Youtube: The term "Christian" is unacceptable

[PaulSacramento]

WOW:
https://www.rt.com/news/465100-christia ... outube-ad/

An excerpt:

“This is the first time we'd seen this,” Robichaux told Faithwire in an interview. Within hours of Robichaux’s post, YouTube attempted to explain the situation in a tweet of its own.

“We know that religious beliefs are personal, so we don’t allow advertisers to target users on the basis of religion,” the Google-owned platform said. “Beyond that, we don’t have policies against advertising that includes religious terms like ‘Christian.’”

The veteran fired back, arguing the company’s statement was demonstrably false and that he had used the same keyword in previous ads without problems “for years.” Moreover, he claims when he tried running the same ad but with the keyword “Muslim” instead, there was no issue.

[Fliegender]

A must-read for those who think there’s no censorship in America.

[RickD]

Google owns YouTube.

Nuff said.

[Stu]

This is not surprising.
In similar news.

City Removes Memorial to Fallen Officers After Complaints Over Word “Lord”

A memorial to slain police officers which bore references to the “Lord” was first edited and then completely removed by city officials in South Carolina after complaints.

Residents of Tega Cay, SC, were allegedly ‘divided’ over a new monument erected in front of a police station due to the fact that the “Police Officer’s Prayer,” which contains the word “Lord” three times, was etched into it.

Officials first ‘washed’ all references to the “Lord” from the inscription before announcing that the stone memorial, which had been donated by a local Women’s Club, would be removed altogether.

More

[Fliegender]

Google owns YouTube.

Nuff said.

Oh, censorship in America goes far, far beyond Google and YouTube. Our ayatollahs don’t wear pyjamas and funny turbans but they control very well what may be said. See stu’s post...

[RickD]

Google owns YouTube.

Nuff said.

Oh, censorship in America goes far, far beyond Google and YouTube. Our ayatollahs don’t wear pyjamas and funny turbans but they control very well what may be said. See stu’s post...

Pyjamas?

There's no such thing as pyjamas here.

[edwardmurphy]

Youtube: The term "Christian" is unacceptable

Wow. That's a really misleading thread title.

[RickD]

Youtube: The term "Christian" is unacceptable

Wow. That's a really misleading thread title.

No, it isn't misleading.

From the link:

When the founder of a Christian veterans group tried to upload a YouTube ad for his organization, he received an odd rejection, informing him the keyword “Christian” was no longer acceptable under the site’s ad targeting policy.

Come on Ed. Pay attention.

[edwardmurphy]

Yeah, I read it. If your title was "Youtube: "Christian" can't be used as advertising keyword" then you'd have accurately summarized the allegation. Your title strongly implies that YouTube has completely banned the use of the term "Christian." That's not even close to true.

[RickD]

Yeah, I read it. If your title was "Youtube: "Christian" can't be used as advertising keyword" then you'd have accurately summarized the allegation. Your title strongly implies that YouTube has completely banned the use of the term "Christian." That's not even close to true.

It only strongly implies that YouTube has completely banned the use of the term "Christian", if you are unable to understand basic English.

The context is clear in the link.

Nobody said that YouTube has banned the use of the term "Christian", only that the term "Christian" is no longer acceptable under the site's ad targeting policy.

[edwardmurphy]

I read the article and got the impression that YouTube had banned the term "Christian." Then I read the article. It gave me a different impression. Therefore the title is inaccurate. It's a bait and switch.

[RickD]

I read the article and got the impression that YouTube had banned the term "Christian." Then I read the article. It gave me a different impression. Therefore the title is inaccurate. It's a bait and switch.

So, you read the article, and got one impression.
Then you read the article, and got a different impression.

Sounds more like you have a reading comprehension problem, that you're trying to pass off as someone else's mistake.

[edwardmurphy]

Gracious me, I wrote the wrong word, thus allowing you to pretend not to understand what I was trying to say. Oh, fiddlesticks. I'll try again:

I read the article title and got the impression that YouTube had banned the term "Christian." Then I read the article. It gave me a different impression. Therefore the title is inaccurate. It's a bait and switch.

At this point we should probably just agree to disagree. This is one of the dumbest arguments we've ever had.

[RickD]

Gracious me, I wrote the wrong word, thus allowing you to pretend not to understand what I was trying to say. Oh, fiddlesticks. I'll try again:

I read the article title and got the impression that YouTube had banned the term "Christian." Then I read the article. It gave me a different impression. Therefore the title is inaccurate. It's a bait and switch.

At this point we should probably just agree to disagree. This is one of the dumbest arguments we've ever had.

So let's see...

1) you have a reading comprehension problem
2) now you have a problem writing words in English
3) you're a liberal

If I were in your position, I'd probably back out of this argument too!

[PaulSacramento]

In the article, you actually see the screen shot that says:
Unacceptable content as keyword:
Christian.

The title of this thread is:
Youtube: The term "Christian" is unacceptable

Now, could I have put "keyword" instead of "term" ?
Sure. No that I see much of a difference to be honest.

But nowhere did I mention banning, so I have no idea where Ed got that from.

The actual point was right here:

T

he veteran fired back, arguing the company’s statement was demonstrably false and that he had used the same keyword in previous ads without problems “for years.” Moreover, he claims when he tried running the same ad but with the keyword “Muslim” instead, there was no issue.

Youtube tried to pull the "religious" play:

“We know that religious beliefs are personal, so we don’t allow advertisers to target users on the basis of religion,” the Google-owned platform said. “Beyond that, we don’t have policies against advertising that includes religious terms like ‘Christian.’”

But obviously, that was not the case.