Youtube is censoring Youtubers.

[Thaldor]

Welcome to the capitalist part of the internet, you must be new here.

 

Google does what it wants with YouTube and usually what Google wants to do, is the thing that brings it the most money. Google gets very huge part of it's income from ads and there's probably quite few big advertisers who don't like their ads showing in some videos. Google is too lazy to make a filter that would check the content of the video and restrict it from some advertisers because probably these few big advertisers are so big that Google wants their ads on every video which they can and make money like garbbage. So, instead Google just takes money away from content creators who don't want to make "happy happy joy joy everybody loves everybody"-videos to encourage them to not make videos they want to make and what they have made.

 

The second rule of the capitalist internet: We can take your content for free to us if it's good, if it gets us to trouble, you can keep it. Almost every webservice that includes user made content has a paragraph in their TOS saying something like "When user uploads content to the service, the ownership of the content moves to the service provider, with exceptions, who can use it as pleased". In layman terms this means that Google, Facebook, Twitter and probably almost all websites can use your content as they please, but if it's illegal or hurts someone, the webservice provider doesn't take any kind of resposibility over your content.

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, suicidalfranco said:

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

They all use patreon by now anyway just to preemptive strikes and flags anyway.

[Dabombinable]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

They all use patreon by now anyway just to preemptive strikes and flags anyway.

Long story short, Youtube will start making themselves bleed money, and Youtubers with stable patreon won't be totally screwed.

[suicidalfranco]

3 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

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

Yeah but:

• Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism
• Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown

 

That's the sauce of those videos to begin with

 

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Long story short, Youtube will start making themselves bleed money, and Youtubers with stable patreon won't be totally screwed.

Yep, it's yet another game of chicken they will loose.

[Donut417]

Did Google's CEO start hanging out with Comcast CEO? This seems like some shit Comcast would pull. Its ok, When Youtuber's start moving to other video platforms then Google will see the error of their ways. Personally I use ad block, so Google can take their ads and stick them some where. 

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

No more sexual humour? There goes MightyCarMods. Nothing but dick jokes and cars.

 

No controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including...natural disasters and tragedies. Bye bye CBC, CNN, and RT.

[Space Reptile]

ik this is just another yt link , but yms just did one and its too good not to share 

 

 

[Kobathor]

MysteriousMrEnter brings up some REALLY good points on why the "advertiser-friendly" excuse is bullshit. Advertisers don't care if the video features cussing or sex jokes. He also talks about why the "YouTube is a private company, they do whatever they want!" argument is bullshit, and I agree with them. 

 

[Energycore]

This is what happens when you don't have competition.

 

And what I mean is: Youtubers who would like to keep using swear words (harmless imo, even indicative of a healthy community) don't have a place to go. What are they gonna do, host their content on vimeo? Make their own server and code their own video watching app?

 

I hope that at some point, enough people are annoyed at YouTube's attitude of rolling out automated rules without caring for the content creator that they get together and create a new platform that isn't owned by Google.

[Donut417]

I think there is a opportunity here for Twitch. Just saying. 

[MageTank]

1 hour ago, Ramamataz said:

 

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.

 

I beg to differ. The title has the word "censorship" in it, because you seem to believe it is censorship. You keep defending it as censorship, and refuse to listen otherwise. Not paying someone for a video they uploaded to your service is not censorship, especially if you allow said content to remain, untouched, on your service. 

 

1 hour 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

My boss can flat-out fire me if i do not abide by his rules. These youtubers that think they work for themselves are delusional. They still answer to their viewers AND google, regardless of if they think so or not. Their livelyhood is directly in google and their viewers hands. In this case, google is cracking down on content it deems inappropriate for ad revenue which is entirely in their right. Does it matter? Probably not for most companies. HOWEVER, some companies with certain morals might not like their product being seen in conjunction with content that might differ with the intent of their product. Pretty sure a Vegan ad might seem counter-intuitive if displayed on EpicMealTime. They might not like that ad spot unless they think it will somehow convert people that clicked on a video to see how much bacon could possibly fit in a pig covered in donut glaze. 

 

My point is, they can do whatever they want with their platform. Nobody is forced to use it, nor are they entitled to special treatment. If you intended to have youtube as a career, thinking financial security was a part of it, then you were doomed to begin with.  

[Dabombinable]

4 minutes ago, Energycore said:

This is what happens when you don't have competition.

 

And what I mean is: Youtubers who would like to keep using swear words (harmless imo, even indicative of a healthy community) don't have a place to go. What are they gonna do, host their content on vimeo? Make their own server and code their own video watching app?

 

I hope that at some point, enough people are annoyed at YouTube's attitude of rolling out automated rules without caring for the content creator that they get together and create a new platform that isn't owned by Google.

Dailymotion is one-no where near as big, but self sustaining none the less.

[Energycore]

Just now, Donut417 said:

I think there is a opportunity here for Twitch. Just saying. 

That would not be bad

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, Energycore said:

This is what happens when you don't have competition.

 

And what I mean is: Youtubers who would like to keep using swear words (harmless imo, even indicative of a healthy community) don't have a place to go. What are they gonna do, host their content on vimeo? Make their own server and code their own video watching app?

 

I hope that at some point, enough people are annoyed at YouTube's attitude of rolling out automated rules without caring for the content creator that they get together and create a new platform that isn't owned by Google.

Problem is that it just isn't really profiteable: Youtube has never actually made money for Google at most it covers it's own expenses and I think not even fully.

 

Hosting video is an expensive proposition. Only something like P2P video hosting could conceivable work but well, ISPs would try to kill that in a hurry.

[LucidMew]

Chris Ray Gun also has a video on this

 

[SImoHayha]

12 minutes ago, MageTank said:

 

So like Linus then. Linus's job is youtube. So its okay if he could possible get screwed right? 

[MageTank]

Just now, Ramamataz said:

So like Linus then. Linus's job is youtube. So its okay if he could possible get screwed right? 

Correct.

[SurvivorNVL]

There is only one solution.  We have to buy T-Shirts and watch everything on Vessel.

[Energycore]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

Problem is that it just isn't really profiteable: Youtube has never actually made money for Google at most it covers it's own expenses and I think not even fully.

 

Hosting video is an expensive proposition. Only something like P2P video hosting could conceivable work but well, ISPs would try to kill that in a hurry.

I think if our limitation is that we would make ISPs angry then I say we do it >:D

 

From this video about the claim that "YouTube is a privately owned company, and it can do whatever it wants":

 

 

Quote

[...] Let's really examine this statement and why it doesn't work in the real world.

 

Remember a couple years back? We had the argument about net neutrality. Comcast, Charter and other ISPs wanted to start charging different websites for premium; quicker access.

 

Wanted? I mean, they actually did it behind everyone's back^{[citation needed]} Comcast slowed down connections to Netflix, one of their cheap competitors and Netflix had to pay a sum to get connections bark where they would have been if they weren't in competition.

 

Everyone was up in arms because that meant that the ISPs and the big companies that could pay them could use this ability to crush competition before it could spring up and get a stranglehold on the internet, like large department stores got a stranglehold over real world businesses. It took the government FCC stepping in and changing them into common carrier services, similar to phone lines, where the company could not selectively charge people.

 

If you believe that companies should be allowed to do whatever they want, especially in this scenario, in the strictest sense, you are against net neutrality and you should have never fought against it in the first place. This situation bears a remarkable similarity to the net neutrality situation. Big companies, like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Reddit, using an excessive amount of power to stop competition from popping up. The only difference is that now it seems to be based on political opinion.

 

I'm generally averse to excess government legislation, but I think that, in this case, it's necessary and required.

 

Social media platforms have become a special thing. Like the telephone became a special thing. Like electricity is a special thing. Without it, your life is at a disadvantage. An almost unreasonable disadvantage, and I think that social media platforms should have a special classification, where the platform should not be allowed to attack free speech in any way whatsoever.

 

Social media companies should not be legally able to examine the opinions of the word spoken, nor should they determine if such a thing is "advertiser friendly".

 

On a personal note, this keyboard is a piece of shit for typing. Literally $5 keyboards are easier to type on.

[MrRavens]

2 hours ago, Remixt said:

It's within their right to do this, however it is a really dick move. Also, it's dumb as fuck and I can guarantee a competitor with more brains will step up with a replacement for YouTube. Freetube anyone?

Lmfao are u in AMD's marketing team? Cause that sounds like a name AMD would do when the do the open standard to Nvidia haha. xP

[Energycore]

Just by the way guys, you can watch YouTube videos ad free using VLC

 

[SSL]

14 minutes ago, Energycore said:

le snip

 

Net neutrality only applies to ISPs. That's basically integral to the definition. youtube is not an ISP, and therefore net neutrality does not apply to them. Just as newspapers and magazines are free to print what they want or not, so too are media websites free to host what they want, or not. Remember, youtube isn't pulling objectionable videos; they are just refusing to allow uploaders to monetize them.

 

The guy in this video is taking the whole "internet is a utility" concept a bit far by extending it to the things that are provided via the internet. The real story here is that youtube basically has a de facto monopoly on non-porno video hosting, which makes moves like this incredibly harmful.

[Energycore]

Just now, SSL said:

 

Net neutrality only applies to ISPs. That's basically integral to the definition. youtube is not an ISP, and therefore net neutrality does not apply to them. Just as newspapers and magazines are free to print what they want or not, so too are media websites free to host what they want, or not. Remember, youtube isn't pulling objectionable videos; they are just refusing to allow uploaders to monetize them.

 

The guy in this video is taking the whole "internet is a utility" concept a bit far by extending it to the things that are provided via the internet. The real story here is that youtube basically has a de facto monopoly on non-porno video hosting, which makes moves like this incredibly harmful.

The point isn't that this is about net neutrality. It's not. (But it is analugous)

 

The point is that the argument that companies should not be allowed to do what they want, regardless of whether they own such and such service, applies here just like it applied to ISPs charging companies premiums to unthrottle their connections.

[SSL]

1 minute ago, Energycore said:

The point is that the argument that companies should not be allowed to do what they want, regardless of whether they own such and such service, applies here just like it applied to ISPs charging companies premiums to unthrottle their connections.

 

But there is no such principle. Net Neutrality is a special concept unique to the internet. That is the open and shut of why ISPs are not allowed to do what they want with their treatment of the data for which they are responsible.

 

I am not arguing that companies should be able to do literally anything consequence free; but in cases such as this the balancing factor should be the free market. youtube has created a service, a service with defined terms and conditions, and they can do whatever they choose with it. They could even shut the entire thing down tomorrow and it would be well within their prerogative to do so.