YouTube Suspends Ads on Logan Paul's Channels After 'Recent Pattern' of Behavior in Videos (techcrunch.com)

More problems and controversy for Logan Paul, the YouTube star who caused a strong public backlash when he posted a video of a suicide victim in Japan. From a report: Google's video platform today announced that it would be pulling advertising temporarily from his video channel in response to a "recent pattern of behavior" from him. This is in addition to Paul's suspensions from YouTube's Preferred Ad program and its Originals series, both of which have been in place since January; and comes days after YouTube's CEO promised stronger enforcement of YouTube's policies using a mix of technology and 10,000 human curators.

Comments

Another douche bites the dust.

[Revek]

We can add him to a long line of useless internet stars. May he serve as an example of what not to be.

Re: Another douche bites the dust.

[Viol8]

Agreed. So long as he hasn't broken the law it should be up to viewers and advertisers to decide.

But then youtube/google are stinking hypocrits anyway - they're quite happy to have videos of people burning to death or dying in vehicle accidents but some guy who's a bit of a dick and perhaps doesn't follow the liberal party line? Well, thats a different story - ban him, cast him out!

Re: Another douche bites the dust.

[JBMcB]

What censorship? They didn't pull his videos, and he's free to say whatever he wants in his videos, it's just that Google doesn't want to pay him anymore for the type of videos he's making.

It's more along the lines of, Google doesn't want advertisers to be able to put their ads on his channel. Maybe there are advertisers who would love to put their ads on his channel. Now they can't.

I've seen Youtube channels that have been demonetized that now do their own native ads, so advertisers definitely support some of them. If that trend continues, I can see Youtube banning that practice as well.

Re: Another douche bites the dust.

[Gravis Zero]

So long as he hasn't broken the law it should be up to viewers and advertisers to decide.

Google literally owns the platform in it's entirety so they get to decide what is allowed on it. It's not the only platform, so if you do not like how they do business then you don't have to support them by viewing.

There could be a different platform that exclusively allows conservative ideals, it's a matter of creating it. You need to grasp that a website is private property.

Re: Another douche bites the dust.

[iamhassi]

But YouTube is not the Internet, and Google should be free to enforce whatever standards they wish on their platform, same as Netflix or Funny or Die or ABC or whoever.

Except YouTube/Google and Facebook are the internet. They pretty much decide what everyone in the US sees and hears. If google/YouTube and Facebook remove everything you ever post you pretty much do not exist because it is hard to exist outside of those platforms.

Re:Sorry dude

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is we should all hold multiple jobs as to not put all of our "eggs in one basket"? Sorry, but I can only manage 1 full time job, and part time jobs tend not to pay as well as full time ones.

Let advertisers choose where they want to advertis

[SmaryJerry]

I donâ(TM)t know why YouTube thinks they have to police the entire video library the same so all advertisers can advertise on all of their videos. All they need to do, like any tv show on cable tv, is let an advertiser exclude a channel or type of you tube channel. All this demonetizing everything so basically only childrenâ(TM)s shows or those YouTube arbitrarily allows get the most money is crazy. Treat people like adults and let people choose what they want to watch, advertise on, and make for videos.

Re: NO CENSORSHIP

[ledow]

Good luck finding advertisers willing to pay all the millions necessary to make such an alternative viable when you have a "no holds barred" policy on what you show.

I think you miss... the advertisers will be the ones asking for this, not YouTube themselves, or other viewers, or politicians. Pretty much all those categories are routinely ignored by YouTube.

But if the advertisers feel they can't be seen to be paying this guy (which is what they're doing), they are going to pull out really quickly and maybe threaten to take large chunks of their business with them.

There's a reason, for instance, that if you see adverts on a porn site they are only ever for more porn and related items. No other ad network would bother to try, as their advertisers would quickly disappear from under them if they were found to be doing that. Nobody selling an ordinary consumer product is going to want to be associated with an idiot like this guy who's in the news taking a huge backlash for the stupid things he's done.

"This guy's a douche... oh look, he's sponsored by Cadbury's..."

Hypocracy

[mwvdlee]

YouTube was all fine with him being an asshole when he was making them a ton of advertising money, but just a little bit of negative press and they drop him like a brick.

Re:Hypocracy

[Gravis Zero]

just a little bit of negative press and they drop him like a brick.

The saying, "that's showbiz for you" comes to mind. They are funded by ads, so why wouldn't they drop him like a brick?

Re:Weak remedy

[ausekilis]

Google is in a rare position to do exactly what folks have said on here for years.

"STOP MAKING STUPID PEOPLE FAMOUS!"

The sooner idiots like this stop getting attention for being idiots, the better off our society will be. Youtube should just yank his accounts, or at the very least lower his search status so low that you'd have to go into the trenches (10+ pages) to find him.