Youtube is censoring Youtubers.

[Energycore]

Just now, SSL said:

 

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.

From the point of view of the consumer, this seems unfair. Social media platforms are becoming so commonplace, it's hard to convince people to not use them, especially with so many people living off these services because their job requires that they use one, be it a youtuber or a tech support agent who contacts people through social media.

 

At that point, companies not being regulated about what they can do with their own service, means that they can use that power to further whatever interests they want, at the expense of the people who live and eat by those services. Censoring topics that don't align with the company's opinions is only one of many ways.

[SSL]

4 minutes ago, Energycore said:

From the point of view of the consumer, this seems unfair. Social media platforms are becoming so commonplace, it's hard to convince people to not use them, especially with so many people living off these services because their job requires that they use one, be it a youtuber or a tech support agent who contacts people through social media.

 

At that point, companies not being regulated about what they can do with their own service, means that they can use that power to further whatever interests they want, at the expense of the people who live and eat by those services. Censoring topics that don't align with the company's opinions is only one of many ways.

 

Now we're confusing "using social media out of necessity" with "monetizing social media as a means of livelihood".

 

People choose to make a living on youtube ads. This is a risky behavior since there is no recourse for them in situations like this - again, we're getting back to the fact that youtube dominates the market in this area.

[Energycore]

Just now, SSL said:

 

Now we're confusing "using social media out of necessity" with "monetizing social media as a means of livelihood".

 

People choose to make a living on youtube ads. This is a risky behavior since there is no recourse for them in situations like this - again, we're getting back to the fact that youtube dominates the market in this area.

I've said it before, we need a competitor right meow

[handymanshandle]

2 hours ago, Captain Matt said:

The problem is it would be hard for ANYONE to make something better than YT off the bat because of the kind of computing power it would take to service all of that... Even then, Google Adwords is the biggest internet advertisement service in the world so replacing that is another HUGE issue.
I'd love to see it though. 
Maybe we could petition Linus as a community to upload to a third site?

Vessel?

[Heesleemer]

3 hours ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

Thats what their terms of service says soo.... 

 

Have fun in court.

TOS changed recently I believe... 

and it's shitty to start enforcing after careers were made upon it. With that said, DeFranco isn't a businessman, he's a business, man, he has multiple sources of income (as well as from Discovery Networks)... but other youtubers.... 

[Heesleemer]

9 minutes ago, SSL said:

 

Now we're confusing "using social media out of necessity" with "monetizing social media as a means of livelihood".

 

People choose to make a living on youtube ads. This is a risky behavior since there is no recourse for them in situations like this - again, we're getting back to the fact that youtube dominates the market in this area.

However, the issue is when Youtube hosts "news events" such as debates or other type of "news" they have been recently... and another news channel (sXePhill) hosts news events, and it is against changed TOS due to the nature of news... something is shitty .

[SSL]

1 minute ago, Heesleemer said:

However, the issue is when Youtube hosts "news events" such as debates or other type of "news" they have been recently... and another news channel (sXePhill) hosts news events, and it is against changed TOS due to the nature of news... something is shitty .

 

Never said it wasn't shitty, just that it is within the rights of the company. No doubt that this change is motivated by money.

 

Honestly, this is uncharted territory, legally. Arguably, maybe there should be more regulation of this kind of thing. But that isn't the current state of affairs.

[Heesleemer]

Just now, SSL said:

 

Never said it wasn't shitty, just that it is within the rights of the company. No doubt that this change is motivated by money.

 

Honestly, this is uncharted territory, legally. Arguably, maybe there should be more regulation of this kind of thing. But that isn't the current state of affairs.

oh absolutely, well within rights, YT has to make money somehow... I'm going to shoot an email to an acquaintance of mine who works at YouTube (fellow alumni) to ask him what is possible. (lol his title is the "Head of CATs")

[Mr_Flynn]

2 hours ago, Ramamataz said:

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

Not if it doesn't hurt their bottom line in any meaningful way. The reality is that every time YouTube changes something (often for the wrong reasons), there's an outcry and then nothing happens. Let's take the Google+ comment integration. People were up in arms about that, but Google never really changed that. There claims about a mass exodus and a bunch of other apocalyptic stuff would occur and Google would be forced to make changes. It didn't happen then and I'll bet it won't happen now.

 

YouTube is first and foremost a business, let's not dither that fact.

[MageTank]

10 minutes ago, Mr_Flynn said:

Not if it doesn't hurt their bottom line in any meaningful way. The reality is that every time YouTube changes something (often for the wrong reasons), there's an outcry and then nothing happens. Let's take the Google+ comment integration. People were up in arms about that, but Google never really changed that. There claims about a mass exodus and a bunch of other apocalyptic stuff would occur and Google would be forced to make changes. It didn't happen then and I'll bet it won't happen now.

 

YouTube is first and foremost a business, let's not dither that fact.

Let's also not forget they got away with this before, once they changed how the ad revenue was calculated. Remember that whole ordeal about animators getting screwed over by the big change in how adsense worked? It was no longer based on raw views, but video length, upload frequency and what not? 

 

That never changed, even when the biggest animators threatened to quit. A lot of them actually switched to different content entirely, going from animation to gaming, podcasts, tutorials, etc because it was the only way to continue to make money. Those that adapt, survive.

 

Nobody is going to boycott youtube on a large scale. Nobody is going to compete on this scale. Sure, there is Facebook and Twitch, but their terms are not any better (and will likely suffer the same fate eventually). Anyone that staked their livelyhood on youtube ad revenue alone, made a huge mistake. The smart ones used the platform to form businesses and to turn themselves into a brand. LTT did this. Plenty of others did this. Selling merchandise, music, illegal CS:Go gambling sites,  even appearances at events for money. For most of the biggest channels, the ad revenue itself is actually only a small fraction of the income. They will likely remain unaffected by this change. The ones that are affected on a large scale, should have played the game a little better. Nothing stays the same forever. 

[Prysin]

oh lawd... this is going to end well.... NOT

[Sharkyx1]

4 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?

When YouTube is a money bleeding venture as it is that would collapse without Googles backing there isn't really a chance of a competitor arising 

[LucidMew]

Chris Ray Gun just gave the community guidelines the middle finger, mildly nsfw, women in lingerie clothing, with some 9/11 footage. you've been warned.

 

[laminutederire]

Isn't this just a response to garbage YouTubers like the infamous slandering drama queen of which we shouldn't give the victory of saying the name?

Videos aren't taken down, just not monetized. Maybe YouTube isn't for anything in that decision, but maybe it is from a pressure from advertisers.

[LinusTech]

Will chat about this on WAN Show.

[MageTank]

3 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

Will chat about this on WAN Show.

Given the large portion adsense was in your "How does LMG make money" video, it would be safe to assume that a channel structured similarly to yours would have quite a huge impact on their overall finances, right?

 

 

Granted, I don't exactly see any of your videos falling under the "controversial, profane, harassment" category, just using you as an example of a channel that has become somewhat of a brand, where Youtube Adsense in and of itself is not the only income from the videos produced.

 

If you are saving most of that information for the WAN show itself, I understand. What I see the outcome of this being (if Youtube sticks to their guns) is more video-embedded ads similar to yours from different content creators to circumvent this situation. For the most part, people knew this was coming during that entire "Youtube Drama" saga that unfolded months ago. What worries me the most, is the fact that vulgarity is now enough to cause demonetization of a video. This means people will either have to reupload their entire catalog with self-censorship, or simply waive revenue entirely for their previous works that contained any vulgarity. 

[Nowak]

This is why people kept saying YouTube ad revenue is an unreliable form of income. Google/YouTube can change the rules at any given time, and it'll be used to further screw over content creators on YouTube.

[Syntaxvgm]

7 hours ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

It is a private site...

 

How much control should youtube have over their content?

 

7 hours 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.

this is true, however the problem is youtube is the only site of its size, it's THE place to go to look for content, there's alternatives, but no real replacement. I really think morally it's the right thing to do to allow all speech when you basically have a monopoly. 

It's yet to be seen why they did this, maybe this is a real problem for them. Personally, I don't understand why the advertiser should care what video their ad is on, I think viewers understand it is separate from the content, but I get why it might be a problem for youtube. 

 

And what's with the vulgar language rules or the rule against talking about natural disasters/sensitive topics? 

Isn't this undermining the advantage of the internet as a platform over television? What the actual fuck you can't say fuck? 

 

And technically, by these rules, John Oliver's HBO show can't exist as pointed out by twitter. I'll bet they'll enforce this how they see fit. 

 

In fact, in my view, content like thunderf00t videos on feminism will be targeted. I don't like him personally, I don't think he makes sound arguments despite being really fucking smart, even though I agree with the general sentiment. With the stuff that's been happening with twitter and facebook, and really think they are trying to push out the "wrong" viewpoints from the forefront, and this sets a precedent of sorts, imo. 

[Layne Wixom]

7 hours 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.

Lowering their incentive to upload is an understatement. For many of the youtubers affected a big number of their videos are affected by this. This ad money is how these youtubers survive, this is their job. If they can't do their job they can't make any money. Youtube is essentially killing these channels. Sure, they COULD post content, but if they won't make any money from it they won't be able to afford to make videos in the first place.

[Urishima]

If think if you want to protest this, and I don't see why anyone wouldn't seeing how this has hit across the entire spectrum of content, I think the best way to give YT a good slap is for everyone to cancel Youtube red, if they have it. That might actually be enough to hurt them.

[Trik'Stari]

8 hours ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

It is a private site...

 

How much control should youtube have over their content?

Being a private site, doesn't make censorship, or creating an echo chamber, morally defensible. Legal yes, but still not morally defensible.

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, Ramamataz said:

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

Yes, just like it is totally OK that I might get screwed on my job if I started talking about rape while in a business meeting. If I want to get paid by my boss then I have to follow the rules he puts up. If Youtubers want to get paid by YouTube then they have to follow the rules YouTube puts up.

What you are essentially saying is:

Quote

I am entitled to get my salary even though I don't follow the contract I have agreed to. I should be allowed to talk about rape while in a business meeting and still get paid.

 

This is in no way, shape or form censorship. It's a bad move, but if you think this is censorship then you do not understand the meaning of that word and should not use it.

[SImoHayha]

17 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Yes, just like it is totally OK that I might get screwed on my job if I started talking about rape while in a business meeting. If I want to get paid by my boss then I have to follow the rules he puts up. If Youtubers want to get paid by YouTube then they have to follow the rules YouTube puts up.

What you are essentially saying is:

 

This is in no way, shape or form censorship. It's a bad move, but if you think this is censorship then you do not understand the meaning of that word and should not use it.

I know what censorship means. But nearly 99.9% of other youtubers are calling it censorship so am i then. Then there is the argument, oh way to jump on the bandwagon. But I don't care in the slightest what the hell they call it. 

 

There are other topics though, like CNN has monetization on the boy who's family was completely killed in a bombing yet Philip Defranco's video was flagged and disabled monetization for his video. CNN isn't being punished by this, in the slightest yet they are clearly breaking the " rules " 

[Misanthrope]

A nice message on this from someone with a decade and a million youtube subscribers: chill, ride it out. 

 

 

[Misanthrope]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Yes, just like it is totally OK that I might get screwed on my job if I started talking about rape while in a business meeting. If I want to get paid by my boss then I have to follow the rules he puts up. If Youtubers want to get paid by YouTube then they have to follow the rules YouTube puts up.

What you are essentially saying is:

 

This is in no way, shape or form censorship. It's a bad move, but if you think this is censorship then you do not understand the meaning of that word and should not use it.

To clarify: it would still be ok but fairly unjust if there was only 1 company capable of hiring you for your job and your job involved speaking your mind about a variety of topics.

 

Listen I've never given a legal argument here but after some consideration I believe this is a case of the Law not catching up to technology yet: On most other fields we have pretty strict laws and regulations to avoid monopolies. When it comes to telecommunications services and tools like Youtube and Facebook basically have no realistic rivals at all and without fundamental changes on how we apply monopoly laws they probably never will have any real competition. You have to appreciate the seer size of their hegemony in the market.

 

So Facebook, Twitter, Youtube censorship? Technically not possible since they're private entities. But we've allowed important, dare I say key telecommunication services to grow beyond any kind of control. Should we say "Well we fucked up, it's the Law they're entitle to fuck over massive parts of the population since we didn't foresee what they're doing when defining anti-trust laws and freedom of speech boundaries".

 

Not really: Law should be constantly evolving and this is a case where it should change to stop youtube, twitter and Facebook from doing shit like this (All of them are doing this on a recent "islamophobia" crack down that basically protects Islam beyond all reason as if it was a race when it's just a stupid fucking idea).