While there is an argument to be made about how much YouTube should cater to advertisers, and what kind of adult content kids should consume, perhaps with supervision, I don't see where commenters are getting dramatic accusations of "puritanical" from. The content is obviously adult, and all YouTube did was label it as such, which gives advertisers the option of avoiding it (again, what advertisers want is assailable and relevant here, but I can't see any moral problem with YouTube simply labeling adult content - that's just useful information).
But it seems pointless to try to make a semantic argument that excludes her content from any reasonable definition of the word "adult".
With this statement aren't you doing the same thing? Obviously, I don't see anything illicit with her showing the side of her breast. It's gratuitous but that's the internet.
I've seen more explicit content in art museums, does your definition extend to the classics?
Maybe I should have been more explicit: My point wasn't that you implied somebody was wrong. My point was that you implied almost everybody was wrong, and, more importantly, did not elaborate. Of course the act of disagreeing involves implying other people are wrong, but if you only assert that they are wrong and don't say anything else, it is insulting/dismissive. In my comment, I gave background for my opinion.
I don't see anything illicit with her showing the side of her breast
This is a pretty heavily reductive description. Again - context is everything. Even full blown nudity can be non-"adult" for some reasonable definitions of the word (though it's also arguably reasonable to have a definition that does always include full nudity, regardless of cultural disagreement! Maybe we should encourage content hosts to split the word up into more parts, like TV ratings do - what's the overhead on that?).
does your definition extend to the classics?
Why not? Some of them are quite adult. The Venus de Milo? No. Caravaggio's Holofernes? Maybe? But this is just my opinion on a word: "Adult". I don't have a strong opinion on the implications without more context. E.g. the artists of thematically adult works shouldn't be punished, and children shouldn't be disallowed from ever seeing them. Regardless, as in many cases of analogy, the similarities are only on the surface, and the many subtle and contextual differences cast doubt on its usefulness. The most salient problem with the question is that "how much body is exposed" is only one small parameter that by itself can't determine adult-ness.
Really though, the most important part isn't what makes semantic sense to call "adult", but what the practical consequences are of tagging - if YouTube tags the Caravaggio as "adult", do some advertisers pull out of that painting? What's the likely loss of income for Caravaggio? How much of that is reasonable based on the advertisers' target audiences? How much of it is because the advertisers don't want their product associated with that painting, vs how much of it is simply because advertisers don't think their audience is actually even looking at that painting? How much of the unreasonable portion of consequences is YouTube's fault, and how much is the fault of the advertisers? It seems like there's more interest in tilting at puritan windmills than considering the practical issues, which is really the only point I was making in my original post.
Assuming that's not abnormal for her channel. For the record, I don't think it's, e.g., "indecent", and I don't think it's bad for kids to be exposed to even full nudity (barring contexts with negative messages), but I also don't know what point you're trying to make (you should be explicit).
Honest question: on what basis can you or anyone here make that claim? You can say that you wouldn't call that screenshot "adult" (using your own heuristics to determine what "adult" means in this context), but unless you've run some kind of survey of "people in general," this just feels like massive overgeneralization of individual tastes. It's as valid as someone else coming in to say "Generally most people would call that screenshot 'adult.'" What's the rebuttal either way?
The basis is that I'm familiar with norms shared in a large part of the world, especially her audiences.
in general, the term 'adult' is used (in the western world, more specifically the US) to refer to pornographic content. That's what youtube means, it's what advertisers mean, etc, which all matter here because that's what demonetization is about (advertisers avoiding a channel due to its content).
Really, the term youtube uses here is 'explicit content'. The content on her channel is not explicit.
Generally people would not call that screenshot "adult".
That's not my experience. Again, criticize advertisers for taking ads away from such tame content all you want, or YouTube for making it even possible - I agree (mostly with the former). But it seems pointless to try to make a semantic argument that excludes her content from any reasonable definition of the word "adult".
in general, the term 'adult' is used (... in the US) to refer to pornographic content
As used in the US, the term "adult" can mean porn, but can also refer to sexual content much more broadly. It's contextual.
That's what youtube means, it's what advertisers mean
I can see the word "pornographic" being used in the most generic, clinical sense possible to describe any kind of content intended to sexually stimulate, in which case, yes, her channel has pornographic content, but you're obviously using it more colloquially, in the more normal sense that would exclude her channel's content, but then of course that's demonstrably not what they're referring to.
This all seems moot. They explicitly state their definition of "adult", and it is far from porn, and her channel is far from porn, so... what does porn have to do with it?
Comments
While there is an argument to be made about how much YouTube should cater to advertisers, and what kind of adult content kids should consume, perhaps with supervision, I don't see where commenters are getting dramatic accusations of "puritanical" from. The content is obviously adult, and all YouTube did was label it as such, which gives advertisers the option of avoiding it (again, what advertisers want is assailable and relevant here, but I can't see any moral problem with YouTube simply labeling adult content - that's just useful information).
Could you explain why the content is "obviously adult"?
I wouldn't want my kids playing with a CNC machine like that at their age. At least not without adult supervision.
Of all the answers here.... I think you gave the right one. Children should never be allowed near tools without close adult supervision.
It's counterproductive to essentially insist "everybody is just wrong" when the topic is so subjective.
From your other comment:
With this statement aren't you doing the same thing? Obviously, I don't see anything illicit with her showing the side of her breast. It's gratuitous but that's the internet.
I've seen more explicit content in art museums, does your definition extend to the classics?
Maybe I should have been more explicit: My point wasn't that you implied somebody was wrong. My point was that you implied almost everybody was wrong, and, more importantly, did not elaborate. Of course the act of disagreeing involves implying other people are wrong, but if you only assert that they are wrong and don't say anything else, it is insulting/dismissive. In my comment, I gave background for my opinion.
This is a pretty heavily reductive description. Again - context is everything. Even full blown nudity can be non-"adult" for some reasonable definitions of the word (though it's also arguably reasonable to have a definition that does always include full nudity, regardless of cultural disagreement! Maybe we should encourage content hosts to split the word up into more parts, like TV ratings do - what's the overhead on that?).
Why not? Some of them are quite adult. The Venus de Milo? No. Caravaggio's Holofernes? Maybe? But this is just my opinion on a word: "Adult". I don't have a strong opinion on the implications without more context. E.g. the artists of thematically adult works shouldn't be punished, and children shouldn't be disallowed from ever seeing them. Regardless, as in many cases of analogy, the similarities are only on the surface, and the many subtle and contextual differences cast doubt on its usefulness. The most salient problem with the question is that "how much body is exposed" is only one small parameter that by itself can't determine adult-ness.
Really though, the most important part isn't what makes semantic sense to call "adult", but what the practical consequences are of tagging - if YouTube tags the Caravaggio as "adult", do some advertisers pull out of that painting? What's the likely loss of income for Caravaggio? How much of that is reasonable based on the advertisers' target audiences? How much of it is because the advertisers don't want their product associated with that painting, vs how much of it is simply because advertisers don't think their audience is actually even looking at that painting? How much of the unreasonable portion of consequences is YouTube's fault, and how much is the fault of the advertisers? It seems like there's more interest in tilting at puritan windmills than considering the practical issues, which is really the only point I was making in my original post.
I'm only going off the content in this screenshot: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E7bHsKrVgAMbTy5?format=jpg&name=...
Assuming that's not abnormal for her channel. For the record, I don't think it's, e.g., "indecent", and I don't think it's bad for kids to be exposed to even full nudity (barring contexts with negative messages), but I also don't know what point you're trying to make (you should be explicit).
Generally people would not call that screenshot "adult".
Honest question: on what basis can you or anyone here make that claim? You can say that you wouldn't call that screenshot "adult" (using your own heuristics to determine what "adult" means in this context), but unless you've run some kind of survey of "people in general," this just feels like massive overgeneralization of individual tastes. It's as valid as someone else coming in to say "Generally most people would call that screenshot 'adult.'" What's the rebuttal either way?
The basis is that I'm familiar with norms shared in a large part of the world, especially her audiences.
in general, the term 'adult' is used (in the western world, more specifically the US) to refer to pornographic content. That's what youtube means, it's what advertisers mean, etc, which all matter here because that's what demonetization is about (advertisers avoiding a channel due to its content).
Really, the term youtube uses here is 'explicit content'. The content on her channel is not explicit.
That's not my experience. Again, criticize advertisers for taking ads away from such tame content all you want, or YouTube for making it even possible - I agree (mostly with the former). But it seems pointless to try to make a semantic argument that excludes her content from any reasonable definition of the word "adult".
As used in the US, the term "adult" can mean porn, but can also refer to sexual content much more broadly. It's contextual.
I can see the word "pornographic" being used in the most generic, clinical sense possible to describe any kind of content intended to sexually stimulate, in which case, yes, her channel has pornographic content, but you're obviously using it more colloquially, in the more normal sense that would exclude her channel's content, but then of course that's demonstrably not what they're referring to.
This all seems moot. They explicitly state their definition of "adult", and it is far from porn, and her channel is far from porn, so... what does porn have to do with it?