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]

spineless, overly-sensitive, limp-wristed, snowflake crybaby, no doubt

I don't think Trump has a Slashdot account. Could be wrong, though.

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

[DCFusor]

I guess whoever modded the parent about Cody's lab troll was just...a troll, or someone so stupid they don't get sarcasm.

Re: It's more or less still all that

[Paradise Pete]

Maybe they can create a pre-release review phase.

Re: It's more or less still all that

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube shut his channel down for 60 days. No uploads, and monetization. This is because his black powder from urine video does not meet guidelines after a second, ostensibly manual, review. ie: Google thinks he is ISIS.

This isn't a short period, he's basically been wiped off YouTube and can't risk uploading even a balloon pop for fear of the channel getting a third strike and deletion.

Re: It's more or less still all that

[BronsCon]

Or maybe they can retroactively monetize the video once they're cleared it. It's not like they stop showing ads on demonetized videos, they just stop sharing the profits.

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

[BizX]

Correct, we'd ban him if he tried.

Re: It's more or less still all that

[jawtheshark]

I saw Mythbusters create black powder. I think they effed up the proportions on purpose and they wouldn’t say then. A quick wikipedia search tells you though.

Re:It's more or less still all that

[serviscope_minor]

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.

Cody's lab is one of my favourite channels on Youtube. And fuck youtube for being dicks about it.

It's still not bloody censorship and all this dog-whistling does nothing but cheapen the word. He is not being stopped from speaking.

Re:It's more or less still all that

[AmiMoJo]

Don't mistake trolls and poor implementation for policy.

Trolls like to mass flag videos so that YouTube takes away their advertising. You can go over to 4chan and see them organising right now.

YouTube's system for handling this is terrible. But it's not a policy issue, it's an implementation issue.

Same with bogus copyright claims. Don't mistake incompetence for malice.

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

[serviscope_minor]

He cannot upload new videos ----> he cannot speak. Just how stupid do you have to be to deny that?

You tube is not the only place it's possible to speak. How stupid do you have to be to think that?

Re:It's more or less still all that

[Z80a]

Cody is not getting just demonetized, he's getting actual youtube strikes that can ban him from the platform completely.

Re: It's more or less still all that

[Z00L00K]

And I think that videos promoting flat earth and religion are offensive. But I choose to not watch them.

Re:It's more or less still all that

[elrous0]

Censorship always starts with the water getting more comfortably warm. But it ends with the water boiling.

Re:It's more or less still all that

[serviscope_minor]

First, I like the guy, and love his vidoes, and I'm pissed off that youtube has decided to suspend his acount however:

Nonetheless, Youtube are censoring him. That's censorship.

Can he still speak?

what was that?

was that a yes?

Oh yes he can, so he's not been censored. This incessant dogwhistling about censorship just cheapens the term and distracts from actual censorship.

How stupid would I have to be

Exceptionally, it appears: he can still speak freely and publicly. He is not censored.

Re: It's more or less still all that

[GuB-42]

First of all, it isn't really "science" as much as "science class at home." He's just dorking around on video. Nerds should love it, but that doesn't make it science.

Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/397/
That one is about Mythbusters but it applies to Cody's Lab too.
tl;dr: It is science

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?).

Re:It's more or less still all that

[umghhh]

As soon as such platforms are used by everybody they become a public square. Can you talk freely on a public square? Is there any other? Looks to me like in modern society FB, twitter and YT are a public square delivering basic service to the public. It is not a problem with this or other particular a-le but with removal of views and opinions of others because they are not representing the view of current interwebs mob. Removal of possibility to earn was one of the things that communists which I had occasion to experience first hand were using too. Fascinating to see the old times coming back.

Re:It's more or less still all that

[DogDude]

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

"unfairly"? The protected classes in the United States are: Race, Color, Religion or creed, National origin or ancestry, Sex, Age, Physical or mental disability, Veteran status, Genetic information, Citizenship.

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

That's not true. A business can tell somebody wearing a "MAGA" hat to get the fuck out, and the moron would have no grounds for any kind of legal action.

Re:It's more or less still all that

[Hognoxious]

This incessant dogwhistling about censorship just cheapens the term and distracts from actual censorship.

When the town has one newspaper and it won't print your article there's absolutely zero practical difference between that and teheeberlgubmint banning your article. In both cases, it doesn't get read.

And yet from a constitutional POV one is censorship and the other isn't.

Of course what really matters is the content. If it's stuff you agree with being impeded it's censorship. If it's stuff you don't like it's editorial choice and "their sit, their rules".

Re:It's more or less still all that

[Hognoxious]

It's because youtube is owned by google, who have aligned themselves with the "destroy Western culture and cohesion" agenda

Yeah, but he was talking about Greece.

Re:It's more or less still all that

[AmazingRuss]

If I tell you to scream "fuck fuck, fuckity fuck" a thousand times, and you don't do it, you are censoring me.

So you better get started... I can't heeeeeeeaaaaar youuuuuuuuu!

Re:It's more or less still all that

[Cederic]

Hmm, no. I'm not a loudspeaker, I can't disseminate your voice for you.

If I were a town crier and you gave me that instruction then yes, I'd censor your stupid fucking arse.

Re:It's more or less still all that

[jpaine619]

Correct, we'd ban him if he tried.

That's why you are a cunt.

Re:It's more or less still all that

[serviscope_minor]

When the town has one newspaper and it won't print your article there's absolutely zero practical difference between that and teheeberlgubmint banning your article.

Yes there is. A massive difference.

The newspaper won't arrest you if you tell people, stand on a street corner telling poeple or start up a rival newspaper, publish pamphlets and so on. No newspaper has ever done what you want. The options now are wider, more varied and cheaper than they have ever been. Printing is at the cheapest it has ever been. And you can distribute on many many internet venues both free and paid for and even on ToR on which no one can block you.

And yet from a constitutional POV one is censorship and the other isn't.

From any sane point of view too.

If it's stuff you agree with being impeded it's censorship. If it's stuff you don't like it's editorial choice and "their sit, their rules".

You absolute liar. I said twice already I was pissed off at Cody's lab being cut off.

Re:It's more or less still all that

[jpaine619]

That's not true. A business can tell somebody wearing a "MAGA" hat to get the fuck out, and the moron would have no grounds for any kind of legal action.

You people have serious lack of reading comprehension. The GP is correct. To use an example, if a dude comes walking into your store with no shirt on, and you say "No Shirt, No Service, Get the Fuck out". You are fine.

HOWEVER, if you then let another guy with no shirt walk in, and you DON'T kick him out as well, you have a serious problem on your hands. You acted unequally.

Re:It's more or less still all that

[jpaine619]

Nonetheless, Youtube are censoring him. That's censorship.

How stupid would I have to be to not think that?

Listen moron, there is a difference between government censorship and private policies. Note that I didn't use the term private censorship. It's not possible.

If you had a guest in your house and he called your wife a "whore" and you told him to "get the fuck out and never come back". Did you "censor" him? Of course not.

In our example, the former guest is free to leave your house, stand on the sidewalk / pavement and continue to refer to your wife as a whore. He will not face jail time. He retains his ability and right to speak his mind publicly.

If the GOVERNMENT bans a type of speech and says you'll go to jail if you say these things ANYWHERE, THAT IS FUCKING CENSORSHIP.

Re:It's more or less still all that

[Cederic]

There is a difference, but it is nonetheless possible for a non-governmental organisation to censor someone.

Just fucking deal with it.

Re:It's more or less still all that

[war4peace]

Not only that, but they demonetize small channels too.
I have a small, hobby Youtube channel, which contains mostly footage from games, such as World of Tanks replays and bugs from a variety of other games. Never thought about making money off it, but monetized a few videos just to see what happens.
About two weeks ago I received an e-mail from Google telling me they revised their policies and all channels with under 1000 subscribers or this many minutes viewed per month would be demonetized.
All for maybe 5 dollars I made in 6 months.

Re:It's more or less still all that

[war4peace]

Nope.
Service refusal based on clothing is not discriminatory, because it enforces the same rule to the entire population.
It would be discriminatory if it would allow person A to enter without a shirt but person B would not have been allowed.

Re:It's more or less still all that

[dryeo]

So like restaurants that have a sliding "formal wear" scale based on how important a customer is or how busy they are?

Re:It's more or less still all that

[DogDude]

That's simply not true. There's no law that says anything like that.

Re:It's more or less still all that

[dryeo]

Of course it is censorship. From https://www.merriam-webster.co...

1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring
        They oppose government censorship.
b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively
        censorship that has permitted a very limited dispersion of facts —Philip Wylie

and from https://www.merriam-webster.co...

: a person who supervises conduct and morals: such as
a : an official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter
        Government censors deleted all references to the protest.

and some examples from the same page, which show that a censor doesn't have to be a government official,

In the novel, Rebecca is murdered by her husband, while in the famous Hitchcock film her death results from an accidental fall—a change made in deference to industry censors, who frowned on a crime going unpunished.
—
WSJ, "Five Best: Lily Tuck," 15 Sep. 2017
But with Trump out to punish and intimidate critics, and many CEOs scared to give offense, a lot of Americans will slowly develop an internal censor.
—
slate staff, Slate Magazine, "How Trump Will Change America," 24 Jan. 2017
Zuckerberg has long maintained the company doesn’t want to play censor, but Facebook has drawn some lines—banning Greece’s Golden Dawn, the ultranationalist party, for example.
—
lauren etter, Bloomberg.com, "How Facebook’s Political Unit Enables the Dark Art of Digital Propaganda," 21 Dec. 2017

Now your example isn't the clearest but changing it to a policy of the homeowner not allowing people to call his wife a whore, you're censoring peoples speech, and it is perfectly legal and could probably be grounds for eviction if it was a tenant.

Re: It's more or less still all that

[Paradise Pete]

It's not like they stop showing ads on demonetized videos, they just stop sharing the profits.

Really? I was under the impression that no ads were run. Didn't this get stirred up because advertisers didn't want to be seen against certain types of videos? And what is the point of demonetizing them? Simply to not have to share? That's short sighted. The most important thing for you tube is preserving their near-monopoly.

Re:It's more or less still all that

[iamhassi]

but these edgy videos is what made youtube what it is today. Removing, filtering or demonetizing that content is not right.

someone needs to make a good youtube alternative that allows all content, from adult videos to suicide and everything in between and get some of the bigger youtube people sharing content on it and promoting it on their youtube channel. I've seen women with innocent youtube channels tell viewers to visit their adult content on other sites so I know it's possible and works.

The internet was never suppose to be owned by a few major players like it is now with Google/Youtube, Facebook and Twitter deciding 99% of what every internet viewer sees. That's why I love /. and reddit and even 4chan, some of the last outlets not owned by the major players where you can get real content from.

Re:It's more or less still all that

[Ol Olsoc]

He cannot upload new videos ----> he cannot speak. Just how stupid do you have to be to deny that?

You tube is not the only place it's possible to speak. How stupid do you have to be to think that?

It certainly isn't censorship, and there are a lot more places to go. But I think that Google, and Youtube are taking a hard turn to the left. And they have every right to turn their service into extreme left wing videos only if they want to.

Do they really want to? That seems like a video service with all of the political leanings of Fox News or Breitbart, just in the opposite direction.

As an example, most if not all the MGTOW channels have been demonetized. Youtube's well within their right. Apparently they are going to make them harder to find next.

Oooookay - that's cowardly and a dick move at the same time. You can upload a video, we just want to make it as hard as possible for people to find it.

If you want to see exactly how Google wants society to be organized, you need to look into the Damore Lawsuit against them. There is extra goodies from teh email system that are entered into evidence, including urgiing personal violence against Damore, Demanding a purge of anyone who holds any opinions that do not fall in lockstep with Google's apparent mandatory thought system where you must confom completely, you must have no other opinion, or you shall be cast out, and violence against you is not a problem, and encouraged by others.

Censorship? Not at all. The sort of totalitarian frame of mind that will not allow any other opinion? It is already in the culture, they are perhaps just awaiting for the chance to enact their dogma.

Suppression has always worked - or not. But yes, if Google wants to do this, they have the right. Personally I think they have tipped their hand a little too soon.

Re:It's more or less still all that

[Ol Olsoc]

Nonetheless, Youtube are censoring him. That's censorship.

How stupid would I have to be to not think that?

Censorship on a private platform is neither a right nor "he cannot speak". Otherwise you'd be forcing every website to pay the costs of displaying everyone's views.

Right. It isn't censorship. It is definitely saying that you will express nothing that we don't like or else there will be punishment. Is that a good move?

Looking at Google's and Youtube's hard veer toward intolerance, It seems like a good way to make a PR problem for themselves.

Re:It's more or less still all that

[Reziac]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

Basically if it's open to the public, you can't (generally) discriminate. If it's membership-only, then you can.

Re: It's more or less still all that

[Aighearach]

So to you, science means repeating yourself, but with an appeal to authority? LMFAO

You seem to be confusing the concept of merit with science.

That you think "Mythbusters" is science, because it is possible to describe it loosely while including the word "experiment." Weak sauce. Really really weak sauce.

By that definition, Religion is science as soon as a person prays, and then decides their prayer was answered.

Re: It's more or less still all that

[Aighearach]

It doesn't occur to a lot of otherwise-intelligent people that there is a big area where you can do education about things like explosives in a responsible way that doesn't accidentally cause idiots to blow themselves up; basically like you imply, you include "mistakes" that anybody doing the rest of the required research would be able to correct, but that will keep it from actually working when copied exactly.

Instead they jump straight from "You have to exercise care when talking to the public about this subject because it is dangerous" to "Z0MG me FREEDUMS their taken my FREEDUMS don't CENSUR ME." Even when Cody takes reasonable precautions, he whines about it, and when he takes very minimal precautions, he talks up safety like he's the guru of Common Sense and an expert on accident injury statistics.

I'm actually a big fan of his content that doesn't contain rants, and I've seen most of his videos. If he just stopped being such a whiner and gave youtube full credit for it being their platform not his, he'd be twice as good as he is. He could be making videos with nearly-identical content and having less problems if he'd just stop firing up an anti-youtube newsletter every other week, and instead take personal responsibility for his own decisions and role in his relationship with youtube.

Re: It's more or less still all that

[Rujiel]

The end of this is censorship, even if Paul isn't being censored. for example, Youtube would much prefer your ad views to be on Certified (tm) news channels.

Re: It's more or less still all that

[doccus]

Instead they jump straight from "You have to exercise care when talking to the public about this subject because it is dangerous" to "Z0MG me FREEDUMS their taken my FREEDUMS don't CENSUR ME." Even when Cody takes reasonable precautions, he whines about it, and when he takes very minimal precautions, he talks up safety like he's the guru of Common Sense and an expert on accident injury statistics.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that most are the authors of their own doom. Very few cases, it sems, are as genuinely unfair as Crow777's was, and instead, once I look into the actual situation I see that they usually play a rather large part in their own troubles.
It does, really, remind me of the thousands of instances of people pulled over or stopped on the sidewalk by the cops where they refuse to answer simple questions that don 't violate any right,, and then unload a barrage of offensive and rude statements at the cops until they've reacted with pretty much the same reaction anyone else would have after being rudely and loudly insulted for ten minutes or so. Then they yell "Cop assault" loudly. Yeah sometimes it's true, and they get badly beaten, but you can bet they would have been a little better treated had they not behaved so rudely.
Same here.. I don't know the particulars of this case other than he seemed to taunt google on his YT channel. Kind of asking for it, I would say. Unfortunately google is a private company that cvan do pretty much anything it wants, as long as it stays within the confines of any contracts it makes. We do not, yet, have a public worldwide, or even local, online video serving service that cannot bar or otherwise interfere with content, that would otherwise ensure freedom of the press. AFAIK, anyways...

Re:It's more or less still all that

[Hognoxious]

You absolute liar. I said twice already I was pissed off at Cody's lab being cut off.

A stopped clock is right twice a day.

Re:It's more or less still all that

[mjwx]

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.

Actually they are. Discrimination is not illegal, what they cannot do is discriminate on a protected class (I.E. race, gender, religious affiliation).

Re:It's more or less still all that

[david_thornley]

Did you read your cite? It applies to physical places like restaurants and theaters. Nor does it require everyone to get the same treatment no matter what, but discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin is forbidden. It does not cover websites, and it does not forbid discrimination on other bases.

Re: It's more or less still all that

[Rujiel]

"or start up a rival newspaper" Why start up a rival when you can just pay a paper hundreds of millons to be your mouthpiece, like Bezos was paid by the CIA to have WaPo play along? Or just send a parade of generals on your channel to shill war, as is common with CNN or MSNBC? Or have an ex CIA agent like Anderson Cooper have his own show? Or hell, just give the fucking ex CIA chief his own show, like MSN did with John Brennan?

Re:It's more or less still all that

[serviscope_minor]

right so if you don't like someone it's ok to argue by making up lies about them.

Got it.

Out of interest do you identify as right wing?

Re: It's more or less still all that

[Aighearach]

In my town if you can goad the cop into doing that you get a big payout and the cop gets six months of desk duty. And that's if they only false-arrest you, if they beat you down they get fired and have to go to work in the suburb where we keep the urban rednecks.

The difference is, the cop doesn't own the sidewalk, and I have a Right to walk down it. I talk lots of smack to asshole cops who stop me for no reason, and since I know my rights and I know the local laws and I don't do it if they caught me violating a traffic law or something. No problem. You have to actually be smarter than the cop and really know the local laws, though. You have to talk shit in a way that sounds like your smack-talk was written by a lawyer. Then the cop will be confused enough they might even go and sit in their car and call somebody to ask what to do! Then they find out, yes I can talk shit and waste their time, no they can't do anything about it.

Youtube, OTOH, is policing their own private property. As a visitor I have no right to remain, no right to continue the relationship. If a cop on the sidewalk wants to hassle me, I've got a Right to use that sidewalk. If a bouncer at a bar tells me to leave, I'm gonna leave really fast, and if I want to hurl verbal abuse I would most certainly do it from just off their property, on a public sidewalk! It isn't enough to wait until you're out the door, pay attention to the property line when dealing with private security in the US.

Having a bunch of angry followers doesn't actually help them. If it was the Gubermint hassling him, then having a bunch of loud supporters might help their causes. In the case of a private party, it just makes them appear more controversial! That doesn't really help. And the most vocal supporters start shouting "boycott youtube" and nonsense like that, that doesn't help. Without youtube, they wouldn't even be able to make money from their videos in most cases.

Dave from EEVblog for example admits in his rants that he needs youtube more than they need him, but he makes the rant anyways. If he'd listen to his own words during the part of the video where he's tempering his outrage, he might even realize he has no cause for outrage. If they didn't have an automated review system that takes time for correcting mistakes, they would lose too much money on the service to even keep publishing his stuff and paying him for it. He points out that if everybody switched to a competing service, the competing service would go out of business immediately because nobody has the money to lose(!) to try to "compete" with youtube. For google it is an important loss-leader that helps keep them in control of the online advertising market. Nobody else even has the money to do it, but if they did, they wouldn't have a reason to lose money doing it! Dave explains all this, but does a rant anyways. In the same video. D'oh!

Re:It's more or less still all that

[Rakarra]

you have a serious problem on your hands. You acted unequally

It's only a legal problem if one can make the case that the business was acting unequally to a protected class (race, gender, disability, etc) or if the business violated a contract or agreement.

Of course, even if it's not a protected class, you can get into non-legal hot water by being discriminatory. Protests can happen regardless of the legality of an action.

So yes, you might have a problem on your hand if you kick one person out for not having a shirt on, but let another stay. But it's unlikely you'll have a _legal_ problem unless someone can make the case that, say, you kicked out shirtless black guys, but not shirtless white guys. Then you'll be looking at lawsuits with teeth, instead of nuisance lawsuits.

How about Defensive videos?

[jfdavis668]

Let's hear a little love for the defense.

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.

Re:This sounds like it will be arbitrary

[Anonymous Coward]

The part I don't get is why they're removing ads. Don't they want to discourage people from watching the offensive videos?

Re:This sounds like it will be arbitrary

[TWX]

Okay, I laughed. I forgot about most of the ads because I don't normally see them anyway.

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?

[LWATCDR]

Yep, what offends me might not offend you.
I had a friend that was so offended by a church that paid to have a booth at a city holiday festival that he complained that it violated the separation of church and state.

Re:Offensive to who?

[ArchieBunker]

My guess would be SJW and whiny liberals.

Re:Offensive to who?

[duke_cheetah2003]

Subjective criterion will no be abused right?!

If you take a peek over here you will see they have pretty well defined what is going to be a problem. Sure it's not going to be perfect, but it's a pretty comprehensive list what sort of material they're going to.. discourage.

Yes, some videos may toe the line on some of these rules, and subjective opinion could play a part, but, for the most part, I think a video is going to be fairly easy for any normal person to classify, given those parameters.

Re:Offensive to who?

[techdolphin]

The problem is that this could be abused in many ways. For example, with political postings if someone did not like what is posted even if the posting is true, they could tell YouTube that it is offensive and use Twitter or Facebook to tell other users to say the posting is offensive. Companies or countries--not that have one in mind--could use bots to say that a posting is offensive. Without checks, I could see this quickly turning into censorship.

Re:Offensive to who?

[Jonathan C. Patschke]

Subjective, arbitrary, and opaque. Even if all you do is post about old games and computer hardware, you're not immune.

YouTube are acting as though they're so big and attractive that the talent can't leave. That sort of thinking is only true for a limited time.

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?

[Mashiki]

*insert SJW's don't exist* and *whiny neo-puritain liberals are mainstream you stupid conservative* here.

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?

[Reverend Green]

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.

Re:Offensive to who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Justin Bieber doesn't offend me. I'm only upset that he doesn't see a doctor about his VD, make up (or out) with the Hanson brothers and then do a MMMBop cover.

Now that is real music.

Re:Offensive to who?

[phorm]

'Advertiser friendly' is anything that gets lots of attention, but isn't going to be the subject of a significant amount of negative publicity.

Re: Offensive to who?

[Mashiki]

That's what they label themselves as, even using the progressive label. Maybe there's a serious problem in the left with crazies right now that needs to be taken care of?

Re:Offensive to who?

[fafalone]

Since it's YouTube/Google, to the authoritarian progressive* snowflakes who have made it their mission in life to be offended by as many things as possible. Those perpetually one slightly off-color joke away from running off to a safe-space with puppies to cry about how the joke was literally violence and they're literally shaking; who don't at all see the problem with then turning around to explain why 'kill all white men' and 'kill yourself cis-het scum' are perfectly fine, non-hateful things to say which would be oppression to censor.

* - progressives are not liberals

Re:Offensive to who?

[SuricouRaven]

Whining is not a partisan thing, even if the subject is. There are plenty of whiny liberals tying to get things pulled for offending them. There are also plenty of whiny conservatives trying to get things pulled for offending them.

Re:Offensive to who?

[AmiMoJo]

YouTube isn't the only source of income. There is Patreon and Hatreon, and free speech warriors seem more than willing to fund these channels.

Re:Offensive to who?

[SuricouRaven]

They do that already. It's a very old tactic. It predates the internet - even back then there were groups of do-gooders who organised newsletters identifying what they had decided was the latest filth on TV and urging their supporters to write letters to the channel, the regulator and the adertisers expressing their outrage and demanding it be pulled.

The people sending the complaints didn't actually watch the program they were complaining about, of course. They would never pollute their homes with it.

Re: Offensive to who?

[Z80a]

I should not be called an "ecofriend" if i constantly bash baby seals dead with clubs just because i call myself an ecofriend.
Titles and descriptions are earned by action, not words.

Re:Offensive to who?

[Z80a]

Until youtube starts to strike your channel, such as happened with Mr.Cody several times.

Re:Offensive to who?

[AmiMoJo]

Are you saying that Patreon bans channels that get YouTube strikes? How do they even find out?

Patreon funds many extreme channels that YouTube doesn't.

Re:Offensive to who?

[Anonymous Coward]

I neither care about this Cody dude nor his followers, but I think your question is disingenuous and as such you should just have refrained from posting since it just makes you look stupid.

The point which was made was that if you get struck by Youtube, you can't post new material at all, period. Whether Patreon still wants to do business with you or not is completely beside the point, and you know that. Shame on you.

Re:Offensive to who?

[tinkerton]

The fact that the categories are subjective is not necessarily because they are hiding anything. It is more likely because they intend to go with the flow and let others decide.
I encountered articles from a socialist site, http://www.wsws.org/ .. They claim they've been tracking their web statistics over a long time and in the last year they started to decline dramatically, and it was mostly because a lot of search terms which used to return links to their site no longer did so. You have to dig deep in the search result pages to do that. Their trafic from google has been decimated. So you can think hey where does this come from, I thought it was about fake news?

They're organising a campaign now but i suppose few will ever hear of it. I mean, socialists? Who cares right? The whole set of their articles is here http://www.wsws.org/en/article... .

Re:Offensive to who?

[tinkerton]

The filter will not only widen in terms of content, also in terms of linkage. It will become contagious.If you link to a site with a low reputation your reputation will suffer. So think twice before tweeting such a subject to a friend because it will affect their reputation.
This way you achieve mass conformism.

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.

Re:Offensive to who?

[elrous0]

I think you're the one who needs an education. An authoritarian can be of any political persuasion, idiot.

Re:Offensive to who?

[elrous0]

YouTube isn't the only source of income. There is Patreon and Hatreon,

Well, I'm pretty sure no mainstream conservative or classic liberal wants to be associated with a site calling itself "Hatreon." And sadly, Patreon (being a Silicon Valley company) is also subject to the same pressure from the radical left that infects companies like Google, Facebook, et. al. Patreon has already begun banning a number of conservatives (like Lauren Southern, for example), and all indications are that this is only going to accelerate as the 2020 election approaches. It could very easily get to the point where pretty much every conservative voice is blacklisted across almost the entire internet as we know it.

It's part of the weakness of letting so many large left-coast/urban-elite companies basically have a monopoly on the mainstream internet. Conservatives need to start founding and funding more large-scale startups of their own in areas outside of Silicon Valley and Seattle to offer a counter-point and an alternative place for blacklisted voices and viewpoints. Otherwise, they could come to the harsh realization very soon that there are basically no mainstream internet platforms left for conservative (or even classic liberal) speech.

Re:Offensive to who?

[Cederic]

Sorry, I share his ignorance. I don't like using labels but even I recognise 'authoritarian progressives' as a valid description of how many people act and behave.

Could you perhaps help educate us both by posting something a little more informative than "I've heard it all"?

Re:Offensive to who?

[iwbcman]

Cry me a damned river man.

What else could you possibly expect?

Facebook is a private corporation, not the commons, or a public domain-everything about Facebook including all of the content, each web page-which includes where advertising is embedded, is private property.

Think of it this way: Facebook is like some rich mofo's BIGASS backyard. The rich mofo invited a bunch of kids to hang out on his lawn. At some point some of the kids started tearing up the yard, mostly by shitting all over it. Finally the mofo decided enough is enough, you can't shit on my lawn. Consequently he decided to tell them to Get The Fuck Off My Lawn. And that rich mofo don't need to call the police. Because you earning money on his fuckin lawn is not a right, but a privilege which he grants you at his sole discretion.

Re:Offensive to who?

[AmiMoJo]

Patreon gets a lot of flack for not banning some really horrible people.

Also, other services exist.

What is your alternative? Are you going to force advertisers to give people money?

Re:Offensive to who?

[DogDude]

... and what's your point? Youtube is a large advertising company that sells ads to other large companies. Why wouldn't they only promote "advertiser friendly" stuff?

Re:Offensive to who?

[LWATCDR]

So you do not believe in free speech?
Nice.....
So would you feel the same about the Black Lives Matter protesters that blocked the roads?

Re: Offensive to who?

[Mashiki]

I should not be called an "ecofriend" if i constantly bash baby seals dead with clubs just because i call myself an ecofriend.

Why? Nothing wrong with bashing baby seals, we do use everything off of them anyway. They're mostly done in culls because the little bastards will put huge dents into the fish populations. FYI if you ever come to Canada, seal flipper pie is a real thing, also made from real seal flippers. It's also quite good.

Re: Offensive to who?

[Mashiki]

Came for the foam-flecked far right rants, stayed for their thinly veiled threats.

There's no rant there slow-friend. Anyone who looks at the democrat party can see the anti-white, pro-authoritian leaning in the party. You can wander onto any university campus and find open racism against whites and asians by various "social justice" groups. You can find no shortage of black supremacy groups which agitate for violence and far-outstrip anything that the right has.

So yes, maybe the left really does need to get it's shit in order and start dealing with them. You don't think all those "far right" groups came into existence in a vacuum did you? Smile kiddo, that's the "smart" leftwing policy that gave birth to it.

Re: Offensive to who?

[Mashiki]

I am a classic liberal myself, and I didn't leave behind the Democratic Party so much as it left me behind.

Seen a lot of people over the last few years saying this, not just in the US but Canada, and in Euro countries as well. It's like the in-general political left decided to toss on the ye olde mantle of "we're you're intellectual superiors, and you're going to *like* what we tell you."

Re:Offensive to who?

[AmazingRuss]

I am offended by you and your association with Justien Bieber.

Re: Offensive to who?

[AmazingRuss]

It's forming a mirror image of the Republican party.

The common theme is authoritarianism though, and it seems like we don't have any other viable alternative to vote for.

Re:Offensive to who?

[bmo]

It's already been happening.

Political channels because they're political, and things like AvE (Arduino versus Evil) because of language.

Because machinists, engineers, toolmakers, technicians of any type ranging from your corner store tech to the guy you call because you can't get your cruise ship out of port because X bearing is busted, don't ever swear.

The political channels and (especially) the above want you to actively block the ads and just use Patreon to throw a coupla bucks their way.

And if you're not watching This Old Tony, you're doing it wrong.

--
BMO

Re:Offensive to who?

[Rockoon]

Has everyone noticed that this SJW clown here doesnt know anything about what HE is talking about?

Cody cannot upload videos. It is not a video of his that is banned. He is effectively banned as a person. GET IT YET. SJW SCUMBAG?

Sure, now you will reply with a different argument that preserves the conclusion, because everybopdy fucking knows you started with a conclusion and worked backwards.

Re: Offensive to who?

[Mashiki]

It's forming a mirror image of the Republican party.

You need to get out of your bubble. I'll ask you this, and without looking it up. Which party introduced legislation to ban 'first amendment zones' on university campuses.

Re:Offensive to who?

[Reziac]

Why not make ADVERTISERS responsible for deciding which content they want to be displayed with?

Instead of hiring 10,000 censors to whack-a-mole content and continuing to dump irrelevant ads on people who don't want to see them and increasingly block them, YT could have hired a hundred ad-agency representatives (companies don't do their own ad placement) and vastly improved the relevance and viewer-acceptance of ads across the board.

Re:Offensive to who?

[Rakarra]

Authoritarian progressives... Ok, I give up, now I've heard it all.

Really? You sound surprised at the notion. You realize that the 20th Century is littered with examples of "authoritarian progressives," right? Mao's Great Leap Forward is one of the most visible disasters, but there are plenty of others. Or are you using the definition that "progressive == good, not progressive == left wing?"

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

[freeze128]

How would they collect data or make money off of videos I don't watch? Allowing the user to hide certain videos would actually give them *MORE* data.

Re:Blocking channels

[zifferent]

They do have this feature. Click the triple dots to the right of every suggested video and select Not Interested. Then click the Tell Us Why. Then check the I'm not interested in the FooBar channel.

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:Blocking channels

[SvnLyrBrto]

> 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.

And yet, YouTube... jaw-dropping amazingly, considering that they're part of Google... has gotten it's targeted *advertising* so wrong that it's somewhere between comically bad and outright dumbfounding. It doesn't matter has many times you tell me that it's the "champagne of beers", I will never be a customer of miller low-life. They persist almost incessantly in showing me ads for the dipshittery that are various pay-to-win microtransaction shovel-ware "games". And, even though I'm pretty sure I've *never* accessed YouTube with a device that wasn't made by Apple, I still get Samsung ads with notable regularity.

But yeah, their recommendations for the actual content is pretty spot-on.

Re:Blocking channels

[jawtheshark]

So you think that advertisement is not tailored to you?

You might get Miller ads because you are in a certain geographic location, or because you have interest in certain activities (sports?) closely associated with the beer drinking populace.

Shovelwars online games? Interest in video games, computers and technology.

The Samsung ads are a no-brainer: they know you use Apple and Samsung paid them to show their ads to users of their main competitor. That’s one “Duh” right there.

Re:Blocking channels

[dunkelfalke]

If YouTube suggestions work so well for you, you probably have very mainstream interests. For me personally they not once have been of any relevance.

Re:Blocking channels

[Jack9]

> How would they collect data or make money off of videos I don't watch?

Advertisers track what people don't watch, when offered as much as what people do watch. In digital advertising, it's one description of "optimization" and the brand-alignment retargeting (oh, you didn't click on Honda, I'll sell your preferences to Toyota and Ford and whoever else) has been dejour for decades (DoubleClick to thank for that). Youtube does something similar for content targeting and will attempt to serve you popular videos you specifically dislike, over and over.

Re:Blocking channels

[duke_cheetah2003]

has gotten it's targeted *advertising* so wrong that it's somewhere between comically bad and outright dumbfounding.

I wouldn't know. U-Block Origin has wiped YouTube of all its advertisements, from my perspective. I have no idea what they're advertising these days.

Re:Blocking channels

[duke_cheetah2003]

If YouTube suggestions work so well for you, you probably have very mainstream interests. For me personally they not once have been of any relevance.

You must not be trying very hard. There are videos covering just about -any- topic (except porn) on YouTube. I don't really consider my interests terribly mainstream. I mostly watch the electronics stuff, like bigclive, AvE and mikeselectronics (but not EEVBLOG, that guy has an informerical voice, so annoying!) Watching people take stuff apart is amusing, it's all the fun without the mess and effort. Beyond that, I watch mostly educational stuff, especially phyiscs related material. World Science Festive talks are really interesting, as well as lectures from numerous other sources and on a wide variety of subject matter. Stanford posts a lot of a good lectures. Oddly, even though I've never touched a lockpick in my life, I thoroughly enjoy watching bosnianbill's and lockpickinglawyer's videos on picking and locks. Spinkle in current events, PBS, Al Jazeera and other news sources (including late night comedy monologues)

Stuff I don't really watch? Music videos, animal videos, anything that's "Trending," stupid stuff, stupid for stupid sake. Not interested. Mr. Puzzle has a pretty cool channel though!

Re:Blocking channels

[jpaine619]

There is no mechanism in YourTube to block a channel.

LIAR. Turn off autoplay.. Click on what you want to see. Simple as that.

Re:Blocking channels

[AK Marc]

Nope. To try it, I logged in a different account, so not skew results, checked PDP, and then noted the suggestions (Dan TDM and others), then went back to my "ban PDP account" and opened up Dan TDM. I got more PDP suggestions. "not interested" those as well, then continued looking at the similar gamer videos, still got an endless number of PDP, which is why I installed the extension that re-writes the page to eliminate all of a single banned channel.

I don't want a secret downvote with nearly no effect. I want a 2-click ban.

Re:Blocking channels

[AK Marc]

LIAR. Autoplay is off. Unwanted channels are still displayed in the suggestions.

Re:Blocking channels

[Reziac]

On each video in your Suggested list, there's a dropdown mark (3 dots) in the upper righthand corner. Click that and it opens up a little dialog with one choice: "Not Interested". Click that, and in my experience that's the last you see of that channel.

Re:Blocking channels

[AK Marc]

When my kids got onto my computer and watched some things from channels I don't want, those recommendations kept popping up, even specific ones I'd already "downvoted". That's what left me wanting a more absolute and easy way of setting profiles, and highlighted that it doesn't exist.

Re:Blocking channels

[Rakarra]

They rely upon tricking people into clicking on shit.

Come on, this is basic web marketing.

Come on, man, their ENTIRE platform relies on providing better* selections for you to click on, not "tricking" you. They don't care what videos you click on as long as you're clicking on them. Tricking you means you're a lot less likely to click.

*better being "their best automated guess."

Re:Blocking channels

[Rakarra]

And, even though I'm pretty sure I've *never* accessed YouTube with a device that wasn't made by Apple, I still get Samsung ads with notable regularity.

That makes you a PRIME candidate for Samsung marketing, not less likely. They want to pull you away from the Apple ecosystem.
Advertising 101: get your adds shown to the people you want to capture the most. Doesn't matter if YOU don't want them, advertising is the great Circle of Life: Customers -> Product Makers -> Products -> Customers. Each of those three is integral to the product/advertising cycle, and Youtube specializes in the Product Makers -> Customers part. That's what brings in the cash for them.

As they should

[bjsvec]

I have no issue with dumb/offensive/edgy/whatever videos, but YouTube has no obligation to pay the creators. Advertisers have started making clear they don't want to be associated with these "creators" anyhow. Win/win as far as I can tell.

Re:So long!

[LWATCDR]

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

Re:I'm so glad...

[bjsvec]

This has nothing to do with morality or censorship. Advertisers don't want to be associated with this crap and YouTube has no obligation to pay anyone anything. The videos are still there.

Re:BS considering twitch did the same

[Bing Tsher E]

When we get real, vigorous Net Neutrality, Google and Facebook and all their properties will be nationalized and become the Commons that they should be.

Or at least, maybe that's where Net Neutrality will lead.

The medium shouldn't be private. When an entity expands to a certain size and becomes the dominant player on a medium mostly because they 'were there first' it's time for it to become a commons that nobody owns.

Re:I'm so glad...

[ravenshrike]

Sorry, but that would seem to be belied by the fact that they are also not allowing said videos to be recommended.

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:For a certain definition of "offensive"

[Aighearach]

Other people and companies can and do exercise the same rights.

You should see what they show on xwhateveritscalled! And Jenny Cam.

Re:For a certain definition of "offensive"

[mi]

Other people and companies can and do exercise the same rights.

Not quite...

You should see what they show on xwhateveritscalled

Yeah, I'm sure some sort of "post boy" can be found to justify the censorship ... And then apply it to whatever else the censors find disagreeable.

The First Amendment makes it illegal for the government to do it, but most of the arguments behind the Amendment apply to private entities just as well.

Re:For a certain definition of "offensive"

[serviscope_minor]

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

Somehow I don't think Che Guevara will mind if he's demonetised.

Re:For a certain definition of "offensive"

[tinkerton]

That's what I've pointed out earlier. If you privatize the channels for free speech you get a huge freedom to censor free speech.
What is happening here is that the big social media players and Google are on board for forms of censorship, but they leave it open what this will include. It's negotiable. The result is the game is on for the strong players to start pushing out the weak ones. Weak in the sense of politically weak. So all dissident voices will be targeted, oppressed groups, designated enemies, starting with the easy ones.
In effect we're really in for a new age of censorship.
no worries though, those who have nothing interesting to say won't feel they're being censored.

Re:For a certain definition of "offensive"

[Opportunist]

Why would he? He's dead, nobody gives a fuck about him anymore. He's essentially the political equivalent of a cat video.

Re:For a certain definition of "offensive"

[mi]

He's dead

That's true.

nobody gives a fuck about him anymore

This is not true. Like Stalin, Lenin, and Marx — all of them dead for much longer — he remains a symbol of the most murderous school of though known to humanity so far. Any attempts to glorify him in particular or the Communism in general are deeply offensive, disturbing, and patently hateful. If we were to ban hate speech some day, we should start with that. But we will not...

He's essentially the political equivalent of a cat video.

This is neither true nor false — it makes no sense at all.

Re:For a certain definition of "offensive"

[mjwx]

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...

Neither will Margret Thatcher. Both are non-offensive because they aren't trying to be racist, sexist or in any other way bigoted... And I'm not a fan (of Maggie or Che, both too extremist for my tastes).

There isn't a conspiracy against the right, if you find your idols and demagogues are getting in trouble for being bigots too often, maybe you should find better people to worship.

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.

Wait... what?

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube will REMOVE ads from offensive videos? Why not instead put in MORE ads, and NOT credit them? Perhaps run a message along the bottoms of the ads, stating...

THIS ADVERTISEMENT IS HERE TO DEFRAY THE COST TO YOUTUBE.COM OF HOSTING THIS VIDEO; THE ADVERTISER IS IN NO WAY ENDORSING THIS VIDEO OR ITS CONTENT, AND THE ACCOUNT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS VIDEO RECEIVES NO REVENUE FROM PLAYS OR SUBSCRIPTIONS DUE TO OFFENSIVE CONTENT.

...and let the offenders either pull down their videos or close their channels, or watch people NOT watch them because of ads. I suggest this because I know I am LESS likely to watch a video that has ads than one that does not, especially when the ad is annoying, or insistent, like ones that say the name of the company or product being hawked in the first second or so, forcing you to hear the name of the sponsor, rather than letting the user CHOOSE to hear the message or not.

(I now mute audio before going to YouTube for that exact reason, and if I see it's going to play an ad first, I "alt-tab" another window on top of the offending one. I REALLY hate ads. I might feel different if they weren't often insulting, annoying, stupid, grating, deceptive, and if they weren't basically trying to do what could be called a social-engineering hack, attempting to compromise my brain's network and breach the defenses to get it to operate in a fashion inconsistent with how I want it to operate...) So this move just seems counterproductive. I am sure that the purpose in de-monitizing videos isn't to reward viewers with annoying-stupid-ad-free content, but to punish creators, but all that means is that they find other ways to monetize, and their videos play, blissfully, beautifully, wonderfully ad-free. Also, who the fuck are they to decide what the fuck is fucking offensive? There's videos I watch, (progressive news channels) who have apparently been blocked from being able to fund their operations this way, not because they're offensive but because they're telling truths that Google doesn't want people to hear. (I know that sounds like some Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh/Alex Jones shit right there, but it's not.)

Re:Wait... what?

[epyT-R]

So you're all for this if youtube deems your videos EC-10:CONDEMNED?

Re:Wait... what?

[Opportunist]

Works for me. Turn YouTube Adblocker on and you're golden.

Re:BS considering twitch did the same

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't know? Don't care? The dude is an ass hat "youtuber" bajillionaire who does NOTHING. NOTHING contributed to society whatsoever. No talent, no brains, no intellect, no nothing. A complete waste of DNA. And your diseased, truth hating society rewards this behavior with huge buckets of money and fame.

You should care.

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.

Re:BS considering twitch did the same

[ScentCone]

No. I don't want to live your vision for a government controlled ... everything.

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:And notice the fatal lack of specificity...

[Chas]

Yeah. The fucking "You're a nazi" shit only works up until they've had enough and just AGREE before stomping said label-maker into a mass of blood and bruises.

Hell, we're seeing it now with the "How could you hit A WOMAN!" rioters who think pussy-pass allows them free shots on everyone...

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

[c]

See his "peoplekind" comment which then suddenly became a joke(after public backlash), which nobody found funny...

He'd probably have gotten a better response if he'd just told the truth; his "peoplekind" comment was really a way to deflect a non-sensense question from a batshit crazy member of the audience.

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

[Opportunist]

That's pretty much the problem. What you'll get is this vicious cycle:

1. Loudmouths complain about "offensive" content (mostly the kind of content that debunks their pet belief which they can't refute with arguments).
2. Loudmouths from the other side retaliate by calling the content of proponents from 1. offensive.
3. Repeat 1 and 2 until what's left is cat videos, kids playing minecraft and other crap nobody gives a shit about.

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

[Mashiki]

He'd probably have gotten a better response if he'd just told the truth; his "peoplekind" comment was really a way to deflect a non-sensense question from a batshit crazy member of the audience.

Well if you don't live in Canada, or follow Canadian politics closely, this type of response from him isn't abnormal. It's normal, that's what's troublesome and in some cases scary. His belief that "if you kill your enemies they win" - in response to terrorists is a good example. It spawned a whole meme industry around it. It's not only that, but he's fundamentally out of touch.

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

[Mashiki]

Yeah. The fucking "You're a nazi" shit only works up until they've had enough and just AGREE before stomping said label-maker into a mass of blood and bruises.

It also does a great job of shifting that overton window. "Whatja mean if I'm for equal rights, free healthcare, and freedom of speech I'm a nazi." That's kinda the state of politics in Canada right now.

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

[Chas]

No. YouTube is being blamed for their own actions in response to advertisers reasonable (and sometimes NOT so reasonable) responses.

Simply seeing a commercial interstitial to a video does NOT mean the advertiser supports whatever the video is saying/doing/selling/preaching/etc.

And YouTube should have had the common sense to balls that out during the initial adpocalypse.

They would have INITIALLY lost some business. Sure.

But they're a HUGE advertiser presence with ungodly exposure. All they had to do was sit back and wait for other advertisers to rush in and fill the adspace.

Instead, we now have digital gulags, and secret police, star chamber proceedings, and all other manner of loathesomeness.

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

[Chas]

I never said YouTube couldn't do what it wants.

I'm saying that there are better ways to go about it than the idiotic gaggle-fuck that they're perpetrating right now.

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

[c]

Well if you don't live in Canada, or follow Canadian politics closely, this type of response from him isn't abnormal.

In this case, I have a hard time thinking of any response which wouldn't have sounded a bit abnormal, simply because it was responding to such a ridiculous pile of nonsense. Catching on to the "mankind" and throwing it back as "peoplekind" was an easy and effective redirection, and I'm willing to give him props for it.

I agree in the general sense that he spews way too much nonsensical inoffensive bullshit, but this is one of those cases where it actually was appropriate and effective.

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

[Mashiki]

Yeah, well to be fair, though, anti-semitism was silly meme-edgery a couple years ago, and now it's appearing everywhere.

Hate to tell you, but it wasn't. It was very prevalent on university campuses and among the left in those same places. The interesting thing is that, there's open anti-semitism and actual jew hatred being promoted on those same campuses, and even in left-wing political circles. But there's not a peep from the press on it unless the politician make so much of a gaffe that they have to drive them out. Look to UK politics if you want a really shining example.

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

[Mashiki]

Yeah welcome to the shitshow going on in Canadian politics right now. But it wasn't appropriate or effective, that's why even the left-wing press that gets on their knees for him were attacking him over the comment.

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.

By "offensive" they include moderate conservatives

[walterbyrd]

PragerU - think of them what you will - creates videos that are certainly not offensive, or inappropriate for any age.

Yet PragerU has had many videos put into restricted mode.

Who Will Google Silence Next?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giNJwXiktZ0

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?

The dumbing down of the internet

[sharkbiter]

So posting a video with girls in wet t-shirts will be okay for most advertising, but posting a video that shows you how to make a nuclear weapon in your basement will be down-voted, ignored and (GASP!) demonetized. Kid videos with vapid Care Bear-like content will be okay for Super Frosted Sugar Bombs cereal but posting a kid video on how to take care of your bicycle will be put in the ignore pile and demonetized because it allows for free thought, independence and prevents the kiddy bicycle companies from profiting on kids demanding that their parents replace their six month old conveyance with a new one. Sounds about right -- I'll take the blue pill, no sense in showing that I'm capable of thought if the corporations can't get a profit from it.

Re:BS considering twitch did the same

[BronsCon]

Youtube [...] removing ads to content they don't approve is just shooting themselves in the foot.

Indeed, I'll support those channels on Patreon and not have to see ads (or use an ad blocker -- which I do anyway) and still use YouTube's storage and bandwidth. They're really doing us a favor when you look at it from the right perspective; they question is how long will it take them to realize they're hurting themselves worse than the channels they're demonetizing.

Re:Free speech?

[sharkbiter]

And what did king George III think of a bunch of kids over in the "colonies" when they declared their independence, eh? I'm not saying that all jerks are worth listening to, I'm saying that some jerks are. They bucked the system, struck out for their own ideals and the result is... Umm.

Never mind. Moot point. Forget I even commented.

Re:BS considering twitch did the same

[Bing Tsher E]

Either do I. It's just where things are headed.

Re:I'm so glad...

[aevan]

If only google/youtube had some sort of system/metrics where they could amass data, and then sculpt what the user sees by their personal history and such... extending that to matching advertisers with their content... it'd be some blessed dream of marketers everywhere!

But no no, let's just alienate entire demographics because they aren't 'correct' for us.

Re:By "offensive" they include moderate conservati

[Anonymous Coward]

And in the future, they will also have "decreased discoverability". Oh, no, not censored! Just impossible to find, because they're hidden in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused bathroom that has a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Tiger'.

But YouTube can proudly say they don't censor conservative content!

Re:By "offensive" they include moderate conservati

[SuricouRaven]

Perhaps not offensive, but certainly not accurate. PragerU produces videos that a slick, polished, and packed full of half-truths and occasional outright lies.

Re:By "offensive" they include moderate conservati

[orzetto]

PragerU claims to be a university, but is just a propaganda outlet. So they are lying right from their name.

They do expose a number of political opinions I find wrong, distasteful or outright despicable, such as that Israel does not discriminate against Arabs, or that capitalism is the solution to poverty, but that does not warrant any kind of censorship. But when they venture in the territory of alternative facts, as opposed to alternative opinions, such as "global warming isn't real", then they deserve to take a hit for spreading mala fide lies. Note that YT is not censoring them nor anyone, they are just going to be unable to monetise. And considering that PragerU is funded by the billionaire Wilkis brothers, video monetisation is the last of their problems.

This is not new

[anyaristow]

They've been demonetizing and rendering less-findable videos that don't satisfy mainstream sensibilities for at least a year. This has affected political content on both the left and right.

Still unrecognized in the media that you are allowed to see is that a new axis has opened in the political landscape: establishment vs anti-establishment. The six corporations (soon to be five) that control all the media are on the establishment side, of course, and they are having a tantrum over supporters of both Trump and Sanders (as well as all third parties).

So what's left?

[Opportunist]

Cat videos and 10 things that will BLOW MY MIND?

Pass. Anyone know a decent video service where people making actual content are present?

Re:By "offensive" they include moderate conservati

[Opportunist]

Well, at least in this case nothing of value was lost. I've seen some of those videos. Mostly religious bullshit debunked ages ago paraded out as if it had any scientific merit.

C'mon, if you don't have any better examples, you make YouTube look like they're actually doing their viewers a service.

Re:BS considering twitch did the same

[elrous0]

Sadly, Patreon (being a Silicon Valley company) is also subject to the same pressure from the radical left that infects companies like Google, Facebook, et. al. Patreon has already begun banning a number of conservatives (like Lauren Southern, for example), and all indications are that this is only going to accelerate as the 2020 election approaches. It could very easily get to the point where pretty much every conservative voice is blacklisted across almost the entire internet as we know it.

It's part of the weakness of letting so many large left-coast/urban-elite companies basically have a monopoly on the mainstream internet. Conservatives need to start founding and funding more large-scale startups of their own in areas outside of Silicon Valley and Seattle to offer a counter-point and an alternative place for blacklisted voices and viewpoints. Otherwise, they could come to the harsh realization very soon that there are basically no mainstream internet platforms left for conservative (or even classic liberal) speech.

I usually sell good ideas, this one is free

[Opportunist]

Make a webpage. Collect all those links that YouTube wants to bury that fit your personal preference of the narrative(s), or if you're actually such a good Samaritan, actually collect all those demonetized, buried videos and create a link index for them.

I'm fairly convinced that it's quite possible to run something like that even on ads, despite what YouTube claims most advertising companies don't care too much about the content as long as you can spin it in such a way that you provide freedom of expression rather than trying to promote "bad" videos.

I don't have time for a project like this, but I could see a market for that.

Sounds like a plan

[zmooc]

Sounds like a plan... if they were actually capable of detecting abuse in a reliable manner. They have clearly shown they are not; they are are continuously flagging educational and/or scientific content, frustrating content creators and driving them elsewhere. I think the success of platforms like Patreon and brilliant.org is to a large part fueled by Youtube's inability to protect valuable content creators from their incompetent bots. This will be the end of Youtube as the de facto video platform. It will take a while, but content creators will simply flee elsewhere as popularity and/or revenue-streams of other platform increases while Youtube keeps harassing them.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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.

Offensive to their advertisers

[DogDude]

Offensive to their advertisers, of course. Youtube is an advertising company. Of course it's going to be subjective. Why would you think they'd do otherwise?

Did he?

[rsilvergun]

cause it sounds like he didn't. What youtube is worried about is out of control copy cats. This most recent high profile ban was for tazing a dead rat. That raises the question, why was the rat dead? Maybe he found it. Probably he found it. But will the next youtuber trying to break in kill the rat themselves? Probably. Lots of psychos out there, I can't blame youtube for not wanting to be associated with them.

Um... just click the 'not interested'

[rsilvergun]

and it'll be the last time you see that channel in your feed. You'll also stop getting similar crap. It's worked for me for ages. Sure, every now and then youtube puts crap in my feed, but it's never the same crap (there's so much new crap it's hard to keep up) and in the meantime I get stuff like cool videos of teardowns of old RISC computers I didn't even know existed.

Revolution needs money!

[mi]

Somehow I don't think Che Guevara will mind if he's demonetised.

Revolutionaries constantly need funds — they did and do rob and kill to gain them. For the Greater Good, of course.

And he'd certainly send to a firing squad — or personally executed — anyone, who'd try to suppress his speech...

I use adblock anyway

[WCMI92]

YouTube and google are far far insane leftist already.

Re:Responsible for content or not?

[AHuxley]

AC in the past the internet "social" media was positioned as been open and free to all as a type of commons to upload media.
To then talk about that media, comment on it, to make a video to respond to that news, politics.
A lot of people invested their time, skill in building their reputation. To now have a brand go full party political on the ToS is a change that could have been mentioned before so many people used some social media brands.

Patreon

[sycodon]

I just joined patreon and a pledged support for a hunting channel that was repeatedly flagged by the cocking PETA fuckers and then demonetized.

Fuck them and fuck the cocksuckers at YouTube.

Re:Patreon

[Ol Olsoc]

I just joined patreon and a pledged support for a hunting channel that was repeatedly flagged by the cocking PETA fuckers and then demonetized.

Fuck them and fuck the cocksuckers at YouTube.

Very good! The problem here is who decides what is offensive?

If the answer is everyone, then everyone making that decision is going to depopulate Google to nothing very quickly.

I cannot for the life of me figure out what would make a hunting channel offensive. Not everyone is into hunting, but the answer for them is simple - Don't watch the gawdammed hunting video. Everyone has a pretty good idea what is going to happen.

Oh, but then there is that political issue. People with a philosophical problem with hunting will flag the videos without ever seeing them.

And next for everyone's entertainment, the Youtube banishment wars. As political factions find that it's fun to screw with people, we'll get something that looks like a nuclear option. While many lefties are happy to squack about the sites they hate, there is a pushback from the right. David Pakman has been defunded, and I believe the Young Turks as well. Hardly anything but left wing there.

I guess they'll be saving money on servers soon.

Re:By "offensive" they include moderate conservati

[ebvwfbw]

Like what? Everything I've seen on there was very factually correct. You may be a victim of leftist propaganda. Such as fascism being on the right. Just look up Giovanni Gentile. That'll take care of that lie. The man that the left is trying to erase from history.

What are those ads people are speaking of?

[loufoque]

I've never seen any ads on Youtube.
Where are those?

All I can see is sponsored videos, but surely youtube isn't really involved in that process.

Re:BS considering twitch did the same

[fustakrakich]

The medium shouldn't be private. When an entity expands to a certain size and becomes the dominant player on a medium mostly because they 'were there first' it's time for it to become a commons that nobody owns.

The wire, yes. Content, NO! Just keep the market open to competition. Price (and "control") the internet by bandwidth, nothing else.

Re:BS considering twitch did the same

[Rakarra]

Patreon has already begun banning a number of conservatives (like Lauren Southern, for example)

Lauren Southern's account was suspended because she was "raising funds to take part in activities likely to cause loss of life" when she supported Defend Europe's attempts to block vessels trying to rescue migrants stuck on rafts in the Mediterranean Sea. She countered her money didn't actually go to Defend Europe, but as the Patreon action was aimed at Defend Europe not Southern specifically, she was caught up since she was their most public Canadian supporter.