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

Malor wrote:
On a personal level I'm hoping that the Angry, Sweary, Nerd schtick goes the way of minstrel shows.

In other words, you'd like to see people you don't agree with, stop talking.

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

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if YouTube keeps running ads on the content they're trying to drive away. But even if they don't, getting those people to go away is the goal.

I don't even like or watch these shows. But I can see this move for what it is, and a lot of hemming, hawing, and rationalizing on the part of the pro-shut-them-up side.

You can always vote with your wallet...oh right you consider that impairment on free speech as well since it's taking money out of someone's hands. So I guess anyone should be able to do whatever they want to who ever they want with any property they want anytime they want.

You're a special kind of... consistent.

Edited because crap I'm drunk. Malor, I don't agree with you often. Don't now - but you do have a right to say what you feel and I respect that.

Malor wrote:
On a personal level I'm hoping that the Angry, Sweary, Nerd schtick goes the way of minstrel shows.

In other words, you'd like to see people you don't agree with, stop talking.

No, I'd prefer boring irritating people find a more interesting, less irritating way to do what they do.

Malor wrote:

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

No, it's not. And no matter how many times you say blue is red it won't become true.

*edit*

I do wish there was an inalienable right to earn a living doing whatever you feel like, there are a million things I'd rather be doing right now than doing a stock recon, but they aren't financially viable.

I don't have the right to earn a living running around in the street swearing at people, nobody else has the right to earn a living doing the same thing on Youtube.

Malor wrote:

I don't even like or watch these shows. But I can see this move for what it is, and a lot of hemming, hawing, and rationalizing on the part of the pro-shut-them-up side.

Welcome to capitalism?

No one is obligated to pay people money for their videos. That's really what this boils down to.

The people who upload the videos are vendors, not customers. And not citizens. YouTube would like to pay them so they have an incentive to keep uploading, but only if doing so helps YouTube get more money. Content that drivers advertisers away? No surprise that they decided to stop paying for it.

(They may even, as you assert, continue to make money off of it, as they do with the ContentID stuff. Personally, I doubt it, if one of the reasons is that advertisers don't want to pay to be associated with stuff.)

YouTube has the power and the right to pay out or not pay out as they prefer. It's in the contract: you don't play by their rules, they're going to keep your ball. It's a private, corporate-owned service, and they'll do what they want with it. What they appear to want right now is advertiser-friendly content, at least for the bits where they're selling ads.

I think it's naive to try to make this about something other than money. You can worry about the prudery of advertisers or the desire to avoid controversy, but both of those ultimately boil down to economics for YouTube.

I don't think that corporations controlling publication access is a good thing, but it is a thing. They're still way more lenient than the FTC if you're concerned about content. And no one forced anyone to upload videos to YouTube.

So, I agree that there are some potentially troubling aspects...but the root of that is in the walled gardens of social networks, not in any recent development. And this is clearly about money, not trying to ideologically silence anyone.

Are there any good examples we can cite of content that's been flagged? I haven't gone looking. I suppose that might drag our present debate into specifics instead of abstract principles. So I'm not sure specifics would actually help, rather than play into our existing biases. And, I'm guessing here, but Malor's concern seems to be about future abuses as much as it is about present effects.

TIL telling someone to shut up is suppressing their speech.

TIL not paying someone to talk is suppressing their speech.

On a "nice to have" level I would want YouTube to apply their advertising policy to whatever content reaches their thresholds. If somebody is cursing and acting the fool and people are watching then sure I would hope that they get the same benefits of somebody who isn't cursing and acting crazy. But it's a walled garden and advertisers are in their own right to pick and choose who gets their advertising dollars. To demand that advertisers have to advertise where they don't want removes their right to protect and market their brand(s) the way the see fit. That would be crazy and make no sense.

On a certain level, Malor is absolutely correct - I'm not even sure he's morally against using money to stifle disgusting speech like you can find on YouTube. I like marginalizing hate speech.

The way videos are being flagged is by keywords. For example any videos with the word kill or murder would be flagged. So a video with the title "evil blacks should be killed" would be flagged along with "cops should stop killing black people" and "I wish everyone would stop killing people".

This has nothing to do with unpopular opinions or hate speech. You can post a video with any opinion you want and still have ads as long as you do so without using a word youtube has labeled bad. This is why videos talking about suicide prevention has been flagged or videos about the tv show "How to get away with Murder" has been flagged. There are still a ton of videos with hate speech and every opinion under the sun that haven't been flagged because the uploader didn't use any of the problematic words on the video.

Who was it, way back when, who argued that it was okay in a libertarian world for businesses to not service Blacks? The expectation was that if they discriminated, that was their choice, and if the market drove them out of business, that was one acceptable result.

The other acceptable result being that the business continued to discriminate *without* going out of business.

I don't see how this does not apply here. Libertarians arguing that private businesses have to be forced to treat everyone equally? Why isn't that coerced behavior in itself?

'Capitalism is violence!'

Actually, as a, sort of, socialist I agree with that. But it's an unusual perspective coming from a libertarian, big 'L' or small.

Personally I don't see what the big deal with swearing is, but I understand I have a very different cultural perspective on that.

.

Something I just realised is we're actually doing a lot of gabbing around something that isn't even sourced in the thread, so I looked it up.

Youtube clarifies it has not changed its policy after vlogger Philip De Franco accuses website of 'censorship'

So basically, nothing has changed. They're just informing people about enforcement of existing policies rather than just pulling ads and not telling people.

One of my favourite little nuggets:

On Wednesday, De Franco, a vlogger with 4.5million subscribers, posted a video titled ‘YouTube Is Shutting Down My Channel and I’m Not Sure What To Do’, which has now been viewed more than 3.6 million times. He told viewers several of his videos had been demonetised meaning Youtube had determined they were not “advertiser friendly” so he could not earn money from the advertising revenue. This video in question does have advertising in.

Youtube's censorship is so onerous that they are even paying him to accuse them of censorship.

*Insert the tears of joy emoji here*

Maq wrote:

Personally I don't see what the big deal with swearing is, but I understand I have a very different cultural perspective on that.

I've got no problem with swearing, but I've also got no problem with advertisers not wanting to fund people who they feel compromise their brand.

*edit*

Another source.

This is very good and gets into the nitty gritty.

Over the last five years, this algorithm has regularly removed videos from the pool of advertised-upon content. The algorithm’s parameters were broadened in 2015 specifically to catch more content relating to terrorism.

However, it was very difficult to know that one of your videos had been de-monetized. If you did happen to notice while very granularly looking at your analytics for a single video, you could ask YouTube what happened, but there wasn’t anything you could do about it.

Recently, that policy changed. YouTube now:

1 Lets you know when a video has been de-monetized.
2 Shows a notice next to all de-monetized videos.
3 Allows you to request a manual review of a de-monetized video.
4 Re-monetizes videos that the review finds to be not in violation of YouTube’s ad-friendly policy.

But it turns out that, as it was very difficult to know that a video was de-monetized before, many creators were shocked to find that this had been happening at all. Recently, five years worth of de-monetized video notifications flooded into creators’ inboxes. When they received these notifications, creators understandably assumed that this had happened recently, not months or even years ago.

According to a YouTube representative, overall, less than 1% of partner videos have been de-monetized, and the appeal process is currently taking around 24 hours with a high rate of re-monetization.

It's truly the Benghazi of internet outrages.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
Maq wrote:

Personally I don't see what the big deal with swearing is, but I understand I have a very different cultural perspective on that.

I've got no problem with swearing, but I've also got no problem with advertisers not wanting to fund people who they feel compromise their brand.

Sure. Their house their rules. I just find it strange they decided that compromises their brand.

I'm not saying that Youtube should be forced to do anything.

What I am saying is that suppressing speech is absolutely what this is about. Anyone claiming otherwise is not being honest, either with themselves or with us.

YouTube could just do labeling and everything would be fine. ("This channel has controversial content.")

Instead, they're telling these people that they can't express opinions YouTube doesn't like and get paid for it anymore.

This IS what is happening. This is about making opinions go away. And while I disagree vehemently with most of these people, it distresses me very much when corporations start trying to silence dissent. This is scary stuff.

You have no free speech on youtube.

Malor wrote:

I'm not saying that Youtube should be forced to do anything.

What I am saying is that suppressing speech is absolutely what this is about. Anyone claiming otherwise is not being honest, either with themselves or with us.

YouTube could just do labeling and everything would be fine. ("This channel has controversial content.")

Instead, they're telling these people that they can't express opinions YouTube doesn't like and get paid for it anymore.

This IS what is happening. This is about making opinions go away. And while I disagree vehemently with most of these people, it distresses me very much when corporations start trying to silence dissent. This is scary stuff.

They can still make the same type of videos all they want they just don't get paid for those videos. The videos will still be up for all to see. I don't see how that is suppressing speech.

karmajay wrote:
Malor wrote:

I'm not saying that Youtube should be forced to do anything.

What I am saying is that suppressing speech is absolutely what this is about. Anyone claiming otherwise is not being honest, either with themselves or with us.

YouTube could just do labeling and everything would be fine. ("This channel has controversial content.")

Instead, they're telling these people that they can't express opinions YouTube doesn't like and get paid for it anymore.

This IS what is happening. This is about making opinions go away. And while I disagree vehemently with most of these people, it distresses me very much when corporations start trying to silence dissent. This is scary stuff.

They can still make the same type of videos all they want they just don't get paid for those videos. The videos will still be up for all to see. I don't see how that is suppressing speech.

Because Malor said it was three times. Weren't you listening? That's how facts work on the internet. /s

Malor wrote:

This IS what is happening. This is about making opinions go away. And while I disagree vehemently with most of these people, it distresses me very much when corporations start trying to silence dissent. This is scary stuff.

Okay, so what's your solution? Yeah, fine, as a private corporation, they can do what they want, you don't like it, I get that.

So what's the free market solution? This is a *great* issue to show us how libertarianism addresses real-world issues.

YouTube isn't obligated to pay everyone for "free speech." They're a private corporation, not the U.S. government.

Maybe that family-friendly company advertising their services doesn't want their ads associated with videos where every other word is four letters and starts with "f" and ends with "k". Don't they have "free speech" too?

I got this email from a Youtube channel I support on Patreon.

The channel is Healthcare Triage, a channel devoted to talking about medical issues. The fact their videos were flagged with the word drug just baffles me - not because it isn't true but because that is exactly what they are devoted to talking about (well all medical issues for which I think we all would agree "drug"s enter into) It feels like the Youtube system could really use some tweaks if they flag a medical show for talking about drugs.

Hello Patrons,

In light of all the recent discussion about demonetization on YouTube, we wanted to send out a quick thank you for your continued support here on Patreon. While our specific situation has now been mostly resolved (we had 27 videos demonetized due to tagging with the word “drug”), it’s clear now more than ever that we can’t be reliant on ad revenue to keep this show going. Some of the stuff we make is, well, often not what Pepsi or Kraft would want their name associated with. And we’re ok with that. Your support here on Patreon makes up over 80% of the income for the channel, for which we couldn’t be more thankful. So advertisers be damned, we’re going to keep making content that pushes the envelope and challenges popular opinion. And thank you thank you thank you for helping us make this channel possible. We look forward to many more controversial videos in the future.

This is a *great* issue to show us how libertarianism addresses real-world issues.

You'd be better off asking Aetius for that. I've said on multiple occasions that libertarianism doesn't deal well with monopolies, and that's what YouTube effectively is.

If they didn't want to suppress speech, what they would have done was to add a category filter, and then allow advertisers to individually choose whether or not to advertise on controversial videos.

But YouTube doesn't want that. They want the controversial sh*t to *go away*. They probably figure they can't get away with telling people outright that they're not allowed to post videos, both in a community and in a legal sense, but they can achieve the same end at one remove, by cutting off their air supply.

And then you get at least a few people cheering, because people they don't like are being silenced, but, you know, without actually being silenced, so yayyy, this is great.

It's not great.

Are any of the advertisers upset about this move?

Rezzy wrote:

Are any of the advertisers upset about this move?

Why would they be? Supposedly they're the ones that requested this.

Edwin wrote:

Why would they be? Supposedly they're the ones that requested this.

I'm just wondering if any of the people paying money to have their content presented to an audience on Youtube are upset by their money being used by Youtube discriminantly.
And Google is, obviously, not a lot of help in digging up this information. I've looked. So I'm seriously asking... are any of the advertisers also affected by this policy enforcement, and as persons with the most power of speech (money), upset about their speech now being walled off into "advertiser friendly" zones?

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?

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.

Nope. - Certis

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*

Not going down this road. - Certis