Line Out Comments
Matador Records Says Perfume Genius Intro Video Rejected By Youtube
4
They need to upload a non-music video - no images or sounds from this song, but a message clearly identifying the artist, the song, and the controversy. Then they need to have an employee create a personal account, upload the actual video to youtube as a "response." The first video should inform viewers how to find it, and the actual video should be something that can be easily found with a search.
5
Uhmm, oddly enough - the video "Hood" is up on Youtube which uses the 15 seconds of the preroll video and has been up since the 17th. I don't know what happened here, but clearly there is some disconnect with Youtube's censor-board and what they allow. They have also had gay soft-core teasers for adult films for years, et al. Probably just one person there that made a REALLY BAD CALL and they're scrambling to address it. Hopefully they'll come to their senses and leave them both up.
BTW - the full video is awesome. Who knew Arpad Miklos was such a gentle giant? Awww...
BTW - the full video is awesome. Who knew Arpad Miklos was such a gentle giant? Awww...
6
There was a video not too long ago that a couple of gay pornstars did (I can't remember who, exactly) highlighting the sexism in Youtube's obscenity policies. They'd had several videos flagged for inappropriate content, so they reproduced, move-for-move, a video of two girls dancing for the camera to show the crap women are allowed to get away with that they get flagged for. Anyone out there remember who that was and want to provide a link?
7
@5 - I think the difference is that this is an ad that would run before other videos on youtube, so those watching it wouldn't have chosen to do so. They're not banning the video from youtube, just not allowing it to be an ad.(At least I think that's what "pre-roll ad" means.) Which is still totally lame and messed up, just not necessarily as internally inconsistent as it might seem.
8
@7
For what it's worth, I found the ad ridiculously sappy and sentimental.
I did not, however, find it offensive, nor did I find it any more ridiculously sappy and sentimental than dozens of 'straight' ads I've seen on television and in magazines in the last forty years.
I see lots of ads that I wouldn't choose to see. In fact, most of the ads I see are ads I wouldn't choose to see. I don't think this one should be censored.
For what it's worth, I found the ad ridiculously sappy and sentimental.
I did not, however, find it offensive, nor did I find it any more ridiculously sappy and sentimental than dozens of 'straight' ads I've seen on television and in magazines in the last forty years.
I see lots of ads that I wouldn't choose to see. In fact, most of the ads I see are ads I wouldn't choose to see. I don't think this one should be censored.
12
@8 - Totally agreed. Not defending youtube, just explaining the difference between this pre-roll ad and a regular ol' youtube video.
13
Does this mean it can't go on Metro Buses either because fundie terrorists might blow them all up?
As far as the ad vs. youtube video difference, I understand that but find it ridiculous. I see scantily-clad people (usually always women) in (often offensive) ads all the time using sex and the body as its selling point. On broadcast TV. The internet isn't FCC regulated, here, it's just Google. At first I thought: "faux pas by one employee" but that's making excuses. Google is wrong on this, and they better accept the ad and respond with a proper apology and an honest, non-PR explanation.
As far as the ad vs. youtube video difference, I understand that but find it ridiculous. I see scantily-clad people (usually always women) in (often offensive) ads all the time using sex and the body as its selling point. On broadcast TV. The internet isn't FCC regulated, here, it's just Google. At first I thought: "faux pas by one employee" but that's making excuses. Google is wrong on this, and they better accept the ad and respond with a proper apology and an honest, non-PR explanation.
Comments (14) RSS