YouTube does not consider homophobic harassment a violation of its policy

By Yair Oded

Updated May 19, 2020 at 03:27 PM

Reading time: 2 minutes

2053

After a week of ongoing controversy, YouTube announced that it will not remove the channel of conservative commentator Steven Crowder despite his repeated use of homophobic slurs against Vox writer and video host Carlos Maza. YouTube’s refusal to take a bold stance against Crowder continued even in the face of increasing harassment Maza has suffered as a result of the unfolding scandal.

Crowder’s bullying of Maza on his channel—which currently has nearly 4 million subscribers—has been ongoing and persistent for years now, while he attempted to debunk socio-political claims made by Maza on his online Vox show Strikethrough. What Crowder referred to as “harmless ribbing” of Maza, has in fact been blatant verbal attacks on his ethnicity and sexual orientation, calling him, among other things, a “lispy queer” and a “gay Mexican”. Crowder has also repeatedly mocked Maza’s physical features and demeanour, and has gone so far as to sell T-shirts that read “Maza is a f*g”.

Carlos-Maza-Twitter-Hate

Although YouTube’s policy clearly dictates that “content or behaviour intended to maliciously harass, threaten, or bully,” will be taken off the platform, the company nonetheless deemed Crowder’s abuse of Maza unworthy of removal. In a tweet from Tuesday, YouTube stated: “Our teams spent the last few days conducting an in-depth review of the videos flagged to us, and while we found language that was clearly hurtful, the videos as posted don’t violate our policies.” YouTube then iterated that while they do not endorse the content in Crowder’s videos, they will not remove them from the site.

YouTube’s inaction on Maza and Crowder’s case calls for a serious meditation on the regulation of hate speech online, and exposes the great complexity of the issue.

Many arguments could be made against censoring hateful content on the web, even from a more liberal standpoint. The first challenge associated with curbing hate speech is determining what in fact constitutes hate speech. Where does one draw the line between offensive and downright hateful? This particularly becomes an issue in instances when discriminatory comments are embedded in otherwise legitimate political statements, as opposed to overtly racist slurs hurled by Neo Nazis, for instance.

Another problem involving online censorship is figuring out who should be granted the authority of classifying content as ‘hateful’. Can we trust major corporations to make these decisions for us? Again, this may be a no-brainer in cases of extreme and overt expressions of hate. It becomes more tricky, however, when it comes to speech that is more difficult to interpret. If we mandate companies such as YouTube, Facebook, and Google to be the ultimate arbiters for determining what type of content can be presented online, it may come back to bite us in the ass if companies utilise this power to censor any type of content they find objectionable or threatening to its agenda, simply by classifying it as hateful. for instance.

That said, it is important to recognise the dangerous impact of hate speech. Words matter and history is replete with examples of unabated hate speech that inspired the most heinous of atrocities.

Crowder’s case serves as a clear example of the danger of hate speech as Maza has been receiving countless harassing messages and death-threats from Crowder’s fans. And while it’s true that shutting down Crowder’s channel won’t eradicate the root cause of the problem (prevalent racism and homophobia), it sure will make it more difficult for his most extreme supporters to organise and disseminate their hate en masse.

It seems that what is desperately needed right now is a thorough and comprehensive discussion about the ways in which we could tackle and address hate speech online, while considering the various dangers in unchecked censorship.

Keep On Reading

By Abby Amoakuh

Gisèle Pelicot trial prompts French politicians to incorporate consent in rape law after years of resistence

By Charlie Sawyer

Why are people so upset about JoJo Siwa’s $900 Dream VIP package on her upcoming tour?

By Abby Amoakuh

How TikTok Live in Kenya is fueling concerns over virtual abuse and child exploitation

By Charlie Sawyer

Can Drake actually sue Kendrick Lamar for his Super Bowl performance diss?

By Fatou Ferraro Mboup

Robert F. Kennedy Jr declares war on teen sperm count, stating it’s an existential crisis

By Abby Amoakuh

South Asian creators call out influencers for cultural appropriation after seeing scandi scarves at Coachella

By Charlie Sawyer

Trump grants white South Africans refuge after ending legal protections for Afghans facing deportation

By Charlie Sawyer

Chappell Roan cancelled yet again for saying she can’t be expected to be politically educated all the time

By Fatou Ferraro Mboup

Did Chappell Roan push her assistant on the red carpet? We analyse the footage

By Fatou Ferraro Mboup

What is Libs of TikTok, and who is Chaya Raichik, the woman behind the far-right account?

By Abby Amoakuh

Iraq legalises child marriage following proposal to lower age of consent to nine

By Fatou Ferraro Mboup

What’s Dior bags got to do with the Delta plane crash? Unpacking the wildest conspiracy theories about the Toronto flight

By Abby Amoakuh

Benson Boone apologises for aggressively touching his crotch during Grammy performance

By Abby Amoakuh

Meta now allows content calling women property and household items on its social platforms

By Abby Amoakuh

Anti-ageing obsessed millionaire Bryan Johnson gets backlash for comparing erections to his son’s

By Abby Amoakuh

First ever porn app launches on iOS devices to coincide with iPhone’s 18th birthday

By Charlie Sawyer

Harry Potter star defends Tom Felton over his controversial comments on JK Rowling’s transphobia

By Fatou Ferraro Mboup

TikTok’s viral Chubby Filter sparks backlash for promoting fatphobia

By Abby Amoakuh

Gwyneth Paltrow refused intimacy coordinators for sex scenes with Timothée Chalamet

By Charlie Sawyer

UK women who miscarry could face home and phone searches following new anti-abortion police guidance