Youtube + (Cursing | News | Controversial) = No More Ad money for you

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

Remember before YouTube had advertisers and random folks could get paid for videos? Remember how nobody posted anything and everybody was silenced because they weren't getting paid? *eyeroll*

Breaking Bad pulled 10.3 million viewers for its finale (the show's average viewership for the last season was around six million).

PewDiePie's YouTube channel has pulled an average of 10.1 million views each and every day for the past three months...

It's safe to say that there are quite a few YouTube channels out there that are attracting more eyeballs--in more attractive advertising demographics--than a number of cable shows (and even some cable channels).

Ehh, Malor - let's start a new KS - a Youtube competitor with no restriction on posting barring the "NSFW" or "May contain offensive content" categories.

Actually, I think the idea has commercial merit...

On a more serious note. Users must obey terms of service, it's pretty simple - Youtube is not a government initiative or NFP movement. They will follow the money, so if advertisers tell them to clean up their content, then of course they will comply.

Unfortunate as it may be, that will destroy a couple of monetisation schemes until they can find another popular content host that doesn't impose the same limitations. You can still publish content, just can't make money from it. As I see it, it's kind of like the Diablo 3 RMT auction house - Blizzard wouldn't let anyone dupe items to sell to others, that's a pretty fair restriction as far as terms of use go. It's also like a swearing filter on MMO games - you live with it.

OG_slinger wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

Remember before YouTube had advertisers and random folks could get paid for videos? Remember how nobody posted anything and everybody was silenced because they weren't getting paid? *eyeroll*

Breaking Bad pulled 10.3 million viewers for its finale (the show's average viewership for the last season was around six million).

PewDiePie's YouTube channel has pulled an average of 10.1 million views each and every day for the past three months...

It's safe to say that there are quite a few YouTube channels out there that are attracting more eyeballs--in more attractive advertising demographics--than a number of cable shows (and even some cable channels).

Sure, but not the point. The contention is that no longer adding advertising to some videos is equivalent to suppressing speech.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

Sure, but not the point. The contention is that no longer adding advertising to some videos is equivalent to suppressing speech.

It kinda is the point because YouTube has gone from something people did for sh*ts and giggles to legitimate businesses for probably tens of thousands of people (and sizeable monthly incomes for many, many more).

Google wants to make a lot more money off of advertising on YouTube. But that needs to be balanced with the ability of YouTube content makers to generate a living off of said advertising so they generate said content.

Quite a few YouTubers have opted for a Patreon plus YouTube ads strategy to maintain their full time video producing status because they can't rely on YouTube ad revenue anymore (which has decreased year after year).

Do advertisers actually want cleaner, less controversial channels? I doubt it. YouTube ads are cheap (compared to other media) and skew young (a demo advertisers crave).

The benefit advertisers gain from having their ad reach those target demos far outweigh any bad PR that could result from their ad being chosen by an algorithm to run on a video that has some curse words or contains some controversial content.

And, ideally, Google should be capitalizing on the views controversial content producers generate rather than trying to Disneyfy YouTube. Certain advertisers want clean content and certain advertisers don't. Google should be using all the data it gathers to make sure that advertisers can reach the audience they're looking for.

You're arguing a different point. I'm not referring to the business value of the decision, or whether it was a smart thing to do, or what the financial impact will be.

I'm suggesting that not paying someone to talk is not the same as stopping them from talking. In this case, folks can still use the same venue and say the same things and reach the same audience. Where's the suppression?

There is none. Trying to wrangle some sort of free speech angle out of this is dumb.

Bruce wrote:

Robear wrote:
That advertising filter, though... Would that not have the same result of discouraging people with controversial views? It would just move the judgement on what's appropriate from Youtube to the advertisers, wouldn't it?
---
If they're paying for it then they seem like exactly the people to decide that.

My point is, if the concern is the limiting of speech through removing revenue on the vids, then it doesn't matter *who* makes the decision. Which is a flaw with Malor's position, since he's okay with the *advertisers* making the choice, but not the folks who own the medium.

That does not solve the issue he brought up, it just gives a different organization the choice of which speech to sanction.

Robear wrote:

That does not solve the issue he brought up, it just gives a different organization the choice of which speech to sanction.

Eh, not to argue for him but it seems like his concern is that YouTube has a de facto monopoly on internet video.

Which I disagree with: they're the dominant player, but this seems like one area where the market can work just fine. If they squeeze out too many content creators, then that becomes a selling point for someone else. You can see that to a certain extent with the X-rated stuff they actually ban. The present effect is limited because the banned stuff is beyond the pale for a lot of people, rather than being a YouTube-invented standard. If they start discouraging too much mundane stuff, there'll be a market for hosting that: maybe a talk show site that's all about ranting, or something.

Stuff like Twitch and Vine have already carved out niches, and Facebook and Twitter would love to control their own video content feeds. There's very few internet companies that I think have an actual monopoly rather than just Coca-Cola-style overwhelming name recognition.1

But for the moment YouTube does have a pretty big market advantage, so they get to play Darth Vader to our Lando.

Spoiler:

1. The biggest actual-market-advantage that I can think of is Amazon. They have a logistics network that's hard to beat. AliBaba might rival them. Facebook and Twitter are vulnerable to losing to the next big social network thing, Twitter more so than Facebook. Google could get beaten on search if they drop the ball, but it'd probably take a huge infrastructure investment. In the past I'd have said PayPal, but WhatsApp/Square/Visa have started beating them on mobile and in the international market.

TheGameguru wrote:

There is none. Trying to wrangle some sort of free speech angle out of this is dumb.

And to add to this as had been pointed out earlier if the producer of whatever content they feel is being stifled by a lack of add revenue from YouTube then with what they believe is such compelling content then they should have no issue being funded via other means such as Patreon.

Gremlin wrote:

Eh, not to argue for him but it seems like his concern is that YouTube has a de facto monopoly on internet video.

Malor wrote:

This is, like it or not, about suppressing unpopular opinions. Painting it as anything else is disingenuous.

That's my point. If the problem is that unpopular opinions are being oppressed, then just changing who is doing the oppressing does nothing to fix the problem. That's an issue with the logic of Malor's suggested fix.

My point is, if the concern is the limiting of speech through removing revenue on the vids, then it doesn't matter *who* makes the decision.

Of course it does. If it's individual advertisers making the decision, then they're competing with each other. Some will want to advertise on explicit content; some may want to advertise only on explicit content. Some will want to avoid it completely. The net effect, I imagine, would be the controversial videos would pay *less*, but would still pay for viewership.

Instead, what's happening now is that Youtube is simply decreeing, from a monopoly position, that this content is bad, and isn't allowed to make money.

And the reason to do it this way is because they don't want it on their service, but don't think they can get away with just kicking users off.

What you have now is a single entity, maybe even a single *person*, making the decision about whether someone is allowed to make money on YouTube. If they have opinions that this person or people don't like, too bad, so sad, you can't make money on video.

What *should* be happening is that the people who want to pay for ads decide, individually. But Youtube didn't go that way, because they want it gone.

And, note, they are explicitly de-monetizing political content. This should scare the hell out of anyone.

Non-constructive. - Certis

I'm trying to decide if it's the Benghazi of freeze peach discussions, or the DNC leaked emails. It's a whole lot of hot air over literally nothing, as the articles I sourced show.

OG_slinger wrote:

Do advertisers actually want cleaner, less controversial channels? I doubt it. YouTube ads are cheap (compared to other media) and skew young (a demo advertisers crave).

There'd be a very easy way to find that out, but YouTube wants that content gone, not monetized.

And all those cheering YouTube.... those same weapons are going to be turned on your side, eventually.

Malor, you've abandoned the idea that the *problem* is the limiting of speech, and now you're on to whether it's a monopoly or a competitive group limiting speech. You seem to be okay with limiting speech IFF it's done implicitly by the combination of uncoordinated policies by different organizations. But of course, not if it's done by one organization.

But that negates your worry about free speech being limited, which you expressed quite forcefully as the problem here.

Malor, you've abandoned the idea that the *problem* is the limiting of speech

My fundamental observation was solely this: that the de-monetization move by YouTube is about suppressing speech.

That's is my entire argument. That is what this is for. Then other people have all jumped in with other things they assume I'm saying in addition. I've responded to some of those things, but they weren't part of my original argument.

See this for what it is, YouTube's best attempt to shut people up they don't like. What to do from there, I dunno, but that's what is happening.

Malor wrote:

And all those cheering YouTube.... those same weapons are going to be turned on your side, eventually.

Just curious... How do you feel about browsing sites (while) using adblockers?
I can draw lines to the same conclusion you're drawing about YouTube with just as much conviction, so what's your stance on silencing free speech just to avoid being hassled or have your computer compromised by poorly vetted content?
Edit: Why would browsing a site that uses adblockers be a problem, Rezzy? That sounds awesome!

Edwin wrote:

Non-constructive. - Certis

Yeah, constructive would be saying that anyone who disagrees with you is a liar or deceiving themselves or only imply that they are fascist or something. Gotta keep your insults passive-aggressive or indirect enough to feign good intentions if you want to fly under the moderation radar.

Just curious... How do you feel about browsing sites (while) using adblockers?

That it's the only safe way to browse. Exposing myself to unrelated third parties with transitive trust relationships is very much like engaging in unsafe sex with a roomful of people. It has nothing to do with speech.

what's your stance on silencing free speech

I'm just ignoring some content. I'm not making that decision for anyone else.

Malor wrote:
Malor, you've abandoned the idea that the *problem* is the limiting of speech

My fundamental observation was solely this: that the de-monetization move by YouTube is about suppressing speech.

That's is my entire argument. That is what this is for. Then other people have all jumped in with other things they assume I'm saying in addition. I've responded to some of those things, but they weren't part of my original argument.

See this for what it is, YouTube's best attempt to shut people up they don't like. What to do from there, I dunno, but that's what is happening.

So free speech can only be free if someone is forced to pay the speaker when they do not agree for whatever reason?

Malor wrote:

See this for what it is, YouTube's best attempt to shut people up they don't like. What to do from there, I dunno, but that's what is happening.

Wouldn't their best attempt be to take content down and prevent some people from putting content up?

Farscry wrote:
Edwin wrote:

Non-constructive. - Certis

Yeah, constructive would be saying that anyone who disagrees with you is a liar or deceiving themselves or only imply that they are fascist or something. Gotta keep your insults passive-aggressive or indirect enough to feign good intentions if you want to fly under the moderation radar.

I'm never quite sure how to respond to posts like this since I don't get a sense you actually want a reply. I read through Malor's posts and I see opinions being made clearly and more forcefully than I'd like, but I see him opposing ideas and opinions, I don't see him demanding no one speak or delivering insults directly to posters. Border line? Sure, sometimes. If this is the return of some spiraling, every thread is about Malor issue, I'll probably take some steps.

That said, Edwin's comment was simply an aggressive dismissal of a view he didn't agree with. There's a difference between direct, personal attacks and rhetoric. I'm not claiming to be a perfect judge of it, but this was pretty clear cut.

What I don't understand is why people believe that YouTube is meant to be an outlet for free speech in the first place. If they want to only publish videos that include pink bunnies while banning anyone else from posting videos to their site, they have a right to do so and people are thus free to take their non-pink-bunny speeches elsewhere. YouTube is not a democracy.

Malor wrote:

It has nothing to do with speech.

So getting paid for sharing content has nothing to do with speech.

Malor wrote:

I'm just ignoring some content. I'm not making that decision for anyone else.

You're depriving a content creator of compensation. That decision affects them and the stability of their relationships with those third parties. You sometimes meet the danger on the road you take to avoid it.

The point is... if the content creator is paid or not, you got to consume the content. The speech. Your actions are stifling free speech as much as YouTube, except that your actions affect every platform and every creator regardless of their wishes, and YouTube only the platform they created and own and the creators opted into.
Sooo... Apples and Oranges or are you maybe seeing where some of us aren't exactly convinced that online free speech is in danger here?
Edit: And yes, I totally quoted Kung Fu Panda there. Or maybe paraphrased. Now I'll have to watch it again.

bekkilyn wrote:

What I don't understand is why people believe that YouTube is meant to be an outlet for free speech in the first place. If they want to only publish videos that include pink bunnies while banning anyone else from posting videos to their site, they have a right to do so and people are thus free to take their non-pink-bunny speeches elsewhere. YouTube is not a democracy.

Do you also think that ISPs should be able to restrict what people say over their infrastructure?

YouTube Red is great.

With some visibility on the advertiser side of this, if this actually represents a change in YT's policy other than being more transparent about it, I think it could in part be to make advertisements a better experience for YT consumers. Right now there is a ton of sh*t in programmatic advertising that needs to DIAF, and part of the problem is really low CPC rates which probably drive revenue for most click/viewbait YT channels. This ends up inevitably bleeding over into some of the more mainstream YT channels, pissing off the more mainstream content consumers. By de-monetizing (again, if this something net new that wasn't already being done before) those low-CPC sites, YT is also raising the bar on advertising quality, making itself a more attractive platform for more lucrative ad buys.

Lots of "ifs" in my speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is part of it.

Certis, I'm only replying here instead of PM to keep things on the up and up, especially in light of the prior discussions of "renovating" the P&C. If we need to take it to PM, I can accept that.

Certis wrote:
Farscry wrote:
Edwin wrote:

Non-constructive. - Certis

Yeah, constructive would be saying that anyone who disagrees with you is a liar or deceiving themselves or only imply that they are fascist or something. Gotta keep your insults passive-aggressive or indirect enough to feign good intentions if you want to fly under the moderation radar.

I'm never quite sure how to respond to posts like this since I don't get a sense you actually want a reply. I read through Malor's posts and I see opinions being made clearly and more forcefully than I'd like, but I see him opposing ideas and opinions, I don't see him demanding no one speak or delivering insults directly to posters. Border line? Sure, sometimes. If this is the return of some spiraling, every thread is about Malor issue, I'll probably take some steps.

That said, Edwin's comment was simply an aggressive dismissal of a view he didn't agree with. There's a difference between direct, personal attacks and rhetoric. I'm not claiming to be a perfect judge of it, but this was pretty clear cut.

Actually, I was really torn on whether to post, but ultimately decided to do so because of how often I've found myself having to bite my tongue. It would probably help if I got around to implementing that code plugin to actually hide someone's posts rather than having to mentally skim past them.

My comment was acidic and treading the borderline of direct insults very intentionally: to illustrate exactly why I object to that behavior. You say you don't see him delivering insults directly to posters, and that's precisely my point. I didn't name anyone, I didn't specifically insult or denigrate anyone, and I could make a very flimsy case that I was in fact just razzing Edwin in general and any implied insults aimed at another poster in the thread were purely coincidental.

Which is the same thing Malor could do regarding his comments in the thread. It's been happening in more threads and getting more frequent, and it is toxic behavior that leads to outbursts.

Anyone who claims otherwise is being deceptive, either toward you or toward themselves.
In other words, you'd like to see people you don't agree with, stop talking.
Anyone claiming otherwise is not being honest, either with themselves or with us.

Yeah, there's only a few blatant instances of it in this thread, but it is behavior that is exhibited in thread after thread over a long period of time, and that sh*t is exhausting, immature, and insulting to the community.

"If you don't agree with me, I'm going to insult your intellect/honesty/morals. What? You find that insulting, Certis? I'm sorry you were offended, but I didn't say you are an idiot/liar/murder-condoner. If you drew that conclusion from my statement, though, perhaps you should think about why that is."

OG_slinger wrote:
bekkilyn wrote:

What I don't understand is why people believe that YouTube is meant to be an outlet for free speech in the first place. If they want to only publish videos that include pink bunnies while banning anyone else from posting videos to their site, they have a right to do so and people are thus free to take their non-pink-bunny speeches elsewhere. YouTube is not a democracy.

Do you also think that ISPs should be able to restrict what people say over their infrastructure?

Well personally I believe that the internet should be run like a publicly owned utility that is perhaps managed by the ISPs under government oversight, so the Constitution would apply in such a case. However, YouTube is a company that just happens to be on the internet...not *the* internet, and they play by their own rules within legal limits. If YouTube bans certain type of videos from their site, as they have right to do, then people can merely go somewhere else to post them, or set up their own server, or create their own video sharing company. YouTube isn't banning stuff from the internet entirely as they don't have that sort of jurisdiction, but they certainly don't have to personally promote content they find objectionable and/or harmful to their business.

In this particular case, YouTube isn't even banning any of this content. They are simply refusing to financially support it. People are still free to keep posting the stuff all they want.

Farscry: Considering I didn't find your first post to be against the CoC (although it is off topic) it's not much of an object lesson of what should or shouldn't be allowed in the forums. If you had an issue I'd rather you stated it plainly, because I read your first post as plain old venting. Appreciate the follow up, it helps me understand where you're coming from.

If you can codify your issues into some rule that's actually enforceable I'd be happy to hear it in PM. We're pretty close to wrapping on the new CoC so now is the time.

Certis wrote:

Farscry: Considering I didn't find your first post to be against the CoC (although it is off topic) it's not much of an object lesson of what should or shouldn't be allowed in the forums. If you had an issue I'd rather you stated it plainly, because I read your first post as plain old venting. Appreciate the follow up, it helps me understand where you're coming from.

If you can codify your issues into some rule that's actually enforceable I'd be happy to hear it in PM. We're pretty close to wrapping on the new CoC so now is the time.

if we're nominating rules to be added to the CoC, I would like to propose that anyone found guilty of violating the CoC has all of their posts converted to pig Latin.