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

Oodgay Ideayay

New CoC? Who are you trying to silence Certis!? Free speech is important!

Dr.Ghastly wrote:

New CoC? Who are you trying to silence Certis!? Free speech is important!

We're no longer going to let Republicans or people who question me monetize their posts.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

fiay e'reway ominatingnay ulesray otay ebay ddeday ota hetay oCCay, Iay ouldway ikelay otay roposepay hattay nyoneay oundfay uiltygay foay iolatingvay hetay oCCay ashay llay foay heirtay ostspay onvertedcay otay igpay Atinlay.

... well crap. Now I can't just NOT post this. That would stifle my free speech.

Certis wrote:
Dr.Ghastly wrote:

New CoC? Who are you trying to silence Certis!? Free speech is important!

We're no longer going to let Republicans or people who question me monetize their posts.

That's a relief. I was afraid devil's advocacy was going strictly pro bono.

Certis wrote:

Farscry: 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.

I will spend some time pondering that. I wish it were sufficient to just say "make your point without belittling others or making indirect insults; if you do by mistake (we're all human), then own it and make it right."

bekkilyn wrote:

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.

In addition, people pay their ISPs. So they are the customer. To an extent if a customer pays for a service it should remain unimpeded. If people were paying YouTube for hosting their videos and YouTube was compromising their ability to earn from them, or repressing undesirable speech, that would be a different issue. But a YouTube user isn't youtube's customer, they are the product. The advertiser is the customer.

There's no consumer rights for the eggs you buy at the supermarket, nor is there for the youtuber that YouTube sells to advertisers.

Edit: ...I'm late to the party lol.