Youtube is censoring Youtubers.

[Space Reptile]

 

[Enderman]

22 minutes ago, Ramamataz said:

Their content? Youtube doesn't own anything they don't own any content a other Youtuber makes. Except the video they make themselves.

That's not how websites like youtube, facebook, etc. work.

 

17 minutes ago, Ramamataz said:

So linus owns all of our posts ? Kek.

Yes he does, clearly you didn't read the terms and conditions of this forum when you made your account.

 

BTW I think you're using the wrong word, because denying ads on a video is not "censorship".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

[Unhelpful]

20 minutes ago, Ramamataz said:

So linus owns all of our posts ? Kek.

Yes....

[ARikozuM]

Censorship would be taking the videos down for content that is against YouTube's beliefs. Those videos still seem to be up but monetization has been halted. You can still get the videos unflagged for content.

[SImoHayha]

7 minutes ago, VSG said:

No, it is not censorship. YouTube is not stopping them from continuing to upload videos, and use the website as a platform for sharing/preserving their content. Monetization is a completely different aspect. You could argue that is lowering their incentive to upload videos, but not censoring them.

It's a type of censorship, basically saying if you don't follow these strict guidelines aka, don't speak about anything bad, anything violent or swear. Your not getting paid, which if youtuber who rely on youtube for a living such as Ethan and Hilda, this could mean a complete flip flop and massive change of content were they have to painfully adjust every video just to fit a guideline  

content: sexually-suggestive content, violence, inappropriate language, promotion of drugs and other regulated substances, and controversial or sensitive subjects and events.
 

as in the picture above in Mr.Repizion twitter post, it could lead to videos getting taken down, if you fully examine it.

[ARikozuM]

20 minutes ago, Ramamataz said:

So linus owns all of our posts ? Kek.

Pretty much. If you come up with a great idea on the forum and he makes a video, he's likely entitled to.

[VSG]

4 minutes ago, Ramamataz said:

It's a type of censorship, basically saying if you don't follow these strict guidelines aka, don't speak about anything bad, anything violent or swear. Your not getting paid, which if youtuber who rely on youtube for a living such as Ethan and Hilda, this could mean a complete flip flop and massive change of content were they have to painfully adjust every video just to fit a guideline  

content: sexually-suggestive content, violence, inappropriate language, promotion of drugs and other regulated substances, and controversial or sensitive subjects and events.
 

as said above in Mr.Repizion twitter post, it could lead to videos getting taken down.

If they get taken down, sure. I still think the title of this thread is misleading.

 

The problem is that there is no universal employee guidebook for content creators online, let alone just YouTube for more specifics. An employee working for a company has to abide by certain rules, and voiding it is cause for termination even. It is not as simple as that here, but neither is it just a case of saying content creators can expect monetization if they did not read the ToS of the service they used. It's a very gray matter, but legally there is nothing wrong that YouTube is doing and ethically it is a mixed bag as you can see in this thread itself. 

[SSL]

While this isn't censorship per se, the position of youtube in the marketplace as a media facilitator cannot be overlooked. They really do not have much in the way of viable competition. What it would be more accurately described as is a chilling effect on people who have a controversial message, method, or who otherwise fall outside of the status quo, as defined by youtube.

 

What is most likely happening here is that youtube is bowing and scraping to advertisers. THIS is why "free", ad-funded ventures are not sound business models. The only people with any control or market leverage are the advertisers. Everyone else is at their mercy and can be FUCKED at any time.

 

Install an adblocker, kids, and regularly donate to the content creators whom you wish to support.

[BuckGup]

Alright someone make a site that allows everything Youtube used to and isn't owned by Google. GO!

[SImoHayha]

5 minutes ago, VSG said:

If they get taken down, sure. I still think the title of this thread is misleading.

 

The problem is that there is no universal employee guidebook for content creators online, let alone just YouTube for more specifics. An employee working for a company has to abide by certain rules, and voiding it is cause for termination even. It is not as simple as that here, but neither is it just a case of saying content creators can expect monetization if they did not read the ToS of the service they used. It's a very gray matter, but legally there is nothing wrong that YouTube is doing and ethically it is a mixed bag as you can see in this thread itself. 

 

The reason why the title is has censorship is cause 9/10 youtubers. Is calling that. Also I forget that, to mention that Youtubers had to find out about it, it wasn't in a email or explained. As seen in the video above by @Space Reptile


 

• Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor
• Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism
• Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language
• Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items
• Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown

So basically every single youtuber out there.

 

[Misanthrope]

17 minutes ago, typographie said:

The issue isn't that the videos are being taken down, it's that Google will not monetize them, is that correct?

 

I freely admit I don't know these Youtubers, but from a cursory glance I think I can see the problem. Advertisers probably don't want their products associated with these videos, and they're either refusing or Google doesn't want to present them to the advertisers in the first place. That's not censorship. Companies have the right to advertise however they wish.

What stops youtube from saying "your ads won't be served to x channels that are edgy or controversial"  and let other advertisers say "don't care, serve all the alternative right and MGTOWs you want with our ads"? 

 

If it's not about censorship why is it all of nothing? 

 

Doesn't adds up. 

[typographie]

7 minutes ago, Ramamataz said:

content: sexually-suggestive content, violence, inappropriate language, promotion of drugs and other regulated substances, and controversial or sensitive subjects and events.

I see all of those in the list of videos you posted in your OP, except for drug promotion. Rape is sexually-suggestive and violent, and the inflammatory talk about islam is a "controversial or sensitive subject."

 

If you can find companies that want their products associated with a Youtube video entitled "Is Rape Too Far?," be my guest. Maybe you can forward the names to Google, because apparently they're having trouble selling that kind of ad space.

[ivan134]

Ha. I love when things like this happen. Always hilarious seeing people with broken dictionaries get irrationally angry at the fact that a private entity can enact any rules they want.

[SImoHayha]

4 minutes ago, typographie said:

I see all of those in the list of videos you posted in your OP, except for drug promotion. Rape is sexually-suggestive and violent, and the inflammatory talk about islam is a "controversial or sensitive subject."

 

If you can find companies that want their products associated with a Youtube video entitled "Is Rape Too Far?," be my guest. Maybe you can forward the names to Google, because apparently they're having trouble selling that kind of ad space.

It's not companies.  IT's YOUTUBE ITSELF. YOUTUBE is preventing monetization, if Youtubers don't follow these guidelines.

So basically it's every single Youtuber that has to change. As said in @Space Reptile video if you keep having repeated offenses they'll just remove out right the ability enable monetization.

 

• Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor
• Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism
• Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language
• Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items
• Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not showns

[SageOfSpice]

It looks like Youtube is planning on crippling itself. I'm guessing this isn't just an issue of advertisers not wanting their content to be associated with these things, but rather a case of other media sources trying to get their viewers back.

[Misanthrope]

9 minutes ago, SamStrecker said:

Alright someone make a site that allows everything Youtube used to and isn't owned by Google. GO!

Sure!

Spoiler

http://www.xvideos.com

 

[Arty]

10 minutes ago, SamStrecker said:

Alright someone make a site that allows everything Youtube used to and isn't owned by Google. GO!

ha, the government won't let it happen. 

[SImoHayha]

10 minutes ago, SSL said:

While this isn't censorship per se, the position of youtube in the marketplace as a media facilitator cannot be overlooked. They really do not have much in the way of viable competition. What it would be more accurately described as is a chilling effect on people who have a controversial message, method, or who otherwise fall outside of the status quo, as defined by youtube.

 

What is most likely happening here is that youtube is bowing and scraping to advertisers. THIS is why "free", ad-funded ventures are not sound business models. The only people with any control or market leverage are the advertisers. Everyone else is at their mercy and can be FUCKED at any time.

 

Install an adblocker, kids, and regularly donate to the content creators whom you wish to support.

It kinda is. Basically if all Youtubers now how to follow these guidelines in order to enable Monetization or use it. So basically 99.9% of Youtubers are all affected. Whom are now forced to follow these guidelines. If they don't and have repeated offenses Youtube can flat out remove monetization and kill a channel if a they rely on Youtube revenue for their livelyhood. 

 

• Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor
• Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism
• Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language
• Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items
• Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown

[typographie]

6 minutes ago, Ramamataz said:

It's not companies.  IT's YOUTUBE ITSELF. YOUTUBE is preventing monetization, if Youtubers don't follow these guidelines.

I'm aware. But this is Youtube saying, "Our advertisers do not want to buy ad space on this type of content, and/or we think it might harm our business relationships to try to sell it."

 

By the way, your freedom of speech comes from (depending on your personal philosophy) either your government or your god. Google does not provide nor do they have any responsibility to protect your freedom of speech. Youtube is not a public forum, and your freedom of speech is subject to their terms of service. As long as Google/Youtube is abiding by a clear, consistent set of rules (the ones you keep posting, I assume), they are perfectly within their rights to decide what types of content can be monetized.

[SImoHayha]

1 minute ago, typographie said:

I'm aware. But this is Youtube saying, "Our advertisers do not want to buy ad space on this type of content, and we think it might harm our business relationships to try."

 

By the way, your freedom of speech comes from (depending on your personal philosophy) either your government or your god. Google does not provide nor do they have any responsibility to protect your freedom of speech. Youtube is not a public forum, and your freedom of speech is subject to their terms of service. As long as Google/Youtube is abiding by a clear, consistent set of rules (the ones you keep posting, I assume), they are perfectly within their rights to decide what types of content can be monetized.

So far anywho. Enough backlash and outcry, they'll be forced to revert back to the old ways.

[TheGhzGuy]

If anyone wants to do anything about it, here's a petition. https://www.change.org/p/youtube-revert-new-rule-for-content-creators-on-youtube-preventing-monetization?recruiter=256482191&utm_source=petitions_show_components_action_panel_wrapper&utm_medium=copylink

 

Have a nice day.

[SSL]

1 minute ago, Ramamataz said:

It kinda is. Basically if all Youtubers now how to follow these guidelines in order to enable Monetization or use it. So basically 99.9% of Youtubers are all affected. Whom are now forced to follow these guidelines. If they don't and have repeated offenses Youtube can flat out remove monetization and kill a channel if a they rely on Youtube revenue for their livelyhood. 

 

• Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor
• Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism
• Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language
• Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items
• Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown

 

Except that it isn't. Censorship is official examination of all media for objectionable content. youtube is strictly within their rights to do whatever they want with their business. youtube is not responsible for people who have made their channel their livelihood. Content uploaders are not entitled to a free an open platform.

 

All that said, this is still wrong and harmful whatever word is used for it.

 

2 minutes ago, typographie said:

I'm aware. But this is Youtube saying, "Our advertisers do not want to buy ad space on this type of content, and/or we think it might harm our business relationships to try to sell it."

 

By the way, your freedom of speech comes from (depending on your personal philosophy) either your government or your god. Google does not provide nor do they have any responsibility to protect your freedom of speech. Youtube is not a public forum, and your freedom of speech is subject to their terms of service. As long as Google/Youtube is abiding by a clear, consistent set of rules (the ones you keep posting, I assume), they are perfectly within their rights to decide what types of content can be monetized.

 

Exactly. youtube is not preventing anyone from speaking about these topics altogether.

 

However. As I said, the fact that youtube is such a huge platform will result in these measures, without a doubt, having a chilling effect. Ultimately, youtube needs competition; and people need to be less lazy and come up with alternative business models to ad-funded content.

[Dabombinable]

A little something from mundanematt:

http://i.imgur.com/AKg5439.jpg

[suicidalfranco]

does this mean the end of all Anti-SJW channel that don't use patreon or similar?

[Dabombinable]

Just now, suicidalfranco said:

does this mean the end of all Anti-SJW channel that don't use patreon or similar?

Its Youtube.....so probably not. Its been getting more fucked every year.