Banned YouTube Topics
YouTube is a company that pays content creators to develop videos that entertain people. Viewers are usually satisfied with the options, but sometimes a particular video may offend.
What is going on? People have different backgrounds, ethics, religions, families, personalities, likes, dislikes, random thoughts, and moods. Let’s take a basic example where a person has an accident captured on video. Some people might find this video funny, but others dislike gore. This latter group takes offense to the content and wishes they had not seen it.
To prepare viewers, YouTube provides a video title, preview picture, warning about sponsored content (commercial), and text description. Of course, the text and preview picture could be incorrect, but YouTube does its best.
YouTube has two other techniques to prevent viewers from being offended. If they deem an approved video controversial, they “demonetize” it. They withhold advertisements (payment) from videos, reducing content creator income. The punishment should discourage content creators from posting controversial videos.
Second, YouTube does not accept certain content. This includes videos that do not match the descriptions, undeclared advertisements, adult content, harming children, suicide, self-harm, violence, dangerous content, misinformation, and the sale of regulated goods (sex, guns, and drugs).
YouTube believes banning such content delivers a better viewing experience and improves the company/content creator’s profit. Also, viewers know they can visit other sites to view raunchy videos.
Life is imperfect, and YouTube occasionally bans or demonetizes videos that do not deserve this treatment. I follow the China Uncensored channel, and they often get demonetized because their opinions displease the Chinese government, leading to demonetizations. This is not fair, but YouTube continues the practice.
Another channel I follow discusses automobiles and car repair. One video was titled “Out for a quick street race.” In it, three friends drive their cars under the speed limit while passengers speak to each other over the phone. The shock title was intended to attract viewers, but YouTube did not approve it. The content creator appealed twice but was denied because street racing is a banned topic. Apparently, it is also a banned title.
One harshly banned topic is planning a massacre, but there are exceptions. For example, if the subject is presented in a video game, the topic is acceptable, no matter how realistic the discussion is. Also, after an actual attack, it is permissible to discuss the event (not show the images).
YouTube banning politics is not quite the topic I wanted to cover. I am a humble author and cannot afford to offend readers. Thus, I need to understand what society finds offensive. This task is difficult because society is rapidly evolving, and people use bans to achieve their agendas.
Understudying what the YouTube censors deem unacceptable is a good metric for societal trends. Let’s take the example of planning a massacre. Using YouTube banning logic, readers or bookstores would dislike a “how to guide” type of book. What about a book scene?
Our book is a buddy cop story where the heroes are on the trail of a psychopath. There has to be an incident to show the psychopath is an evil character, so let’s have them plan an attack on a shopping center and then carry it out. Now, the two police officers can start their investigation. Is that plot acceptable? After all, this is a fictional story, and readers need to dislike the psychopath. Planning a massacre seems like an excellent way to rile readers up.
If you have read my prior articles, you know I would never write such a story, but I will take a step back from my morals to answer this question. Writing a detailed plan would indeed get the reader into the mindset of the psychopath. Readers would appreciate the horrific choices, like planning what time of day would cause the most harm. This plan would produce a good story, but is the content appropriate?
The YouTube censors would certainly not allow such content. Yet, they would if it was for a video game. A book is sort of like a video game. They both have plots, action, intrigue, and characters. If anything, the video game is worse because the player is involved with the planning and gets to be part of the gory results.
Ignoring the strange video game tangent, YouTube would probably allow a fictional story where one scene is an evil person planning a massacre. What if the scene was too long or too realistic? They might indeed have a problem with it. Therefore, YouTube’s banning logic shows readers would dislike such a scene.
I think this is good news. I now have a new tool to help me avoid issues. But is YouTube banning logic bad? Massacres occur in our society. Can we not write about them? No, the topic is taboo and should no longer be glorified. This is an evolution of society. For example, racial and sexual jokes used to be acceptable, but we now consider these jokes to be taboo.
On the topic of street racing. That is a dangerous activity that can hurt drivers and innocent motorists. But what about a new Fast and Furious movie? Street racing is the basis of their franchise. Society is changing, and YouTube banning logic indicates that the movie franchise will probably end. Bummer.

You’re the best -Bill
February 14, 2024
Read my next blog.

Follow me

Copyright © 2024 Bill Conrad