What's with youtube banning any kind of triggering words?

[KidsHappen]

So I have been watching some youtube videos lately and have noticed the following:

People are no longer using words like murder or suicide but are saying that someone unalived someone or that someone unalived themselves.

There  is no longer rape or sexual assault but either the R word or some inexplicit assault.

Can no longer say eating disorders but must say eds related to food. Can't say binged, purged, or puked but got rid of the food quickly.

Medical doctors not being able to talk about abortion and birth control.

And of course no longer using man/woman or male/female.

Honestly,what the heck is going on?

[HomeAgain]

Is that youtube banning the words or videos trying to be trigger-less?

[Melissa Louise]

I hate the term 'unalived'. I understand why it's used, but it's the most ridiculous word possible. And people thinking about or planning suicide won't stop thinking about it because they are thinking about it as being unalive. Not being alive is the attractive part of the concept. 

I have so much to say on this, but I'm not going to, because it will only end up in an argument.

Suffice to say, avoiding 'triggers' society wide is not an evidence based practice and potentially relates to Quill's thread re inflation of terms for psychiatric diagnoses, in this case, trauma. 

 

[Carrie12345]

YouTube, TikTok, and other platforms will demonetize and/or yank content for violating rules before or without reviewing the actual content. So it’s safer for a creator to avoid the words that get flagged for “review” the most.

[regentrude]

It has nothing to do with triggers. People substitute "unalive" for "suicide" because the platforms are called to restrict content that encourages and glorifies suicide. They have received a lot of criticism for permitting problematic content and are supposed to policed what is posted.
If you use word "suicide" in a facebook post, the AI will detect it, delete the post, and send an automated message with mental health resources.
This was a problem in a mental health support group where a suicidal person thought somebody of the group had reported his posts and left because he didn't feel it was safe- when it was just the stupid robot.
ETA: I imagine similar filters are in place for other words like "rape".

 

Edited August 15, 2022 by regentrude

[KidsHappen]

45 minutes ago, HomeAgain said:

Is that youtube banning the words or videos trying to be trigger-less?

It's youtube.The creators are specifically stating that they are not allowed to use they word. See Carrie's post above.

[Melissa Louise]

26 minutes ago, regentrude said:

It has nothing to do with triggers. People substitute "unalive" for "suicide" because the platforms are called to restrict content that encourages and glorifies suicide. They have received a lot of criticism for permitting problematic content and are supposed to policed what is posted.
If you use word "suicide" in a facebook post, the AI will detect it, delete the post, and send an automated message with mental health resources.
This was a problem in a mental health support group where a suicidal person thought somebody of the group had reported his posts and left because he didn't feel it was safe- when it was just the stupid robot.
ETA: I imagine similar filters are in place for other words like "rape".

 

So then the filters will catch up to unalive. 

That word honestly offends me. 

[Melissa Louise]

And the censorship of discussions of suicide offends me too. 

[Katy]

It’s the limit of artificial intelligence. It can’t tell the difference between a homicidal or suicidal person and a medical doctor trying to educate people, or a journalist covering said events. 

[EKS]

The hand wringing about language these days is so incredibly idiotic, it's stunning. 

[KungFuPanda]

9 minutes ago, EKS said:

The hand wringing about language these days is so incredibly idiotic, it's stunning. 

I’m not sure it’s “idiotic handwringing.” Content creators are using synonyms so that they’re not put in time out by a robot. They lose revenue if their videos aren’t posted. Sometimes they’re just trying to be considerate. People have their reasons for not doing things my way or doing things how they’ve ‘always been done.’

Edited August 15, 2022 by KungFuPanda

[athena1277]

So if you wanted to look up info or news about any of those things and you don’t know the words they are using now, you won’t find the content.  If it’s something you really need, like helping someone who is threatening suicide, you may not find the info that could be most helpful.  That’s not good.

[EKS]

11 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

I’m not sure it’s “idiotic handwringing.” Content creators are using synonyms so that they’re not put in time out by a robot. They lose revenue if their videos aren’t posted. Sometimes they’re just trying to be considerate. People have their reasons for not doing things my way or doing things how they’ve ‘always been done.’

I'm not talking about the robot thing specifically.  That's just a symptom. 

I'm talking about the idea that people, or some people, are so fragile that they can't bear to hear particular words.  And I'm not talking about words that are actually pejorative whether they are meant to be or not (though that is also an issue)--I'm talking about regular words.

[OH_Homeschooler]

I know a lot of creators I follow wouldn't even say "pandemic," replacing it with "panini" or similar. Fear of demonetization. 

[Carrie12345]

3 minutes ago, EKS said:

I'm not talking about the robot thing specifically.  That's just a symptom. 

I'm talking about the idea that people, or some people, are so fragile that they can't bear to hear particular words.  And I'm not talking about words that are actually pejorative whether they are meant to be or not (though that is also an issue)--I'm talking about regular words.

As a parent of children who are online, I know there are people getting around AI, but I do still appreciate that it’s more difficult for horrible people to straight up tell kids to go… unalive themselves.  Because that’s an actual thing.  I don’t consider it “fragile” to protect people from severe threats, slurs, bullying, etc.
I still have to be a supervisory parent, but word bans are a big help.  It’s an imperfect system.

[EKS]

2 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

I don’t consider it “fragile” to protect people from severe threats, slurs, bullying, etc.

I'm not talking about this and I suspect you know it.

[Carrie12345]

2 minutes ago, EKS said:

I'm not talking about this and I suspect you know it.

No, I don’t.
I truly don’t know what words you’re talking about then. What words are being banned on social media platforms for fragility’s sake?

[Farrar]

There are a bunch of different issues at play here and I suspect that many of us feel differently about different ones.

There's the issue of AI and speech. How does a platform monitor speech with AI and can it ever really work effectively without becoming irrationally weird or even cruel. And then connected with that the question of if platforms don't use AI, how can they enforce decency and speech codes, what those should look like on private platforms, and then an even greater question about the ways that our speech is increasingly on corporate owned platforms and what the end ramifications of that are.

There's the issue of trigger words and whether we should be protecting people from them and what that might look like and whether it's best practice to avoid them in the first place.

There are legal issues around health terms dealing with abortion and birth control in the US now that there weren't before. Speech around those is specifically imperiled for a large variety of reasons here in the states.

There are issues around changing language and the evolution of language and using it to be more inclusive and sensitive to all and people who don't like that and want to push back on it.

[happi duck]

55 minutes ago, athena1277 said:

So if you wanted to look up info or news about any of those things and you don’t know the words they are using now, you won’t find the content.  If it’s something you really need, like helping someone who is threatening suicide, you may not find the info that could be most helpful.  That’s not good.

I'm pretty sure all search engines put the suicide hotline and official sources of help at the very top of results.  I don't think anyone wants to wade through a bunch of YouTube videos when in a crisis anyway.

[happi duck]

We kind of unofficially and on a smaller scale do that around here with "tea", " books" and replacing letters in some words (ex. n@ked or pr1ck). I've always gotten a sense that those things were to stop a post from coming up in a search result and also as a kindness for someone who might be intensely embarrassed to talk about certain topics.  

[KSera]

51 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

I do still appreciate that it’s more difficult for horrible people to straight up tell kids to go… unalive themselves.  Because that’s an actual thing.

This. The word ban ends up being a very clunky, not very effective way about it because it affects a lot of content that isn’t harmful and doesn’t affect harmful content that just switches to a different word like “unalive” but has the same result.  My young adult kids have had multiple instances of people online encouraging them to commit suicide. There is a lot of suicide glorification content out there. I think efforts to protect kids from that are appropriate and have nothing to do with “fragility”. I just don’t know that this method is the most helpful way (but with the vast quantity of  content out there, I don’t think it’s possible to do it without relying on some kind of AI). 

[SKL]

3 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

So then the filters will catch up to unalive. 

That word honestly offends me. 

Agree on both points.

[TravelingChris]

3 hours ago, Katy said:

It’s the limit of artificial intelligence. It can’t tell the difference between a homicidal or suicidal person and a medical doctor trying to educate people, or a journalist covering said events. 

I made people laugh at my book club when I said, we all know that AI is not the magic answer now or even the very near future since AI chat lines at insurance, etc only answer questions that a stupid person would ask-- but never what a regular person wants.  

[TravelingChris]

1 hour ago, EKS said:

The hand wringing about language these days is so incredibly idiotic, it's stunning. 

And it is incredibly confusing and divisive too.  The confusing part is for anyoone having anything like aphasia- which includes Bruce Willis, Sigourney Weaver, me, and millons who have had strokes, brain injury, and illnesses that affect the brain.  Also for people suffering brain fog or early dementia or Down's Syndrome or ...     I could go on and on and on about the medical groups this harms

And the divisive--- that just makes me furious.  People trying to be woke- menstruating people or birthing people or???? ? NO, just no.

And all the comedy that is being affected by censoring (not official govt, but elements of society and some big Tech too)-- Dave Chapelle- anyone????   

[Farrar]

I have a very dualistic view about the language issue. On the one hand, I think the words we use have incredible power to shape how we think about things and to say who's welcome and who isn't and what's meaningful and what isn't. Words, stories, etc. So powerful. We should be really intentional. We should have slightly hand-wringing debates. We should be sensitive about triggering people and be willing to warn them. Because working through this stuff matters.

On the other hand, omg. Show some flipping grace. Stop taking every incidence of language as a personal assault. Stop letting what might be needed discussions of language in some quarters derail the work and art of people everywhere all the time. Words are powerful, but they're not the only thing. And we don't have to give more power to the words of a single person than they already have. And let real actions carry on and not get mired in a debate over the exact wording.

And I genuinely think both of those things are true.

[Tanaqui]

If Dave Chapelle is being "censored", that's news to me.

There is censorship going on in the USA, Chris. It's mostly being directed *by* the right-wing *against* LGBTQ-inclusive media - not the other way around.

[catz]

51 minutes ago, TravelingChris said:

 

And all the comedy that is being affected by censoring (not official govt, but elements of society and some big Tech too)-- Dave Chapelle- anyone????   

Dave Chapelle just performed locally.  Some people protested outside his performance.  That isn't censoring or silencing.  That is using freedom of speech.

No private business is under any obligation to "host" his show if they chose not to.  That isn't censoring.  

[ktgrok]

Let's be very clear that there is a vast difference between not allowing people to use certain language and not helping them profit from it. A private platform not wanting people to use their private platform to make  money off of sensitive topics like rape and suicide is not the same as free speech being censored by the government. 

[KidsHappen]

Ok, I have a few problems with this. First, I am one of those people with neurological problems who sometimes has problems with aphasia. I need all the words available in the hopes that I can find one that will work when I need it.

Second of all, how do we deal with all of these problems in our society if we can't name them? One of my dds had an eating disorder. I didn't know anything about eating disorders. How was I supposed to research and learn anything about it if I couldn't use the search term eating disorders. And if we changed the name to something else, aren't we just right back where we started.

And finally, with the whole male/female thing and we are already saying things like people with wombs and birthers for the sake of being inclusive why can't we just go ahead and say women and other people with wombs, or vaginas or whatever. Because I can tell you that I am not feeling very included at all. As a matter of fact, I feel like as a woman I am being erased and I just don't see why if we are already being clunky with language for the sake of inclusion why we can't just go ahead and include women.

[EKS]

6 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

I truly don’t know what words you’re talking about then. What words are being banned on social media platforms for fragility’s sake?

Not banned.  I'm talking about people tying themselves in knots to use politically correct terminology.  

Examples are:

• Pregnant people
• Men who have sex with men
• Unsheltered
• Primary bedroom

 

[Carrie12345]

6 minutes ago, EKS said:

Not banned.  I'm talking about people tying themselves in knots to use politically correct terminology.  

Examples are:

• Pregnant people
• Men who have sex with men
• Unsheltered
• Primary bedroom

 

Oh. I thought you were in the context of the subject line. 
 

What makes you think people who are happily adopting inclusive vocabulary are tying themselves in knots?  
It’s true that I sometimes stumble over new terms, but it’s not painful. 

[denarii]

8 minutes ago, EKS said:

Not banned.  I'm talking about people tying themselves in knots to use politically correct terminology.  

Examples are:

• Pregnant people
• Men who have sex with men
• Unsheltered
• Primary bedroom

 

The phrase 'men who have sex with men' has been widely used for years with regards to sexual health. Not all men who have sex with men identity as gay especially in more conservative countries. 

[KidsHappen]

12 minutes ago, EKS said:

Not banned.  I'm talking about people tying themselves in knots to use politically correct terminology.  

Examples are:

• Pregnant people
• Men who have sex with men
• Unsheltered
• Primary bedroom

 

For instance without any context, I don't even know what unsheltered means.

[Frances]

Just now, KidsHappen said:

For instance without any context, I don't even know what unsheltered means.

I believe it is now the generally preferred alternative to homeless.

[KSera]

20 minutes ago, KidsHappen said:

Second of all, how do we deal with all of these problems in our society if we can't name them? One of my dds had an eating disorder. I didn't know anything about eating disorders. How was I supposed to research and learn anything about it if I couldn't use the search term eating disorders. And if we changed the name to something else, aren't we just right back where we started.

If it was a case of the words not being used on information sites related to them, like you couldn't do a web or library search and find information, the above concern would be a problem. I only see this being an issue on sites like You Tube and social media, which are where those topics have been problematic and really aren't where people should be relying on getting their medical information anyway. I think the greater good of not having kids bombarded with glorification of eating disorders and suicide is worth having to use a site other than You Tube to get information on medical disorders personally. The pro-anorexia content on social media has had a terribly harmful effect on struggling young people.

3 minutes ago, EKS said:

Not banned.  I'm talking about people tying themselves in knots to use politically correct terminology.  

Examples are:

• Pregnant people
• Men who have sex with men
• Unsheltered
• Primary bedroom

 

"Men who have sex with men" is a matter of trying to be precise, not a matter of political correctness, as far as I can see. I'm not sure of a more succinct or accurate way to put it, since it's the behavior that is a risk, regardless of how someone might identify. A heterosexual man who for  has had sex with men would be at increased risk while a gay man who is abstinent or mutually monogamous with their partner would not. Nor would a bisexual man currently partnered only with women. I don't know how else they could term that any better than just being direct with what they are talking about as the risk behavior.

I'm trying to get used to saying "primary bedroom" because while I never thought about why it might be called "master" before the language started shifting, I see good reason to move away from calling it that. It's not natural to me yet, though.

[Frances]

17 minutes ago, EKS said:

Not banned.  I'm talking about people tying themselves in knots to use politically correct terminology.  

Examples are:

• Pregnant people
• Men who have sex with men
• Unsheltered
• Primary bedroom

 

I live in a pretty progressive area in an overall very progressive state and have only heard the third item on the list, so I’m not sure how many people out there are “tying themselves in knots” over this language. 
 

Edited to add that now reading the explanations in this thread for the second item makes sense to me when discussing health issues.

Edited August 15, 2022 by Frances

[Terabith]

I don't understand the idea that anyone is "tying themselves up in knots" using new language, and I really, truly do not understand people feeling like they are being excluded.  Some people who have uteruses or who are pregnant do not identify as women.  It isn't taking anything away from someone who does identify as a woman for people to say "people who have uteruses" or "pregnant people."  I really don't understand why anyone is upset by phrases that are new or more precise or more inclusive.  

I'm not advocating for anyone being criticized for using any terms, either, for the record.  I think it's also absolutely fine to say pregnant women, or whatever.  I just don't understand why it's worth anyone getting stressed about this in either direction.  

That's a completely different phenomena than social media like YouTube flagging content that includes certain words, which is a bit confusing and comes across in some ways as if it's attempting to be cute or something.  But language changes and evolves over time.  

[stephanier.1765]

I don't understand why my preferred identifier "woman" is any less valid than anyone else's. I am a woman. I want to be identified as a woman. I want to be called a woman. Articles that take out that word do make me feel excluded. Some people may not be able to understand that but my feelings are not less than anyone else's.

[Terabith]

Just now, stephanier.1765 said:

I don't understand why my preferred identifier "woman" is any less valid than anyone else's. I am a woman. I want to be identified as a woman. I want to be called a woman. Articles that take out that word do make me feel excluded. Some people may not be able to understand that but my feelings are not less than anyone else's.

Of course you can identify as a woman and you absolutely should be called a woman.  But most articles are not referring to you in particular; they're referring to all sorts of other people who are not you.

[EKS]

23 minutes ago, KSera said:

"Men who have sex with men" is a matter of trying to be precise, not a matter of political correctness, as far as I can see.

That's probably true--it just seems unnecessarily long, I guess, and strikes me the same way "pregnant people" does.  But you're right, using the term "gay" or "homosexual" doesn't actually get at the core of the issue.  

25 minutes ago, Frances said:

I live in a pretty progressive area in an overall very progressive state and have only heard the third item on the list, so I’m not sure how many people out there are “tying themselves in knots” over this language. 
 

I see the first three terms in the Washington Post and other mainstream publications all the time.  As for "master bedroom," that's mostly just on House Hunters!

[KSera]

9 minutes ago, Terabith said:

It isn't taking anything away from someone who does identify as a woman for people to say "people who have uteruses" or "pregnant people." 

I think this whole topic is separate from the OP, and is more complicated than saying it's never a problem or always a problem. There are times it's problematic, particularly when extended to medical science in a way that makes research no longer accurate (there's an excellent article about this out there I would have to track down) and I personally don't like it when used in certain ways (I don't care for being called a "menstruator" though I'm fine with being a "person who menstruates" 🤷‍♀️). In other circumstances it's fine. I don't think it should be a problem for women to ask for their preferred designation to be used as well though--women and other people who menstruate, for example. I don't think only certain groups of people should be able to label and define themselves, but others should not.

[stephanier.1765]

Just now, Terabith said:

Of course you can identify as a woman and you absolutely should be called a woman.  But most articles are not referring to you in particular; they're referring to all sorts of other people who are not you.

But they are. If they say "menopausal people", they are referring to me but I am more than that. The word "woman" encompasses so much more, besides the fact that now I am separated from all the other forms women can be and narrowed to a segment of that population. By putting labels, such as pregnant people, menopausal people, people with who menstruate, the labels will have to go on and on until you've covered every last option. It's unwieldy.

[KSera]

1 minute ago, EKS said:

I see the first three terms in the Washington Post and other mainstream publications all the time.  As for "master bedroom," that's mostly just on House Hunters!

For what it's worth, I mostly see "primary bedroom" rather than "master bedroom" when looking at houses for sale and remodeling websites like Houzz. That's how I became aware it was changing.

[Terabith]

I mostly have heard pregnant people or people who menstruate when the topic in question is pregnancy or menstruation.  

But I agree, when we are talking about individuals, we should absolutely ask people what term they prefer and should absolutely respect that.

I hadn't heard primary bedroom as a phrase until a year or so ago.  It was during the pandemic.  But it makes perfect sense, and in retrospect, the term master bedroom/ bath is kinda horrifying.

[KidsHappen]

13 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Of course you can identify as a woman and you absolutely should be called a woman.  But most articles are not referring to you in particular; they're referring to all sorts of other people who are not you.

Yes, but the way they are referring to these other people is for the purpose of inclusion so why can't they go ahead and include the women who prefer to be called women. The population of women who prefer to be called women is much larger than the population of the other people with female body parts and problems. If we are willing to use additional language to make them feel included why are we not afforded the same curtesy. Why can we not say women and other people who menstruate, or have wombs or are pregnant? 

[shawthorne44]

I wouldn't be paying attention to anyone that used the words, "Unalived", "The R-word" or "Unsheltered."   

A months ago I had someone say to me for the first time, "You just triggered me."   I didn't say it, but my instant thought was, "I thought I was talking to an adult."   

 

[Dmmetler]

1 minute ago, KidsHappen said:

Yes, but the way they are referring to these other people is for the purpose of inclusion so why can't they go ahead and include the women who prefer to be called women. The population of women who prefer to be called women is much larger than the population of the other people with female body parts and problems. If we are willing to use additional language to make them feel included why are we not afforded the same curtesy. Why can we not say women and other people who menstruate, or have wombs or are pregnant? 

And many people do exactly that. But the fact is, when we're discussing providing period products at the center, saying "we have period products available for those who need them in the office, music room, gym office, and Dance locker room" works better than saying "women" because in our center, we have women who menstruate, women who no longer menstruate, girls who menstruate, girls who don't menstruate yet, and trans and NB teens who menstruate and those who do not.  And, to be honest, one of the biggest uses for tampons in the gym is when a player catches a basketball or an elbow to the nose. 

[KidsHappen]

I also wanted to point out that in regards to the terms unalived (which spell check informs me is not a word) I was watching crime documentaries in which they were trying to determine if someone had committed suicide or had been murdered. That seems like a perfectly appropriate place to use those terms and if you are triggered by them in that context you probably shouldn't be watching those shows.

[ktgrok]

46 minutes ago, stephanier.1765 said:

I don't understand why my preferred identifier "woman" is any less valid than anyone else's. I am a woman. I want to be identified as a woman. I want to be called a woman. Articles that take out that word do make me feel excluded. Some people may not be able to understand that but my feelings are not less than anyone else's.

You are welcome to call yourself a woman!

But when referring to something, people will often use the broadest term, which includes women, but is not ONLY people that refer to themselves as women. 

Sort of like saying happy holidays  - it includes Christmas, but is not ONLY Christmas, and is far easier than listing off every holiday that takes place around that time. 

[KidsHappen]

6 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

And many people do exactly that. But the fact is, when we're discussing providing period products at the center, saying "we have period products available for those who need them in the office, music room, gym office, and Dance locker room" works better than saying "women" because in our center, we have women who menstruate, women who no longer menstruate, girls who menstruate, girls who don't menstruate yet, and trans and NB teens who menstruate and those who do not.  And, to be honest, one of the biggest uses for tampons in the gym is when a player catches a basketball or an elbow to the nose. 

Yes, and I am fine with this kind of usage as it makes sense. I simply am not ok with wholesale discarding of the use of the word women. I do not like to be corrected when I refer to myself as a woman and I especially do not appreciate a medical profession who knows a person's medical history refusing to refer to them as a woman for the sake of inclusion of other people who have nothing to do with the woman's medical care. And yes, I have seen this happen where the patient had to say I am a woman, you know I am a woman and I would prefer to be called a woman.