YouTubes CEO says that logan pual doesnt deserve to be kicked from the platform

[Guest]

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/12/17006074/youtube-ceo-logan-paul-susan-wojcicki

Quote

Controversial YouTube star Logan Paul doesn’t deserve to be kicked off the platform — at least not yet, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki said today. Paul has been under fire since his trip to Japan, when he posted video of a person who committed suicide. YouTube has temporarily suspended advertising revenue on Paul’s account. But speaking at the Code Media conference in Huntington Beach, CA, Wojcicki said that Paul hadn’t met the criteria for being banned from the platform.

Quote

“He hasn’t done anything that would cause those three strikes,” Wojcicki said. “We can’t just be pulling people off our platform ... They need to violate a policy. We need to have consistent [rules]. This is like a code of law.”

Quote

“What you think is tasteless is not necessarily what someone else would think is tasteless,” she said. “We need to have consistent laws, so that in our policies, so we can apply it consistently to millions of videos, millions of creators.”

Quote

YouTube has faced criticism that the company applies its policies inconsistently, frequently sparing its more popular creators from punishment. Wojcicki disagreed with that characterization. “They might complain about that, but we try our very best to be consistent across everybody,” she said.

How damn long has this controversy been going for about logan pual being banned from the platform? Well, I'd have to think that some punishment should have already been implied to logan pual, not taking it to the extent where it takes a really long time to make a decision about a punishement for logan pual. To be truely honest, I think a suspension from the platform in a given time frame would have been bettter as a punishment for logan pual, I guess it falls into the category of, "oh....I did something wrong (I made a mistake), I'll accept the suspension and I promise I wont do it again", that wouldve been a better scenario to put it. I mean, not all, but some YouTubers are really honest with their viewers and when they have done something wrong, they generally make an apologie to their viewers explaining what they had done and say sorry, but this has been going to long now to extend where I guess it isnt worth it going to my original point of making a simple punishment.

[Sniperfox47]

7 minutes ago, TheBeastPC said:

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/12/17006074/youtube-ceo-logan-paul-susan-wojcicki

How damn long has this controversy been going for about logan pual being banned from the platform? Well, I'd have to think that some punishment should have already been implied to logan pual, not taking it to the extent where it takes a really long time to make a decision about a punishement for logan pual. To be truely honest, I think a suspension from the platform in a given time frame would have been bettter as a punishment for logan pual, I guess it falls into the category of, "oh....I did something wrong (I made a mistake), I'll accept the suspension and I promise I wont do it again", that wouldve been a better scenario to put it. I mean, not all, but some YouTubers are really honest with their viewers and when they have done something wrong, they generally make an apologie to their viewers explaining what they had done and say sorry, but this has been going to long now to extend where I guess it isnt worth it going to my original point of making a simple punishment.

Why? Just because you, and I, and a lot of other people think what he did was wrong doesn't make it problematic. If you don't like that content, just don't watch it.

 

If he did something illegal that's up to the legal system to deal with, not YouTube. If he caused a cultural incident that's again up to the embassy and law enforcement to deal with, not YouTube.

 

At the end of the day, the biggest issue I can put my finger on here is her comment that they need to apply rules consistently, despite their bots randomly monotizing and demonotizing videos with no apparent rhyme or reason.

[minibois]

'kicking him off the platform' wouldn't do a whole much, because he could always make a Keemstar/DramaAlert "I'm not the owner of the channel, just the host" type of deal.

[Sauron]

14 minutes ago, TheBeastPC said:

I'd have to think that some punishment should have already been implied to logan pual, not taking it to the extent where it takes a really long time to make a decision about a punishement for logan pual.

They suspended his channel from monetization and recommendations, it's basically 90% of a ban. If it becomes permanent they might as well have banned him, because without the money and views there's no reason for him to stick around. He has been punished, don't you worry. For a permaban it makes sense that some criteria have to be met and he did not meet them. Making exceptions to the rules would be counterproductive in the long term. Maybe the rules need to be changed, but that takes time.

[NMS]

Not defending Logan Paul, and I know very little about him, but it is very obvious that YouTube is flawed. And if he trully did not break any rules (or not enough to get banned) then the ban was not something that was supposed to happen.

[LAwLz]

She is right. YouTube shouldn't kick people off the platform just because people don't like someone. 

 

He is a terrible human being, but that does not mean he should get special treatment. 

[Blademaster91]

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

She is right. YouTube shouldn't kick people off the platform just because people don't like someone. 

 

He is a terrible human being, but that does not mean he should get special treatment. 

So he shouldn't get banned for his actions? Plenty of youtubers have gotten their channels locked down from uploading, demonetized or removed for much,much less. If not for them being a ''youtube star'' they would likely be in a Japanese prison.

Edited February 13, 2018 by Blademaster91
spelling

[EG!]

"They might complain about that, but we try our very best to be consistent across everybody"

I remember Pewdie's joke that had a bigger and way faster backlash than this, I don't like the Pauls or Pewdiepie, but this video was manually approved by someone at Youtube, there was no response from Youtube for days and it was Logan Paul who got the video offline not Youtube. I see what you all say here but disrespecting a dead man filming him and laughing with it for an audience of teens and children should be enough for a ban, because the line Youtube is drawing now is far beyond what Pewdiepie did with less of an effect on Logan Paul. Most of the money he makes is from sponsers anyway so demonitizing is not gonna harm him much so what kind of punishment is this?

[Nicnac]

best of both worlds for them. Logan is shown his place and youtube can keep getting views and admoney

[Taf the Ghost]

22 minutes ago, Sauron said:

They suspended his channel from monetization and recommendations, it's basically 90% of a ban. If it becomes permanent they might as well have banned him, because without the money and views there's no reason for him to stick around. He has been punished, don't you worry. For a permaban it makes sense that some criteria have to be met and he did not meet them. Making exceptions to the rules would be counterproductive in the long term. Maybe the rules need to be changed, but that takes time.

He makes legitimate money from his YouTube exposure, so YouTube banning him outside of their publicly stated guidelines would lead to lawsuits Google would lose and set precedents they really don't want. Further, what YouTube really, really doesn't want to come out from such a lawsuit would be the reality that the Trending section is human curated and they explicitly ignored a mass flagging of the video.

 

YouTube has one of the most advanced (and fastest) Speech to Text systems in the world, which is capable of producing a transcript of a video automatically. Yet someone intentionally ignored whatever system was flashing about the reports, and someone actually put it active on the Trending page.

 

What Paul did was stupid & insulting, but what Google is doing is attempting to avoid having to pay Mr. Paul millions to go away. 

[Yoinkerman]

Tldr

"He makes us lots of money and we're spineless"

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, Yoinkerman said:

Tldr

"He makes us lots of money and we're spineless"

Actually I'd qualify it a step further: They don't want to kick him because he actually has the power to move away a not-that-insignificant chunk of his audience with him and potentially bring it to a competitor.

 

That's also why they didn't kicked out Felix either: if some of the most viewed, most subscribed creators are kicked they could give a huge influx of business to some other platform. It doesn't means it would automatically make or  break the platform but let's not forget Jake and Logan Paul came from Vine when that closed down and youtube is afraid someone will do to them what they did by snatching the Pauls and other viners to give their platform a big boost in views and henceforth business.

[ItsMitch]

How the fuck is she still CEO lmao

[JoeCoke]

CAN WE STOP TALKING ABOUT LOGAN PAUL???

[Eduard the weeb]

he was a dick but this is getting SO boring can we talk about like anything else plz ?

[AGrider]

You also cant find information about Paul Logan anymore. Searching for Paul Logan only returns results for Logan Paul, even if you use quotes. I think we need to boot him off the internet before he infects other search results. 

[Tech_Dreamer]

Well, That doesn't come as a shocker doe... just like that dead rat .

[mynameisjuan]

There is no reason he should be. He broke a youtube rule and got punished for it. Thats it. Its done, move the fuck on. There is no rule about being a dick will get you banned. 

[Trixanity]

I think the main problem isn't whether he should be allowed to upload videos to YouTube. If he hasn't broken the law or the terms of service then the argument is moot. What is a problem is YouTube promoting him or even paying him. It took them awhile to act despite him being a known asshole and despite being reported. And even after doing something they still promoted his content. 

[Tech_Dreamer]

im okay with them not being too overreacting , plus what he did can be deemed as 'tolerable' misdemeanors, But they must the same standards to be on same par with another Youtuber out there who isn't 'close to them' when it comes down to things. When they start to do a nepotistic cherry-picking sorta justice, that's when it should be barraged with criticism .

[flibberdipper]

Man all I want is for YouTube to stop fucking innocent YouTubers over (such as Cody's Lab). Shit's getting fucking ridiculous.

[OJTheAviator]

3 minutes ago, tmcclelland455 said:

Man all I want is for YouTube to stop fucking innocent YouTubers over (such as Cody's Lab). Shit's getting fucking ridiculous.

Yeah, how has Logan Paul not been banned, yet Cody almost has???

[flibberdipper]

Just now, Computers_And_Tech_Is_Cool said:

Yeah, how has Logan Paul not been banned, yet Cody almost has???

Clearly tazing dead animals + showing a suicide < making a mild explosive that you could go to quite a few stores and make in not much time at all or even make it out of your own urine

 

Because... Yes...

[NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle]

WHAT?

[OJTheAviator]

Just now, tmcclelland455 said:

Clearly tazing dead animals + showing a suicide < making a mild explosive that you could go to quite a few stores and make in not much time at all or even make it out of your own urine

 

Because... Yes...

I know it would be hard to implement across the platform, but it would be nice to evaluate the good potential vs bad potential: What good comes out of logan paul tazing a dead animal or showing a suicide as he did? Not much. What bad comes out of it? Quite possibly death for someone. Good << Bad. Cody shows how to make gunpowder from urine, what good comes out of it? Quite a bit of educational value. What bad comes out of doing that when there are much more straightforward and easier ways all over the place? Not much. Good >> Bad