YouTube Will Remove Ads, Downgrade Discoverability of Channels Posting Offensive Videos (techcrunch.com)

Earlier today, YouTube barred Logan Paul from serving ads on his video channel in response to a "recent pattern of behavior" from him. Now, YouTube has announced a more formal and wider set of sanctions it's prepared to level on any creator that starts to post videos that are harmful to viewers, others in the YouTube community, or advertisers. TechCrunch reports: "We may remove a channel's eligibility to be recommended on YouTube, such as appearing on our home page, trending tab or watch next," Ariel Bardin, Vice President of Product Management at YouTube, writes in a blog post.

The full list of steps, as outlined by YouTube:
1. Premium Monetization Programs, Promotion and Content Development Partnerships. We may remove a channel from Google Preferred and also suspend, cancel or remove a creator's YouTube Original.
2. Monetization and Creator Support Privileges. We may suspend a channel's ability to serve ads, ability to earn revenue and potentially remove a channel from the YouTube Partner Program, including creator support and access to our YouTube Spaces.
3. Video Recommendations. We may remove a channel's eligibility to be recommended on YouTube, such as appearing on our home page, trending tab or watch next.

The changes are significant not just because they could really hit creators where it hurts, but because they also point to a real shift for the platform. YouTube has long been known as a home for edgy videos filled with pranks and potentially offensive content, made in the name of comedy or freedom of expression. Now, the site is turning over a new leaf, using a large team of human curators and AI to track the content of what's being posted, and these videos have a much bigger chance of falling afoul of YouTube's rules and getting dinged.

Comments

It's more or less still all that

[rsilvergun]

but they're not going to pay you to do it. Given some of the crap I've seen folks do online (there's one guy who was basically abusing his kids for views) it's probably a good thing. Jerks like these brought the hammer down on a lot of stuff that was just good fun because they don't have the sense to know where the line should be drawn. Go to a spooky forest? Ok. Show a recent suicide? No, not Ok. If you can't tell why you need to step back from making videos (or watching them).

Re: It's more or less still all that

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! Ban Cody's Lab! That horrible show deserves the penalties it gets.

Oh, wait, this was the anti-science rant, right?

Re:It's more or less still all that

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I am so glad that they demonetise and demote videos that have cursing in them. My overly-sensitive, PC/SJW, white knighting, privileged, entitled, irresponsible ears were literally being harmed by that.

Re: It's more or less still all that

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the "review" period is long enough to cover most of the views, effectively stealing the content with an "oops, sorry" afterwards.

Re:It's more or less still all that

[blind biker]

but they're not going to pay you to do it. Given some of the crap I've seen folks do online (there's one guy who was basically abusing his kids for views) it's probably a good thing. Jerks like these brought the hammer down on a lot of stuff that was just good fun because they don't have the sense to know where the line should be drawn. Go to a spooky forest? Ok. Show a recent suicide? No, not Ok. If you can't tell why you need to step back from making videos (or watching them).

No, it's not a good thing. It is ripe for abuse and it already is abused arbitrarily: explain why Cody's Lab had to be sanctioned multiple times? it's one of the most sciency channels on YouTube, but because of that perverse censorship mentality like yours, the guy can't post new vdeos.

Fuck censors, fuck the YouTube cunt of a CEO and fuck you all all others like you, who condone censorship.

Re:It's more or less still all that

[BlueStrat]

I hope you're being facetious. First amendment applies only to the government silencing people.
Also, YouTube isn't silencing anyone - they are just not placing ads and putting them in a spotlight. It's their platform. Don't like it? Don't use it.

You're quite correct. They are free to implement any lawful policies, rules, terms, conditions, etc that they wish as it's a private company not a government entity and thus not bound by the 1stA.

What they're *not* free to do however is to enforce policies, terms, and rules arbitrarily, unequally, and unfairly. I believe there's likely more than enough evidence for a lawsuit and/or unfair trade practices case prevail against Google/YT. Of course IANAL, but still it seems at first glance that there's got to be actionable torts and/or some sort of fair trade practices/consumer protection/contract laws that may apply here being violated.

US Courts, judges, and juries generally don't tend to look favorably at a business's legal position when individuals are treated differently by that business because of their lawfully-held political/ideological/cultural/religious opinions or viewpoints

Strat

Re:It's more or less still all that

[werepants]

What they're *not* free to do however is to enforce policies, terms, and rules arbitrarily, unequally, and unfairly.

Outside of a few protected classes, they absolutely are. Businesses commonly refuse service because of clothing, which is pretty damn arbitrary (no shoes, no shirt, no service?).

This sounds like it will be arbitrary

[TWX]

I watch a machinist/handyman channel that fairly regularly makes fun of others who try to do handyman/maker things, but his making fun of them is usually well-deserved. There was one clip in-particular where the subject had enlarged a hole in wood by holding the wood in his hand on the other side from the drill, with the bit basically making arcs across his palm as he ran it. If he slipped at all he would have cut into his hand.

My guess is that despite the original youtuber doing something patently stupid, it would be this guy who made fun of it that would run afoul of the rules, not the original moron.

Offensive to who?

[Mr307]

Subjective criterion will no be abused right?!

Re:Offensive to who?

[Anonymous Coward]

I, personally, am offended by all the videos.

Also, by Justin Bieber.

And Windows 10.

Hopefully all those things can now get demonitized.

Re:Offensive to who?

[ArchieBunker]

My guess would be SJW and whiny liberals.

Re:Offensive to who?

[epyT-R]

I guarantee that such a filter will have a steadily widening target. 'Advertiser friendly' content is basically anything bland and boring enough to appear in mainstream media. Basically anything important will be demonetized unless the viewpoint conforms with the status quo pushed by large organizations, public and private.

Re:Offensive to who?

[Mr307]

Took a look at the list and three of the categories are so subjective and open to any level of 'offensiveness' as to be useless, or useful depending on how someone feels that second.

I expect the belief that 'its going to be abused or used to push an agenda' will be what we will see, all for our own good of course, we need Google to 'keep us safe' right?

Re: Offensive to who?

[elrous0]

Neo-puritan SJW authoritarians are DEFINITELY NOT liberals. So far as I can tell they are dead set against free speech, tolerance, individuality, and pretty much everything else that liberals favor.

Sadly, such classic liberals are no longer welcome on the left in general, or the Democratic Party in particular, anymore. I am a classic liberal myself, and I didn't leave behind the Democratic Party so much as it left me behind. It saddens me deeply to see a party that once stood for free speech and true equality slowly morph into a party of authoritarian thought police and anti-white/anti-male bigotry.

Blocking channels

[AK Marc]

There is no mechanism in YourTube to block a channel. If I want to ensure I don't see any Pew Die Pie, I can do so only with extensions that take the PDP recommendations and re-write the page shown to exclude the unwanted suggestions. That's a silly work around to block known unwanted channels. YT should have a right-click -> Hide selection. Two clicks to forever exclude a channel. Better yet, some classifications. Block all gaming videos. I do look up some things occasionally, like a level play through, or something. But, in doing so, I get "related" results, which always has hich click-count channels like PDP. But I want to be able to look up a play through for a game level without opening myself to unwanted content.

Google doesn't understand filters, or being user friendly.

Re:Blocking channels

[duke_cheetah2003]

There is no mechanism in YourTube to block a channel.

While this is technically true, if you pound that dislike button on a video you don't like, not only is it MUCH less likely you'll ever be recommended a video from that channel again, you are less likely to get suggested any similar content from other channels.

I personally am pretty amazed at how good YouTube's algorithms are at suggesting stuff I might actually want to see. And almost never suggests anything I probably wouldn't like.

However, I am aware, as everyone should be, once you 'train' YouTube, it's going to give you a very narrow world view. You're not going to see much that might challenge your views or opinions once it learns what you like and don't like.

Re:So long!

[LWATCDR]

And the crackpot left I hope? Maybe the Nation of Islam?

For a certain definition of "offensive"

[mi]

YouTube has announced a more formal and wider set of sanctions it's prepared to level on any creator that starts to post videos that are harmful to viewers

Somehow I'm sure, Che Guevara will not be deemed offensive...

Yes, Google has full right to do what they please with their servers and services. Just wish that they — and other people defending this right of theirs — were consistent and allowed other people and companies to exercise the same rights.

Re:So long!

[Anonymous Coward]

One fellow I watch is NOT alt-right. He has had his whole channel basically locked down. His sin? He showed how to make gun powder from scratch.

Another guy I watch outs narcissists and helps people work through the abuse has had his whole channel de-monitized. His sin? He likes Trump.

Make youtube an echo chamber of alt left and people will leave. The network effect will dissolve. The same thing is happening currently at facebook.

I find ignorance offensive

[Anonymous Coward]

You do not know what that term means. When testing a rule for reasonableness, the appropriate thing to do is find the best possible case in which it could run afoul of common sense. That is indeed a literal straw man intended to be knocked down, but is not a straw man fallacy.

A straw man fallacy is an informal fallacy where an opposing view's argument is reconstructed poorly in order to "knock it down". What the parent poster did was to utilize the rules, or intent of rules as written at this point in time in a specifically chosen test case to show how poorly thought-out the rule is.

He did not change the original argument, merely found an instance where unintended consequences would result given the original argument.

And notice the fatal lack of specificity...

[Chas]

Notice how they talk about "offensive" videos.

The problem is, "offensive" is entirely SUBJECTIVE.

So, you're now simply at the mercy of whoever's having a bad day at YouTube/Google today.

No ACTUAL standards or criteria. Just "Someone's fee fees are NOT happy with you for some reason".

So, basically YouTube can ban you for any reason (or worse, NO REASON).

Hoping a viable competitor emerges soon.

Because we're rapidly approaching the point where professional content creators are becoming unpaid labor for YouTube.

Re:And notice the fatal lack of specificity...

[Mashiki]

Because we're rapidly approaching the point where professional content creators are becoming unpaid labor for YouTube.

Already there, most youtubers don't make more then $20/mo now. That's in the 100k+ sub category with 40-45% viewership, they only make ends meet by using things like patreon or whatever else. Of course, the same people who decided to go after those youtubers are now going after sites like patreon to get those same people kicked off. For what? Well whatever offends their sensibilities of course.

Enjoy the neo-puritanism because the backlash against it is gonna be pretty spectacular. Even our ultra-feminist premier here in Canada(Trudeau) discovered just how little people are putting up with the bullshit. See his "peoplekind" comment which then suddenly became a joke(after public backlash), which nobody found funny and his handler freaked the fuck out and started labeling anyone who questioned it or that narrative as alt-right and neo-nazis.

Re:Responsible for content or not?

[AHuxley]

The problem with SJW censorship AC is so many protected groups have a reason why.
Once the SJW start to ban, derank, remove some topics they soon welcome many other topics to ban, report, derank, remove.
A cult or faith finds some "history" of their teaching blasphemous? Report and ban. No more on the history of the faith, no more on escaping the faith.
A movie studio finds a negative review? Remove the review, ban the account as the "celebrity" made the request to a SJW.
A university professor says something interesting 2h into a talk. Remove the video to protect the university brand.
Talk about DRM? Crypto? A media release by mil/gov whistleblower? Can the security services ask for a SJW ban on that topic?
Party political users report a video as a larger group on a video they don't like due to political content? The SJW doing the review feels the same way politically and bans the account and video? A later review by another SJW allows the ban.
Reports on gov to gov mil sales? Both govs demand a video is removed for security reasons? Trade and jobs are at risk?
A local political leader is caught on video, a live mic. For privacy and legal reasons the SJW removes the discussion of that local party political matter.
A state and its ag gag laws? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Mining laws? A state demands a video gets removed showing their states farming/pollution regulations?
A political party loses an election and wants all news of why banned as political interference by another nation? No comments, links, news about the role of a candidate?

The ToS can work for any reason but not after lots of suggestions about been a commons open to political, artistic and news worthy content, to all of civil society.
If a site wanted to go full SJW, why not say from day one that the site would have US party political leanings and all content would fall under a restrictive party political policy.
People could then have found better US sites that would have allowed their years of content to thrive in conditions of free speech, freedom after speech.
Their content and creativity could have allowed another more open and less restrictive site to grow.

Re:BS considering twitch did the same

[nnull]

Basically youtube is just becoming broadcast TV: Completely useless

Youtube blocking content and removing ads to content they don't approve is just shooting themselves in the foot. Maybe the ad companies don't care if they're on those channels? Either way, I don't foresee youtube being at the forefront of video content creation anymore if this continues.

Many content creators have just resorted to patreon and other forms of donations to get money now than from ads. This is just lost revenue for youtube. Now they're not getting their % cut from these content creators anymore. The funding is now coming from a third party that's completely unrelated to google/youtube. I'm sure youtube will go to the next level and ban anyone attempting to ask for money from third party systems.

You can already see the mess this has created by just visiting youtube.com's front page. All I get is pointless spam videos, live streams of pirated videos and junk in the "recommended" list. A lot of times, I don't even see uploaded videos anymore from subscribed channels, because youtube has deemed these people evil, so no more seeing if they've been updated. What the hell is the point of that?

Re: By "offensive" they include moderate conservat

[RightwingNutjob]

Despots often declare their favored opinions to be "facts" while deeming contrary information to be "lies." Strong free speech laws remove government entirely from that arena.

This isn't government, it's a popular private service. However: if culture is downstream of politics, it should emulate our laws about the sanctity of the soap box in the public sphere. If culture is upstream of politics, then if we value legal protections against government censorship, we ought to model that attitude in our private culture as well, for if it goes down, government censorship will be the next domino.