Youtube can go duck itself

Hi DNA Lounge,

As you may know, our Community Guidelines describe which content we allow -- and don't allow -- on YouTube. Your video Boioioing was flagged to us for review. Upon review, we've determined that it may not be suitable for all viewers and it has been placed behind an age restriction.

How you can respond

If you believe this was a mistake, we'd like to hear from you. To appeal this age restriction, please submit this form. Our team will thoroughly review your appeal and will contact you again very soon. For more information on YouTube's Community Guidelines, please visit our Help Center.

- The YouTube Team


Upon further review, sincerely, and out of an abundance of caution...

Youtube can still go duck itself.

Previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

14 Responses:

  1. jwz says:

    And while I'm here, let me take a moment to mock Youtube's MIME headers. I know I'm one of maybe 50 people in the world who care about this, but it makes me fucking twitch.

    Subject: =?windows-1252?q?Your_YouTube_video_has_been_age-restricted?=

    Do you see any Windows 1252 in there, motherfucker? Do they speak MICROS~1 in WHAT?

    To: DNA Lounge <>

    The email address by which I log into this account is The fuck is this shit?

    Hey, do you remember Google Plus? Yeah, neither do I.

    Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000047a36f05b22885ff"

    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed; delsp=yes
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64


    Why is the text-plain part base64 encoded, WHYYYYYYY????

    It is true that it uses non-ASCII UTF-8 characters for apostrophes and hyphens (again WHYYYYYYY????) but there is no excuse for base64 here.

    Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

    <html lang=3D"en">...

    And then they go and make a completely different encoding decision on the HTML part. Which, again, could have and should have been ASCII.

    I hate you, Milkman Google.

    • Pierre B. says:

      I know you probably are not seeking justifications, but email standards are just crazy. Everyone of your peeve is actually well-defined and justified by various RFC and compatibility necessity: encoding UTF in headers (RFC 1342), encoding bodies, etc.

      The stupendous thing is the overall necessity to be 7-bit clean in 2020. Which dusty, cracking piece of plastic is still routing email and blows on 8-bits? Who knows? Seems no one want to know and try.

      You could repeatedly send non-encoded 8-bit email and hope they all blow up in frenzied CPu over-heated and liberate us all.

      • jwz says:

        Excuse me, NO. I was involved the creation of those standards, and you're wrong. One of the fundamental principles of MIME is "least encoding". If the data contains only US-ASCII, you tag it as US-ASCII. If the data does not need to be quoted-printable encoded, you don't encode it. That goes double for base64: You do not use base64 on text/ subtypes. Yes it's allowed, and yes it's wrong.

        My only peeve that is not a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the MIME RFCs is their choice to use something from the limitless UTF-8 grab-bag of identical characters instead of ASCII apostrophes and hyphens.

        But even if the author of the text payload chose to use INSECURE SOFT EM DASH, that's no excuse to use base64.

  2. Kelly Hall says:

    "I hate you, Milkman Google."

    Good to the last drop.

  3. Kyzer says:

    I identify as a boggle-eyed rubber duck and this is extremely triggering for my kind.

    Also, I am extremely displeased that this is not yet in "previously". Sigh, I miss fantasygoat. 11 years now.

    But more seriously, Google have this giant pile of "UGC" stuff they don't want to look at, and, ugh, who knew that spiderman and elsa making out attracts pedos to the comment section, so stuff like this just has to go. Who knows what it has awakened in people?

  4. Dude says:

    Oh yeah: nazis, flat-Earthers, anti-vaxxers, and other hate-mongers (all of whom still have working pages with millions of views) are perfectly fine. But rubber ducks? Those are totally indecent.
    But seriously, this just adds to my schadenfreude about the company facing long overdue anti-trust charges.

  5. tfb says:

    Weren't google the company who made this whole big point about only employing super-smart people? The kind of people who'd make sensible decisions about things like encodings? Obviously not: it must have been some other company.

    • Dude says:

      Nah, that excuse doesn't work for Google now anymore than it worked for Microsoft in the '90s. Google, FB, and the like don't have monopolies on smart people (just regular economy-killing monopolies). They just acquire the companies for which smart people work... or destroy them. Or both:

      (And yes, I realise the paradox of criticising Google and YouTube via a clip from YouTube. Monopolies are like that.)

    • Elusis says:

      You don't think the people who make these decisions are actually Google employees, do you? Oh honey. They may not have to pay to do their job but they certainly don't have Google or YouTube signing off on their paychecks.

    • Dave says:

      Not so good with encoding, but they know how many golf balls fit in a blender crossing a rope bridge to wash all the windows in San Francisco using only a barometer.

  6. Waider says:

    Clearly an idiomatic translation issue. Censorfolks, the expression is "choking the chicken".

  • Previously