Youtube is censoring Youtubers.

[ThinkWithPortals]

Ugh, great... YouTube, please stop being colossal penises, k?

[Sauron]

Censorship? You got it wrong... first of all it's a private site, so they can take down anything at their discretion - that's not censorship, it doesn't stop you from going on a different site.

 

Secondly, the videos ARE STILL UP. They cannot be monetized... that's hardly censorship, although it is possibly a dick move, which is not covered by law or human rights for that matter.

 

Why do they do this? I'd bet it's because the advertisers whined for years about their ads appearing in association with content they consider harmful for their image. This is not about Youtube giving a damn about what is in your video, but rather the advertisers worrying that they may have counterproductive results from their ads. This way Yt can guarantee that the money they spend will go exclusively towards ads in relation to perceived positive content.

[Misanthrope]

25 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Censorship? You got it wrong... first of all it's a private site, so they can take down anything at their discretion - that's not censorship, it doesn't stop you from going on a different site.

 

Secondly, the videos ARE STILL UP. They cannot be monetized... that's hardly censorship, although it is possibly a dick move, which is not covered by law or human rights for that matter.

 

Why do they do this? I'd bet it's because the advertisers whined for years about their ads appearing in association with content they consider harmful for their image. This is not about Youtube giving a damn about what is in your video, but rather the advertisers worrying that they may have counterproductive results from their ads. This way Yt can guarantee that the money they spend will go exclusively towards ads in relation to perceived positive content.

They whined for years but still happily collect the revenue from "controversial"  pockets. 

 

Like I said if this was just advertisers they could have a system where the advertiser chooses "not this video" Since many would be OK with controversial stuff. This means at most the flagged videos would make less in add revenue but still make something. 

 

This all or nothing shit it's just silencing for political reasons. Not "censorship"  legally sure but read my previous post on said subject. 

[Sauron]

16 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

This all or nothing shit it's just silencing for political reasons. Not "censorship"  legally sure but read my previous post on said subject. 

I agree with the first part, but if we consider this censorship maybe we should be broadening our horizons rather than bashing a company that enjoys a monopoly WE helped it establish.

[suicidalfranco]

1 hour ago, Misanthrope said:

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

 

 

so it's just youtube/google being cucks and pushing they're regressive left agenda. Nice to know

[Misanthrope]

29 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I agree with the first part, but if we consider this censorship maybe we should be broadening our horizons rather than bashing a company that enjoys a monopoly WE helped it establish.

I'd question that: youtube was among the first of their class though my bashing of them has no bearing on the points I was trying to make. 

 

But to be extra clear there's a lot more to a monopoly than just being a really good product or service so I disagree here about being collectively responsible. 

[Misanthrope]

28 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

so it's just youtube/google being cucks and pushing they're regressive left agenda. Nice to know

Atheists, antifeminists, etc. Are the first to be hit with this but Syrian boy covered in blood? Totally ok with their policies. 

 

So yeah: pretty much so. 

[WolfDeville]

The only thing that bugs me about this is that they don't even bother to target the real issue, which is clickbaiting.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

Political correctness has reached maximum capacity. Youtube became a south park parody.

[TheKDub]

15 hours ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

It is a private site...

 

How much control should youtube have over their content?

 

Though it may be their site, they're really shooting themselves in the foot by preventing certain videos from being monetized, by doing so, they're only harming themselves and the content creator. (No ads on the video, so no money for youtube or for the creator of the video from it, at least I'm fairly sure that if a video isn't monetized there won't be ads on it.)

 

I think it's a completely stupid idea to block monetization of the videos, if anything they should just age restrict them if they're found to be excessively inappropriate.

[FPSwithaWacomTablet]

Soo, this is what Youtube had in mind about being a media company... It's starting to become like cable television...

[goodtofufriday]

Considering the content in those videos that I see in the first post image I dont blame advertisers for not want to be on those videos. Its risky for business. 

[MageTank]

6 hours ago, Ramamataz said:

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 " 

I don't believe you do know what censorship means. You've been adamant in your previous posts that this is censorship when it is not. Just because youtubers are calling it censorship, doesn't make it true. Youtubers are also the same people that call any disagreement "drama". They are not exactly the most intelligent people. They title their videos to get views, that's it. 

 

Besides, some youtubers are saying the opposite of what others are saying.

 

 

 

So according to TotalBiscuit, the policy has not changed for over a year. The only thing that has changed is their enforcement of these rules, as they are now using an automated system to flag titles, thumbnails, descriptions, etc. If a video is demonetized, you can request a manual appeal. I suggest you read through a few of his tweets, as it sums up quite a bit about this ordeal. 

[Doobeedoo]

Pathetic. Why is there even censor anywhere...

[Donut417]

45 minutes ago, MageTank said:

I don't believe you do know what censorship means. You've been adamant in your previous posts that this is censorship when it is not. Just because youtubers are calling it censorship, doesn't make it true. Youtubers are also the same people that call any disagreement "drama". They are not exactly the most intelligent people. They title their videos to get views, that's it. 

 

Besides, some youtubers are saying the opposite of what others are saying.

 

 

 

So according to TotalBiscuit, the policy has not changed for over a year. The only thing that has changed is their enforcement of these rules, as they are now using an automated system to flag titles, thumbnails, descriptions, etc. If a video is demonetized, you can request a manual appeal. I suggest you read through a few of his tweets, as it sums up quite a bit about this ordeal. 

Yeah because YouTube's automation systems work. You have seen the level of support they provide. Its about the level of support Valve supply's its customers. So when you ask for a manual check, how long before that happens. I still see this as being a problem. 

[Misanthrope]

Another good video on the subject matter (Though while I agree with his ideas I think that pragmatically there's things he's overseeing) from Mr Rossman:

 

 

[SeriouslyMikey]

It's not censorship at all. They're not silencing people, *cough* unlike Twitter. 

 

[Kimmers]

Not censorship at all. Not even remotely.

 

YouTube is not blocking, preventing, or removing anybody's video (outside of the community guidelines, like porn) off of the website. They are merely telling YouTubers that content that does not agree with their advertisers will not get monetized. You can still freely upload whatever your thoughts and opinions are onto YouTube, they just won't get monetized. 

 

I feel as though a lot of these YouTubers that are complaining sound really bitchy and entitled. The whole reason they have a career on YouTube is the fact that advertisers exist. What's interesting is that I bet that some of the same YouTubers that are complaining will change their content in order for it to be monetized, suggesting that they're in it for the money rather than what they're complaining about.

[Misanthrope]

By the way @berkel with such wholesome videos like the dildo racing, I'm curious to know if CSF has been hit with any demonetization yet.

[Misanthrope]

2 hours ago, Kimmers said:

Not censorship at all. Not even remotely.

 

YouTube is not blocking, preventing, or removing anybody's video (outside of the community guidelines, like porn) off of the website. They are merely telling YouTubers that content that does not agree with their advertisers will not get monetized. You can still freely upload whatever your thoughts and opinions are onto YouTube, they just won't get monetized. 

 

I feel as though a lot of these YouTubers that are complaining sound really bitchy and entitled. The whole reason they have a career on YouTube is the fact that advertisers exist. What's interesting is that I bet that some of the same YouTubers that are complaining will change their content in order for it to be monetized, suggesting that they're in it for the money rather than what they're complaining about.

Yeah, clearly advertisers need to be separated from Acne videos:

 

 

[Wyzzy Moon]

not really censorship though
 

 

[LAwLz]

8 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Yeah, clearly advertisers need to be separated from Acne videos:

Seems like a false positive.

I don't think anyone will argue against the fact that no system on YouTube is 100% working as intended. There will always be false positives and negatives.

[Misanthrope]

43 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Seems like a false positive.

I don't think anyone will argue against the fact that no system on YouTube is 100% working as intended. There will always be false positives and negatives.

Fair enough that was more of a humorous aside.

 

This is what I do know for certain, even before this recent developments, weeks and even months now:

 

1) Talk negatively about Islam and you will be demonetized. It doesn't matter if you're fair but critical, basing all of your arguments on facts. It will be deemed "controversial"

2) Make an identical video critical of Christianity and you'll be fine.

 

I know people like Amazing Atheist have been getting demonetized for videos like his take on the Orlando Shootings for example and well you know when that happened.

 

So while in theory I can see how most people here are saying "This is not really censorship" (Though as I replied to you earlier: in my opinion I could make the case that it is Censorship and we just have outdated laws regarding this) in practice however, I know and have seen very clean cut examples where this is 100% politically motivated.

[Kimmers]

55 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Yeah, clearly advertisers need to be separated from Acne videos:

 

 

 

and please tell me how this is censorship again. I'll be waiting.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, Kimmers said:

and please tell me how this is censorship again. I'll be waiting.

Well:

36 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Fair enough that was more of a humorous aside.

 

This is what I do know for certain, even before this recent developments, weeks and even months now:

 

1) Talk negatively about Islam and you will be demonetized. It doesn't matter if you're fair but critical, basing all of your arguments on facts. It will be deemed "controversial"

2) Make an identical video critical of Christianity and you'll be fine.

 

I know people like Amazing Atheist have been getting demonetized for videos like his take on the Orlando Shootings for example and well you know when that happened.

 

So while in theory I can see how most people here are saying "This is not really censorship" (Though as I replied to you earlier: in my opinion I could make the case that it is Censorship and we just have outdated laws regarding this) in practice however, I know and have seen very clean cut examples where this is 100% politically motivated.