The controversy here is the categorization (and blacklisting) of a comedy video "as hate speech" —and youtube's own implicit definition of hate speech (or a series of examples illustrating it) is quoted in the ensuing conversation below (and my video does not deserve to be censored by this definition!).
4:56:28 PM Eisel Mazard: Hello Juvia.
4:56:38 PM Eisel Mazard: I am writing to you about the censorship status of THIS VIDEO:
4:56:39 PM Juvia: Hi there!
4:56:40 PM Eisel Mazard: https://youtu.be/M18KxgvWPts
4:56:45 PM Juvia: I hope you are doing great
4:56:55 PM Juvia: thank you for the video URL
4:56:57 PM Eisel Mazard: ^ This video is categorized as "hate speech".
4:57:38 PM Juvia: Oh. I am sorry to hear that it was flagged as hate speech
4:57:43 PM Eisel Mazard: There is nothing racist about the video. There is nothing hateful about the video.
I have written to youtube previously, asking for this decision to be overturned
4:57:59 PM Eisel Mazard: The responses I received from Youtube in the past were totally surreal.
4:58:06 PM Juvia: I understand how you feel. No worries, we are here to help
4:58:45 PM Juvia: Let me pull up your channel first
4:59:07 PM Eisel Mazard: My prior conversation is recorded as: YouTube Support Request [1-6283000033845]
4:59:47 PM Eisel Mazard: The person I spoke to was strangely incompetent… I had to repeatedly explain the problem, but what he (or she) requested I do made no sense (and the conversation ends in a totally baffling way)…
4:59:48 PM Juvia: thank you
5:00:02 PM Juvia: I am sorry if you feel that way
5:00:06 PM Juvia: I will do my best to help
5:00:14 PM Juvia: Can you please give me 5 minutes to check?
5:00:18 PM Eisel Mazard: Look, I just want to say right now:
5:00:27 PM Eisel Mazard: the definition of hate speech at youtube needs to be considered…
5:00:31 PM Eisel Mazard:
• Statements intended to disparage a protected group or imply/state its inferiority, such as “all people from this country are disgusting”.
• Non-educational content featuring racial slurs or derogatory terms.
• Promoting, glorifying, or condoning violence against others.
• Inciting discrimination against protected groups, such as stating “you should hate all disabled people in this country”.
• Promoting hate groups, hate symbols, or hate group paraphernalia.
• Malicious shaming or insulting of an individual or group.
• Singling out an individual or group for abuse or harassment.
• Denying or glorifying that tragic events happened, framing victims or survivors as crisis actors.
• Malicious personal attacks, slander, and defamation.
• Portraying ideologies or beliefs in a malicious way by generalizing or disparaging.
• Negatively characterizing individuals, groups, ideologies, or beliefs, such as stating “all feminism is sick”.
5:00:38 PM Eisel Mazard: ^ The video DOES NOT say anything like that.
5:00:48 PM Eisel Mazard: The video is a song.
It is a satirical, comedy song.
5:00:55 PM Juvia: I understand. Kinldy hold on so I can check
5:02:06 PM Eisel Mazard: The video is very short (3:34 long).
I can ask: where exactly in the video does it say something racist?
At what time-stamp does it say something hateful?
5:02:41 PM Juvia: I am not able to answer you yet because I need to pull up your channel so I can check
5:04:53 PM Eisel Mazard: The conversation under [1-6283000033845]…
the behavior of the youtube employee is very strange
he does not believe me that the video is censored as hate speech, and he asks me to prove that the video has been categorized as hate speech by sending him a screen shot (April 22, 2023, [1-6283000033845]).
This makes no sense.
What he says next in the conversation also DOES NOT make sense.
And then the conversation ends, and my original complaint / problem is never addressed.
5:05:08 PM Juvia: I understand that you want me to check this for you
5:05:12 PM Eisel Mazard: Youtube made a mistake, and the complaint needs to be escalated to a higher level of management to be addressed.
5:05:34 PM Juvia: Kindly give me 5 minutes to check so I can investigate
5:06:07 PM Juvia: I am not able to answer you yet since I dont have the data and your channel
5:06:08 PM Eisel Mazard: I will give you 5 minutes, and I will give you 50 minutes. As many minutes as you desire.
5:06:16 PM Juvia: thanks
5:06:20 PM Juvia: Please hold
5:11:28 PM Juvia: Thanks for waiting.
5:11:40 PM Eisel Mazard: I am happy to wait.
5:12:28 PM Juvia: Thank you
5:13:22 PM Juvia: I understand that this video has a limited ad because it is flagged as not suitable for most advertisers
5:13:52 PM Eisel Mazard: Please note the reply I received from youtube on April 25th, [1-6283000033845]
5:14:05 PM Juvia: I also tried to make an appeal for this based on the information that you have provided, however, the appeal has been done and not allowing me to move forward.
5:14:25 PM Eisel Mazard: The replies I have received make no sense: the youtube employees ask me to prove to them that the video is categorized as hate speech… and when I send them a screenshot showing that this is indeed the problem… their responses after that are totally nonsensical.
5:15:34 PM Eisel Mazard: [1-6283000033845] April 25th, the youtube employee writes to me:
Thanks for your prompt response.
I get your point and I'm trying to have the full grasp of your questions since this video did not violate the hateful and derogatory content but it did violate our controversial section. Therefore, I can't answer your question since that's not the policy that was placed on the video in question.
The screenshot you've shared with me isn't enough to confirm that the video in question is the same as what was discussed above. That's why I'm asking for you to share with us a screen recording showing the video in question and the finding of the human review.
If this is a different video, simply share the video URL to further review.
5:16:14 PM Eisel Mazard: ^ This really makes no sense. The youtube employee is complaining, "The screenshot you've shared with me isn't enough to confirm that the video in question is the same as what was discussed above."
The messages back-and-forth afterward are even more nonsensical.
5:16:27 PM Eisel Mazard: The actual problem I complained about (and that I am complaining about now, today, again) is never addressed.
5:16:30 PM Juvia: thank you for letting me know
5:19:02 PM Eisel Mazard: [1-6283000033845] April 26th:
Please go back and re-read the prior correspondence:
I am not asking for the video to be monetized (as opposed to demonetized), I am asking specifically to challenge and overturn the categorization of the video as racist hate speech.
And I am asking you, specifically, AT WHAT TIME STAMP does the video violate the hate speech policy?
Escalate this question to management:
if the video contains nudity, you can provide a time stamp for that, if the video contains violence or curse words, you can provide a time stamp for that...
WHEN EXACTLY does this video say anything related to racism? When exactly is this "hate speech" violation, in the midst of such a short video?
5:19:06 PM Juvia: As the community guidelines is very vogue topic and our internal team are the one reviewing it.
5:20:42 PM Eisel Mazard: Either the video contains racism or it does not. This is a simple, binary question. Either the video contains hate speech or it does not. This is the same as nudity: if you tell me the video contains nudity, I can ask, "At what time stamp does it contain nudity?" Either the video is racist or not.
I repeat: I am not complaining about money. I am not complaining about monetization.
I am complaining about the video being (incorrectly) blacklisted as racist hate speech. There is nothing racist about the video. There is nothing hateful about the video.
It is a song. It is a satirical song. It is comedy song.
5:21:34 PM Juvia: I also understand that you want it to know what are the timestamp of those flagged words or anything on your video, however, as there's a department having this concern review, I have a limitation and I dont have an option to over turn the process5:21:47 PM Eisel Mazard: [1-6283000033845] May 5th:
I still do not have a single reply from you.
Earlier, you asked, "The screenshot you've shared with me isn't enough to confirm that the video in question is the same as what was discussed above."
FOR THAT REASON, a second screen-shot was sent to you, clearly showing that the video in question (with the "hate speech" decision) is indeed the same as what we'd discussed above.
Inexplicably, you replied with the complaint that I had sent you the same screen-shot as before: no, the difference between the two screen-shots is precisely that one shows you more than the other —and the more recent screen shot does indeed show EXACTLY what you asked me to show you (i.e., the relationship between the censorship decision and the video being decided upon).
Why have none of my questions been answered?
Why has NOTHING happened?
YOU made this request, and then you apparently forgot why you'd requested it.
You can see very clearly from your end what the video is and why it has been censored: I still have no indication whatsoever as to why it was categorized as hate speech.
Reminder: this is a comedy video, categorized as comedy.
Absolutely nothing in this video qualifies as hate speech: it does not express hate for anyone, it does not express hatred toward any category of people.
And today is May 28th.
5:22:51 PM Eisel Mazard: Juvia, you say, "…however, as there's a department having this concern review…"
Can you send this conversation to them?
This conversation we had today…
…can you send it to management / to the department that is (still) reviewing this concern?
5:23:04 PM Juvia: I understand how you feel about it I tried my best to make an ppeal for this. Hence, its not allowing me to do so
5:23:55 PM Juvia: Technically, the yellow dollar icon on your video showing limited ads and not on your all videos.
5:24:33 PM Juvia: It is not a strike, it's not affecting your channel standing, only that video is affected by community guidelines.
5:25:11 PM Juvia: those are the internal department that where your form has been sent. When you make an appeal, it will be delivered and review by them
5:25:23 PM Juvia: We dont have an option to get in touch to them personally