrum.
Examples.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2017/08/22/youtube-is-making-it-almost-impossible-to-monetize-video-game-content-involving-guns/#596c377c2613

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/11/conservative-and-independent-youtube-channels-hit-by-censorship-and-demonetization/

Link to a site describing the hateful video in question.

http://narrative-collapse.com/2017/09/13/gangster-rapper-depicts-white-child-being-lynched-youtube-approves/

///////////////////////////
So......Discussion.
1-Is youtube morally justified in allowing this video to receive no restrictions whatsoever, allowing the content creators to profit from said content?
2-Should this video be considered hate speech?
3-Does Youtube have a double standard?
4-Finally, what about the UN's lawsuit?



/////////////////////
My answers.
1-Youtube is not only morally bankrupt allowing this content creator to profit from this hate speech, they are violating their own policies to promote a chosen ideology, that is, white hate. (But I guess some would say I have "white fragility" for pointing this out)
2-Yes.
3-Yes.
4-Something good from the UN? I can scarcely believe it!

[Albrenia]

I don't have a problem with YouTube 'restricting' anything they want. They don't owe anyone at all a platform for any reason, and if they think they can get more advertisers by censoring political channels, meh. Might be a shitty thing to do, but it's their right.
One might as well demand a newspaper run your personal opinion piece merely because said newspaper has most of the sales in your area.

As for the video depicting a lynching. I don't plan on watching it but it sounds rather horrible. Since it sounds, from what you you have described, as if it breaks their own rules it should be taken down or at least age-gated.

[Tanzoria]

I thought from the title that it was a real lynching. It's not, so who cares?

[Destructive Government Economic System]

Youtube provides more entertainment, good and bad, than television ever could. Don't you just love the crazy internet these days?

[Blasted Craigs]

I thought from the title that it was a real lynching. It's not, so who cares?

Because it isn't even age-gated....That is, there is no warning of graphic content that may be unsuitable for minors.
Might as well say..."This is family friendly entertainment right here! Watch the mock lynching of an evil racist white boy!
Family fun for all and great fun for all ages!"

[Blasted Craigs]

I thought from the title that it was a real lynching. It's not, so who cares?

And also, the character limit left me no space for "mock" in the title.
The main issue is the lack of age restriction or content warning.

[Blasted Craigs]

I don't have a problem with YouTube 'restricting' anything they want. They don't owe anyone at all a platform for any reason, and if they think they can get more advertisers by censoring political channels, meh. Might be a shitty thing to do, but it's their right.
One might as well demand a newspaper run your personal opinion piece merely because said newspaper has most of the sales in your area.

As for the video depicting a lynching. I don't plan on watching it but it sounds rather horrible. Since it sounds, from what you you have described, as if it breaks their own rules it should be taken down or at least age-gated.

Except...They are a near monopoly, and have a near monopoly on content distribution and search results.
This affects social commentary on a massive level.
Might as well say you are against net neutrality. I am pro net nuetrality, which is why I am against Youtube/Google censorship. Two sides of the same coin IMHO.

https://www.wired.com/2017/04/internet-censorship-is-advancing-under-trump/

Which is my biggest beef with Trump.....His unwavering pro business side, and favoring regulation that protects big business, as long as they are pro USA. Pro USA aside, still in favor of big business over competitors.
And on that front, IMHO, wrong.
Just like this is wrong.

[Albrenia]

You can use other search engines and other video sharing sites, right?

I imagine one could try to have YouTube broken up into smaller segments like the old Bell phone company was, but I have no clue how that would work.

[Blasted Craigs]

You can use other search engines and other video sharing sites, right?

Well, on PC fairly easily.
On a cellphone, the default is Google, and it will default is Google every time, so first one must search for "bing" for example, then search under Bing. Some phones might allow a change to the default search engine used perhaps, but many others do not. It's hardwired. Thus removing customer choice on their phone. And, it takes a some techie know how to change it on the ones that allow it, also.
And this accounts for a large percentage of Google's market share.

https://www.howtogeek.com/194060/how-to-change-the-default-search-engine-on-your-phone-or-tablet/

From the website listed.
"As services are integrated more deeply into each operating system, changing your search engine is becoming more difficult. For example, there’s no way to change the default search engine used by Google Now, Apple’s Siri, or Microsoft’s Cortana."
And reference what I said about Google manipulating search results, and the U.N.'s lawsuit against Google.

[Blasted Craigs]

You can use other search engines and other video sharing sites, right?

I imagine one could try to have YouTube broken up into smaller segments like the old Bell phone company was, but I have no clue how that would work.

Also, under U.S. law, they haven't reached 75% to be considered a monopoly under law yet.
Monopolies have been considered as such with less than 75% market share in the past, but it only becomes irrefutable at 75% in the U.S., and Google has about 64% right now.

[Albrenia]

From the website listed.
"As services are integrated more deeply into each operating system, changing your search engine is becoming more difficult. For example, there’s no way to change the default search engine used by Google Now, Apple’s Siri, or Microsoft’s Cortana."
And reference what I said about Google manipulating search results, and the U.N.'s lawsuit against Google.

I do have a problem with that. Seems shady and underhanded, but not exactly unexpected in the business world.

[Vassenor]

Unless a video is flagged for whatever reason its content is not actually checked by a person.

[Tanzoria]

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/350640-new-hampshire-investigating-report-of-lynching-as-hate-crime
Meanwhile in the real world there was an attempted lynching of a bi-racial child in New Hampshire. But I guess a simulated lynching by a random rapper is more important.
#priorities

[Petrolheadia]

You can use other search engines and other video sharing sites, right?

Well, on PC fairly easily.
On a cellphone, the default is Google, and it will default is Google every time, so first one must search for "bing" for example, then search under Bing.

On Android, the most popular OS, you can change the homepage.

"As services are integrated more deeply into each operating system, changing your search engine is becoming more difficult. For example, there’s no way to change the default search engine used by Google Now, Apple’s Siri, or Microsoft’s Cortana."
And reference what I said about Google manipulating search results, and the U.N.'s lawsuit against Google.

What's next? A lawsuit about Windows only allowing the Microsoft start bar?

Also, if you ask why Google has a monopoly, as a Googlaholic, my answer is "because it works, mate". With features like Google Instant Answer, it'd be hard for Google not to be #1.

[Hirota]

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/350640-new-hampshire-investigating-report-of-lynching-as-hate-crime
Meanwhile in the real world there was an attempted lynching of a bi-racial child in New Hampshire. But I guess a simulated lynching by a random rapper is more important.
#priorities

alleged attempted lynching. Whilst I'm sure the number of hate crimes have increased, there also appears - at least from where I am observing - to be a disproportionate amount of alleged hate crimes that turn out to be fabrications.

[Socialist Czechia]

Youtube shouldn't ban even suicide tapes.

Because, as I see it, we should remember everything ugly and nasty happening in our lives, for eternity, without censorship.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I just want them to stop taking down Saddam Hussein and Yugoslav Wars vaporwave videos.

[Thermodolia]

Well, on PC fairly easily.
On a cellphone, the default is Google, and it will default is Google every time, so first one must search for "bing" for example, then search under Bing.

On Android, the most popular OS, you can change the homepage.

You can change your search on every OS. Mine is Bing.

[Thermodolia]

Now to answer the OP

1. It's a private company.
2. It didn't actually happen and is just a video. If you are going to get your panties in a wad over a video then you are worse then the SJWs you claim to hate
3. It's a private company.
4. The UN is bad and they should feel bad.

[Solomons Land]

Thank you for explaining what everyone already knows.

[Thermodolia]

Thank you for explaining what everyone already knows.

I seriously want to know who thinks that business should be moral.

[The United Providences of Perland]

This is, disturbing to say the least. But honestly, I just say censor nothing LMAO. Isn't YT rated 17+ in both the Apple store and Google Play? Parent's can learn to actually watch what their children do if they don't want this to happen. Because all I can see now is this; Headline; "Mother finds son watching graphic hanging video on YouTube!" As for the profit, also why not? is it hate speech? Oh yes, most diffidently. Does Yt currently have a double standard, a little. It isn't big enough to be an issue, but I wouldn't be shocked if there's that one mod up at YT HQ screeching about views that they don't agree with. The UN lawsuit. I mean, ok I guess?

[Solomons Land]

I think the hole issue is a violation of free speech, if some guy wants to post a video of a boy getting linched, so be it. No one is being forsed to watch it.

[The United Providences of Perland]

I think the hole issue is a violation of free speech, if some guy wants to post a video of a boy getting linched, so be it. No one is being forsed to watch it.

Exactly, but that doesn't stop people from watching it for the sole purpose of getting offended and complaining.

[Solomons Land]

It is a different idea completely if the poster himself was the lincher, but I do not believe that he was.