First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Youtube Censorship 2017
505 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 8/31/17 , edited 9/1/17

This is the kind of stuff that will drive content producers to other platforms. Soon literally the only thing on youtube will be cat videos.


Funny, but wasn't that how YouTube pretty much started out?
15444 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/31/17 , edited 9/1/17
the world of suck have open some new doors.
550 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/2/17 , edited 9/2/17
Some of my favourite YouTube channels have been demonetised because of censorship.
35304 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 9/2/17 , edited 9/3/17

Cydoemus wrote:


niotabunny wrote:

censorship is a new territory. as far as youtube goes anyone can upload anything if you're not banned and/or a member, it's the "censorship" that gets you, what they deem bad they will delete, sometimes without warning and could risk the loss of account. so, no youtube isn't banning anything, just deleting what they declare to be "harmful", "hateful", etc.


In the case of this thread, it isn't even that.
Rather than deleting, they're ensuring that the content creator isn't getting any money for ad revenue to certain videos that are considered "harmful" or "hateful" (etc...) based on what their advertisers have requested them to do so.
It's the case where the users believe that they're entitled to make money based off of whatever they upload.
YouTube has always informed them that this is not the case.
Creators have to follow guidelines in order to have videos monetized and YouTube can demonetize videos at their discretion.

Except for the fact that most of the demonetization has extended far beyond the intended scope of terroristic or anti-semetic content towards anything that isn't a major news corporation that has a political viewpoint.

In other words, it is censorship.
15796 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 9/2/17 , edited 9/2/17

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


Cydoemus wrote:

In the case of this thread, it isn't even that.
Rather than deleting, they're ensuring that the content creator isn't getting any money for ad revenue to certain videos that are considered "harmful" or "hateful" (etc...) based on what their advertisers have requested them to do so.
It's the case where the users believe that they're entitled to make money based off of whatever they upload.
YouTube has always informed them that this is not the case.
Creators have to follow guidelines in order to have videos monetized and YouTube can demonetize videos at their discretion.

Except for the fact that most of the demonetization has extended far beyond the intended scope of terroristic or anti-semetic content towards anything that isn't a major news corporation that has a political viewpoint.

In other words, it is censorship.


But that isn't the "intended scope". The intended scope is anything controversial which covers most political material.
35304 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 9/2/17 , edited 9/2/17

sundin13 wrote:


XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


Cydoemus wrote:

In the case of this thread, it isn't even that.
Rather than deleting, they're ensuring that the content creator isn't getting any money for ad revenue to certain videos that are considered "harmful" or "hateful" (etc...) based on what their advertisers have requested them to do so.
It's the case where the users believe that they're entitled to make money based off of whatever they upload.
YouTube has always informed them that this is not the case.
Creators have to follow guidelines in order to have videos monetized and YouTube can demonetize videos at their discretion.

Except for the fact that most of the demonetization has extended far beyond the intended scope of terroristic or anti-semetic content towards anything that isn't a major news corporation that has a political viewpoint.

In other words, it is censorship.


But that isn't the "intended scope". The intended scope is anything controversial which covers most political material.

The intended scope being what started the adpocalypse in the first place, when advertisers found extremist content being kept under the radar in the service.
1339 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 9/2/17 , edited 9/2/17

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:
Except for the fact that most of the demonetization has extended far beyond the intended scope of terroristic or anti-semetic content towards anything that isn't a major news corporation that has a political viewpoint.

In other words, it is censorship.


Not exactly.
Censorship would mean deleting or blocking access to the content that they're uploading.
Demonetization simply means that the individual isn't getting paid for the video.
To claim censorship is to be intolerant of the free market.
YouTube is not required to pay content makers if their advertisers believe that their advertisements should not be listed on videos with specific content.
Even if they were deleting or blocking off access to these videos, YouTube is a private company that doesn't have to adhere to the idea of a "free speech platform".
Since Google/YouTube are aware that they would lose a significant amount of users (content creators and viewers) by removing access to these videos, they simply demonetize them - which isn't censorship.
29197 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 9/2/17 , edited 9/2/17

runec wrote:

Everybody loves the free market until they're on the receiving end of it.


It sure is amusing.
35304 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 9/2/17 , edited 9/2/17

Cydoemus wrote:


XxDarkSasuxX wrote:
Except for the fact that most of the demonetization has extended far beyond the intended scope of terroristic or anti-semetic content towards anything that isn't a major news corporation that has a political viewpoint.

In other words, it is censorship.


Not exactly.
Censorship would mean deleting or blocking access to the content that they're uploading.

Hmm. Nope.


censorship
ˈsensərSHip/Submit
noun
1.
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.



Demonetization simply means that the individual isn't getting paid for the video.

Exactly.


To claim censorship is to be intolerant of the free market.

No one is arguing for their right to do so, I am simply expressing my distaste for it.


YouTube is not required to pay content makers if their advertisers believe that their advertisements should not be listed on videos with specific content.

And, as SoA put it, which I highly agree with, YouTube needs to take a large part of the blame that this even needs to be done because they turned themselves into a scapegoat the moment they started conflating political videos with extremist videos and demonetizing them.


Even if they were deleting or blocking off access to these videos, YouTube is a private company that doesn't have to adhere to the idea of a "free speech platform".

Right. So that makes what they're doing not censorship? I don't follow.


Since Google/YouTube are aware that they would lose a significant amount of users (content creators and viewers) by removing access to these videos, they simply demonetize them - which isn't censorship.

Wrong again.
1339 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 9/2/17 , edited 9/2/17

XxDarkSasuxX [link Hmm. Nope.


censorship
ˈsensərSHip/Submit
noun
1.
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.


It appears that you fail to understand the meaning of "suppression".
Please look up the word and try to quote that in your next response, as it'll be a doozy.
To save some time....
Demonetization of a video is not suppression of material.
It does not change the amount of viewers or the marketing opportunities of the content creator.
Therefore, it isn't censorship.
Definitions are an interesting thing, are they not?

Your usage of "soft censorship" is invalid as well, unfortunately.
You could argue that because there are some content creators on YouTube that make the majority of their content based on journalism that YouTube is censoring them through financial pressure (which, I believe you're attempting to do).
However, the issue is that each of these content creators had agreed to a specific set of terms and conditions when they decided to start making money primarily based on advertisements.


Payment Terms, Limitations and Taxes. YouTube will pay you for any revenues due within approximately sixty (60) days after the end of any calendar month, so long as your earned balance is at least US $100 (or its equivalent in local currency) at the time payment is due. You are not entitled to earn or receive any revenues in connection with your Content in any of the following circumstances: (a) if one or more third parties claim rights to certain elements of your Content except in cases where YouTube’s policies or systems support sharing a portion of the revenues with you, as determined by YouTube; (b) if monetization is disabled on your Content by either you or YouTube; or (c) your participation in the YouTube Partner Program is suspended or terminated pursuant to Section 4 below. YouTube will use reasonable efforts to notify you if any of these circumstances should occur.


Above is the agreement between an account that has decided to monetize their videos and YouTube.
To further expand onto this, the content creator must also follow what is considered the "advertiser-friendly content guidelines" which can be found here: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en
In other words, the content creator themselves are responsible to ensure that the video that they upload does uphold these guideline criteria or face the potential of having their video demonetized.
When advertisers complain about clicks coming from specific content creators on YouTube, YouTube will likely mark the video as not being advertiser-friendly.
The controversy stems from the automated process that YouTube is attempting to implement, for the most part.
While there are a handful of "false positives"when compared to the amount of videos the system is actually analyzing, this is the ebb and flow of all automation.
It has to proceed through the process of learning, which is why YouTube does have the option of challenging a particular demonetization action.

YouTube, as a company, is not a journalistic organization.
They are a media company.
Through and true.
Content creators attempting to be journalists on YouTube do not have the same protections on YouTube as they would on their own blog or otherwise.
Again, as it's a private company it does have the ability to remove any content that it doesn't consider acceptable.
Instead of censoring it, they leave this content up.
Said content generally violates the advertiser-friendly guidelines so they are demonetized.
Anything beyond that is a delusion.
To clarify, I meant that it's delusional to believe that YouTube is the "realm of free speech" when each person who is attempting to get paid for their content has already agreed to terms that limit their ability to speak freely.

Content creators choose to utilize YouTube as their platform due to the popularity of the platform itself.
It isn't censorship when the videos are still accessible and subscribers to said content creator can still access it.
YouTube isn't censoring content, it's simply stating that these videos fail to meet the guidelines for monetization.
"Soft Censorship" would only be valid if the content creator hadn't already agreed to the terms and conditions as to what allows their videos to make revenue.
35304 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 9/2/17 , edited 9/2/17

Cydoemus wrote:

It appears that you fail to understand the meaning of "suppression".

Sure thing. It'll take us through a miniature learning adventure as we go through, but I enjoy educating the willing, so here goes a small quote tree of definitions.

Please look up the word and try to quote that in your next response, as it'll be a doozy.

As it was. Words are crazy, aren't they? Enough of this strawman.


Demonetization of a video is not suppression of material.

Yes it is.


It does not change the amount of viewers or the marketing opportunities of the content creator.

Actually, it is very much starting to influence the community a bit, and we are already seeing some creators, in an attempt to regain the revenue they've lost, create less content and move to other platforms through the participation and support of their fans. Many have turned to patreon, but this is a viable, long-term option only for the larger of channels.

Are you even part of the youtube community, or are you just here because the thread title mentioned censorship, and through your lack of context, you think you know what it is or isn't?


-snip-

Your usage of "soft censorship" is invalid as well, unfortunately.
You could argue that because there are some content creators on YouTube that make the majority of their content based on journalism that YouTube is censoring them through financial pressure (which, I believe you're attempting to do).
However, the issue is that each of these content creators had agreed to a specific set of terms and conditions when they decided to start making money primarily based on advertisements.

That doesn't refute or disagree with anything that I said. Pay attention, please.


Cydoemus wrote:


To claim censorship is to be intolerant of the free market.

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:

No one is arguing for their right to do so, I am simply expressing my distaste for it.


YouTube is not required to pay content makers if their advertisers believe that their advertisements should not be listed on videos with specific content.

And, as SoA put it, which I highly agree with, YouTube needs to take a large part of the blame that this even needs to be done because they turned themselves into a scapegoat the moment they started conflating political videos with extremist videos and demonetizing them.


Even if they were deleting or blocking off access to these videos, YouTube is a private company that doesn't have to adhere to the idea of a "free speech platform".

Right. So that makes what they're doing not censorship? [Obvious ironic statement]

I snip quotes and address posts in a line by line basis, so that I do not have to go through the tedious process of going back to reiterate myself.


-snip-

While there are a handful of "false positives",

Right. You definitely don't go on the platform for anything other than cute kitten videos.

Video game channels to weapons/military channels have been hit just as hard as channels that were political, and, as I mentioned before, even political channels were not supposed to be in the original scope of channels that got censored.

This is by no means a mistake, and several channels have yet to receive a return to their original revenue. They even had to make a new status for their videos to let you know that you aren't breaking the rules, but they are going to disincentivize your product, anyway.


-snipped for the same reason as above-


Posted 9/2/17 , edited 9/3/17
it was a good run boiz
1339 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 9/2/17 , edited 9/3/17

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:
Sure thing. It'll take us through a miniature learning adventure as we go through, but I enjoy educating the willing, so here goes a small quote tree of definitions.


Your definitions were correct.
Your usage of using the word suppression was not.
YouTube is not suppressing the content creator from creating content.
They are free to create as they wish, upload what they wish (within reason, as it cannot violate community guidelines), and the videos will not be deleted.

Again: demonetization is not suppression nor censorship.
I implore you to get this through your head.


XxDarkSasuxX wrote:
Actually, it is very much starting to influence the community a bit, and we are already seeing some creators, in an attempt to regain the revenue they've lost, create less content and move to other platforms through the participation and support of their fans. Many have turned to patreon, but this is a viable, long-term option only for the larger of channels.

Are you even part of the youtube community, or are you just here because the thread title mentioned censorship, and through your lack of context, you think you know what it is or isn't?


A lot of content creators have moved onto seeking their source of revenue from Patron.
That's their own decision to ensure that their revenue doesn't suffer from demonetization of videos that doesn't fit YouTube's advertiser-friendly guidelines (see above).
Even so, this is a personal decision based on the content creator and not YouTube stiffling their viewership on the platform itself.
These are those who have a significant amount of viewers and know that their subscribers will be willing to pay for content through Pateron (like Philip Defranco, if we're using "pseudo-news content creators").
Let me repeat: These are content creators who choose to use Patreon as their primary revenue source due to knowing that their videos will be demonetized.

As for my own viewership, I generally stick to videos about programming (Google Developers, Firebase, Salesforce Developers, ServiceNow Dev Program, etc), mathematics/science (Numberphile, Art of the Problem, Sixty Symbols, Crash Course, ...), video games (TotalBiscuit, Ingress, Razer, boogie2988, MetalJesusRocks, hbomberguy, Digital Foundry, GameXplain, and various FGC players), some news-focused videos (Philip Defranco, Dave Rubin, Joe Rogan Experience, etc) and music (various indie artists, covers, etc).
Even knowing some of their opinions on demonetization, I would say that some of their videos don't necessarily meet the advertiser-friendly guidlines and would expect them to be demonetized.
At this point, many of them simply state that they know the video they're uploading will be demonetized and they're okay with that (insert external source of revenue).
Some complain about it, some accepted and moved on.


XxDarkSasuxX wrote:
Right. You definitely don't go on the platform for anything other than cute kitten videos.

Video game channels to weapons/military channels have been hit just as hard as channels that were political, and, as I mentioned before, even political channels were not supposed to be in the original scope of channels that got censored.

This is by no means a mistake, and several channels have yet to receive a return to their original revenue. They even had to make a new status for their videos to let you know that you aren't breaking the rules, but they are going to disincentivize your product, anyway.


Again, see above for my own YouTube use style.
You snipped only the "While there are a handful of "false positives"" bit without the important bit: "when compared to the amount of videos the system is actually analyzing".
Look at how many videos are uploaded to YouTube on a daily basis.
One of the known statistics is that there are 300 hours of content uploaded to YouTube every minute.
That's 432,000 hours of content per day.
Not all content is from users that are part of the partner/affiliate system, I know.
Even so, there is a significant amount of content that is being analyzed by an automated system.
Statistically speaking, it is a handful of false positives.

The "new icon" you speak of is the "Not considered suitable for all brands" icon (yellow dollar sign).
This means that the only revenue gained from that video will be YouTube Red users (like myself) who view it as it doesn't appeal to their advertisers.
The strikethrough dollar sign implies that it's demonetized and the content creator will receive no revenue from said video.
You attempting to make it sound like a death sentence seems to imply how little you know about this situation.
Do you actually do research and listen to the content creators?
Or are you just in it for the kitten and LootAnime unboxing videos?
8450 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / One of the few lo...
Offline
Posted 9/2/17 , edited 9/3/17

PrinceJudar wrote:

Welcome to capitalism, may I take your order?





Hah! You wish.

1. It's Corporatism you are seeing here, not Capitalism. Common mistake among those who blindly hate Capitalism due to being brainwashed into Socialism ideals.

2. The problem is actually Socialist misfits impressing upon a Corporation (Youtube/Google) the idea that their opinions matter more than other peoples and that anyone who disagrees with them should be censored for the better good of all those who might be too foolish to know not to listen to them. (in their opinion of course.)

3. Soros funding buys a lot.
588 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35
Offline
Posted 9/2/17 , edited 9/3/17
Wow, I have never seem people start crying so quickly over nothing.

So, you don't get paid if you express a certain opinion.

Do that stop you from expressing your idea?

No.

You just want someone to pay for it.

Freedom of speech suppressed.

Nope, but you think you are entitled to a pay check for it.

These people are stark raving mad...or maybe just seriously spoiled rotten.

Either way, takes a cup and fill it with your tears so that I can have a new cool drink.

Sorry for trolling, but I just got through with a discussion about someone thinking it's alright to do racist jokes and their answer to other people was ignore them while they did it.

Now Youtube is actually doing it, and people are literally crying about it.

This is just hilarious.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.