Youtube is censoring Youtubers.

[themctipers]

21 hours ago, Ramamataz said:

In the latest news. Youtube has changed their TOS and attacking all content creators all around. Apparently Youtube is preventing Monetization for many youtubers, including MrRepzion, Philip DeFranco which they have said is basically a form of censorship.

 

Apparently many of the videos that are getting "censored" due to the following rules that youtube has created shown in this twitter post. A.K.A "Advertiser friendly "

 

 

Many people including Philip DeFranco, thought this was a mistake however when his network manager called Youtube apparently it wasn't.

 

 

This is a shitty ass attempt at censorship, what is the point? How is Philip DeFranco suppose to talk about the news? Sugar coat them? No there is a reason why he talks the way he talks, he gives the entire new story and talks about them.  Youtube this is completely ABSURD. What are you thinking!? Your censoring nearly 99% of Youtubers, because I know everyone uses swear words, Pewdiepie probably isn't going to be affected in anyway, cause why? He's the top dog of Youtube. 

 

Youtube has proceeded to shoot itself in the foot, am pretty sure most fans are going to blow this shit up and force youtube to change, cause you know what? That's the only way big companies will submit, if enough noise is created they know clearly they fucked up, really bad and be forced to revert back to the old terms, cause this is non-sense, so basically Youtube is trying to be super politically correct, and it's going to backfire heavily. Youtube is a place where people can post any types of videos ( OKAY MAYBE NOT PORN, KILLING PETS OR ANIMALS ON PURPOSE !  and other crazy shit)

 

Youtube mate you don fudged up, I hope your prepared for the aftermath of this. 

Am i the only person here that doesn't watch them?

and watch sub 200k people on youtube?

and a fucking kid that does that

also ive seen this on another channel a few days ago

[Misanthrope]

Just now, themctipers said:

Am i the only person here that doesn't watch them?

and watch sub 200k people on youtube?

and a fucking kid that does that

also ive seen this on another channel a few days ago

Not really the majority of the channels I watch are sub 200k. However the smaller channels are arguably the most vulnerable here.

[Kimmers]

5 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Well:

 

just to clarify, both of your examples will continue to have their videos broadcasters to viewers correct? If said controversial video gets taken down then yes you are right, that is definitely censorship.

[themctipers]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Not really the majority of the channels I watch are sub 200k. However the smaller channels are arguably the most vulnerable here.

well i would say a fair bit of the channels i watch are around the 200k mark. 

the channels i watch vary from 200k to around 20k.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, Kimmers said:

just to clarify, both of your examples will continue to have their videos broadcasters to viewers correct? If said controversial video gets taken down then yes you are right, that is definitely censorship.

Yes I am not saying this is Censorship as we currently define it under the law. The other point I made previously is that Youtube has so much reach as a defacto monopoly that our current laws and understanding of Censorship are in my opinion, insufficient for the reality which is that if you're not monetized and on youtube, for the most part, you're completely out of the video making business.

 

Yes there's patreon, yes there's competing services, etc. It's still not nearly enough for the vast majority of youtubers pragmatically speaking, they will have to self censor otherwise their career is over so you're basically dictating to a group of people so large what they can and cannot saying. Not directly, just pragmatically.

[LAwLz]

h3h3 has made a video about it. According to him, this has been going on for years already. The only thing that has changed is that YouTube now tells you about it instead of doing it behind your back. It's worth checking out. If what he is saying is true then the situation has actually gotten better (YouTube being more upfront about it).

 

 

[plsno]

Heaven forbid youtube actually stop running ads on content that advertisers don't want their ads being associated with.

[blu4]

I am really confused with this "advertiser friendly" bullshit. So, let's assume that a pop star makes a video (any pop star), shakes her ass on video, gets 500,000,000+ views, makes ton of money and THEN youtube takes 40% of that revenue. This all means that since there is "sexually suggestive content", which those videos are in 100%, they will be taken down for violation, am I right? That's a shit ton of money lost right there.

[Monkey Dust]

Sniffs of a money grab TBH, rather than an attempt to censor. This is the kind of behaviour we should all be used to be now from Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft et al. I guess it does give room for a competitor to come in, but if Google can't make money out of it, I doubt anyone else can.  

 

It is a flaw with the ad supported model, we individuals are not the customers, we're the product who must be packaged attractively for the the actually customer, the advertisers. The alternative is if we pay for these services, but getting internet user to pay for stuff is like pushing custard up a hill, and is unlikely to attract a large enough customer base to become viable.    

[Misanthrope]

58 minutes ago, Monkey Dust said:

Sniffs of a money grab TBH, rather than an attempt to censor. This is the kind of behaviour we should all be used to be now from Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft et al. I guess it does give room for a competitor to come in, but if Google can't make money out of it, I doubt anyone else can.  

 

It is a flaw with the ad supported model, we individuals are not the customers, we're the product who must be packaged attractively for the the actually customer, the advertisers. The alternative is if we pay for these services, but getting internet user to pay for stuff is like pushing custard up a hill, and is unlikely to attract a large enough customer base to become viable.    

That last part is demonstrably false: Most youtubers and streamers have long since stopped depending on adsense for revenue and now are finding success in crowd funding efforts like Patreon which is flat out and directly asking for money from the audience which responds, very positively in fact.

 

Sure some have also supplemented their income with sponsored content (We know the recent scandals and such) but for the most part if a channel is moderately popular (i.e. enough to actually make more than a few dollars per month from adsense) is also popular enough to sustain a moderate revenue stream from Patreon campaigns. The only thing is that youtubers loose the "viral" factor of having a video suddenly blow up to 5x to infinite times more views than it's subscriber count but those cases are few and far in between vs just relying on a steady source of income provided you can deliver a steady source of entertainment and material.

[ThinkWithPortals]

On 01/09/2016 at 0:31 PM, Sauron said:

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.

Censorship is not the outright removal of the material in question, censorship is the suppression or placing of limitations upon the material in general.

 

By the definition of the word "censorship", it is censorship.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

19 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

That last part is demonstrably false: Most youtubers and streamers have long since stopped depending on adsense for revenue and now are finding success in crowd funding efforts like Patreon which is flat out and directly asking for money from the audience which responds, very positively in fact.

I know I am stretching this a bit, but I believe Patreon can be used as a case example to completely debunk this "donations are not enough" nonsense that has been spreading around lately like wildfire. YouTube or modding or web hosting, it is all the same deal.

[Trixanity]

While creators are allowed to make any video they want (within the ToS), taking their money away removes their ability to do that. It's kinda like going to work and your boss says "you're not fired, but you won't be getting paid anymore. You can still do stuff around here if you like but no soup for you".

 

YouTube needs creators to thrive. Taking away money from them won't help that endeavor. And yes, YouTube can do whatever they want and the big channels have found other ways to finance their business but it's probably the small channels that get hurt the most by this. Those who make a little bit of AdSense to keep them going while trying to grow to a place where they not only get more AdSense money but can also start looking at alternate sources of income such as sponsor spots, Patreon or something else.

[minibois]

Not giving money for videos does not mean censorship. There just wont be ads on the video and they will not get any money for it.

[Sauron]

19 hours ago, ThinkWithPortals said:

Censorship is not the outright removal of the material in question, censorship is the suppression or placing of limitations upon the material in general.

 

By the definition of the word "censorship", it is censorship.

nonsense, no limitation has been placed on what is said in the videos. no parts of them have been covered or removed. youtube simply decided NOT to pay them to use their unlimited hosting service. 

[ThinkWithPortals]

35 minutes ago, Sauron said:

nonsense, no limitation has been placed on what is said in the videos. no parts of them have been covered or removed. youtube simply decided NOT to pay them to use their unlimited hosting service. 

Exactly -  YT penalised them for the video's content. They denied those videos monetisation therefore limiting the videos because of their content, so it's censorship.

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, ThinkWithPortals said:

Exactly -  YT penalised them for the video's content. They denied those videos monetisation therefore limiting the videos because of their content, so it's censorship.

No. By EVERY definition, censorship is removal of its target and the dissuasion from producing more of it. If you demand to be paid to voice your opinion you're not fighting censorship, you're mocking people who suffer ACTUAL censorship from their government. You don't need a Hollywood studio to have freedom of speech, if you have something to say you can even record an audio only video with a still picture being shown, which costs nothing but your time.

 

[LAwLz]

This is NOT censorship. I totally agree that this is bad, but it is by no means censorship.

Stop misusing the word "censorship" please. If this keeps going then the word censorship will lose its meaning. You people are just as bad as the feminazis screaming "rape" if a guy as much as looks at them funny.

 

If YouTube had taken the videos down then yes, it would have been censorship. Just saying "sure, you can keep uploading these videos if you want. However, our advertisement partners don't want ads on your videos so we won't be able to pay you" is not censorship.

 

People seem to confuse "not being allowed to do X" with "not getting paid to do X". YouTube don't owe you money if you upload videos that goes against their rules. Hell, YouTube could remove monetization on all videos and it still wouldn't be censorship, since you're still allowed to upload videos.

 

Saying that this is censorship is like going to some theater in Las Vegas, borrowing it for an hour (for free), go up on stage and talk about rape, and then say the owner of the theater is censoring you since he didn't pay you for your speech, even though you signed a contract saying that the owner would not pay you.

[TheKDub]

On 9/1/2016 at 0:28 PM, 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. 

 

Technically it is censorship, but not in the sense that most people would think of censorship in; typically when people hear the word censorship, they think of direct or hard censorship, where it's directly suppressing certain features of content, but what this sort of censorship is isn't direct censorship, it's indirect, or soft censorship, where they're attacking youtubers financially in an attempt to censor their content, that way if a youtuber doesn't want to comply, they just won't be able to monetize their videos, but if they do want to monetize their videos, they'll have to comply to the censorship.

 

Tldr: There definitely is censorship going on, it's just indirect censorship, not direct censorship as most people might be thinking of when they hear censorship.

[Tomsen]

I don't really think the issue is at youtube, bit rather the advertising agencies. They have for ages been fighting for not be affilliated with swear words and controversial topics.

 

But perhaps youtube can be to blame for giving in to their silly demands.