• @u10ji@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    0
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    I’m a little bit confused on this: if you visit the policy page now it does (at least for me, in Europe) still list “Sex, Gender, or Sexual Orientation” as a protected group in that exact same list. Obviously slightly different as they’ve combined a couple of different groups in there where previously they were delineated: plus I wonder if this is potentially showing because I’m in a different region. Would be interested to see what someone in NA sees: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801939

    EDIT: Nevermind, saw further in the thread

  • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost
    link
    fedilink
    English
    014 hours ago

    More proof Rainbow Capitalism was a lie/ad campaign to take more money from queers.

    I wish I could rub this in the face of every cishet who said Rainbow Capitalism was actual progress.

    • @deepfuckingdumb@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      012 hours ago

      I mean, in the past companies wouldn’t be caught dead associating with LGBTQ+ people, let alone take their money. Now LGBTQ+ is acceptable enough for predatory advertising so…idk progress from like a fucked up capitalist perspective I guess?

    • @InsincereLogic@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      013 hours ago

      (For reference: I am cishet, but have family & friends in the LGBTQ+ community and consider myself an ally.) Usually just lurk, but I feel you so badly.

      I’ve been saying it forever as well. They’re spending millions, to specifically target/advertise/appeal to the community… out of the goodness of their hearts? Right.

      Then as soon as its “over”, the facade drops and its on to the next big event/target market. Rinse and repeat.

  • @cotlovan@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    016 hours ago

    As i signed up for this sub, I thought I’d be reading about technology. Actually, it seems that people here are more concerned about companies not sticking to the far left ideology, so naturally they call everyone nazis and fascists, without ever knowing what those words even mean.

    Just because someone doesn’t want to play the gender tip toe dance, doesn’t mean they’re nazis. But I guess that’s not something that this sub is ready to face.

    • Eugene V. Debs' Ghost
      link
      fedilink
      English
      0
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      Womp womp, get bent and bootlick Trump in hopes he might acknowledge you for his next grift.

    • @redwattlebird@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      014 hours ago

      Hang on. I just scrolled down the comments list for a couple of minutes and didn’t see anyone calling anyone else a Nazi or a fascist. What are you going on about?

      And YouTube is a company. They don’t believe in anything except increasing shareholder value. It’s got nothing about far left or whatever. Gender identity isn’t even a far left idea, unless your Overton window is skewed.

      Also, you’ve just sort of outed yourself unnecessarily as an ignorant bigot in a left leaning community with your statement:

      Just because someone doesn’t want to play the gender tip toe dance, doesn’t mean they’re nazis

      Of course they’re not Nazis. No one’s calling them a Nazi. They’re calling that someone a bigot.

      Actually, it seems that people here are more concerned about companies not sticking to the far left ideology

      Actually, it’s people who are concerned about companies kowtowing to a fascist regime, the Trump government.

    • @wolfinthewoods@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      014 hours ago

      nazis and fascists, without ever knowing what those words even mean

      I am Jack’s complete lack of self awareness

    • @UltraMasculine@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      015 hours ago

      Seems like you are getting downvoted, but I agree with you that nowadays people use words like nazi and fascist very loosely. I’m very sure that a large part of the people can’t tell what nazi or fascist really is without looking it on Wikipedia.

      • Suite404
        link
        fedilink
        English
        014 hours ago

        Seeing as you apparently need someone to look the word up for you.

        Fascism : a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition

        Let’s see.

        1. Christian nationalism is a huge part of Trumps support group
        2. Cops target brown people to attempt to deport them and Trump pardons them for ignoring court orders to stop (Joe Apaio)
        3. Trump continues to deport people based on skin and looks without due process. Ignoring courts telling him to stop.
        4. Trumps America first slogan is eerily similar to Hitlers slogan.
        5. Trump is starting to isolate the US from the rest of the world (but curiously not Russia)

        But I do agree, they’re not Nazis, they’re MAGA. Their own brand of fascism.

    • @Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      0
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      I’m with you on the “they’re not Nazi thing”

      I think a Lemmy is being a version targeted radicalization for certain groups.

      But still I think you’re wrong that we can separate technology from this political stuff right now. It’s not separate. Technology is the medium that groups are using to spread this stuff. It’s important and interesting to see how they’re doing it.

      Content should focus on the tech side of it. And also why be angry at the side that’s just trying to protect their freedoms here. If it wasn’t for the people trying to limit their freedoms, we’d never hear of this stuff.

      The issue isn’t people trying to identify as another gender. It’s the people saying no they can’t and then abusing their power and influence to do it.

      • @cotlovan@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        014 hours ago

        Sure, you can’t always separate the technology from the politics, my issue was that this is what most posts around here are about. I took a look and most content comes a few accounts, and it’s always about the “nazi this” and “fascist that”. Is that really only thing that happens in the tech space, what Musk said and what YouTube changed in their policy?

    • @odelik@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      016 hours ago

      Just your garden variety bigots and assholes then?

      Also, I think you should read up on what facisim is and why it’s being so widely used right now as highly oppressive rhetoric is being pushed from many far-right leaders throughout the world.

      • @cotlovan@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        015 hours ago

        I know exactly what fascism means, and often what the left is doing aligns better with the definition than what the right is doing. Also, let’s not forget that “nazi” is a short form for “national socialism”

      • @cotlovan@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        014 hours ago

        Your reply and your up votes just prove what I said. You’re not allowed to disagree with the rhetoric around here.

        • @redwattlebird@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          0
          edit-2
          14 hours ago

          No, you’re definitely allowed. Otherwise you’d have had your comments removed from the public discourse.

          The up and downs just gauge public approval to the comment. Remember, you’re also free to up and down vote to voice your disagreement.

          Also remember, if you think everyone around you are assholes then likely you’re the asshole.

          Edit: I just saw your other comment on the lack of variety of posts. Be the change you want to see. Find something interesting and make a post!

        • @wolfinthewoods@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          0
          edit-2
          14 hours ago

          Sure, if your issue is that it’s okay for corporations to remove protections for hate speech towards marginalized groups, then yes, go get bent. This kind of false equivalence between normalizing hate and ostraciszing progressives for speaking out against oppression is EXACTLY what we’re fighting against. What in the hell is the ‘rhetoric’ do you disagree with? Have empathy for lgbtq+ people? Jesus. If so, this is definitely not the place for you.

          • @cotlovan@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            013 hours ago

            Speaking about false equivalence, how did you came to the conclusion that just because I don’t find a corporation removing gender stuff from their policies relevant from a technological stand point - makes me an LGBT hater? You seem to already have made your mind, you probably did assume that I’m a trump supporter who wanna see gays being hanged, even though I was saying that I expected more tech and less gender politics from this sub.

            There are a lot of subs dedicated to LGBT, I came here for tech. Which sub would in your opinion be more appropriate for tech talk if not this one?

            • @wolfinthewoods@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              012 hours ago

              When big Tech, especially the biggest video platform in the world, does something lile this it is relevant to tech. The better question is, if you do support lgbtq+ people, why the public freakout about mentioning a far reaching tech policy, by one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) tech companies against them on a tech sub?

        • Suite404
          link
          fedilink
          English
          014 hours ago

          You are welcome to disagree and people are welcome to tell you off. That’s how speech works. Or should we tip to around disagreeing with you?

          • @cotlovan@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            013 hours ago

            Of course everyone is allowed to speak their mind. But being called names for not supporting a particular point of view sounds like hate speech to me, wouldn’t you agree?

            • @slackassassin@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              0
              edit-2
              13 hours ago

              abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or most importantly against people who have just the worst takes.

              Hmmm, checks out. I guess the technology platform, YouTube, should get right on that too.

  • @mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    017 hours ago

    What about this idea:

    Stop staring at internet videos all day and go get a life. Learn Spanish, take up woodworking, volunteer at your local school, walk around the block… do something useful instead of staring at Internet videos, or worse, making internet videos for people to stare at

    • Ada
      link
      fedilink
      English
      016 hours ago

      Hey. I’m learning Spanish, I’m a volunteer, and I run and cycle on the regular!

      Somehow, that doesn’t stop you sounding like a bigot though…

    • @Soleos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      017 hours ago

      This is an unhelpful and condescending comment. It dismisses the meaningful activities people engage in online as “not life”: self expression, creating art and community, working, socializing, enjoying entertainment, and learning new things. It proposes a false dichotomy wherein not-online is utopic with universally accessible activities and, especially, an absence of the very same people who make online spaces toxic hellholes. They are present in “real spaces” too. These are not mutually exclusive things. You are likely to find that pro-social activists online are often try to be pro-social activists in person as well.

      That being said, I agree that people get terminally online and that balancing digital and physical lives are important. Managing attention and mental health are important, especially when content about important and meaningful topics turn into viral and incessant feeds that are geared to overwhelm human brains that weren’t evolved to handle such constant cognitive/emotional stress.

      Take care out there folks.

  • Fat Tony
    link
    fedilink
    English
    020 hours ago

    Probably because no one is actually using any gender identity based bigotry any more. So they might as well just remove it, it saves space. /s

      • @nibble4bits@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        016 hours ago

        It’s always a question of money. It costs money to make quality content. YouTube has content because they share ad revenue to their content providers. That expands the more popular the content is because there are more ads displayed. That revenue lets the creators expand their capabilities with better gear and stage sets. Federated networks usually depend initially on volunteers and alternative ways of earning revenue for those instances besides ads.

        • The Menemen!
          link
          fedilink
          English
          0
          edit-2
          12 hours ago

          Tbh money could be the initiative. So many content creators nowadays have platforms beside YouTube. Often even self hosted weboages. If a federated alternative would come up, they could just set up an own server and keep all the earnings.

          This would somehow need to get started though. No idea how.

        • @moonbunny@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          014 hours ago

          It’s even more difficult since the content has to be stored somewhere, and needs to be streamed which requires storage and processing power, with the latter needing to be able to scale so the user experience doesn’t get bogged down by new people joining.

          The entire revenue model of compensating the host and content creator does require a rethink, but it’s hard to see how that could be done without paywalling access to host, view, and/or both of the above.

      • luluu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        017 hours ago

        PeerTube isn’t bad, it just has no content

        • Muyal_Hix
          link
          fedilink
          English
          015 hours ago

          It is kinda bad. Especially when it comes to finding content or getting noticed

        • @AnjunaSouls@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          016 hours ago

          Yeah, and the platform is set up in a way that hinders onboarding and discoverability of what’s there (at least, compared to youtube’s approach…). These are all problems that prevent it from replacing YouTube. If you read Peertube’s official site they even say upfront that they’re not trying to be a YouTube replacement

    • The Menemen!
      link
      fedilink
      English
      012 hours ago

      They didn’t capitulate. They never fought. They just did what was the best shot at earning money and gaining ground at the time.

      Don’t ever expect moral based behavior in capitalism or geopolitics.

      • @Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        0
        edit-2
        15 hours ago

        Was yours? Commenting online isn’t exactly fighting the good fight. Did you do anything to help shore up and defend anything.

        These companies face legal action from the government that was elected. A government elected who won power by spreading their shitty ideology everywhere.

        • @darthelmet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          015 hours ago

          I’m not talking about personal actions. I personally believe in equality and I wish I could do more about that even if there are all sorts of personal reasons that’s difficult for me.

          Corporations don’t believe anything. They’re just profit optimizing machines. They were doing rainbow capitalism when they thought it would be more profitable and now that they think the opposite is more profitable, they’ll do that. It’s as simple as that and hoping corporations would be allies in a fight for equality was always based on a misunderstanding about power.

          It’s not like corporations don’t have power that can resist government action. Look at how effectively they’ve evaded taxes and regulations. The big international ones can threaten to take their ball and leave if they don’t like a country’s policies. And that’s when they don’t just bribe politicians to change them.

          The workers at those companies are people though. Labor organizing was always going to be necessary to build up power for change. Not saying it’s easy and I can’t fault someone for worrying about losing their job, but if resistance was going to happen anywhere that’s where it would be. Not in boardrooms or alone in a booth.

          But there’s the difference. It’s one thing to have convictions but not the means or courage to act on them. It’s another thing to have power, but lack convictions beyond whatever is currently convenient. The former could overcome those obstacles given the right circumstances. The latter never will.

    • @Sizing2673@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      017 hours ago

      This is what’s fucking shitty about this

      Every company and every politician and every person who bends over so willingly IS THE PROBLEM

      It’s like they announce their regime and these idiots roll out the red carpets immediately ready be the first company to suck the government off

      If they all stood their ground, it would buy more time

    • @samus12345@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      019 hours ago

      It’s too hard to change anything, but only if it’s progressive policies. Fascist policies can be implemented immediately.

      • @TheEntity@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        017 hours ago

        It’s too hard to change anything if one believes in laws, rules and the general idea of a fair justice. They don’t have this limitation.

  • @mooncake@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    020 hours ago

    It’s time to boycott Google as well now hu? Already ditched their search engine and moved to kagi

    • @ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      0
      edit-2
      20 hours ago

      Boycotts are performative stunts that feel good but don’t have impact on companies and even gets more attention ON those companies.

      No really, this is a phenomenon that’s known. When people were protesting Blizzard, I swear to fucking god, people I knew for years who hadn’t played WoW since they were kids suddenly decided to reactivate their accounts because all the talk about blizzard “made them nostalgic” and despite being sympathetic to the people hurt by the company, they simply didn’t have the mental value-system to draw lines between those two things. Their own desires to escape and recapture youth was far, far stronger than the social messaging they honestly just felt was finger-wagging and parental scolding, so they rejected the idea of protesting without conscious thought.

      And there are far, FAR more people like this than there are people with steadfast principles and discipline to stick to them. The depressing majority of people are not really thinking, they’re just going with the flow, agreeing with popular sentiment when it’s convenient, doing whatever they want when nobody is looking because capitalism has bled our axioms out.

      If we put that much energy into volunteering with groups raising funds for primaries, getting to know our neighbors and forming communities, we would abolish this fascist empire in a single election cycle. (Assuming we have elections again.)

      • @supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        020 hours ago

        Boycotts are performative stunts that feel good but don’t have impact on companies and even gets more attention ON those companies.

        No they aren’t? People just haven’t actually been pissed off enough to actually wield the weapon of “ok, fine, now I will not buy ANYTHING from you”.

        Boycotts most definitely work, Tesla’s stock is plummeting, and one of the major reasons is an aggressive and enthusiastic boycott of buying Telsas (also they suck).

        This isn’t to say in any given situation a boycott is the best strategy to use, or that your organizing energy isn’t better spent elsewhere, but don’t dismiss boycotts when we are seeing one of the most effective high profile ones in recent memeory be VERY successful.

        • @Letsdothisok@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          017 hours ago

          No, this boycott at least isn’t “working” to any serious degree. And teslas stock is negligibley effected by any the protest. It can all be so subjective, though, anyway.

          Lol, no, i looked it up, this is not a “VERY” successful boycott. Not in the least.

        • @ameancow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          0
          edit-2
          20 hours ago

          Strikes do a lot more damage to companies. I think a lot of people mix the two ideas up.

          The last most successful boycotts were mostly ones you never heard of, and at least one you rather not hear of. We managed to get tuna companies to pretend to harm fewer dolphins in 1988. Before that is was things like the 1965 Delano Grape Strike and the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott. The most recent boycott that actually got a company to change its marketing and outreach was the Bud Lite/Dylan Mulvaney boycott by the anti-trans right.

          If you think you can get enough people as worked up about an issue as the chuds were about a single commercial featuring someone they were scared of, then by all means let’s fire up all the engines and get boycotting. Otherwise, I would encourage people who work at these tech companies to start talking about unions and making change from the inside. But none of that does as much damage to a company as getting politicians installed who are already taking bribes from other companies. Yes this is a dark perspective, you’re welcome to disagree but in my nearly five decades on Earth this is just what I’ve seen over and over.

          • @supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            0
            edit-2
            19 hours ago

            I don’t want to take away from the general thrust of your point, I just don’t think we have actually seen boycotts that people were actually fired up en masse to enforce.

            I think up until right this very moment the general center of mass of society has been largely ok with most of what capitalism is, I think that is going to continue to drastically change, and we will see a lot more wildcat boycotts of companies that significantly hurt them.

            That being said I agree that overly focusing on that as a strategy isn’t necessarily wise, but boycotts are definitely a weapon that can absolutely blow up the bridges of corporate 'Murica.

    • LucasWaffyWaf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      013 hours ago

      It’s like Roko’s Basilisk playing out in real time, except instead of building a malignant computer out of fear it’s accelerating a fascist takeover.

    • @ameancow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      020 hours ago

      Welcome to how the world has always worked and always will. There’s gin to help wash the black pill down.

  • AwesomeLowlander
    link
    fedilink
    English
    01 day ago

    While I hate Google, this seems like one of those much ados over nothing. They specifically mention ‘sex, gender, or sexual orientation’, which to most reasonable people would cover gender identity.

    • @patatahooligan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      021 hours ago

      “Gender” means nothing without context. By a MAGAs definition of gender this policy doesn’t protect trans people, for example. We don’t know how this rule will be interpreted in practice. Even if you don’t consider the intent behind making this change, this is objectively a weaker guarantee of protection than what we had with “gender identity and expression”.

      • AwesomeLowlander
        link
        fedilink
        English
        021 hours ago

        This is not a legal contract, it’s a general guideline for users about what is or isn’t acceptable. The intent and spirit of the terms are clear, the only question is whether Google will enforce them not. If the enforcement is crappy, like what Facebook is famous for, it doesn’t matter a damn what exact terminology they use in the guidelines.

      • AwesomeLowlander
        link
        fedilink
        English
        01 day ago

        No, but I think most of the people on Lemmy should know better than that.

        Looks at Hexbear, .ml, and to some extent Blahaj

        Oh, who am I kidding.