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

Millie Bobby Brown and husband Jake Bongiovi face backlash for starring in ad promoting Dubai

By Abby Amoakuh

I sat down with two professional matchmakers to solve Gen Z’s dating fatigue

By Charlie Sawyer

Why Sabrina Carpenter’s sexuality is praised and Lola Young’s is picked apart

By Charlie Sawyer

Odd Muse founder Aimee Smale fights back against fast fashion controversy on TikTok

By Eliza Frost

The Summer I Turned Pretty season 3 proves we’ll never be over love triangles

By Charlie Sawyer

Why has the new sculpture of a Black American woman in Times Square prompted mass outrage?

By Eliza Frost

What is Banksying? Inside the latest toxic dating trend even worse than ghosting

By Matilda Ferraris

From Ballerina Cappuccina to Trallalero Trallalà, we unpack the darker undertones of Italian brainrot

By Charlie Sawyer

Who is Zohran Mamdani, the staunch socialist primed to become New York’s first Muslim mayor?

By Charlie Sawyer

From breaking up families to spreading rumours about Joe Biden’s death, here’s what QAnons been up to

By Eliza Frost

Bereavement leave to be extended to miscarriages before 24 weeks

By Charlie Sawyer

Penn Badgley praised for opening up about fatherhood and raising sons on Call Her Daddy

By Eliza Frost

How Jet2holidays and Jess Glynne became the sound of the summer

By Charlie Sawyer

Here’s why Coca Cola is the most boycotted brand on the planet

By Charlie Sawyer

This Oscar-winning actor is the top pick to play Voldemort in HBO Max Harry Potter reboot

By Charlie Sawyer

Here’s why the internet is convinced that Trisha Paytas’ third baby will be the reincarnation of Pope Francis

By Fatou Ferraro Mboup

Could the next pope be Black? Peter Turkson’s papal bid could rewrite over 1,500 years of Vatican history

By Eliza Frost

Everything you need to know about Trump’s state visit, including that Epstein projection

By Abby Amoakuh

What is soft swinging? And why is the term trending on Mormon TikTok?

By Eliza Frost

Does the SKIMS Face Wrap actually work, or is it just another TikTok trap?