LTT keeps skirting the problems with google's censorship of gun channels.

[vf1000ride]

2 minutes ago, starsmine said:

its a youtube search, we are talking about youtube. why would I search google intentionally for a youtube channel. 

Sorry, wasn't aware that was a youtube search.  Of course he shows up, he has 2.52 million subscribers.  Probably puts him in the top 10 or so gun channels on youtube.  It doesn't stop youtube from both promoting his channel and it didn't stop them from giving him strikes and him having to remove a large amount of content to comply with the hidden rules.  He has a video explaining it. 

[Avocado Diaboli]

Just now, vf1000ride said:

Nope, porn is well written into the rules of what is not allowed on the platform. There is no hidden agenda to allow some porn but not other types on youtube.  I am upset about the double standard of having unwritten, hidden rules that you don't know your in violation of until they deplatform you.  If the written rules and community guidlines actually banned what they are deplatforming creators for doing than fine, there is no argument.

I already preempted that notion. Again, you argued about legality here and implied that people who are indifferent over how YouTube handles firearm content should be more outraged because firearm possession is legal in the US. Are you outraged that there is no porn on YouTube?

[starsmine]

3 minutes ago, vf1000ride said:

Sorry, wasn't aware that was a youtube search.  Of course he shows up, he has 2.52 million subscribers.  Probably puts him in the top 10 or so gun channels on youtube.  It doesn't stop youtube from both promoting his channel and it didn't stop them from giving him strikes and him having to remove a large amount of content to comply with the hidden rules.  He has a video explaining it. 

Stop moving the goal posts. 

[YellowJersey]

9 hours ago, AbydosOne said:

Google is private company. Private companies have no obligation to treat all customers/users the same, outside of certain protected classes. Content about/including guns is not a protected class.

 This is a defence that I see rolled out a lot and, technically, you're right; private platforms owned by private entities can, largely, allow or disallow whatever content they want on an arbitrary basis. However, the question I've been asking for years, and which has become even more relevant since musk took over twitter, is should private platforms' policing of content be regulated? In an era when a handful of companies control the primary means we communicate with others, it seems dangerous to just leave it to private parties who only care about profit and are often owned by very unscrupulous people (musk, zuck, etc). I mean, the algorithm, may it's beneficence forever smile upon us, has the power to shape public consciousness like never before. Should private companies have that kind of power? I'd say no. Though, the question then becomes how exactly do you regulate these companies in such a way that isn't just replacing corpos deciding what can and cannot be said with governments deciding what can and cannot be said? I honestly don't know. The whole thing seems a bit of a mess to me. 

[Avocado Diaboli]

1 minute ago, YellowJersey said:

This is a defence that I see rolled out a lot and, technically, you're right; private platforms owned by private entities can, largely, allow or disallow whatever content they want on an arbitrary basis. However, the question I've been asking for years, and which has become even more relevant since musk took over twitter, is should private platforms' policing of content be regulated? In an era when a handful of companies control the primary means we communicate with others, it seems dangerous to just leave it to private parties who only care about profit and are often owned by very unscrupulous people (musk, zuck, etc). I mean, the algorithm, may it's beneficence forever smile upon us, has the power to shape public consciousness like never before. Should private companies have that kind of power? I'd say no. Though, the question then becomes how exactly do you regulate these companies in such a way that isn't just replacing corpos deciding what can and cannot be said with governments deciding what can and cannot be said? I honestly don't know. The whole thing seems a bit of a mess to me. 

There are two ways out of this: Break up the consolidated monopolies and counteract the recent trend of massive market consolidation by forcibly reintroducing actual competition (something we did many times in previous decades) or nationalize them. I've long held the belief that any monopolistic service that eventually becomes deeply ingrained into society and culture should not be held in private ownership. That means all telecommunications infrastructure and yes, all-encompassing social media services that form de facto monopolies, such as YouTube's hold on video content. Basically, if you win at capitalism that hard, you lose it all and have to give it up for the greater good.

[vf1000ride]

2 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

I already preempted that notion. Again, you argued about legality here and implied that people who are indifferent over how YouTube handles firearm content should be more outraged because firearm possession is legal in the US. Are you outraged that there is no porn on YouTube?

That statement sounds really obtuse.  How is porn, that has been banned on youtube since the platforms initiation have any bearing on deplatforming of gun content creators for posting videos of things that follow the written rules and have been allowed since the beginning of the platform.  How do you make that connection in your mind that one justifies the other?   It's not part of this conversation and even less appropriate on a tech forum.  And just so you have the quote, No, it is acceptable that there is no porn on youtube.

[Avocado Diaboli]

2 minutes ago, vf1000ride said:

That statement sounds really obtuse.  How is porn, that has been banned on youtube since the platforms initiation have any bearing on deplatforming of gun content creators for posting videos of things that follow the written rules and have been allowed since the beginning of the platform.  How do you make that connection in your mind that one justifies the other?   It's not part of this conversation and even less appropriate on a tech forum.  And just so you have the quote, No, it is acceptable that there is no porn on youtube.

No it isn't obtuse. Again, this is what you said:

1 hour ago, vf1000ride said:

So there are obviously folks in the thread that are ok with this censorship of legal activities

You wanted to make a point about people explaining to you that YouTube can do whatever they want with their platform and the content hosted on it by appealing to their sense of morality based on firearm ownership being legal in the US. I used the most extreme form of censored content on the platform that also happens to be perfectly legal in the US to test how serious your conviction around this really are. And I think I've demonstrated how little the legal argument matters to you after all.

[starsmine]

I to dislike the "private company" argument, as it lets them off the hook for other things.

Youtube can not actually do whatever it wants. Its publicly traded under alphabet. they are beholden to the share holders who are beholden to the advertisers on youtube. If they start monetizing videos advertisers explicitly did not want their ads on, the advertisers can and will pull out, causing youtube to become a liability, not an asset for google. 

Youtube is making a balance between creators creative freedom, audience expectations and tastes, and advertisers willing associations. 
Youtube also has to make a good faith effort to root out bad faith actors. (which... thats a different can of worms)

Youtube also has to protect their status under section 230. They can not freely allow all content, nor can they editorialize content if they want section 230 protections. 

[YellowJersey]

48 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

There are two ways out of this: Break up the consolidated monopolies and counteract the recent trend of massive market consolidation by forcibly reintroducing actual competition (something we did many times in previous decades) or nationalize them. I've long held the belief that any monopolistic service that eventually becomes deeply ingrained into society and culture should not be held in private ownership. That means all telecommunications infrastructure and yes, all-encompassing social media services that form de facto monopolies, such as YouTube's hold on video content. Basically, if you win at capitalism that hard, you lose it all and have to give it up for the greater good.

I wonder if online content creation platforms are more prone to consolidations due to the convenience of having everything in one place. Part of the appeal of youtube is that, aside from porn, everything is there; it would be inconvenient to have to go to multiple platforms to get all the content you want. Online streaming is a great example of this. The appeal of Netflix was that you had so much in one place, negating the need for an expensive cable plan. Now, with so many competing subscription services, we're now back to essentially paying for cable on-demand if you want all the content, which kind of defeats the "one stop shop" model that Netflix had going for it until relatively recently. In a seemingly paradoxical twist of fate, competition in the streaming industry has actually been bad for the consumer since now you need a dozen different subscriptions to get all the content you want. Though, I assume the same could have been said about other monopolies. I dunno, just thinking out loud.

[vf1000ride]

16 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

No it isn't obtuse. Again, this is what you said:

You wanted to make a point about people explaining to you that YouTube can do whatever they want with their platform and the content hosted on it by appealing to their sense of morality based on firearm ownership being legal in the US. I used the most extreme form of censored content on the platform that also happens to be perfectly legal in the US to test how serious your conviction around this really are. And I think I've demonstrated how little the legal argument matters to you after all.

Well, I was corrected by Starsmine as he is more of a scholar than I and that my use of the censorship term was incorrect and the preferred term is "Deplatforming". Even though censorship is the term used by the affected content creators I deferred judgement and stopped using the term, you must have missed that part of the conversation.  As for the legal content portion, the content removed was both legal from a US government law based approach and legal per the rules set forth in writing by youtube that are available to content creators even to this day.  So whats the problem, ohh ya, they have a hidden set of unpublished rules that makes some but not all gun content prohibited and they are not willing to tell you what that prohibited content is until you run foul of it, but they also don't apply this hidden rule set evenly across the entire platform.   They only used it to prosecute a small subset of high profile content creators. 

 

My convictions are very simple, both sides need to abide by the written rules of the platform.  If youtube wants to change the rules, good, as long as all parties are told what the new rules are and they don't get hidden to be used as punishment when one side sees fit.  If youtube had been on the up and up about the rule changes and warned creators they were going to do this and had posted the rules appropriately for them to see there would have been absolutely no reason for this entire forum thread to exist.   The anti-gun crowd and advertisers would have felt safer and the content creators could have adjusted their videos to comply with the new rules.  It could have gone smooth but because they refused to work with the content creators and chose to pull out the ban hammer, here we sit giving it the Monday morning quarterback action when probably none of us have first hand insight into what happened.

[IRMacGuyver]

22 hours ago, Lurking said:

What censorship? They just elect to not sell guns... So does my grocery store. Plenty of opportunities for you to buy guns. 

 

I like " forgotten weapons". How is he censored? I'm not subscribed, but his videos get suggested to  me. And I'm 100% not looking for guns, so the algorithm sure will suggest it to people who are interested.

Google doesn't sell anything on the shopping page.  They're censoring their search results.  They're also censoring the recommended videos algorithm as they leave out a lot of gun channels, and without any specific rules about gun channels google limits or even completely cuts off their access to monetization.  I'm subscribed to Demolition Ranch but haven't seen one of his videos in the suggested bar for at least six months.  

 

 

23 hours ago, AbydosOne said:

Google is private company. Private companies have no obligation to treat all customers/users the same, outside of certain protected classes. Content about/including guns is not a protected class.

That argument would hold water if google didn't constantly claim they were a public utility. Well they did until they got sued for it anyway.  Now they're backpedaling on that.because of the actual consequences of it. 

 

17 hours ago, Lurking said:

That isn't necessarily a conspiracy, it is just CYA on YT side. Keep in mind, every minute a few ten thousand hours of video are uploaded. Lot of simpel rules and AI to guard the system. i used to follow a Polish biking channel and of course, it was just about bikes. But all of sudden YT decided to ban his channel and he couldn't figure out why. not sure how he got it back, but he eventually did. So these are just flukes in the system and for guns everything likely is more sensitive than bikes. 

 

And it isn't censorship. The creator can create their own site and publish whatever they like inc. politics and religion. You just can't force a private company to do it for you. Like I can't go to Fox News and force them to publish my side of a story. But I'm allowed to do it myself (with my own means). I'm not censored, I'm just not given the (privately owned) tools to publish. Or I can't force Amazon to publish my book, but I legally can self-publish. 

 

I never even realized there is selling on YT. You mean ads? I block them anyway. So I'm censoring myself  

Twitter's email "leak" showed that the US government is putting pressure on twitter, facebook, and google for various causes.  Sure most the emails were about the pandemic and control of approved science but it shows the precedent that the conspiracy isn't a theory.  

 

16 hours ago, thrasher_565 said:

was there not a limit on 5 round mages? if so people are braking the ruls. probly started when there were thows 100 round drum mags on pistols

Not any constitutionally valid one.  The supreme court has just been refusing to hear the cases coming out of California to fight it.  That's changing now and there are a couple lawsuits against California heading to the supreme court right now to fix that illegal law. 

 

22 hours ago, starsmine said:

How hands on and how much google would essentially have to editorialize gun content is just way to much work. Without direct editorial discretion and direction, gun content is just safer to algorithmically nuke. Once they start building a white list of gun content you start to really skirt the edge of what is allowed with section 230 and lose its protections as well. Gun content is not worth losing that protection. The content isn't banned, its just deprioritized, you can still host your content on the site, but you need sponsors and outside traffic.

Failing to put ads on the videos (from companies that request, DO NOT PUT ADS ON GUN VIDEOS) is not censorship. It exists in the library, and is fully searchable, its just not putting it out in front. 

Why you think google should be forced to sell guns is weird to me. 

I have zero idea what you are talking about with animals, it does not even sound tangential. You dont need a youtube video to teach you how to use a .308 or a 12 gauge if you are worried about bears or wolves on your land. Or advertise some weird shit you dont actually need. 

Google directly removes videos and place strikes against channels for things that aren't listed in any rule book or guideline. Watch Forgotten Weapons or C&Rsenal to learn how little you know about guns.

 

16 hours ago, Lurking said:

That work example isn't applicable. YT never hired the creators. They signed up to get paid based on ads or whatever. They will get paid for the time their channel was up and generated revenue. 

 

YT isn't responsible for providing a living. Youtubers also can get a regular job. YT isn't the only video market place. Or they can get their own servers etc. and have their own video platform. No one is preventing them from doing that. 

 

Like if I'm an artist and display art in an art galley to sell it and that is how make my living. Now the art gallery can say they like different artist and i have to go. I can't force them to like and display my art. But I can make my own art gallery, or sell my art via other ways. 

 

Imagine you own YT and then someone shows videos you don't like. Would you want to be forced to show them in your own company? If YT says tomorrow they only show flower videos, that is their business decision (probably a bad one, but their choice). 

They are considered contract workers.  Imagine having a contract and getting shorted cause the company decides you broke a rule about something that's completely legal without any warning that it was against the rules.  A perfect example would be the construction industry where a lot of people are contractors.  Now imagine one day the foreman goes through the jobsite and removes pay from anyone using a powder actuated nail gun because they're "supposed to" use pneumatic nail guns even though they've been using them for 9 years no problem and there's no written rule banning powder actuated nail guns. 

 

16 hours ago, Helpful Tech Witch said:

That’s not what’s being done?

 

Youtube isn’t stealing your video, you still own it

youtubw isn’t stealing wages

youtube doesn’t have to pay you shit unless it’s watched, and they can control what’s watched

They literally do control what's watched by limiting what shows up in the suggested feed and on the front page.  Youtube is supposed to pay based on the rules in the contract agreement for the channel.  Changing those rules and implementing unwritten rules is not within the scope of the contract.  This page says that they are infact contracts and therefore should abide the written word

[IRMacGuyver]

16 hours ago, thrasher_565 said:

well to me it looks like they dont want negativity so that could be a reason. but they are a business and they do what they want. just so happen that you were able to make a living doing it but your not garanty it. 

 

there a channel called ZIP TIES N BIAS PLIES and threting to shut it down but in this case its clear why... i just wish they would shut down thows "saving animals videos...  no one wants to see a dog with broken feet sitting on the side of the road...

I could understand that for channels like Demolition Ranch who does some stupid dangerous stuff but Forgotten Weapons, C&Rsenal and others are purely history channels and not dangerous or negative. FFS they put a ban on FW from putting the nazi flag on thumbnails for guns of nazi Germany for something like 8 years.  His entire thumbnail scheme relies on posting the national flag of the gun at the time of it's use and there is no written rule saying no nazi flags. He recently found out that "nonexistant" rule was removed and he can post the German flag again without getting demonetized.  When you refuse to learn from history you are doomed to repeat it... cause you know who was fond of censorship?

 

15 hours ago, starsmine said:

If you miss a mofo buck 20 times you dont need a gun, you need medical help. 

It is a very generous rule for youtube to have. 

people like Paul Harrell have a healthy youtube channel. While I'm sure people have had community strikes for seemingly innocuous things, some generic line needs to be drawn between informative and gun masturbation videos, and 20 rounds in a single mag is more then generous. There are zero shooting sports where you go that high that I am aware of, educational videos outside of autos dont need to go that high, and even when you use an auto, context is generally easy to establish when asked for a review. 

Come hunting in bear country and you'll wish you had more than 20 rounds if things go bad.

 

16 hours ago, Lurking said:

I'm pretty sure the creators got paid up to the day they got banned. If not, they can sue for the agreed on amount. Obviously not beyond that. Like if you get fired from a job, you still get paid to the day you get fired. And YYT is not showing those videos anymore, so YT is not profiting from the "art" anymore. 

That'd hold water if there was actual written text on the bans and people weren't responsible for just guessing why their video got demonetized. 

 

15 hours ago, mononymous said:

Floatplane is also a private company therefore it is not privy to host all content. 

 

Again you don't have to choose floatplane. There are sites like odysee, pornhub to name a few that would host content that is not suitable for YouTube.

But floatplane doesn't withhold money from creators who put out a video they don't like.  Also floatplane creators aren't contractors for floatplane.  Youtube creators are legally contractors for youtube. 

 

12 hours ago, TechlessBro said:

Didn’t they already resolve this before the WAN show even streamed?

 

Most of the YT gun channels asked why the rules and they reversed nearly all of them.

Not all of them and not many of the old ones that have been in place for years while still being unwritten.  It also does nothing to reverse their removal from the suggested videos tab.

 

14 hours ago, starsmine said:

its a youtube search, we are talking about youtube. why would I search google intentionally for a youtube channel. 

No we're talking about both because Google and Youtube are both censoring gun information.  I swear this country was better off when hunter education was actually taught in schools.  Then at least kids learned about guns safely instead of them being mystical black sticks from video games with no understanding of the consequences. 

 

15 hours ago, vf1000ride said:

So there are obviously folks in the thread that are ok with this censorship of legal activities so I'm done trying to argue on the behalf of the creators as I'm not one myself.  For anyone that is interested in learning more about the topic there are several good content creators that have made videos posting about the problems with youtube that you are more than welcome to go watch and see how the unwritten policies of the platform are affecting them.  Go searching for Forgotten Weapons, Guns&Gadgets, Johnny B, Mrgunsngear Channel, Military Arms Channel, InRange TV and sure there are more that all have content about platform censorship.

I don't think we're allowed to like InRange anymore.  I think Karl is being canceled. 

 

14 hours ago, seanondemand said:

Your hobby is being censored not by a government, but by a company making a judgment call that a lot of content related to your hobby is objectionable enough to society that it’s not worth having on their platform. If you continue with the hobby despite what that fact says about it… well, I hope it’s fun for you. 

History, my lively hood, how I get food, and how I protect myself from dangerous animals is not a hobby.

 

14 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Porn is legal in the US.

Actually according to Miller v. California it is not legal.  It's just that over the last 50 years the definition of "artistic" has changed dramatically.  What your average porn movie is today definitely would have been considered illegal in 73. 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

5 hours ago, IRMacGuyver said:

They literally do control what's watched by limiting what shows up in the suggested feed and on the front page.  Youtube is supposed to pay based on the rules in the contract agreement for the channel.  Changing those rules and implementing unwritten rules is not within the scope of the contract.  This page says that they are infact contracts and therefore should abide the written word

I did they they control what’s being watched?

 

YouTube is contractually obliged to pay based off of viewership of ads and payed viewers, if you don’t get views, I guess it sucks to suck

[WildDagwood]

I'm sure there's a lot to this I'm unaware of, and don't have the time for right now, but my basic sentiments are this:

1. We don't need to increase access to firearms.
2. Demonetizing, and even censoring certain content related to firearms isn't necessarily a bad thing. It will decrease the amount of channels that glorify the use, likely decrease misinformation, and decrease accidents in the process.
3. It will push people to go to the appropriate places to learn about gun use and safety (gun range with a legitimate instructor).
4. I personally think you should need to be a licensed instructor to post content that involves the use of firearms. Don't care how long you've been using them for.

I'm sure there will be many who disagree.

[IRMacGuyver]

2 hours ago, WildDagwood said:

I'm sure there's a lot to this I'm unaware of, and don't have the time for right now, but my basic sentiments are this:

1. We don't need to increase access to firearms.
2. Demonetizing, and even censoring certain content related to firearms isn't necessarily a bad thing. It will decrease the amount of channels that glorify the use, likely decrease misinformation, and decrease accidents in the process.
3. It will push people to go to the appropriate places to learn about gun use and safety (gun range with a legitimate instructor).
4. I personally think you should need to be a licensed instructor to post content that involves the use of firearms. Don't care how long you've been using them for.

I'm sure there will be many who disagree.

You're wrong.  We do need to increase access because shootings have only gotten worse since they took hunter safety out of schools..
Censoring history and safety videos about firearms is bad because it allows the proliferation of myths and especially the spread of video game logic that guns aren't real or dangerous.

There is no appropriate place to learn about guns ever since they took hunter education out of schools

Requiring them to be a licensed instructor goes against the second amendment. 

 

[IRMacGuyver]

3 hours ago, Helpful Tech Witch said:

I did they they control what’s being watched?

 

YouTube is contractually obliged to pay based off of viewership of ads and payed viewers, if you don’t get views, I guess it sucks to suck

That's the problem.  They're limiting visibility of the channels even if you're subscribed to it.  They also are removing monetization despite how many people watch the videos. 

[WildDagwood]

1 minute ago, IRMacGuyver said:

You're wrong.  We do need to increase access because shootings have only gotten worse since they took hunter safety out of schools..
Censoring history and safety videos about firearms is bad because it allows the proliferation of myths and especially the spread of video game logic that guns aren't real or dangerous.

There is no appropriate place to learn about guns ever since they took hunter education out of schools

Requiring them to be a licensed instructor goes against the second amendment. 

 

1. You're not reading what I'm actually saying...I never said anything about reducing access to information (from qualified instructors). If you're trying to pass off the reduction of access to guns as the reason shootings, I'm not sure what to say, because that's absurd. You can look at a plethora of countries with stricter gun laws as examples. The reality is there's more issues at hand here, and you're being willingly ignorant to it, if that's the case.
2. I never said there shouldn't be videos about gun safety (I specifically said "certain content", and alluded to what kind), I just put an additional requirement behind it, in order to prevent misinformation from those who aren't qualified to provide it. Letting any Joe Shmo gun advocate post information about gun safety is a terrible idea.
3. You're objectively wrong here.
4. No, it's not. The second amendment has literally nothing to do with what policies YouTube can set for their platform, in regards to acceptable content.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

2 hours ago, IRMacGuyver said:

That's the problem.  They're limiting visibility of the channels even if you're subscribed to it.  They also are removing monetization despite how many people watch the videos. 

And they have the right to do that?

 

I don’t see your issue here, YouTube has the right to control what’s viewed on their platform that they let you use for free

[LogicalDrm]

First of, moderating part of this message. So far discussion has been fine, but I do see some tangents that may lead into political discussion, like gun control. Politics aren't allowed on forums. Discussion about Google's policies and way they enforce them is fine, and discussion on whether there should be governmental overseeing is withing reason too as it would have strong effect on internet as whole.

 

13 hours ago, starsmine said:

Youtube can not actually do whatever it wants. Its publicly traded under alphabet. they are beholden to the share holders who are beholden to the advertisers on youtube. If they start monetizing videos advertisers explicitly did not want their ads on, the advertisers can and will pull out, causing youtube to become a liability, not an asset for google.

The bolded part is not quite correct. The shareholders are not beholden to advertisers. Shareholders, for large part, don't have direct saying on what any publicly traded company does. Unless shareholder has significant amount of shares at their hand (ie. Elon Musk with Twitter). Looking at stats, shareholders have maybe 40% max at their hand, so no real say on day-to-day happenings of company. Google/Alphabet is beholden to shareholders for making profit. And they are beholden to advertisers to make their payments give back value. If advertisers aren't happy and don't pay, Google will have less profit or even loss. And that will affect shareholders who will in turn sell their stocks. Which in turn will make Google worth less and have less assets at hand.

 

12 hours ago, IRMacGuyver said:

Google doesn't sell anything on the shopping page.  They're censoring their search results.  They're also censoring the recommended videos algorithm as they leave out a lot of gun channels, and without any specific rules about gun channels google limits or even completely cuts off their access to monetization.  I'm subscribed to Demolition Ranch but haven't seen one of his videos in the suggested bar for at least six months.  

Using "censorship" not correct word here. While its correct by definition, it at the same time isn't. Google isn't censoring gun content by large, or is it? Are all channels that have that kind of content being equally treated and removed? Or does it affect more on certain channels? If it happens to all, then it would be because advertisers don't like the content no longer. But if its just handful of channels, its more likely that something in those channels content or comments/community is conflicting with agreements and therefore showing as censoring.

 

12 hours ago, IRMacGuyver said:

They are considered contract workers.  Imagine having a contract and getting shorted cause the company decides you broke a rule about something that's completely legal without any warning that it was against the rules.  A perfect example would be the construction industry where a lot of people are contractors.  Now imagine one day the foreman goes through the jobsite and removes pay from anyone using a powder actuated nail gun because they're "supposed to" use pneumatic nail guns even though they've been using them for 9 years no problem and there's no written rule banning powder actuated nail guns. 

 

They literally do control what's watched by limiting what shows up in the suggested feed and on the front page.  Youtube is supposed to pay based on the rules in the contract agreement for the channel.  Changing those rules and implementing unwritten rules is not within the scope of the contract.  This page says that they are infact contracts and therefore should abide the written word

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278#Firearms&zippy=%2Cguide-to-self-certification

This is the relevant page, actually. But about your use of "contractors". That isn't correct. Google doesn't use creators to make money and they aren't doing work for Google. Which they would if they actually were contractors. So they aren't like Uber drivers who are contractors. Creators are more like renting space on local mall. Except they don't pay for rent, just part of revenue they bring.

 

Your only good point here is Goolge/Youtube not being upfront about why content is being demonetized.

 

12 hours ago, IRMacGuyver said:

I could understand that for channels like Demolition Ranch who does some stupid dangerous stuff but Forgotten Weapons, C&Rsenal and others are purely history channels and not dangerous or negative. FFS they put a ban on FW from putting the nazi flag on thumbnails for guns of nazi Germany for something like 8 years.  His entire thumbnail scheme relies on posting the national flag of the gun at the time of it's use and there is no written rule saying no nazi flags. He recently found out that "nonexistant" rule was removed and he can post the German flag again without getting demonetized.  When you refuse to learn from history you are doomed to repeat it... cause you know who was fond of censorship?

Nazi symbols are illegal in Germany so that might have been the original reason. And in turn, any videos showing that symbology would then be marked as not available in region of Germany.

 

12 hours ago, IRMacGuyver said:

Come hunting in bear country and you'll wish you had more than 20 rounds if things go bad.

Or Finnish man shouting...

 

12 hours ago, IRMacGuyver said:

History, my lively hood, how I get food, and how I protect myself from dangerous animals is not a hobby.

The argument of scary/dangerous animals has two sides. The reason why they come near human settlements is that humans have driven them from their natural living space. You are the intruder, not them. And you would still be the more aggressive one of the situation.

[IRMacGuyver]

1 hour ago, LogicalDrm said:

Using "censorship" not correct word here. While its correct by definition, it at the same time isn't. Google isn't censoring gun content by large, or is it? Are all channels that have that kind of content being equally treated and removed? Or does it affect more on certain channels? If it happens to all, then it would be because advertisers don't like the content no longer. But if its just handful of channels, its more likely that something in those channels content or comments/community is conflicting with agreements and therefore showing as censoring.

Censoring through withholding owned income is definitely censorship. 

 

1 hour ago, LogicalDrm said:

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278#Firearms&zippy=%2Cguide-to-self-certification

This is the relevant page, actually. But about your use of "contractors". That isn't correct. Google doesn't use creators to make money and they aren't doing work for Google. Which they would if they actually were contractors. So they aren't like Uber drivers who are contractors. Creators are more like renting space on local mall. Except they don't pay for rent, just part of revenue they bring.

 

No it's correct.  Youtube channels have a contract to get income.  That makes them contractors. 

1 hour ago, LogicalDrm said:

Nazi symbols are illegal in Germany so that might have been the original reason. And in turn, any videos showing that symbology would then be marked as not available in region of Germany.

Ian has made several videos where he talks about it and that was not the problem as it could have easily been allowed as it's use is okay in history lessons for the actual flag (just not the swastika on it's own) which is what Forgotten Weapons is.  Even if that were they case plenty of videos get blocked by region so there's no reason to make a full blown block on videos platform wide for the nazi flag.  Most of all he is allowed to do it now negating your point.  Same goes for mountain lions.

 

1 hour ago, LogicalDrm said:

The argument of scary/dangerous animals has two sides. The reason why they come near human settlements is that humans have driven them from their natural living space. You are the intruder, not them. And you would still be the more aggressive one of the situation.

They come near my land because my hunting land is their land too.  They aren't coming up to my back door.  I'm hunting for food where it's completely my right to do so. I am not the aggressor until they charge at me.

[IRMacGuyver]

2 hours ago, Helpful Tech Witch said:

And they have the right to do that?

 

I don’t see your issue here, YouTube has the right to control what’s viewed on their platform that they let you use for free

Not when they are breaking the contract they have with the channel without explaining what the contract is. 

[LogicalDrm]

32 minutes ago, IRMacGuyver said:

Censoring through withholding owned income is definitely censorship. 

It isn't, but whatever.

 

32 minutes ago, IRMacGuyver said:

No it's correct.  Youtube channels have a contract to get income.  That makes them contractors.

Having a contract doesn't make one contractor. Besides, Youtube support pages do not even use term "contract", they use term "agreement" which is bit different. Creators have made agreement that if they follow guidelines, they are eligible for receiving part of the revenue their viewers generate. If they actually were contractors, as you say, they would make exactly the kind of content Google wants from them. Currently, they don't. They make content they like to make.

 

32 minutes ago, IRMacGuyver said:

 

Ian has made several videos where he talks about it and that was not the problem as it could have easily been allowed as it's use is okay in history lessons for the actual flag (just not the swastika on it's own) which is what Forgotten Weapons is.  Even if that were they case plenty of videos get blocked by region so there's no reason to make a full blown block on videos platform wide for the nazi flag.  Most of all he is allowed to do it now negating your point.  Same goes for mountain lions.

You didn't read what I wrote then...

 

32 minutes ago, IRMacGuyver said:

They come near my land because my hunting land is their land too.  They aren't coming up to my back door.  I'm hunting for food where it's completely my right to do so. I am not the aggressor until they charge at me.

You are the aggressor. Animals are not aggressive by nature. They are defensive. With predators and bigger mammals, this may look as aggressive, but there's always cause to be aggressive. You are trespassing on their area, possibly threatening their kin or cubs. You are causing disturbance by using loud items. Don't try to shift blame on animals...

[Helpful Tech Witch]

49 minutes ago, IRMacGuyver said:

Not when they are breaking the contract they have with the channel without explaining what the contract is. 

Explain to me exactly what part of the youtube-creator agreement YouTube is breaking then. Cite sources, please

[P e r s e p h o n e]

LOL this thread, yikes.... 

 

Listen I'm not gonna debate y'all on the minutia. It's literally against forum rules to discuss politics, and it doesn't really matter to my point.

 

It appears to me some of the people arguing the little details about YouTube's policies don't really care about what's fair or right for YouTube to do. At the end of the day, some of y'all's opinions are either pro or anti-gun from the core. The details about what YouTube thinks is irrelevant. So, let's just say it with our chest out. Or I guess not, since that's against the rules.

Edited March 13, 2023 by P e r s e p h o n e

[thrasher_565]

9 hours ago, IRMacGuyver said:

You're wrong.  We do need to increase access because shootings have only gotten worse since they took hunter safety out of schools..
Censoring history and safety videos about firearms is bad because it allows the proliferation of myths and especially the spread of video game logic that guns aren't real or dangerous.

There is no appropriate place to learn about guns ever since they took hunter education out of schools

Requiring them to be a licensed instructor goes against the second amendment. 

 

the usa literally has gun conversations at schools... and news is proven to be false.

Edited March 14, 2023 by thrasher_565