Slashdot Mirror
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.
We can add him to a long line of useless internet stars. May he serve as an example of what not to be.
This is why you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket. Time to get a real job.
This is America. If you don't like what youtube is doing you have the freedom to make your own YouTube. Well, as long as it doesn't have blackjack and hookers.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
If Mr. Paul is as much of a douchebag as TFA's summary of his recent videos implies, I don't see how a slap on the wrist is near enough.
Reading between the lines, it seems like this spokesperson for YouTube has a sense of decency and their contempt for Logan Paul is seeping through, but unfortunately they are in a position of articulating and defending a gutless, token penalty decided on by the suits.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Unless you start to become successful. Then YouTube will bribe the politicians to make sure that whatever makes you better becomes illegal.
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.
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..."
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.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
So your definition of censorship includes someone refusing to PAY you? Good one
That would require categorising every single video and every single channel.
And it would also mean that one channel would be fought over to advertise on, and everything else nobody would care or bid for. Big companies wouldn't waste their views on tiny groups of viewers, and would be annoyed that they can't all get fair shares of the big groups.
It would then quickly become a Ford / Barclays / McDonald's / whatever-channel of approved content anyway, as they'd basically buy up the channel and dictate the content directly, and YouTube would be able to do nothing.
It's better that you take generic adverts, on keywords, spread them over less popular videos, which removes the monopoly, uses up all their credits, they still get X viewers, and aren't forced to kowtow to their largest advertiser / highest bidder only.
P.S. A better solution would be... which of these three adverts would you rather watch for the next ten seconds, with three random choices. All kinds of metrics you could feed back, popular adverts cost more, a clear disconnect between "content" and "advert" (so they aren't directly sponsoring content they don't like their customers seeing them near) and no one advertiser could boycott you completely.
Do that, and what value does Google have? Their entire value comes from being an intermediary between ad buyers and ad viewers that choses where to place the ads to maximise return. If the ad buyers are choosing where to put their ads, then they don't need Google.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
My response was a tongue in cheek response to an obvious troll. It's hard to argue that not paying someone to speak is "censorship" anyway, as they did not kick him off the service.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Vince Foster comes to mind.
He was a murder victim, not suicide
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Someone has to host the videos. The advertisers are going to do it themselves.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
What will it take for YouTube to just delete his channel. The CAUCASITY of this dude after losing deal after deal after deal (I didn't even know YouTube had deals like that for Tubers) for literally showing dead bodies hanging in a forest to then come back and taser dead rats? It's sick and the fact that his channel wasn't permanently and irrevocably suspended just shows YouTube (and I can't remember if it's Alphabet's or Google's) doesn't care. It's YouTube just nuke this loser and get on. You don't have to try to explain it to advertisers anymore. You don't have to explain it to the community anymore it's just done. It's not like no one is gonna fill that spot. He literally has a brother. There's 1001 of these YouTubers most of them I imagine don't go around flying to Japan just to disrespect the country and don't mutilate the dead bodies of animals. Why is Logar Paul being treated with such kid gloves. He's a multi-millionaire. His followers aren't loyal they're 12. Let him post videos on Daily Motion or something. Just get him off YouTube.
Just another second banana
Why should I care about some youtube teenager? Please don't post this to /. This isn't "news for nerds" This is clickbait buzzfeed bs.
GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
The result of this? Is that advertisers are lazy. Easier to just pull out. Maybe if YouTube had considered the problem of monetizing racist and stupid videos before they could have fixed it some other way but the advertisers got burned. Their ads were found on videos that look bad. And as the saying goes one bitten twice shy. The advertisers are super skittish about putting stuff on YouTube now and arguably rightfully so considering the stuff their top YouTubers do.Of course YouTube was going to go heavy handed with their new advertising protocol they had to in order to keep any ads ON their platform
Not to mention the huge amount of work it would require to do any more detailed video categorization. They can't get comments cleaned up, they can't get recommendations cleaned up. No way they're gonna get any sort of advertisement Piccadilly circus organization scheme cleaned up.
Just another second banana
You said "drop him like a brick" which they did NOT do. What they did was get him back in the "news" which will lead to more views and ultimately more revenue when they turn ads back on.
It doesn't even take shiny things to divert people's attention anymore.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Never heard of this guy? Are they talking about Paul Hogan?
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
They didn't pull his ads to punish him because they want to control his content. They pulled his ads because when his content gets negative publicity advertisers pull their ads from the entire platform, not just his channel. Large corporations are extremely risk adverse. They aren't going to stop anyone from putting their own ads in their own content because that advertiser specifically chose to be in that video. There's no ripple effect. They would however start demanding a cut of that money if that becomes a larger and larger portion of the ad revenue on the platform.
YouTube has immense monopoly power in the video streaming market. Their arbitrary and opaque decision to demonetize a content producer has the effect of censorship.
To make it worse, YouTube's parent company is known for trying to impose its authoritarian elitist fake-progressive ideology everywhere it can. Leading many people to suspect sinister political motivations behind every capricious abuse of YouTube's monopoly power.
Google may hate freedom as much as North Korea. But the Norks have vastly more interesting taste in architecture.
That's offensive.
Protect internet freedom - break up Google.
Hosting videos was really expensive when YouTube launched, but it's pretty cheap now. The hosting company that I use includes 2TB/month free. For a 200MB video (around 5 minutes at 720p), that's 10,000 downloads per month, which is more than a lot of things on YouTube. Above that, it's about €0.1/GB, or about €0.02 per complete view of the video. If you're dealing with the kinds of volume where that gets expensive, then CDNs like Cloudflare kick in and charge based on the largest file, rather than on the number of downloads. YouTube offers convenience.
That's largely irrelevant though. Advertisers are free to contact video creators directly embed product placements and other ads directly into the videos. The value of Google to the advertisers is that they don't have to do this, Google will pick videos that are likely to have a good return for them. If Google isn't doing a good job at this, then there's no incentive for them to keep using Google.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News