If harmful isn’t defined in the ToS, then the Merriam Webster definition will likely be construed to mean to be harmful to YouTube’s business or to users. Although YouTube has been selective in this enforcement, ie not banning all videos pertaining to martial arts or fighting clips, drug use, or ad block tutorials.
Ulrich@feddit.org 2 days ago
That just answers a question that no one is asking. This is not an issue of defining words, it’s an issue of what the words are referring to, exactly.
sorghum@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Exactly, I haven’t read the ToS to see if it is defined or references anything in there. I usually default to the standard definition of a word unless explicitly stated otherwise. For example, Sony changed the definition of purchase to remove any notion of ownership when buying content on their streaming platform.
Ulrich@feddit.org 2 days ago
What? LOL no, not “exactly”. Again the definition is not in question. The question is what the word is referring to.
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
if they haven’t defined it, then legally it is meant in the broadest sense, isn’t it?
sorghum@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Just did a cursory search for harm on the YouTube ToS. There is no definition that I saw, but it does say “may cause harm”. So my suspicion that anything could be construed to be harmful to YouTube’s business is likely correct. Quoted sections of the YouTube ToS containing the word “harm” as of 2025-06-06 17:20 GMT.