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.

[Anonymous Coward]

Iâ(TM)ve never seen him, so Iâ(TM)ll take your word that he is a douche. However, I worry that this is another step in censorship and the stifling political correctness taking over the US.
Maybe Google should let the advertisers choose sites they donâ(TM)t want to be seen on?

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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: Another douche bites the dust.

[ctilsie242]

For video watching, few sites compare to YouTube, especially the ability to handle varying resolutions and bandwidth rates, CDN presence so you watch a video, and not a "buffering" icon for the most part, analytics, and many other things. There are other video sites, but they are either so heavily ad-laden where there isn't any real point in bothering, even with the latest ad blocker. YouTube also centralizes things in one spot. Until recently, it also made revenue generation easy. Upload a video, add a bank account, get your check. Now, with the monetization changes, only the top few artists get paid, and demonetizing videos for no stated reason is commonplace (where virtually every YouTube content producer is bitching about it on their channels.)

Even though YouTube is good, a lot of people said the same thing about MySpace being impossible to topple. The mass demonetization This type of stuff is only going to kill YouTube as people move to other sites that actually offer payments to small time content makers for content.

I can envision a video site that gets revenue one of a few ways: First, is dedicating CPU time to cryptocurrency mining. Second, is credit for ad watching. Third is a subscription fee. The site gets their chunk of change, and the rest goes to the content producers.

Re: Another douche bites the dust.

[Skuld-Chan]

Durn liberals - and their media, and deep states...

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.

Re:Sorry dude

[110010001000]

Yes, you should. I earn $50,000 a year in IT in Silicon Valley so I am doing pretty well, but I ALSO drive for Uber.

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:Hypocracy

[Gravis Zero]

The antics of Logan Paul aren't much different.

His popularity is irrelevant if YouTube doesn't want their network to be known for that kind of content or if the advertisers are seeking a specific demographic. Their business strategy is larger than any one star, so it's up to them to decide who and what they will allow and promote. Like I said, "that's showbiz for you."

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.

Re:NO CENSORSHIP

[bws111]

So your definition of censorship includes someone refusing to PAY you? Good one

Re:Let advertisers choose where they want to adver

[ledow]

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.

Re:Let advertisers choose where they want to adver

[nitehawk214]

Someone has to host the videos. The advertisers are going to do it themselves.