WebProNews

Tag: Terms of Service

  • Twitter’s Updated Terms of Service Sparks Outrage Among Users

    Twitter’s Updated Terms of Service Sparks Outrage Among Users

    Twitter is under fire over a recent update of its terms of service. Users vented their anger over a particular clause introduced by the microblogging site which seems to suggest that Twitter will now have the right to republish any user content and make it available to other parties without giving any compensation to the original user who made the post.

    The clause, which appears below, had people fuming when it caught the eye of a user who then reposted it on the platform:

    “You agree that this licence includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organisations or individuals for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, promotion or publication of such content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such content use.”

    In a post that became viral, user Richard de Nooy, who noticed the new clause, re-posted the Your Rights section of Twitter’s updated terms and conditions. Nooy called the clause “un-f***ing-believable” and “grotesque” especially for those who post original content, a sentiment that was echoed by many of the platform’s users.

    However, the conditions are not actually new, according to The Independent. Apparently, it is already part of the platform’s terms and conditions for some time now but has recently resurfaced when Twitter made a few changes in other areas.

    The “offending” clauses are in place to allow Twitter to continue supporting some of the platform’s well-used features such as the embedding of tweets as well as their use in TV broadcasts. In addition, Twitter is not known to have sold any content posted by users and the conditions are just meant to allow sharing and re-tweeting of posts made by others, which is the whole point of social media.

    But there are actually new changes to Twitter’s terms and conditions. Under the new conditions, the portion stating that “Twitter respects the intellectual property rights of others and expects users of the service to do the same” was removed. Instead, it was replaced by a clause allowing Twitter to delete posts that violate its rules.

    [Featured Image via Twitter]

  • Snapchat: We Aren’t Stockpiling Your Private Snaps

    Snapchat: We Aren’t Stockpiling Your Private Snaps

    Snapchat users had a little bit of a freakout last week when the company updated its privacy policy and terms of service.

    On Friday, Snapchat updated its terms to give itself “worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free, sublicensable, and transferable license to host, store, use, display, reproduce, modify, adapt, edit, publish, create derivative works from, publicly perform, broadcast, distribute, syndicate, promote, exhibit, and publicly display that content in any form and in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).”

    We pointed out that this language is certainly nothing new in the industry, as apps like Facebook and Instagram basically say the same thing in their terms. It’s also not that different from how the terms read before the update.

    Snapchat added the word “store” when it comes to your content, and that sent users up in arms.

    Now, hearing the internet clamor, Snapchat has felt the need to clarify its actions.

    “First off, we want to be crystal clear: The Snaps and Chats you send your friends remain as private today as they were before the update. Our Privacy Policy continues to say—as it did before—that those messages “are automatically deleted from our servers once we detect that they have been viewed or have expired.” Of course, a recipient can always screenshot or save your Snaps or Chats. But the important point is that Snapchat is not—and never has been—stockpiling your private Snaps or Chats. And because we continue to delete them from our servers as soon as they’re read, we could not—and do not—share them with advertisers or business partners,” said the company in a blog post.

    “It’s true that our Terms of Service grant us a broad license to use the content you create—a license that’s common to services like ours. We need that license when it comes to, for example, Snaps submitted to Live Stories, where we have to be able to show those Stories around the world—and even replay them or syndicate them (something we’ve said we could do in previous versions of our Terms and Privacy Policy). But we tried to be clear that the Privacy Policy and your own privacy settings within the app could restrict the scope of that license so that your personal communications continue to remain truly personal.”

    If you want something to remain completely, 100% private, don’t send it to another person via a social media app. Snapchat’s terms are pretty much the same as every other company with a spot on your smartphone homescreen.

  • Instagram Takes Harder Line on Nudity, Abuse

    Instagram has always asked users to be nice and respectful of each other, but now the social network is taking a harder line on a handful of issues.

    And it’s updated its community guidelines to reflect this.

    “In the old guidelines, we would say ‘don’t be mean’,” Nicky Jackson Colaco, director of public policy for Instagram, told the Wall Street Journal. “Now we’re actively saying you can’t harass people. The language is just stronger.”

    Here’s Instagram’s new, more forceful rebuke of harassment:

    We want to foster a positive, diverse community. We remove content that contains credible threats or hate speech, content that targets private individuals to degrade or shame them, personal information meant to blackmail or harass someone, and repeated unwanted messages. We do generally allow stronger conversation around people who are featured in the news or have a large public audience due to their profession or chosen activities.

    It’s never OK to encourage violence or attack anyone based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, disabilities, or diseases. When hate speech is being shared to challenge it or to raise awareness, we may allow it. In those instances, we ask that you express your intent clearly.

    Serious threats of harm to public and personal safety aren’t allowed. This includes specific threats of physical harm as well as threats of theft, vandalism, and other financial harm. We carefully review reports of threats and consider many things when determining whether a threat is credible.

    Nudity has received some focus as well.

    Instagram has always banned nudity and has been quick to remove posts that violate its policy – but now the lines are more clear. Instagram, unsurprisingly, takes the same stance on nudity as its parent company Facebook. Boobs are ok if a baby is attached, and that’s it.

    “We know that there are times when people might want to share nude images that are artistic or creative in nature, but for a variety of reasons, we don’t allow nudity on Instagram. This includes photos, videos, and some digitally-created content that show sexual intercourse, genitals, and close-ups of fully-nude buttocks. It also includes some photos of female nipples, but photos of post-mastectomy scarring and women actively breastfeeding are allowed. Nudity in photos of paintings and sculptures is OK, too,” says Instagram’s new terms.

    Sorry, Chelsea Handler. Sorry Rihanna. You’ll have to take your boobs to Twitter.

    Image via Instagram

  • Snapchat Wants You to Keep Your Clothes On

    Snapchat has grown far beyond its initial designation as “that sexting app with the disappearing messages”, and the app is being used for things far beyond your basic boob shot and dick pic. Brands are getting in the mix and there’s even been specific content created for the Snapchat platform (Madonna debuted a music video on Snapchat).

    But it’s Snapchat. There’s gonna be sexting. Any attempt to act like that’s not going on is laughable, at best.

    But Snapchat would like you to keep your clothes on. Especially if you’re a minor.

    Fusion spotted that Snapchat just recently debuted a new Snapchat Safety Center, complete with new community guidelines, safety tips, and FAQs for parents.

    And in those guidelines, Snapchat is pretty clear on your porny snaps:

    Be thoughtful about what you Snap and whom you send it to. It’s okay with us if someone takes a screenshot, but we can’t speak for you or your friends. Snapchat attempts to detect screenshots and notify the sender, but it doesn’t always work perfectly – and your friend can always capture the image with a camera.

    Keep it legal. Don’t use Snapchat for any illegal shenanigans and if you’re under 18 or are Snapping with someone who might be: keep your clothes on!

    What not to Snap:

    Pornography
    Nudity or sexually suggestive content involving minors (people under the age of 18)
    Minors engaged in activities that are physically dangerous and harmful
    Invasions of privacy
    Threats
    Harassment or Bullying
    Impersonation
    Self-Harm

    Violating these rules may result in the removal of content, the suspension of your account and being prohibited from using Snapchat in the future.

    Of course, banning anything involving nudity and minors is definitely warranted. On the other hand, it’s probably a bit hollow to threaten account suspension for adults who send “pornography”.

    Though you might think of Snapchat as the land of T&A, there’s research to suggest that it might not be as prevalent as we all believe. A study conducted by the University of Washington found that only 1.6% of Snapchat users say they use the app primarily for sexting – but 14.2% admitted to having sexting with the app.

    But that’s self-reporting – and we all know how that goes.

  • LinkedIn Changes Terms of Service

    LinkedIn Changes Terms of Service

    LinkedIn announced that it is making some changes to its Terms of Service on October 23rd. The company has rewritten its user agreement to make it easier to read and understand, and to better explain rights surrounding content.

    In short, you own your content.

    LinkedIn lists the following as the highlights of what’s changing:

    • You own your content that you post on our services. You always have, and that hasn’t changed.
    • If you delete anything from our services, our rights to it will end. But we obviously can’t control what others do with content you shared before you delete it. For example, before you delete a presentation, one of your connections may have cut and pasted it to a blog post they’ve authored.
    • We don’t have exclusive rights to your content. It’s yours, so you’re free to repost your content on other services on the terms of your choice – like one of the Creative Commons licenses.
    • We don’t license or sell your content to third-parties (like advertisers, publishers, and websites) to show to anyone else without your express permission.
    • We won’t alter the intent of your content. But we may need to translate it, adjust the formatting, and make other technical changes to show it properly on our services.

    The company says it has cut the length of its ToS in half. You can see the updated user agreement here and privacy policy here.

    Image via LinkedIn (Flickr)

  • You Better Get Permission to Use Twitter Photos, Rules Judge

    The idea that content made public on social media is fair game for anyone and everyone to use has received a major strike, as a U.S. District Judge has ruled that two news outlets were in the wrong when they republished a Twitter user’s photos without his permission.

    The case involves a photographer named Daniel Morel, who accused both the Agence France-Presse and The Washington Post of improperly selling his photos of the aftermath of the 2010 Haitian earthquake, which he published on Twitter.

    Morel tweeted out the photos, which were disseminated by the AFP (they distributed “several” images to Getty Images). The Washington Post later published four of the images on its website, as they are a Getty Images client.

    Although the AFP argued that the photos became fair game once they were publicly posted to Twitter, the Judge in the case disagreed. He claimed that Twitter’s Terms of Service did not give them the right to license or publish Morel’s photos without his permission.

    Twitter’s Terms of Service, like most social networks’, explicitly express that users own their content – bottom line. “What’s yours is yours – you own your Content (and your photos are part of that Content),” says Twitter.

    But Twitter, like most other social networks, also contains this clause giving themselves rights to distribute and publish said content:

    You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).

    Twitter also gives its “ecosystem partners” rights to the content as well:

    You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organizations or individuals who partner with Twitter for the syndication, broadcast, distribution or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use.

    But that pertains to developers who use Twitter’s API, not news outlets looking to run photos in a for-profit setting or companies looking to license said photos. The Judge was clear on that. He acknowledged that Twitter allows for retweeting (obviously), but not for commercial use of user content without their permission.

    Twitter was never named a party in the case, as their terms clearly protect them from liability in cases like this.

    The Judge didn’t completely agree with Morel, however. Although Morel requested damages based on each Getty subscriber who used his photos, the Judge ruled that only AFP and Getty can be tapped for damages for each improperly distributed image.

    [via Reuters]

  • Netflix Vacation Hold Terms Changing

    Netflix Vacation Hold Terms Changing

    Netflix sent out a notice to users today about upcoming changes to the terms involved in putting your account on hold whenever you go on vacation. Currently, whenever you put your account on hold (it doesn’t have to necessarily be used only for vacations, but you get the premise of the feature), you have to set a re-activation date for when you want to reactivate your account. In addition to setting the parameters for when you can resume your membership, the reactivation date also tells Netflix when to resume billing you for your membership.

    In the email, Netflix said that it’s no longer going to require a reactivation date and, instead, users will manually have to reactivate their account whenever they’re ready to resume movie-watching goodness. The change has no additional cost and you won’t lose any of the movies saved in your Queue. In an accompanying blog post, Netflix states that users will still only be able to place holds for up to three months (no word on what happens if you forget to reactivate your account after that)

    Below is the full email that users received earlier today:

    Since you’ve put your membership on vacation hold in the past, we’re writing to let you know about some upcoming changes to how it works.

    Starting in May, you’ll still be able to cancel and restart your membership while you’re away on vacation with no loss of your Queue, personal settings or membership information. What’s changing is that Netflix will no longer resume your service and billing automatically. Instead, you’ll let us know when you’re ready to start watching movies & TV episodes again by simply visiting the website to restart your membership.

    From time to time, we change some features to simplify our service. We hope you found this email helpful. If you have questions, please call us any time at 
1-888-357-1516.

    –The Netflix Team

  • Despite Ban, Pinterest Still Full Of “Self-Harming” Thinspo Content [UPDATED]

    There’s a lot of stuff on the internet. This might sound obvious, and it is – but just think about how many different ideas are expressed throughout all the little nooks and crannies of the interwebs. It’s inevitable that some stuff out there is going to piss some people off.

    Some of the most recent types of content causing a stir are “pro-ana,” “pro-mia,” and “thinspo” blogs that promote people (admittedly, mostly girls) to stay thin – dangerously thin in the eyes of some. “Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels” is the type of advice you might find tagged “thinspo” (short for thinspiration) somewhere online. Plus, you’ll also find images of thin (mostly) women, as they serve as a visual motivator for girls who want to become or stay skinny.

    There are mixed feelings about this sort of thing, as would be expected. Should sites police this type of content? Is it just free speech, like minded people discussing a life choice? Or is is promotion and glorification of harmful activities?

    Earlier this month, super-popular blog platform Tumblr sided with the latter argument. They instituted a policy that disallows users to “post content that actively promotes or glorifies self-harm. This includes content that urges or encourages readers to cut or injure themselves; embrace anorexia, bulimia, or other eating disorders; or commit suicide…”

    Tumblr later clarified that the new policy would only prohibit blogs that were “dedicated to triggering self-harm,” and it wouldn’t affect those that are about discussion of issues like anorexia and bulimia.

    Over the weekend, Pinterest followed suit. On a blog post last Friday, they announced that they had updated their Acceptable Use Policy in order to not allow “pins that explicitly encourage self-harm of self-abuse.”

    The actual new provision to the policy reads that users cannot post content that “creates a risk of harm, loss, physical or mental injury, emotional distress, death, disability, disfigurement, or physical or mental illness to yourself, to any other person, or to any animal.”

    Many have said that Pinterest bowed to the pressure of those that are against “thinspo” content. One of the main critiques that caught fire was a March 19th article on Jezebel called “The Scary, Weird World of Pinterest Thinspo Boards.” That article quoted someone from the National Eating Disorders Association that broke down why Pinterest was such a good place for Thinspo to reside:

    Pinterest is a format that’s attractive to the pro-ana community because it’s both visual and highly interactive; young women (and some men) suffering from an eating disorder or teetering on the brink of disorder crave the unique combination of visibility and anonymity offered by the site. Pinterest users can swap photos of their most enviable shoulder blades in a supportive “community” of like-minded people, but because it’s on the internet they can do it from behind the protection of an anonymous handle.

    So, advocates of sites banning this type of content can rejoice at Pinterest‘s decision, right? Wrong, at least so far. Mashable points out that thinspo pins and board are still alive and well all over Pinterest.

    And it’s true. A quick search for thinspo within Pinterest yields tons of images of thin girls, motivational images with text like “You will regret eating that cookie, you will not regret running that mile” and “unless you puke, faint, or die, keep going.” These aren’t just ramdom pins, as there are also still plenty of boards left devoted to nothing but thinspo – many of them have hundreds of followers.

    I’m truly of mixed mind about this. I completely see the problem with blogs or pinboards dedicated to making sure girls stay thin. Not that thin girls are a problem, mind you, but because in the context of “thinspo” or “pro ana,” the practices that are encouraged to help them get/stay thin are unhealthy. There is a lot of variety on pins tagged thinspo on Pinterest, however. Many of the images, motivational posters, etc. aren’t promoting anorexia or bulimia specifically. Many promote exercise, and although some may be a little extreme, who should tell people that they are exercising too hard (besides maybe a doctor)?

    Not all of the images of girls taged thinspo are too thin either. Of course, this is not a scientific statement and I don’t know the girls’ weight or BMI, but the eye test tells me that many of the girls in the images aren’t unhealthy.

    Some of the images are scary though. And even the images that seems rather innocuous, when put into the context of a thinspo board, become helpers to an unhealthy (read anorexic) lifestyle. And i think that context has as much to do with it than anything.

    What do you think about thinspo content, and sities like Tumblr and Pinterest‘s decision to ban it? Are you concerned that this content still exists on Pinterest, even after they updated their policies? Let us know in the comments.

    UPDATE: We’ve received the following statement from a Pinterest spokesperson:

    Pinterest relies on its community to help identify and flag offensive content. Once offensive content has been reported, Pinterest reviews it on a case-by-case basis and immediately removes any pin that violates the Terms of Service, Acceptable Use Policy or Pin Etiquette.

    Basically, they’ll come down when they’re reported. Last night, I spoke to an avid Pinterest user who said that over the weekend, they’ve personally noticed that the amount of thinspo pins (especially images of thin women) present on the site was far less than last week.

  • Pinterest Changes Terms of Service In A Pro-Consumer Way

    Terms of service is one of those things that every social media service has and many users never read. If you do take the time to read them, however, you learn the horrifying truth that most Web sites don’t care about you, just your content. They even go so far as to say they own you and your content for promotional and advertising purposes. That’s why it’s a breath of fresh air to see Pinterest‘s updated terms of service to be so pro-consumer.

    The Pinterest team let the world know in a blog post that they have updated their terms of service now that they have become the biggest thing since Twitter, even surpassing the micro-blogging site in terms of referrals. The new terms of service, according to the team, are “easier to understand and better reflect the direction our company is headed in the future.” If the new terms are any indication, that future is going to be bright.

    The first, and most important, change to their terms of service is that Pinterest can no longer sell your content. The original terms of service gave them this right and many social media sites still adhere to this term. Pinterest has removed this from their terms so users have full control over their content.

    The second new term is a bit more murky but it’s understandable. Pinterest will no longer allow users to post images that encourage self-harm or self-abuse. I wasn’t aware of people using the service for this reason, but it’s never cool to encourage such actions. While some may call it self-expression, I think we can all agree that we don’t need any more instruction manuals on slitting one’s own wrists.

    In what previously a problem for the site, they now have simpler and better tools for reporting copyright violations. This should keep the copyright hounds at bay as Getty Images might start demanding Pinterest license its content for the users who post their images on the site.

    Finally, the language in the terms of service now reflects their intention to create a Pinterest API and private pinboards. I don’t even want to know what a private pinboard could be used for, but I’m sure plenty of Pinterest fanatics are welcoming the idea.

    If you want to read the entirety of the new terms of service, you can do so on their official Web site. I highly recommend it not just for the knowledge of what the fine print says, but also for a look at what a good terms of service should be.

  • What If Terms of Service Were More Interesting?

    How often do you actually read Terms of Service agreements? Now, be honest. ☺ I have to admit that I don’t usually read them, for the sake of time, but I do sometimes wonder about what I’m agreeing to. It is a legal document, after all, and it should be taken with some seriousness.

    Do you take Terms of Service documents seriously? Let us know.

    Gregg Bernstein, a graphic designer, took this issue to heart and set out on a mission to improve TOS agreements. He admitted that it was “not a fascinating area at all,” but he felt that it was necessary. His work with designing CDs and packaging for bands and record companies got him interested in the area because he has to know what he can and can’t do with the various typefaces he uses.

    Once he began looking into it, he said he realized how significant it was that other people understand what they’re agreeing to as well.

    “It’s important that they understand what it is that they are purchasing and understand what they are or aren’t allowed to do,” he added.

    Since this area had essentially become his niche, Bernstein decided to tackle Apple’s Terms of Service agreement for his master’s thesis. While those of us with Apple products know that its terms aren’t exactly captivating, taking on a brand such as Apple takes guts. However, Bernstein told us that he believes Apple’s terms should be just as intuitive and impressive as the Apple products that are on the market.

    “When you buy an Apple product, everything about it is so considered,” he said. “Apple, of all vendors, should have a better designed agreement.”

    In this effort, Bernstein worked with Robert Bartlett, who is a law professor, in order to trim the length of the terms down without losing the meaning. Bernstein told us it was challenging because they had to think about all the various screen sizes that people would be viewing the terms on, how to divide it up in a readable way, and also how to make the terms visually appealing while making accommodations for those who are visually impaired.

    Despite these challenges, Bernstein was able to finish his project and create a new set of terms for Apple that is much more concise and readable.

    Bernstein told us that he thinks it is a very real problem that companies aren’t taking the issue of Terms of Service seriously. He believes that usability and design should be key factors in legal agreements.

    “I don’t think design ever enters the equation,” said Bernstein. “You have this blind spot where a company is focusing on a product, but then they’re also focusing on a legal issue, and for some reason, these areas just never combine.”

    He went on to say that both consumers and companies would benefit from better terms since consumers would be more knowledgeable about what they could and couldn’t do and companies would be less likely to face litigation.

    Bernstein sent his project to Apple and also reached out to some other tech companies that he made redesigns for but has yet to receive a response.

    In addition, he took a shot at redesigning the IRS 1040 Form. Check out his before and after forms:

    Is Bernstein onto something here? Do you think you would be more apt to read Terms of Service agreements if they looked better?

  • Playboy’s Nudity Allowed On YouTube [UPDATE]

    UPDATE: Well that was quick.

    Within 5-10 minutes of this article being posted, the videos in question have been taken down by YouTube:

    Here’s another (grainy) screencap from one of the videos, entitled “Slam Dunk.”

    Original Article:

    YouTube consistently takes down content that it deems inappropriate for various reasons. They outline specific guidelines in their Terms of Service that give them the right to remove content at their sole discretion. They also have a Community Guidelines page that gives tips about certain types of content and explains whether or not it qualifies as acceptable material to be showcased on the site.

    It’s common knowledge that YouTube frowns upon nudity. Right? Point number one on the community guidelines page says this:

    YouTube is not for pornography or sexually explicit content. If this describes your video, even if it’s a video of yourself, don’t post it on YouTube.

    We all know that real pornography and most all nudity is not allowed on the site. Any video claiming to feature “Hot Hot Sex” or “Blake Lively Nude” will always be a joke and/or spammy video filled with links to other websites.

    So why does Playboy’s Morning Show Channel have clips of topless girls playing basketball?

    Playboy’s Morning Show is broadcast on Sirius satellite radio and as would be expected, often times features mature content. Now, nudity doesn’t bother me in any way, shape or form. And I’m certainly no spoilsport. But I have to wonder why these videos are allowed to be on YouTube?

    Looking deeper at the community guideline tips, you find a specific section on “Sex and Nudity.” Let’s take a look:

    Most nudity is not allowed, particularly if it is in a sexual context. Generally if a video is intended to be sexually provocative, it is less likely to be acceptable for YouTube. There are exceptions for some educational, documentary, scientific, and artistic content, but only if that is the sole purpose of the video and it is not gratuitously graphic. For example, a documentary on breast cancer would be appropriate, but posting clips out of context from the documentary might not be.

    Ok, there are exceptions. That’s why there are tons of how-to breast exam videos on the site. Understandable. Let’s see if the “Machine Gun Titays” or “Slam Dunk” videos fall into any of these exception categories. Educational? Not really. Documentary? Like National Geographic? Scientific? Probably not, this picture is kind of grainy. Artistic? I guess the argument could be made, but c’mon.

    I’m pretty sure bouncing boobies slam dunking a tiny hoops goal is closer to “gratuitously graphic.”

    Another point about these videos – they are accessible without signing in, therefore bypassing the “mature content warning” that YouTube places on some questionable videos. (Note, this video pictured below that requires a sign in contains no nudity, but some definite near-nudity)

    Of course, kids can lie about their age and say they are 18 – that’s not news. So YouTube’s sign-in safeguard isn’t going to prevent most young kids from watching mature content if they really want to do so. But it is strange that the two Playboy show videos in question can be accessed without said log-in. The Playboy Morning Show’s Twitter account even tweeted a link to the video, which naturally doesn’t require a log-in:

    Topless Slam Dunk!! Well, sort-of slam 😉 NSFW http://is.gd/kdMc95 2 days ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    And it’s not like these videos were posted minutes ago and YouTube simply hasn’t had time to react. The two videos in question were posted 2 and 5 days ago, respectively.

    Let me reiterate how not upset I am about nudity on YouTube – not in the slightest. I’m just saying that if I put a video of my girlfriend playing naked basketball on the site, it probably wouldn’t last 5 days. What gives?

    Recently, YouTube came under fire for banning a video from the group Mercy for Animals that shows hidden camera footage of workers at a slaughterhouse mistreating calves. It’s some brutal stuff. They eventually reinstated the video. YouTube does have a specific policy on shocking and disturbing videos, even making reference of slaughter houses:

    If a video is particularly graphic or disturbing, it should be balanced with additional context and information. For instance, including a clip from a slaughter house in a video on factory farming may be appropriate. However, stringing together unrelated and gruesome clips of animals being slaughtered in a video may be considered gratuitous if its purpose is to shock rather than illustrate

    Maybe YouTube hasn’t noticed the Playboy videos yet. Maybe they have and believe it falls under one of their nudity exception rules. Either way, the common knowledge that stuff like that isn’t allowed on YouTube looks busted as of right now.