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

[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

[Z80a]

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

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: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.

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:So long!

[LWATCDR]

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

For a certain definition of "offensive"

[mi]

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

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

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

Re: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: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:Offensive to who?

[Mr307]

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

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

Re: Offensive to who?

[elrous0]

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

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

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.