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

[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

[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?).

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?

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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: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.

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"

[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: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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.