Jungle Explorer
I Love YTtalk
No one has answered, because no one knows. YouTube purposefully uses vague, generalized terms to allow themselves leeway when it comes to making decisions about what is and isn't acceptable. They say things like "excessive profanity" isn't allowed. Well, what does that mean? Who judges what is and isn't "excessive?" Does that mean just one swear word, if it's the F-bomb? Does that mean 4 swear words if it's something more benign? Who's to say?
Same goes for violence. What's "excessive?" Does a Let's Play video of a first person shooter video game count as "excessive violence" when 20 people were shot on-screen in a bloody massacre? Who's to say. YouTube's lawyers purposefully wrote the rules to be as vague as possible to allow the company the most flexibility of using their ban hammer.
As for content "like Duck Dynasty" being okay? Again, who's to say. The real Duck Dynasty had most of their advertisers pull out of their show in real life, not even on YouTube. So, there's that...
I completely agree with you, and that is my point. Why even discuss something that has no definition. I have seen many, many post on here where one person is instructing the other person to, "Make sure there content does not contain anything that is Potentially Offensive." I have been told this by several people myself. But when the question is posed as to what they mean when they give this advice, all you hear is crickets chirping in the dead silence.
People on here offer advice and even are critical of other people's channels and content, but have no earthly clue what this term even means.
What is "Potentially Offensive" or "Advertiser Friendly"? Nobody has the first clue. At the end of the day It comes down to personal taste. For example, Duck Dynasty was one of the Top rated Family shows for a while, but yet some advertisers pulled their ads. But you know what; I bet companies like Cabelas and Bass Pro did not pull their ads! I bet outdoor sports companies were fighting over ad space on Duck Dynasty.
And here is where I don't where the problem is coming from on this whole youtube boycott issue. There are many different types of ads, targeting different audiences. There are video game ads targeting video gamers and this companies have no problem with their ads running on gaming videos. There are outdoor sports companies that would have no problem with the ads running on outdoor sports videos. So on and so forth.
So real question is, why is there are problem here? Why, if the target is to prevent ads from running on Muslim Jihadist violent videos, are all these other legitimate types of video content getting caught in that net? Unless, there is another agenda here to squash freedom of expression and push people's own personal agenda down youtube creators throats.
Bottom line, if we are not careful and demand rational definitions and clarity from youtbe, it will become a place where only Japanese Oprea and Fluffy Bunny videos is allowed.