Creators Call Out YouTube For Demonetizing Videos (dailydot.com)

Striek writes: "On Wednesday, several YouTube creators posted videos that voiced concerns over the platform's process of demonetizing videos for not being friendly to advertisers," reports Daily Dot. Many YouTube creators have similar concerns that no, this isn't censorship in the strictest sense, but that YouTube owes its users a better commitment to free speech than most private companies due to its dominant marketplace position. Its criteria for videos being "advertiser-friendly" is also incredibly vague or restrictive, or both. The Daily Dot reports: "Content that is considered inappropriate for advertising includes: Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor; Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism; Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language; Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items; Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown." You read that right -- any YouTube video covering any war or natural disaster is considered inappropriate for advertising, which essentially includes all news and current events shows. This might not seem like a big deal to many people, but it would be, if you made your living creating YouTube videos. So while technically not censorship, many people are arguing YouTube has gone a few steps too far with this, and are likewise worried that this will be too selectively enforced. justthinkit adds: On August 31, 2016, YouTube demonetized videos for reasons that appear to punish those who attack "Social Justice Warriors" and the mainstream media. Philip DeFranco has spoken out about it and hinted he may have to move to other video platforms. Is this an issue most should care about or is it merely a first world problem? The reason this is a story is because YouTube has "recently improved the notification and appeal process to ensure better communication." What this means is YouTube has been making users more aware of the issue with language or content, and the chance to appeal a demonetized video. What has upset many creators is the fact that the company has been demonetizing videos without telling the creators. YouTube has only recently started telling partners what is going on. In addition, there has been a discrepancy as to which channels/networks have been demonetized. For example, while one YouTube creator may be reporting on a current event that isn't "advertiser-friendly" and has been denied monetization as a result, another YouTube creator via a large network like CNN may be covering the same current event but be allowed monetization.

Comments

It's about time...

[beheaderaswp]

YouTube knows what content it's sponsors appreciate and what they object to.

So this is a good thing. You've got all the freedom of speech you want... but being paid for what you say is not guaranteed. They are not pulling the videos- just making sure sponsors are happy.

This is the way it should be. The market at work.

Re:It's about time...

[MBGMorden]

Actually if you would watch any of the video complaints like those by Phil Defranco, he went out of his way to assure people of the opposite. He specifically mentions that Youtube is a private company and that it's within their legal right to do this. HOWEVER, as users of the platform we are also free to voice our disapproval.

Personally, nearly half of the Youtube channels that I view regularly would be considered "non-advertiser" friendly - and most of them pull in very good viewership #'s. If Youtube pushes them off the platform, they'll push me off the platform too. Now naturally they don't care about *ME* as a single viewer, but given how popular most of these guys are as a group their viewers represent a very large number of people.

Too many people seem to be of the opinion "Well, it's not a legal violation of the 1st amendment, so you lot just need to shut up about the issue and accept whatever a private company does without question.".

I can personally say that until something gives I've personally already pulled my Youtube Red subscription.

Another YouTube tempest in a pisspot...

[__aaclcg7560]

All the pissing, moaning and groaning by a few YouTube content creators makes for nice click bait video to drive their revenue streams for their videos. Wait a few months... They will find something else to piss, moan and groan about for another click bait video. It's not censorship, it's opportunism.

SJW

[nwaack]

"YouTube demonetized videos for reasons that appear to punish those who attack 'Social Justice Warriors.'" This bothers me because I have found most SJW types to be arrogant, offensive jackasses and I think the majority of the public would agree with me. If YouTube is supporting SJW over those who are critical of them then that is just one more example of political correctness run amok.

Re:SJW

[YukariHirai]

This bothers me because I have found most SJW types to be arrogant, offensive jackasses

Some are, but in my experiences the people who complain about "SJW"s tend to be worse.

and I think the majority of the public would agree with me.

You can think that. I suspect the reality is closer to a small amount really agreeing, a small amount really disagreeing, and the majority not much caring one way or the other.

Isn't that all the videos that are worth watching?

[Optic7]

Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor; Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism; Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language; Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items; Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown."

Isn't that just about all that is worth watching on Youtube? What's going to be left if these creators move away or stop creating new stuff? Cat videos? Unboxing videos?
Sounds to me like another case of a corporation killing the goose that lays golden eggs.

An error in the write up.

[LWATCDR]

"this isn't censorship in the strictest sense"
This isn't censorship in any sense. You can still post to youtube for free but YouTube will not run ads on it for you or pay you for it.
It is still free as in beer, free as in freedom of speech so I do not see the problem.

Re:An error in the write up.

[Striek]

Respectfully, I disagree. (That was my writeup)

If I had been creating YouTube videos for years covering a vast array of topics, and had been earning my living doing that, and suddenly am told I can no longer cover subject X or Y if I am to be paid, I have been censored. Again, not in the strictest sense where my content is deleted or altered, but the spirit is the same. I am being told what I am allowed to say and what I am not allowed to say, and again, if I earn my living doing this, my hands are rather tied.

I suppose it depends on your definition of censorship (it's a loaded word). But either way, I think what YouTube is doing here is wrong.

Re:An error in the write up.

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had been creating YouTube videos for years covering a vast array of topics, and had been earning my living doing that, and suddenly am told I can no longer cover subject X or Y if I am to be paid, I have been censored.

Oh boo hoo! It's not like they ban you if you dare to touch those subjects.
If those topics are so important to you, you can make a few separate vids.
You won't get money for those, but you will still get ads and money for the others.

Re:An error in the write up.

[thegarbz]

I am being told what I am allowed to say and what I am not allowed to say, and again, if I earn my living doing this, my hands are rather tied.

If you make a living by relying on another person's service then you're bound by the agreement of that service. That's not censorship, that's playing by the rules of the service you choose.

It's not censorship in the strictest, moral or even spiritual sense to complain about not being paid to post something. That's just straight up business supply chain management.

Re:Obligatory

[Tailhook]

As long as your preferred group-think isn't threatened you're cool with it. Have to give you credit for honesty I guess.

Re:The cycle continues

[Anonymous Coward]

Small percentage? The most lucrative personalities on Youtube are Markiplier and his friends that shriek at videogames for a living, and they fall deeply into the "profanity and vulgar language" category. So either they aren't going to enforce that rule, are going to enforce it unfairly, or they're going to be ousting some of their largest content creators.

Re:Yes, it IS censorship...

[justthinkit]

It is interesting to read through some 50 comments so far and see how the vast majority appear to be quite happy with this move, with most saying it is not censorship because you can still upload, just not get paid.

That is like "You can still protest, only you have to do it way over there where it doesn't disrupt business and no one will ever see you protest."

It is routine in this day and age to control the 99% with monetary means. For example, food. Only the richest can afford to buy non-GMO, certified organic food. The rest suffer in inverse relation to their bank account size.

Same with employment. Have an opinion, lose your job. Or don't get that choice job in the first place. Control through finance.

Anyway, just fascinating how so few on /. get this.

Re:ha ha ha

[KozmoStevnNaut]

I wish the world could be rid of game streamers, who upload hours and hours of mind-numbingly boring gameplay with their ugly mugs superimposed in the corners. If everyone of those sad fuckers got ruined because of demonetization, I couldn't be happier.