Slashdot Mirror


YouTube Warns of 'Consequences' For Creators Who Misbehave (cnbc.com)

YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki has announced that creators whose actions impact negatively on its community will face "consequences." From a report: Wojcicki said the video-sharing platform is developing new policies that "would lead to consequences" if a content creator "does something egregious" that reflects unfavorably on other YouTube creators. YouTube's CEO made the comments in a blog post that detailed a list of the Google-owned firm's priorities for creators in 2018. In January, one of the service's most popular content creators, Logan Paul, published a video that showed the dead body of a man hanging from a tree. Wojcicki did not refer to the Logan Paul incident directly, but said that the misbehavior of some creators could put the broader YouTube community in a negative light. "While these instances are rare, they can damage the reputation and revenue of your fellow creators, so we want to make sure we have policies in place that allow us to respond appropriately," she said.

174 comments

  1. Youtube by Jfetjunky · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Behaving more and more like the TV networks we hate every day...

  2. Funny that you invoke a man hanging from a tree... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because this sounds an awful lot like that other thing that involves people hanging from trees.

  3. Needed on Slashdot by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    We need some consequences for people on Slashdot who misbehave. This place is full of troll.s

    1. Re:Needed on Slashdot by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      We need some consequences for people on Slashdot who misbehave.

      Yes, Slashdotters who misbehave should be spanked by Brandi Love dressed as a school marm.

      I've been bad, so I'll go first.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Needed on Slashdot by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I would try to Google who Brandi Love is, but I am at work.

    3. Re:Needed on Slashdot by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      I would try to Google who Brandi Love is, but I am at work.

      She's an award-winning actress. Let's just leave it at that.

      And it's best that you don't Google her, because then you'd not only be at work, but you'd be hard at work.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Needed on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you worked for me and I caught you with one tab of a Brandi Love search and another tab of Slashdot, I'd fire you.
      1) You don't get paid to read Slashdot.
      2) If you can't tell what Ms. Love does for a living just by her name, you aren't smart enough to work for me.

    5. Re:Needed on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make it Rebecca Love and I'll get in line.

    6. Re:Needed on Slashdot by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      At least you're finally making it to the step of admitting that your trolling in favor of illegal wiretaps and literal traitors to our democracy like the Clintons is bad. I suppose that's progress.

      Wow, dude. I'm trying to think about Brandi Love over here and you're trying to cock-block me. What's wrong with you?

      I know you expected more out of "the memo", but don't take it out on me.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re: Needed on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't even know what that is but I want it's!!

    8. Re:Needed on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No big deal! Nothing to see here! Nothingburger!"
      --Official Democrat Talking Point #2 today

      It's like you can't help yourself from sticking your tiny partisan dick into every conversation you have every single day of your entire life. And then you wonder how you lost every single branch of government. It's because most of the country hates you. Luckily for you, you've imported enough terrorists and illegal Mexicans and given them drivers licenses, which is keeping you relevant in a few states.

  4. Here, Chickie, Chickie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Must have fun at the office.

  5. Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Lately every decision involving YouTube has been a turn for the worse. They've hid 'unwanted' content, limited or disabled what can be monetized, and now have raised requirements to be able to monetize videos. I'm not going to pretend that there's an alternative currently that can truly compete, but these decisions are definitely making people look elsewhere for one.

    1. Re:Too late by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Lately every decision involving YouTube has been a turn for the worse. They've hid 'unwanted' content, limited or disabled what can be monetized, and now have raised requirements to be able to monetize videos. I'm not going to pretend that there's an alternative currently that can truly compete, but these decisions are definitely making people look elsewhere for one.

      Don't forget about fracturing content. I believe there's already content that is exclusive to YouTube Red.

    2. Re:Too late by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't Vimeo be a viable alternative?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Embrace and extend, my friend. It's the monopolist's way whether it's Google or Microsoft. The only answer is to never allow them to achieve monopoly status.

    4. Re:Too late by slazzy · · Score: 1

      The road to hell is paved with good intentions, though I'm not sure YouTube is even acting with good intentions. The timing is right for a smaller video platform to take over.

      --
      Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    5. Re:Too late by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Lately every decision involving YouTube has been a turn for the worse.

      Yes, because delisting a 'tard that shows a dead body on his channel was a terrible thing, cuz censorship bad!

    6. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hiding of topics deemed "controversial" and AI screwing with the option to monetize videos occurred before elsagate and Logan Paul. The only thing that could be attributed to those two is the alterations to the requirements to monetize your videos but channels like that already reach the requirements anyway. All they've done is limit new or low subscriber count content creators.

    7. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not really. The focus is on artists and hipsters there, and the site isn't organized for general video sharing. Although still in its infancy, D Tube is a distributed, monetized, and free speech alternative to YouTube.

    8. Re:Too late by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      Not good intentions.

      Google hoped demonetization would "censor" the views they want to censor, but the best content producers have found other ways to monetize while still distributing on youtube.

      So now they have constructed a policy that allows them to "innocently" remove the producers.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    9. Re: Too late by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Yes. You have correctly perceived that censorship is a grave social evil, even when the censored content is unsavory and inane.

    10. Re:Too late by Reziac · · Score: 1

      There's PewTube, but it's new and still pretty small. But the founder has said flat out, no censorship.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  6. Misbehave... by thegreatbob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder when they'll extend their definition of "to misbehave" to include people who are critical of their services/policies...

    --
    There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    1. Re:Misbehave... by thunderclees · · Score: 2

      Doesn't this already happen?
      Also, politics, it seems as if YouTube see one side as misbehavior more than the other.

    2. Re:Misbehave... by mysidia · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wonder when they'll extend their definition of "to misbehave" to include people who are critical of their services/policies...

      It'll probably just be the "Reported for Community Standards violations", except instead of 1 Strike you lose Partner status and 3 Strikes you're banned from Google services with all your video's taken down ----- one strike and you're banned, and as a side penalty you can no longer use Google Search, and you'll lose access to your Gmail account, Google Drive account, etc, at the same time.

    3. Re:Misbehave... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Also, politics, it seems as if YouTube see one side as misbehavior more than the other.

      A video that became popular from the Greek right-wing/nationalist party Golden Dawn (elected in parliament ranking third in votes) was removed by YouTube as "hate-speech"...

      The video was a photography of an Athens center square in the 50's and a love song from that era with the lyrics (roughly translated by me) "I wish you could come back again, even for just a night"...

      With no text (other than "Golden Dawn") and none copyrights violations, neither for the photograph nor for the song... the solution for YouTube was to characterize it... "hate-speech" (a photography of an Athens center square in the 50's and a love song from that era...)!

    4. Re:Misbehave... by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

      It seems to, but it doesn't seem to be formally considered an offense. Lots of complaints out there about demonetization and whatnot... i'm not a content creator, so I don't have especially great insight there.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    5. Re:Misbehave... by citizenr · · Score: 1

      Your already get demonetized for talking about demonetization.

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    6. Re:Misbehave... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may have. When the demonetize a video or give a channel a strike, they don't tell the creators why. Some of the channels are getting community strikes for content posted several years ago.

    7. Re:Misbehave... by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      I wonder when they'll extend their definition of "to misbehave" to include people who are critical of their services/policies...

      "I wonder..." is what you get when there are no real problems left to worry about.

    8. Re:Misbehave... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Greece we characterize Golden Dawn as **extreme** right wing. Not just right wind. Members of it recently have been convicted for crimes against non-greeks and other similar actions.

    9. Re: Misbehave... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you seriously believe that an old photo and some classic music is a secret code to spread the message of hating people based on skin color, that makes you the deranged nutjob.

      Politifact has rated this statement as TRUE.

  7. Elsa-gate by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1, Interesting

    And still no real response to Elsa-gate.

    --
    "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    1. Re:Elsa-gate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1 uninformative. If you wish to discuss something, start with describing what it is.

    2. Re:Elsa-gate by thegreatbob · · Score: 2

      Around here, it seems that -gate is like a flag for indicating that one does not need to care very much about some controversy unrelated to their daily lives... for those too lazy to search for it (as I had to; something-gate is literally meaningless without context or "you had to be there!"), it was the controversy involving people gaming the Youtube Kids content selection algorithms to get off-color and outright offensive content selected.

      --
      There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    3. Re:Elsa-gate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thing is, there are channels on YouTube that feature videos that technically meet the legal definition of "child pornography".

      Given the draconian punishment for "sex crimes", and the definition of pedaphilia, reporting those chanels to YouTube is, legally speaking, an extremely risky proposition, because you have to admit to committing a felony, in making the report.

  8. For example by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Perhaps they'll raise the threshold for monetizing channels again (until morale improves).

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  9. Morons At Youtube. by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They've demonetized many of the channels I like to watch...such a hunting, camping, home repair, etc.

    It's stupid and random. If they have an algorithm doing this the programmer is a moron. If people are doing it, they are morons. if it's a mix, then it's the Perfect Storm of Morons.

    Won't belong before the only channels unaffected by their stupidity are the Cute Cat channels and that won't last after the Animal Rights assholes get done with them.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Morons At Youtube. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The programmer is definitely not a moron, he just does what he is paid to do.

    2. Re:Morons At Youtube. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's 'people' that are causing problems for some channels I subscribe to. Almost without fail, everytime they put up a new video some twat will immediately report it.
      This has a major impact on income since Youtube instantly removes monetisation until the video is reviewed. But by the time someone at Youtube gets off their hairy ass, finds nothing wrong and reinstates the monetisation it's far too late, the viewer numbers have already gone past their peak.

      Hrm, it's almost as if Youtube are engineering ways to not pay out to content creators.

    3. Re:Morons At Youtube. by jetkust · · Score: 2

      The algorithm is to demonetize every video and then hand pick which videos to run ads on.

    4. Re:Morons At Youtube. by ruddk · · Score: 1

      As I briefly played with the monetization, I can say that there's a some of intersting things going on. For example, footage of driving down a road with a brief voice over were demonetized right after upload and then for some reason it was monetized a day later. (one could argue that it was to boring to be monitized in the first place :D)
      Others would get the demonetized and then changing keywords or descriptions would trigger a new automatic re-evaluation.

      I just played with it for fun, had it been my job it would have been frustrating having to deal with.

    5. Re:Morons At Youtube. by JohnStock · · Score: 2

      They have basically killed millions of monetized small content creators, including me due to thier new thresholds.

    6. Re:Morons At Youtube. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol flyover state people and their hobbies. "hunting" "camping" lol "home repair" get a job and move to a city asshole

    7. Re:Morons At Youtube. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      They've demonetized many of the channels I like to watch...such a hunting, camping, home repair, etc.

      Did you hop on over and donate to their patreon instead?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re:Morons At Youtube. by 2ms · · Score: 2

      Check out Steemit and DTube. Youtube will have some competition soon.

    9. Re:Morons At Youtube. by 2ms · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would say it's the last year or two where companies have really decided to impose snowflake protection censorship.

    10. Re:Morons At Youtube. by arth1 · · Score: 1

      The programmer is definitely not a moron, he just does what he is paid to do.

      Isn't that the definition of a moron? A smart person will question what he does when it does not make sense. That's why a smart person on average gets paid more.

    11. Re:Morons At Youtube. by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They've demonetized many of the channels I like to watch...such a hunting, camping, home repair, etc.

      It's stupid and random. If they have an algorithm doing this the programmer is a moron. If people are doing it, they are morons. if it's a mix, then it's the Perfect Storm of Morons.

      Won't belong before the only channels unaffected by their stupidity are the Cute Cat channels and that won't last after the Animal Rights assholes get done with them.

      You have to realize that to "monetize" a video, there has to be an ad for it. And maybe just over a year ago, that wasn't a problem - there were lots of advertisers.

      The big problem is YouTube's advertisers are running thin. When thanks to the opinions of a certain president, certain views started getting rather high visibility, and the press surrounding those videos suddenly caused a lot of advertisers to wake up and take notice - their ads were playing on those videos.

      You have to realize an advertiser is a thin skinned human with a bankroll, and the only way to get them to release that bankroll is to stay on the straight and narrow. So a LOT of big name advertisers pulled their ad contracts from YouTube the first time it happened. It happened again a month later, and even more advertisers pulled out.

      So basically of what's left, YouTube has to ensure that they don't get up and leave as well. So producing a video that harms the YouTube community may be demonetized because it has the potential of losing advertisers.

      And that's what matters. If you want money, you need ads. Advertisers are thin skinned and if you're not on the straight and narrow on what values they promote, they will refuse to put an ad on your video and thus, your video does not get monetized because there's no one to pay for it.

      Unfortunately, a lot of outdoorsy type videos fall under this - guns are especially hard thanks to all the mass shootings, so advertisers really hate associating their product with something that could cause another Las Vegas.

      The gravy train has basically come to a halt. At least YouTube still keeps the video up - and until someone wants to advertise on those kinds of videos, they can't be monetized.

      And no, the alternatives will have to face exactly the same problem - Steem and DTube, short of charging people money to view the videos, will have to rely on the same kinds of advertisers that YouTube goes after. Well, they could go after the crapware advertisers, you know, the ones that will advertise on any site regardless of content, mostly because the ads are deceptive, illegal, and will be the kind that install 10 kinds of malware on your computer. They're the ones you find on torrent sites and other questionable content sites.

    12. Re: Morons At Youtube. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flyover states produce the food youngest, dickhead. Believe it or not, supermarket shelves are not trees, and cans and jars don't grow there.

    13. Re:Morons At Youtube. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that the definition of a moron?

      No, it isn't.

      A smart person will question what he does when it does not make sense. That's why a smart person on average gets paid more.

      You are living in your own imagined reality. Snap out of it, and stop redefining words to mean what you want them to mean at this particular moment.

    14. Re:Morons At Youtube. by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 5, Funny

      get a job and move to a city asshole

      Are you one of the city assholes they should move to?

    15. Re:Morons At Youtube. by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry but horseshit, Google is trying to push their political narrative. Look at Steven Crowder who has had NO TROUBLE finding tons of advertisers for his channel...did you see what ads google was running before he was demonitized? Shit like gay cruises...on a conservative Christians channel!

      Google knows exactly how to make sure that advertisers will scream and they use that knowledge to demonitize. Its like running ads for pork sausage on a Muslim's channel, sure its a legit ad but does anybody think its a good match for the product? But seriously what do you expect when their former CEO was actively spending millions to put Hillary in the white house and rig search results to make Hillary look good is it any surprise they are trying to silence those that do not fit the narrative?

      Steven Crowder met with Google and talks all about it on the recent Joe Rogan podcast, if anybody wants to learn more about how one sided Google is I'd urge them to watch the podcast.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    16. Re:Morons At Youtube. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love that incompetent narcissist dickheads make fun of people who have lots of important life skills they lack.

    17. Re: Morons At Youtube. by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Is it too late to tell you to fuck off and die in car fire, pinned, and squealing like the fucking pig you are?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    18. Re:Morons At Youtube. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they can do what? Live in lousy overpriced tenement cages?

    19. Re:Morons At Youtube. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Channels have to get to a certain size/credibility before anyone will. It's the only viable model though - I don't think any of the channels I watch are still monetized (and I only watch one political guy). No, wait, there's one magician who's still monetized, out of 20 or so channels I subscribe to. WTF youtube?

      But, of course, no matter how egregious PewDiePie becomes, they'll keep showing ads on his channel.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    20. Re:Morons At Youtube. by lgw · · Score: 1

      The worst part of all of that is that Google is the worlds leading expert at demographic-based advertising. No one in the world knows better which ads would sell well on a Christian channel vs a prepper channel vs a movie review channel vs funny cat videos. But actually making a viable business out of YouTube is unimportant compared to their actual goal. Pisses me off to no end as I own a bit of GOOG stock indirectly. Evil and unprofitable is no way for a corporation to go through life.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    21. Re:Morons At Youtube. by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      Spot on.

      This is why I am SO looking forward to discovery in the Damore case. The stuff in Damore's court filings is probably just the beginning of the shenanigans going on inside Google. What are advertizers going to say when it becomes undeniable that Google doesn't target their customers ads to the target market? What happens if Black and Female conservatives are found to have been discriminated against?

      Don't get me wrong, EVERYONE discriminates. It's physically impossible to go through life without discriminating in some form or another, which is why anti-discrimination laws are BS. They can NEVER be equally applied. In a free society, the only organisation where discrimination should not be allowed is government, since all must be equal under the law in order for society to function. Other than that, people have the right to associate with whoever they want. HOWEVER, I feel that you should have to be OPEN about your discrimination. Discriminating while saying you don't, as Google does, is clearly a form of fraud. Just like telling someone that the car you are selling was well maintained when you know it hasn't been.

      Catholic school only wants to hire Catholic teachers? Knock yourself out.
      Gay bar only wants to hire LGBT? Go ahead.
      Mexican restaurant only wants to hire Hispanics who speak Spanish? Fine by me.
      Asian owned motel only wants Asian housekeeping? Why not.
      Black landlord only wanting to rent to fellow blacks? No skin off my back.

      Just make sure you say that is what you are looking for so people who don't meet those criteria don't waste their time. If you don't, that's fraud in my book. You associate with who you want to and I'll associate with who I want to. Lets be honest about reality instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

    22. Re:Morons At Youtube. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Strange, all the most popular YouTube channels are edgy tween bullshit, Luke Pew Die Pie and Logan Paul.

      They don't seem to have done much about those really disturbing Elsagate videos either.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re:Morons At Youtube. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's 'people' that are causing problems for some channels I subscribe to. Almost without fail, everytime they put up a new video some twat will immediately report it.

      Good. That means I can see said video without ads, right?
      Screw monetization.

    24. Re:Morons At Youtube. by hairyfeet · · Score: 0

      Actually in GOOG's case it would be trivially easy not to discriminate, which is what makes this obviously insidious. It is trivially easy to do targeted marketing when it comes to vids when you have the amount of data GOOG has, if a person is watching video game reviews, hardware reviews, and movie reviews, guess what ads should be on those videos? Ads for video games, hardware and fricking movies DUH!

      Instead what we are seeing is GOOG purposely fuck advertisers to push their narrative, like putting gay cruises on Crowder or putting ads for transgender support groups on Ben Shapiro. They are obviously doing this on purpose (because we are NOT seeing pork ads on Muslim vids, right wing ads on pro SJW vids, etc) so they can claim that "advertisers complained so we are doing this for business" well no fucking shit if you put an ad for gay sex toys on a Christian's channel do you think they are gonna get more customers? Think their feedback is gonna be positive?

      And I agree if they want to be biased as fuck? Then come out and admit it and take the stock hit but like most left wingers they won't own up and tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may, instead just as we saw in their Hillary search rigging (and that shit was blatant as hell, you could type "hillary email" during the big email scandal and while Bing and Duck Duck would come back with scandal Google was coming back with shit like "Hillary sent an email to Obama" or "how to email Hillary") they would rather lie and pretend that they aren't rigging the game when in reality its as rigged as a game of three card monty. This is why I hope Damore totally wrecks their shit and their stock gets royally hosed because its time everyone knows that GOOG doesn't think you are smart enough to hear a differing opinion.

      But if anybody doesn't think GOOG is rigging this against the right? Just look at Crowder who is about as offensive as Jerry Seinfeld and who is getting constantly demonitized when the person GOOG sent to show them what is acceptable showed them vids where it was just a constant n*gger this and n*gger that and when Crowder asked this person if they had EVER had been demonitized despite their vids being nothing more than a stream of racist and foul language? Nope never. Same goes for Shapiro whom I don't think has ever even cursed in his vids who gets hit with demonitization all the time meanwhile the pro jihad vids or the death to Israel vids? Nope perfectly fine.

      BTW slashdot? Eat a bag of dicks you left wing racist fucks, because you have the filter go off for n*gger but have no problem with cracker, white devil, or chink? Go fuck yourselves you worthless racist pieces of shit.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    25. Re:Morons At Youtube. by hey! · · Score: 1

      It's stupid and random. If they have an algorithm doing this the programmer is a moron

      All he has to do is write his algorithm so that it has no false positives. Any idiot can see that would solve the problem.

      If people are doing it, they are morons.

      Not necessarily. It's the people who hired them that are morons. You should hire people who don't make mistakes.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    26. Re:Morons At Youtube. by Chas · · Score: 1

      Also notice that the Daily Wire had their SOTU stream cut off. They were using the C-Span video stream of the event.

      But, because The Young Turks. a YouTube Affiliate, was ALSO using it...REASONS.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    27. Re: Morons At Youtube. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've exercised my right to demonitize YouTube by blocking their ads.

    28. Re:Morons At Youtube. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The programmer is definitely not a moron, he just does what he is paid to do.

      Isn't that the definition of a moron? A smart person will question what he does when it does not make sense. That's why a smart person on average gets paid more.

      Nope, thats the definition of a fired person.

    29. Re:Morons At Youtube. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to mention this. There are consequences for creators who don't misbehave. It doesn't mean much that there might be consequences for creators who do given that.

    30. Re:Morons At Youtube. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      If it was really about what advertisers want, it would be up to ADVERTISERS to decide which channels they want their ads to appear on. (Most companies use ad agencies anyway, they don't do their own ad placement.) So instead of hiring 10,000 censors, YT could have hired 100 ad agency representatives, and probably would have sold a lot more advertising as a good rep would point the agency at likely prospects (not that hard to sort out, even just based on channel keywords). Then let what creators get paid reflect their desirability to advertisers as determined BY those advertisers, not by YT (and you can bet advertisers notice which channels get enough views to matter). Might get a better class of ads, too, instead of shitty irrelevant ads that generate a new class of ad blockers.

      But, nope -- exactly as you said. It's purely about politics and agenda, fuck the advertisers and double-fuck the content creators.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  10. WTF does that mean? by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

    "that reflects unfavorably on other YouTube creators." Is that flame wars or something?

  11. Google watches you by Kohath · · Score: 1

    Google judges you.

    1. Re: Google watches you by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Stop Google now, before it's too late.

  12. First mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first mistake was starting the whole YouTube Partner program in the first place.

    There was none of this concern back when YouTube was just a hobby.
    Nowadays, you either make YouTube your job or you don't bother.

  13. Wojcicki is deep inside the SJW echo chamber by blind+biker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I say this as a European socialist. Wojcicki is a cunt and Youtube suffers from it.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  14. Transparency by Pyramid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    More talk of "consequences" for "misbehavior" with absolutely clarity about what that means. Just more ass-covering maneuvers by an Alphabet company that allow it to do whatever it wants with absolutely zero explanation.

    Given Google's ideological track record both online and in the workplace, there is no reason whatsoever to believe this will be good for the content creator or the free exchange of ideas in general.

    --
    ~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
    1. Re:Transparency by 2ms · · Score: 1

      It's SJW agenda-making more than it's CYA.

  15. Oooo, we're sooooo scared! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In January, one of the service's most popular content creators, Logan Paul, published a video that showed the dead body of a man hanging from a tree. The video was filmed in Aokigahara, a Japanese forest known for an enormous amount of suicides that have taken place there.

    The clip, which was taken down following an immediate backlash,....

    I got news, life is cruel and really bad things happen to people or they do it to themselves. I witnessed someone die next to me not too long ago. Get a grip.

    And you know what, the World is full of cry babies who want to be outraged at everything because they can. They like the power trip. Because people back down too easily to folks that have unreasonable demands or expect their every little wish to be fulfilled.

    Sometimes, people need to hear the word 'No'. I'm thinking of you LFAGBTQ "community" as an example.

    1. Re:Oooo, we're sooooo scared! by arth1 · · Score: 2

      I got news, life is cruel and really bad things happen to people or they do it to themselves. I witnessed someone die next to me not too long ago. Get a grip.

      The problem wasn't pointing out that life was cruel, it was the total lack of respect. For an individual, for a culture, and for a country. But from the rest of your post, I would guess that you have little understanding of that word.

    2. Re: Oooo, we're sooooo scared! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sometimes, people need to hear the word 'No'. I'm thinking of you LFAGBTQ "community" as an example"

      I believe nowadays the preferred euphemism for the sodomite community is "GayBLT".

  16. Nazitube by T.E.D. · · Score: 0

    Does this mean they are finally going to do something about all those people posting Nazi screeds thinly veiled as comic book or movie commentaries? I'm kinda sick of those polluting my searches.

    Half their hits are just people who came to argue in their comments, but all those hits just serve to raise the video's profile so innocent searchers have to wade through screens of them to find a legit video. Its just trolling. If Nazis honestly want to recruit, let them go do it on their own Nazitube and leave the rest of us alone please.

    1. Re:Nazitube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Does this mean they are finally going to do something about all those people posting Nazi screeds thinly veiled as comic book or movie commentaries?

      Ah yes, the traditional leftist approach: "I don't like it, so somebody else force them to stop so I don't have to be inconvenienced."

      I'm kinda sick of those polluting my searches.

      There are a lot of people who are pretty sick of various degenerate agendas polluting their searches too. Should be ban that too? What qualifies one to the noble position of having sensibilities that can be enforced by law? Surely it's not being of Jewish heritage.

    2. Re:Nazitube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your neighbor (imagine an apartment or other close-quarters living context) keeps leaving their festering garbage out on your shared front porch, are you going to do nothing about it?

    3. Re:Nazitube by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the traditional leftist approach: "I don't like it, so somebody else force them to stop so I don't have to be inconvenienced."

      (sigh) One last time, although I fear this will fall on deaf ears.

      Youtube is not the government. They are free to allow or disallow whatever content they want on their own website with their branding at the top, and not allowing bait-and-switch NAZI recruitment (or puppies, if that's their issue) would not be censorship. If puppy-fanciers don't like it, they are FREE to go make puppy-tube, and the government can't stop them.

    4. Re:Nazitube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some things shouldn't be heard, ever

    5. Re:Nazitube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > it's being forced on me
      Nah

    6. Re:Nazitube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found the Nazi.

    7. Re:Nazitube by Guybrush_T · · Score: 2

      Except they are a video distribution platform (and quite monopolistic at that), not a political party. If they start filtering content to only relay selected ideas, then they will have a significant impact on the population ideas which can easily drive an election in one direction or the other.

      Which is why regulation is important, and should be as important as the company is monopolistic and has an impact on the population. We don't need regulation for your personal web site, but we do need it for Facebook and Google because they have a huge power (hence huge responsibilities towards the population).

    8. Re:Nazitube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, I have no Nazis on my searches, don't know what you've been doing. Google shows you a lot based on your past interests. I'd say pick a new hobby.

  17. Revenue vs. Ethics? Ha! by geekmux · · Score: 1

    "...developing new policies that "would lead to consequences" if a content creator "does something egregious" that reflects unfavorably on other YouTube creators..."

    So, let me get this straight. If I feel like calling another YouTube creator an asshole in a viral rant that drives millions of customers to your site, that is going to lead to "consequences"?

    Yeah, good luck with drawing the line in the sand between ethics, morals, revenue, and oh yeah, that pesky Freedom of Speech thing. You know damn well that inflammatory content has driven billions into your pockets, so I'm sure your shareholders will enjoy your new revenue-destroying policies as well.

    1. Re: Revenue vs. Ethics? Ha! by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Googledouches and their apologists are pretty open about their opposition to freedom of speech, in practice and principle alike.

  18. Wojcicki by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With a name like "Wo-cock-y" I expect Susan to be a chick-with-a-dick.

  19. Uhhhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SELLLLLLLL!!!

    Trump's market is losing a LOT OF SHIRTS!

  20. you dun goofed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Consequences will never be the same.

  21. Hopeless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't anyone else find it unsettling that some guy publicized people committing suicide, and suddenly he gets hugely attacked for it? Like - it's not ok to notice that people's lives are so bad they're killing themselves?

    1. Re: Hopeless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't fit the "Everything is Awesome" narrative and thus, must be squealched from existence.

    2. Re:Hopeless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, the guy was just laughing at dead bodies, not really tackling the issue in any meaningful way.

  22. Re: Youtube is Scum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    For the people old enough to remember YouTube before it became THEIR Tube, the whole idea was to give eveyone equal footing with NBC CBS ABC. The push to sell movies and cable TV goes against the whole platform for INDIVIDUALS.
    And Defunding people or banning them and blocking their 1st Amendment Free Speech? It is high time we start up an OPEN platform .org to replace TheirTube.

  23. Should rebrand as NOTYOUTUBE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Basically, youtube has become a tv network that expects people to create its content for peanuts. Each day that goes by they get less and less focused on actual individuals sharing their voice and vision.

  24. Don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just Don't.

    You can not unsee what has been seen.

  25. Re:Revenue vs. Ethics? Ha! by jetkust · · Score: 2

    So, let me get this straight. If I feel like calling another YouTube creator an asshole in a viral rant that drives millions of customers to your site, that is going to lead to "consequences"?

    I don't think that's where she was going. If I had to guess it's related to all the sexual harassment claims that have been going around lately. Previous policy changes had to do with demonetizing videos on a video by video basis. I think this is more about demonetizing videos due to behavior of the creators in their personal life. Similar to how some sports leagues punish players for something they may have done outside of the actual sport, like the NFL's "conduct detrimental to the league" policy.

  26. Youtube Should Fix Their Site Design First by dryriver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Youtube has the largest collection of video content in recorded human history, and only provides a basic search box and a very half-baked suggestions algorithm to access them. There is no good index, by alphabet, by content type, by content subject or by or any other good way to really explore and sift through content on the site that you do not already know. I've been listening to a bunch of good music artists on Youtube the last few months, and the suggestions algorithm has completely boxed me in both on Youtube.com in the browser and in the Youtube Android app. I keep seeing the same artists and same types of songs being suggested over and over, as if the rest of the musical world doesn't exist at all. The only way to "break out of the box" is to start searching for a completely different type of artist whose name you already know. So from a technical/engineering/UX design standpoint, Youtube is NOT a well designed site at all. Maybe if you search for simple stuff like "Rihanna" or "SNL", the site will work for you. But if you want a text-based or better visual network-graph based UI that really lets you explore the site, that just doesn't exist on Youtube. I bet Alphabet see Youtube that way in their offices, but we ordinary Tubelings only get the search box and the -15 IQ suggestions algorithm that was probably put together by 3 programmers. THIS is what Youtube should be focusing their efforts on. A better UI, especially for the mobile app.

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
    1. Re:Youtube Should Fix Their Site Design First by vix86 · · Score: 1

      This is sort of my biggest complaint about YouTube as well: their algorithm sucks. Its way too over-eager when it wants to suggest stuff on the home page and there isn't a quick way to slap the algorithm on the wrist when it comes to correcting the issue. You have to hover over the video link, get the 3 dots, click, say not interested then get the "Why not?" dialog. This takes ~3-4 seconds depending on the responsiveness of the UI and I might have to do this for upwards to 8 videos in the "Recommended" section otherwise I won't get new stuff there. And don't get me started on how they shuffle around the order/layout of the landing page as well, sometimes subs or playlists are at the top and "Recent" or "Recommended" is down at #4 or 5 spot on the page, some times they are at the top.

      The thing that blows my mind with YouTube is how little content you can find. One of my favorite Lets Players I've watched for years is only around 200k subs, and there are a few other channels that are similar. So I've realized that you can have good channels with ~100k to 200k people, and yet I'm still shocked at how often I just stumble upon channels with 1~2 million subs just sitting in some corner of YouTube. Just makes me wonder how many 200k channels I might be missing that are decent simply because its impossible to find them because YT is filling my search results with PewDiePie or some late night talk show host's channel.

    2. Re:Youtube Should Fix Their Site Design First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, listen to a few songs and youtube then thinks all you want to do is listen to songs. Watch one dragonball episode and suddenly it thinks you only want to see videos about dragonball.

      It's astounding how absolutely badly designed it is.

    3. Re:Youtube Should Fix Their Site Design First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not to mention of all the duplicates with different titles, or lower res, or diff aspect.
      and stop all those flat earth loosers....

  27. Anita Sarkeesian by FerociousFerret · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Then Anita Sarkeesian should be banned for life.

    1. Re:Anita Sarkeesian by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's kinda sad that you guys are still upset about that. She finished that series a couple of years ago now, and moved on to moaning about Star Trek Discovery.

      It's also kinda frustrating that I need to remind you that disagreement isn't trolling.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re: Anita Sarkeesian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good, tell that to Anita. You are her boyfriend, after all.

    3. Re: Anita Sarkeesian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this an example of the "If you love her so much, why don't you marry her?" argument, or are you claiming something about the identity of the gp poster?

    4. Re: Anita Sarkeesian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      AmiMoJo is a single, lonely Pakistani male living in Britian desperately trying to pretend he isn't male, Pakistani, or pro-sharia under certain circumstances and pro-socialism only when it benefits him while utilizing every SJW talking point regardless of truth or facts to bash western culture and the white men he feels jealousy for.

    5. Re:Anita Sarkeesian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Finished a couple years ago? The last one (so far) was released April 27, 2017 and she wasn't regular in releasing them before then. Not to mention, she didn't cover all the subjects her original KickStarter said it would, and the total run time of 4:50 is less than the length of the 6 videos she promised as a minimum. No, she just wanted to get out from under that and out of the spotlight. Can't have too many eyes when you are trying to sneak your millions past the IRS.

    6. Re: Anita Sarkeesian by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Can confirm 100% accurate.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Anita Sarkeesian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about all that crap she did at VidCon last year? It's not just about GamerGate and all the lies in her video series. She is a professional victim.

    8. Re: Anita Sarkeesian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don’t agree with you on most things man, but this is the proper response. Haha! I’d buy you a beer and we could hang.

  28. YT was home videos, then it got sucked into Market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YT was home videos, then it got sucked into marketing crap for corporate profits.

    If I want marketing, I'll watch hulu or cable TV.
     

  29. Re:Revenue vs. Ethics? Ha! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    She was probably thinking about Logan Paul posting that video of a suicide victim's body.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  30. Re: Youtube is Scum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    something like d.tube?

  31. I'm Sorry, Why Am I Still On This Platform? by DakotaSmith · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Oh, right. Because there's no real competitor.

    They killed me with the copyright review process. I can't even get one because my views are too low.

    They killed me when they de-monitized all the small channels.

    The threaten to take action against "bad actors" and people who "misbehave" without defining the terms. I mean, I was never a great actor, but I don't think I qualified as a bad one. At least I hope not.

    And I do misbehave from time to time.

    I'm having a really hard time wondering why I don't dump YouTube in favor of Facebook. At least there I have some chance of growing an audience. As it stands, YouTube has made it essentially impossible.

    There needs to be a competitor -- and I mean a competitor, not these "Hey, look at this, they're using a distributed infrastructure and blockchain tech!"

    Yeah, that's fine and all. I'm the first one to hop as soon as it takes off or shows signs of growing. I need eyes to grow an audience. The only other services that come close to the number of eyes are Dailymotion (French) and VK (Russian).

    Maybe I'll just go to VK. Amazingly, there's considerably more free speech on a frakking Russian website than there is on YouTube at the moment.

    There needs to be a competitor. A real one. Anybody got about $50 million so I can get it off the ground?

    --
    Microsoft leads to Bluescreen; Bluescreen leads to downtime; downtime leads to suffering.
    1. Re:I'm Sorry, Why Am I Still On This Platform? by future+assassin · · Score: 1

      All Facebook would have to do it start a video directory for live and non live videos and it would cut into YT pretty quickly. The only other alternative Dailymotion is now done too.

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    2. Re:I'm Sorry, Why Am I Still On This Platform? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you mean by competitor is essentially a massive datacenter. I guess.

    3. Re:I'm Sorry, Why Am I Still On This Platform? by DakotaSmith · · Score: 1

      I'm hoping that by Sunday, I'll be streaming to every service. I do a live SF/genre review show Monday-Wednesday; then an anything-goes talk-show on Thursday. I'll also get on if I think I have something useful to say. I have some production values, and since I'm older, I bill myself as "The Fandi Master."

      If you're curious, I did one a couple of hours ago on the Nunes memo (what a surprise). However, I'm bringing my 40 years of IT and ITSec with me rather than the 53 years of fandom. Tonight's is at The Nunes Memo: What Should Happen

      However, as it's live, I'm planning to just chuck it at every streaming service in the universe. I'm not sure where I can base its front face. I suppose SDF.org, they're less likely than anyone else to kill it on someone's whim.

      Just gonna be a big gorramed pain in the ass. Thanks for nothing, American providers whom I can no longer trust.

      --
      Microsoft leads to Bluescreen; Bluescreen leads to downtime; downtime leads to suffering.
    4. Re:I'm Sorry, Why Am I Still On This Platform? by DakotaSmith · · Score: 1

      Hence the request for at least $50 million.

      --
      Microsoft leads to Bluescreen; Bluescreen leads to downtime; downtime leads to suffering.
    5. Re:I'm Sorry, Why Am I Still On This Platform? by DakotaSmith · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes. Now I remember why I almost never post to /.

      Within a few moments, some troll is down-moderating my posts as trolling. In so doing, it fraks up my karma, etc.

      It happens every frakking time.

      Screw you guys. If /. can't fix this obviously broken system, I'm going back to lurking. Posting is a pointless exercise in futility.

      --
      Microsoft leads to Bluescreen; Bluescreen leads to downtime; downtime leads to suffering.
  32. Freedom of Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me summarize what you said. Censorship is good if it's the people buying the government doing it, instead of sub'ing it out to the government. You're completely ignoring the balance of power. If the government is the primary source of control of the population, then your argument would be valid. However, when a small oligarchy controls what's viewed online (and yes, I deliberately say control) then they are just as dangerous as any government censor.

  33. News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Make it Rebecca Love and I'll get in line.

    Now this is what Slashdot was meant to be: Friday threads about porn stars.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  34. Re: Youtube is Scum by 2ms · · Score: 2

    Don't worry Steemit and Dtube are on their way to rescue us from facebook and google ;) I would say about one more year before critical mass.

  35. The consequenses will never be the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cyber police will get you

  36. Beatings will continue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    until morale improves!

  37. Re:Funny that you invoke a man hanging from a tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Southern trees bear a strange fruit
    Blood on the leaves and blood at the root
    Black bodies swinging in the Southern breeze
    Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees

    Pastoral scene of the gallant South
    The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth
    Scent of magnolias sweet and fresh
    Then the sudden smell of burning flesh

    Here is a fruit for the crows to pluck
    For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck
    For the sun to rot, for the tree to drop
    Here is a strange and bitter crop

    I can name that tune in one note, Tom.

  38. YouTube biting off far more than they can chew... by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

    By censoring anyone, for any reason, without a court-order on a case-by-case basis, they are eliminating any cover they could have found behind "we aren't responsible for what is viewed on our site," because by picking and choosing what can be shown, they unavoidably become responsible, (read: legally liable) for what they ALLOW to be seen on their site. Hence, this is likely the beginning of the end for YouTube.

    I think YouTube will end up feeling like they've been hit by a tornado that just before reaching them, first hit a landfill full of medical waste, rusty razorblades, and burning tires.

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
  39. Re:Wojcicki is deep inside the SJW echo chamber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    She has her power because her sister married one of the founders.

    She has her anger because her sister is no longer married to one of the founders.

    Both her power and her anger are due to workplace romance.

    Workplace romance has its positives and negatives: she is a poster child for the negatives.

  40. Re:YouTube biting off far more than they can chew. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are talking about how it should work. YouTube is an arm of Google which is an arm of the CIA and "US government" (not the "for the people" side of the government but the "for the new world order" side).

    AKA They will get a pass on anything and everything.

  41. Re:Revenue vs. Ethics? Ha! by jetkust · · Score: 1

    They already addressed the Logan Paul thing by saying they would monitor every video before they monetized it. But as much as people want to make an example of him, there are a lot worse things that YouTubers have done in the past, some venturing into criminal activity (eg. Austin Jones).

  42. CensorTube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's all about the money! Gotta make those advertisers happy!
    You can't upload YOUR videos anymore unless it makes Youtube look good.

    1. Re:CensorTube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has always been "TheirTube", not Youtube.

  43. More Purposely Vague Rules... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More purposely vague rules so they can discriminate against anyone they want and not have to answer for it. F-em all.

  44. Re:YouTube biting off far more than they can chew. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (not the "for the people" side of the government but the "for the new world order" side).

    Want to know how """they""" are "winning"? Just read what you wrote and think of the time we waste in this argument.

  45. Consequences by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

    What is the point of paying for YoutubeRed in order to avoid advertisements and to support content creators, when most have been demonitized and have resorted to product sponsorship and patreon begging anyway? I'm happy to go back to using an ad blocker or use another platform entirely that doesn't play games with subscribing, notifications, 'limited state' censorship, and catering to a particular political ideology.

  46. Pot meet kettle: censorship for all by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    Oh, the irony of a site that has outsourced its censorship to its audience (like /. [1]) talking propagandistically about another site threatening comparably vague censorship of its users. The propaganda of the term "creator" in this context isn't copyright related, but it's still aimed at "elevat[ing] authors' moral standing above that of ordinary people" to justify another power, denying freedom of speech.

    [1] Where posts have scores, low-scoring posts are hidden by default, users who score aren't allowed to explain a score because they can't post and score in the same thread, and where scores become arbitrary but are effectively used to keep corporate-friendly talking points ahead of critical or dissenting views.

    1. Re:Pot meet kettle: censorship for all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well-spoken. Unfortunately, you probably won'y see my comment since it's +0.

    2. Re:Pot meet kettle: censorship for all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a better system, I assume? Please do tell.

  47. All your Tube are belong to us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazing where the brownshirts hide.

  48. Ryan Himself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suck my fucking dick, Susan

  49. Pity by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
    My how politically correct Youtube has become - I wonder why.

    Some of the channels I have seen demonetized would appear to have committed the mortal sin of not obeying the strictures and eschewing following the acceptable ideology of Susan Wojcicki, which also happens to fall in line with Googles, firing of a man for an illegal opinion.

    Looks like the brave new world of far left liberals will have some pretty important restrictions on those who dare to commit the crim of disagreement, and this is what they will demand when they take power. I think that my sig line says it all

    Of course, the triggering event might have been the British Channel 4 interciew of Jordan Peterson by Cathy Newman. Her "So you're saying (insert baiting and attack third wave feminist language) culminating in a hilarious accusation that Peterson wanted to organize society according to Lobsters, then getting tripped up demanding that Jordan not be allowed to say anything that would make transgender people uncomfortable, and him noting that she spent her time making him uncomfortable, well, she has become an internet meme, and a bit of an embarrassment.

    I mean, he was in a battle of wits with an unarmed person. But people are hootin' and a hollerin', so my guess is that anything critical of Cathy Newman will soon be verboten.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:Pity by jetkust · · Score: 1

      It was never was about politics. There is something that YouTube doesn't want to admit. Their monetization system was being exploited by bots and scammers. My guess advertisers knew it too. Political people are trained to ignore details. The fact that everyone regardless of "political position" is complaining about being demonetized.

    2. Re:Pity by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      It was never was about politics. There is something that YouTube doesn't want to admit. Their monetization system was being exploited by bots and scammers. My guess advertisers knew it too. Political people are trained to ignore details. The fact that everyone regardless of "political position" is complaining about being demonetized.

      So they just demonetized channels that looked like they didn't fall in line with Youtube's agenda and future narrative? It's an interesting concept, but when the complaints come in from those who cannot take criticism, or do not fit a particular narrative, I'm a little skeptical of it. One of the posters here noted that hunting channels he watched were demonetized. There are definitely people out there who have an objection to hunting, and if they are demonetized, it means someone complained. I don't hunt any more, but would never object to a video of good responsible hunting.

      All that being said, it is Google's property to do with as they wish. They have already shown that they have no tolerance as shown by the firing of a man who wrote illegal opinions. While there might be some questions about the legality in Google corporate's firing of the guy, there is nothing stopping Youtube from demanding that nohing be posted that resembles what he wrote.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  50. Okay by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Sounds like time for another service to start. Can't disagree with the snowflakes, they'll get booboo feelings. Give em all a participation trophy.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  51. For the record by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    here's the context. The reason they were showing a song sung in Greece from the 50s with pictures from that era is because it was before immigrants came, e.g. when the country was Greeks only. The subtext is "Things were better before immigrants came, so we should send them away".

    I guess the question is, is a segregationist message hate speech? In the United States it most certainly is. We have a long history of what's called "Separate by Equal" between our black and white populations where things were anything but equal. Not sure about Greece, but I'm inclined to agree with Youtube here.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:For the record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The subtext of your post is that you want to shoot all Greeks in the head. I demand moderator action.

    2. Re:For the record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The video itself did not contain a single word of hate-speech, or discrimination, or advocating violence, or anything else that would violate YouTube's TOU.

      Your excuse is that it was in support of a group that you feel does those things, and therefore EVEN THOUGH this video is clean, it should be taken down. If you actually take that approach, almost all political or social messaging becomes banned - almost every viewpoint is associated with a group that was rude or violent.
      As we enter Black History Month in the US, let us be reminded of Malcom X and the Black Panthers - violent racist terrorists - that made Martin Luther King Jr. seem so reasonable to work with... and remember that you would have banned any YouTube videos of the man.

    3. Re: For the record by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I guess the question is, is a segregationist message hate speech? In the United States it most certainly is. We have a long history of what's called "Separate by Equal" between our black and white populations where things were anything but equal.

      What in the world does that have to do with immigration?

    4. Re: For the record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's assume YouTube is left-wing. Why doesn't the right-wing just start a competitor? You like free markets, I thought?

      Or maybe nobody wants a right-wing YouTube, so that won't happen.

  52. Stalinist thought-crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just another Stalinist ubitch creating thought-crimes ... damme after the Trotsky-purges you would think they would learn. GOOGLE & its progressive scumshit cannot be put-down fast enough.

  53. Re: Youtube is Scum by tepples · · Score: 1

    Good luck joining Steemit if your phone number previously belonged to a user of Steemit.

  54. Re:Revenue vs. Ethics? Ha! by djinn6 · · Score: 1

    suicide victim

    I never noticed before, but the person would also be a suicide perpetrator, no?

  55. No ads; "commercial content"; past game ban by tepples · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't Vimeo be a viable alternative?

    That's a tall order for several reasons.

    No ads Apart from Content ID disputes, most of the recent whining about YouTube is about loss of ability to run ads on a channel's videos. Vimeo.com doesn't support ads at all. This makes it not an alternative for producers who depend on ad revenue. Commercial content confusion Vimeo's guidelines ban "commercial content" if the uploader doesn't pay $240 per year for "pro" upload privileges, and I haven't seen a bright line between "showcas[ing] your creative work" and "representing a for-profit business or brand [or] Product demos". Lack of gamer audience This one affects video game developers and reviewers. Because Vimeo banned all game-related videos from July 2008 through October 2014, the audience for game reviews has ended up on sites other than Vimeo. Upload limit Vimeo appears to behave like SoundCloud in that uploaders who do not pay a recurring fee are limited to 5 GB of total uploads. Those reaching the limit must delete old videos to make room for new ones.
  56. Peter and Elsa videos by tepples · · Score: 1

    "ElsaGate" is a name used by a group of watchdogs on Reddit for an apparently Russian live-action video series that (mis)appropriates characters owned by Disney. In this series, Peter Parker from Spider-Man and Elsa Agnarrsdaughter from Frozen live together and go on adventures that aren't always family-friendly. The videos are "silent" in the sense of having no dialogue, and some are violent or mildly sexual in nature.

  57. Butch Kike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything I like on YouTube gets demonetized, and don't assume from my subject that I'm watching controversial videos. Channels like h3h3, Lindybeige and TheReportOfTheWeek have videos demonetized on a regular basis. LGR reviews DOS games, apparently that's too spicy for the SPLC/JIDF. Why is this dumb, sensitive dyke in charge of the biggest video sharing platform on Earth?

  58. Susan Wojcicki by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh my bothers, look at that horse-like face and recognize: *that* is what a fascist looks like.

  59. Re: Wojcicki is deep inside the SJW echo chamber by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

    A high nomenclaturist who got her job through nepotism rather than any trace of personal merit? No! It just can't be! That would never happen, especially not in Northern California!

  60. Youtube fvcking themselves by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

    Little by little they are screwing themselves. Just like the cable companies are with their price increases. Oh well!

  61. consequences will never be the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    word?

  62. Consequences ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  63. zieg hail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like the Germans ya

  64. ads at start are shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im sick of ads at the very start of videos, the second i see it, Ctrl-W , fuck you.
    Its not enjoyable to watch.
    Also having a 9 minute ad for 2 min content is insane.
    If I view the ad 100%, then why show it again and again and again, each time I Ctrl-R reload and view it again.
    Hey fuckers, dont show any ads for 10mins. Else UT will die, as no one will monetize. Just upload 100 TB of your cat sleeping to piss em off.

    1. Re: ads at start are shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you upload a 100TB cat, it will generate commercials every 5 minutes. Great for alphabet

  65. immigration is meant to prevent revolutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and now Greece is a shithole

  66. People don't distinguish... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    between one independent author's mistake with another independent author.

    The solution is not, to give people the opportunity to develop that ability, but to make it unnecessary.

    All wrapped up in rational reminiscent of Sofia Lamb.