Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
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.
"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.
Really?
Youtube has 1.3 billion users. The handful of drama video posters and their fans aren't even a rounding error. And they can still do "what brought them there in the first place". They just won't get any advertisers.
http://fortunelords.com/27-min...
http://socialblade.com/youtube...
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
"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.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
As long as your preferred group-think isn't threatened you're cool with it. Have to give you credit for honesty I guess.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
yes, it is. and to help you, friend, and clarify one of the points you were on the fence of making:
the force that oppose the SJWs make merchandise.
just remember, it's not always 100% of the time "have v have-not"
quite often, it really boils down to "make v make-not"
#makersftw
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
So those with something "truly intelligent to say" do not deserve to be paid for their time?
There's nothing wrong with "monetizing" your work - original creative works should be fairly compensated for, not many people would object to that. Advertising is but one way to do that. Granted, advertising isn't their only source of revenue, but it is a major one.
Selling advertising is far from the best way to get paid for stuff like this, but it works. Until we come up with something better, it is, at least to me, an acceptable arrangement.
"Government is like fire; a handy servant, but a dangerous master." -- George Washington
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.
I come here for the love
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.
Eat the rich.
They're demonetizing videos which are "unfriendly" and still running ads on them anyway. This is a filthy corporate cash grab, plain and simple. Proof