Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Youtube Businesses

YouTube Warns of 'Consequences' For Creators Who Misbehave (cnbc.com) 174

Posted by msmash from the enough-is-enough dept.
YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki has announced that creators whose actions impact negatively on its community will face "consequences." From a report: Wojcicki said the video-sharing platform is developing new policies that "would lead to consequences" if a content creator "does something egregious" that reflects unfavorably on other YouTube creators. YouTube's CEO made the comments in a blog post that detailed a list of the Google-owned firm's priorities for creators in 2018. In January, one of the service's most popular content creators, Logan Paul, published a video that showed the dead body of a man hanging from a tree. Wojcicki did not refer to the Logan Paul incident directly, but said that the misbehavior of some creators could put the broader YouTube community in a negative light. "While these instances are rare, they can damage the reputation and revenue of your fellow creators, so we want to make sure we have policies in place that allow us to respond appropriately," she said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube Warns of 'Consequences' For Creators Who Misbehave More

YouTube Warns of 'Consequences' For Creators Who Misbehave

Comments Filter:

  • Youtube (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jfetjunky ( 4359471 ) on Friday February 02, 2018 @04:12PM (#56057561)
    Behaving more and more like the TV networks we hate every day...

    • Morons At Youtube. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sycodon ( 149926 ) on Friday February 02, 2018 @04:22PM (#56057699)

      They've demonetized many of the channels I like to watch...such a hunting, camping, home repair, etc.

      It's stupid and random. If they have an algorithm doing this the programmer is a moron. If people are doing it, they are morons. if it's a mix, then it's the Perfect Storm of Morons.

      Won't belong before the only channels unaffected by their stupidity are the Cute Cat channels and that won't last after the Animal Rights assholes get done with them.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The programmer is definitely not a moron, he just does what he is paid to do.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by arth1 ( 260657 )

          The programmer is definitely not a moron, he just does what he is paid to do.

          Isn't that the definition of a moron? A smart person will question what he does when it does not make sense. That's why a smart person on average gets paid more.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It's 'people' that are causing problems for some channels I subscribe to. Almost without fail, everytime they put up a new video some twat will immediately report it.
        This has a major impact on income since Youtube instantly removes monetisation until the video is reviewed. But by the time someone at Youtube gets off their hairy ass, finds nothing wrong and reinstates the monetisation it's far too late, the viewer numbers have already gone past their peak.

        Hrm, it's almost as if Youtube are engineering ways

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by jetkust ( 596906 )
        The algorithm is to demonetize every video and then hand pick which videos to run ads on.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by ruddk ( 5153113 )

        As I briefly played with the monetization, I can say that there's a some of intersting things going on. For example, footage of driving down a road with a brief voice over were demonetized right after upload and then for some reason it was monetized a day later. (one could argue that it was to boring to be monitized in the first place :D)
        Others would get the demonetized and then changing keywords or descriptions would trigger a new automatic re-evaluation.

        I just played with it for fun, had it been my job it

      • They have basically killed millions of monetized small content creators, including me due to thier new thresholds.

      • They've demonetized many of the channels I like to watch...such a hunting, camping, home repair, etc.

        Did you hop on over and donate to their patreon instead?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by lgw ( 121541 )

          Channels have to get to a certain size/credibility before anyone will. It's the only viable model though - I don't think any of the channels I watch are still monetized (and I only watch one political guy). No, wait, there's one magician who's still monetized, out of 20 or so channels I subscribe to. WTF youtube?

          But, of course, no matter how egregious PewDiePie becomes, they'll keep showing ads on his channel.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by 2ms ( 232331 )
        Check out Steemit and DTube. Youtube will have some competition soon.

      • Re:Morons At Youtube. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot.worf@net> on Friday February 02, 2018 @07:12PM (#56059027)

        They've demonetized many of the channels I like to watch...such a hunting, camping, home repair, etc.

        It's stupid and random. If they have an algorithm doing this the programmer is a moron. If people are doing it, they are morons. if it's a mix, then it's the Perfect Storm of Morons.

        Won't belong before the only channels unaffected by their stupidity are the Cute Cat channels and that won't last after the Animal Rights assholes get done with them.

        You have to realize that to "monetize" a video, there has to be an ad for it. And maybe just over a year ago, that wasn't a problem - there were lots of advertisers.

        The big problem is YouTube's advertisers are running thin. When thanks to the opinions of a certain president, certain views started getting rather high visibility, and the press surrounding those videos suddenly caused a lot of advertisers to wake up and take notice - their ads were playing on those videos.

        You have to realize an advertiser is a thin skinned human with a bankroll, and the only way to get them to release that bankroll is to stay on the straight and narrow. So a LOT of big name advertisers pulled their ad contracts from YouTube the first time it happened. It happened again a month later, and even more advertisers pulled out.

        So basically of what's left, YouTube has to ensure that they don't get up and leave as well. So producing a video that harms the YouTube community may be demonetized because it has the potential of losing advertisers.

        And that's what matters. If you want money, you need ads. Advertisers are thin skinned and if you're not on the straight and narrow on what values they promote, they will refuse to put an ad on your video and thus, your video does not get monetized because there's no one to pay for it.

        Unfortunately, a lot of outdoorsy type videos fall under this - guns are especially hard thanks to all the mass shootings, so advertisers really hate associating their product with something that could cause another Las Vegas.

        The gravy train has basically come to a halt. At least YouTube still keeps the video up - and until someone wants to advertise on those kinds of videos, they can't be monetized.

        And no, the alternatives will have to face exactly the same problem - Steem and DTube, short of charging people money to view the videos, will have to rely on the same kinds of advertisers that YouTube goes after. Well, they could go after the crapware advertisers, you know, the ones that will advertise on any site regardless of content, mostly because the ads are deceptive, illegal, and will be the kind that install 10 kinds of malware on your computer. They're the ones you find on torrent sites and other questionable content sites.

        • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday February 02, 2018 @09:07PM (#56059681)
          Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by lgw ( 121541 )

            The worst part of all of that is that Google is the worlds leading expert at demographic-based advertising. No one in the world knows better which ads would sell well on a Christian channel vs a prepper channel vs a movie review channel vs funny cat videos. But actually making a viable business out of YouTube is unimportant compared to their actual goal. Pisses me off to no end as I own a bit of GOOG stock indirectly. Evil and unprofitable is no way for a corporation to go through life.

          • Spot on.

            This is why I am SO looking forward to discovery in the Damore case. The stuff in Damore's court filings is probably just the beginning of the shenanigans going on inside Google. What are advertizers going to say when it becomes undeniable that Google doesn't target their customers ads to the target market? What happens if Black and Female conservatives are found to have been discriminated against?

            Don't get me wrong, EVERYONE discriminates. It's physically impossible to go through life withou
            • Comment removed based on user account deletion

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Reziac ( 43301 ) *

                If it was really about what advertisers want, it would be up to ADVERTISERS to decide which channels they want their ads to appear on. (Most companies use ad agencies anyway, they don't do their own ad placement.) So instead of hiring 10,000 censors, YT could have hired 100 ad agency representatives, and probably would have sold a lot more advertising as a good rep would point the agency at likely prospects (not that hard to sort out, even just based on channel keywords). Then let what creators get paid ref

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Chas ( 5144 )

            Also notice that the Daily Wire had their SOTU stream cut off. They were using the C-Span video stream of the event.

            But, because The Young Turks. a YouTube Affiliate, was ALSO using it...REASONS.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hey! ( 33014 )

        It's stupid and random. If they have an algorithm doing this the programmer is a moron

        All he has to do is write his algorithm so that it has no false positives. Any idiot can see that would solve the problem.

        If people are doing it, they are morons.

        Not necessarily. It's the people who hired them that are morons. You should hire people who don't make mistakes.

    • Re: Youtube is Scum (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      For the people old enough to remember YouTube before it became THEIR Tube, the whole idea was to give eveyone equal footing with NBC CBS ABC. The push to sell movies and cable TV goes against the whole platform for INDIVIDUALS.
      And Defunding people or banning them and blocking their 1st Amendment Free Speech? It is high time we start up an OPEN platform .org to replace TheirTube.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by 2ms ( 232331 )
        Don't worry Steemit and Dtube are on their way to rescue us from facebook and google ;) I would say about one more year before critical mass.
  • We need some consequences for people on Slashdot who misbehave. This place is full of troll.s

  • Too late (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Lately every decision involving YouTube has been a turn for the worse. They've hid 'unwanted' content, limited or disabled what can be monetized, and now have raised requirements to be able to monetize videos. I'm not going to pretend that there's an alternative currently that can truly compete, but these decisions are definitely making people look elsewhere for one.

    • Lately every decision involving YouTube has been a turn for the worse. They've hid 'unwanted' content, limited or disabled what can be monetized, and now have raised requirements to be able to monetize videos. I'm not going to pretend that there's an alternative currently that can truly compete, but these decisions are definitely making people look elsewhere for one.

      Don't forget about fracturing content. I believe there's already content that is exclusive to YouTube Red.

    • Wouldn't Vimeo be a viable alternative?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Not really. The focus is on artists and hipsters there, and the site isn't organized for general video sharing. Although still in its infancy, D Tube is a distributed, monetized, and free speech alternative to YouTube.

      • Wouldn't Vimeo be a viable alternative?

        That's a tall order for several reasons.

        No ads
        Apart from Content ID disputes, most of the recent whining about YouTube is about loss of ability to run ads on a channel's videos. Vimeo.com doesn't support ads at all. This makes it not an alternative for producers who depend on ad revenue.
        Commercial content confusion
        Vimeo's guidelines [vimeo.com] ban "commercial content" if the uploader doesn't pay $240 per year for "pro" upload privileges, and I haven't seen a bright line between "showcas[ing] your creative work" and "

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Reziac ( 43301 ) *

        There's PewTube, but it's new and still pretty small. But the founder has said flat out, no censorship.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Embrace and extend, my friend. It's the monopolist's way whether it's Google or Microsoft. The only answer is to never allow them to achieve monopoly status.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by slazzy ( 864185 )
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions, though I'm not sure YouTube is even acting with good intentions. The timing is right for a smaller video platform to take over.
      • Not good intentions.

        Google hoped demonetization would "censor" the views they want to censor, but the best content producers have found other ways to monetize while still distributing on youtube.

        So now they have constructed a policy that allows them to "innocently" remove the producers.

    • Lately every decision involving YouTube has been a turn for the worse.

      Yes, because delisting a 'tard that shows a dead body on his channel was a terrible thing, cuz censorship bad!

  • Misbehave... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thegreatbob ( 693104 ) on Friday February 02, 2018 @04:19PM (#56057649) Journal
    I wonder when they'll extend their definition of "to misbehave" to include people who are critical of their services/policies...
    • Doesn't this already happen?
      Also, politics, it seems as if YouTube see one side as misbehavior more than the other.

      • Re:Misbehave... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 02, 2018 @04:55PM (#56058005)

        Also, politics, it seems as if YouTube see one side as misbehavior more than the other.

        A video that became popular from the Greek right-wing/nationalist party Golden Dawn (elected in parliament ranking third in votes) was removed by YouTube as "hate-speech"...

        The video was a photography of an Athens center square in the 50's and a love song from that era with the lyrics (roughly translated by me) "I wish you could come back again, even for just a night"...

        With no text (other than "Golden Dawn") and none copyrights violations, neither for the photograph nor for the song... the solution for YouTube was to characterize it... "hate-speech" (a photography of an Athens center square in the 50's and a love song from that era...)!

        • here's the context [greekreporter.com]. The reason they were showing a song sung in Greece from the 50s with pictures from that era is because it was before immigrants came, e.g. when the country was Greeks only. The subtext is "Things were better before immigrants came, so we should send them away".

          I guess the question is, is a segregationist message hate speech? In the United States it most certainly is. We have a long history of what's called "Separate by Equal" between our black and white populations where things were

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Anonymous Coward

            The video itself did not contain a single word of hate-speech, or discrimination, or advocating violence, or anything else that would violate YouTube's TOU.

            Your excuse is that it was in support of a group that you feel does those things, and therefore EVEN THOUGH this video is clean, it should be taken down. If you actually take that approach, almost all political or social messaging becomes banned - almost every viewpoint is associated with a group that was rude or violent.
            As we enter Black History Month

          • I guess the question is, is a segregationist message hate speech? In the United States it most certainly is. We have a long history of what's called "Separate by Equal" between our black and white populations where things were anything but equal.

            What in the world does that have to do with immigration?

      • It seems to, but it doesn't seem to be formally considered an offense. Lots of complaints out there about demonetization and whatnot... i'm not a content creator, so I don't have especially great insight there.

    • Re:Misbehave... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Friday February 02, 2018 @04:28PM (#56057771)

      I wonder when they'll extend their definition of "to misbehave" to include people who are critical of their services/policies...

      It'll probably just be the "Reported for Community Standards violations", except instead of 1 Strike you lose Partner status and 3 Strikes you're banned from Google services with all your video's taken down ----- one strike and you're banned, and as a side penalty you can no longer use Google Search, and you'll lose access to your Gmail account, Google Drive account, etc, at the same time.

    • Your already get demonetized for talking about demonetization.

    • I wonder when they'll extend their definition of "to misbehave" to include people who are critical of their services/policies...

      "I wonder..." is what you get when there are no real problems left to worry about.

  • Elsa-gate (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Killall -9 Bash ( 622952 )
    And still no real response to Elsa-gate.
    • Around here, it seems that -gate is like a flag for indicating that one does not need to care very much about some controversy unrelated to their daily lives... for those too lazy to search for it (as I had to; something-gate is literally meaningless without context or "you had to be there!"), it was the controversy involving people gaming the Youtube Kids content selection algorithms to get off-color and outright offensive content selected.

  • Perhaps they'll raise the threshold for monetizing channels again (until morale improves).

  • "that reflects unfavorably on other YouTube creators." Is that flame wars or something?

  • Google judges you.

  • Wojcicki is deep inside the SJW echo chamber (Score:4, Interesting)

    by blind biker ( 1066130 ) on Friday February 02, 2018 @04:29PM (#56057777) Journal

    I say this as a European socialist. Wojcicki is a cunt and Youtube suffers from it.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      She has her power because her sister married one of the founders.

      She has her anger because her sister is no longer married to one of the founders.

      Both her power and her anger are due to workplace romance.

      Workplace romance has its positives and negatives: she is a poster child for the negatives.

  • Transparency (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Pyramid ( 57001 ) on Friday February 02, 2018 @04:31PM (#56057793)

    More talk of "consequences" for "misbehavior" with absolutely clarity about what that means. Just more ass-covering maneuvers by an Alphabet company that allow it to do whatever it wants with absolutely zero explanation.

    Given Google's ideological track record both online and in the workplace, there is no reason whatsoever to believe this will be good for the content creator or the free exchange of ideas in general.

  • Does this mean they are finally going to do something about all those people posting Nazi screeds thinly veiled as comic book or movie commentaries? I'm kinda sick of those polluting my searches.

    Half their hits are just people who came to argue in their comments, but all those hits just serve to raise the video's profile so innocent searchers have to wade through screens of them to find a legit video. Its just trolling. If Nazis honestly want to recruit, let them go do it on their own Nazitube and leave t

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Does this mean they are finally going to do something about all those people posting Nazi screeds thinly veiled as comic book or movie commentaries?

      Ah yes, the traditional leftist approach: "I don't like it, so somebody else force them to stop so I don't have to be inconvenienced."

      I'm kinda sick of those polluting my searches.

      There are a lot of people who are pretty sick of various degenerate agendas polluting their searches too. Should be ban that too? What qualifies one to the noble position of having sensibilities that can be enforced by law? Surely it's not being of Jewish heritage.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by T.E.D. ( 34228 )

        Ah yes, the traditional leftist approach: "I don't like it, so somebody else force them to stop so I don't have to be inconvenienced."

        (sigh) One last time, although I fear this will fall on deaf ears.

        Youtube is not the government. They are free to allow or disallow whatever content they want on their own website with their branding at the top, and not allowing bait-and-switch NAZI recruitment (or puppies, if that's their issue) would not be censorship. If puppy-fanciers don't like it, they are FREE to go make puppy-tube, and the government can't stop them.

        • Except they are a video distribution platform (and quite monopolistic at that), not a political party. If they start filtering content to only relay selected ideas, then they will have a significant impact on the population ideas which can easily drive an election in one direction or the other.

          Which is why regulation is important, and should be as important as the company is monopolistic and has an impact on the population. We don't need regulation for your personal web site, but we do need it for Faceboo

  • "...developing new policies that "would lead to consequences" if a content creator "does something egregious" that reflects unfavorably on other YouTube creators..."

    So, let me get this straight. If I feel like calling another YouTube creator an asshole in a viral rant that drives millions of customers to your site, that is going to lead to "consequences"?

    Yeah, good luck with drawing the line in the sand between ethics, morals, revenue, and oh yeah, that pesky Freedom of Speech thing. You know damn well that inflammatory content has driven billions into your pockets, so I'm sure your shareholders will enjoy your new revenue-destroying policies as well.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jetkust ( 596906 )

      So, let me get this straight. If I feel like calling another YouTube creator an asshole in a viral rant that drives millions of customers to your site, that is going to lead to "consequences"?

      I don't think that's where she was going. If I had to guess it's related to all the sexual harassment claims that have been going around lately. Previous policy changes had to do with demonetizing videos on a video by video basis. I think this is more about demonetizing videos due to behavior of the creators in their personal life. Similar to how some sports leagues punish players for something they may have done outside of the actual sport, like the NFL's "conduct detrimental to the league" policy.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        She was probably thinking about Logan Paul posting that video of a suicide victim's body.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jetkust ( 596906 )
          They already addressed the Logan Paul thing by saying they would monitor every video before they monetized it. But as much as people want to make an example of him, there are a lot worse things that YouTubers have done in the past, some venturing into criminal activity (eg. Austin Jones).

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

          suicide victim

          I never noticed before, but the person would also be a suicide perpetrator, no?

    • Googledouches and their apologists are pretty open about their opposition to freedom of speech, in practice and principle alike.

  • Youtube Should Fix Their Site Design First (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dryriver ( 1010635 ) on Friday February 02, 2018 @05:10PM (#56058161)
    Youtube has the largest collection of video content in recorded human history, and only provides a basic search box and a very half-baked suggestions algorithm to access them. There is no good index, by alphabet, by content type, by content subject or by or any other good way to really explore and sift through content on the site that you do not already know. I've been listening to a bunch of good music artists on Youtube the last few months, and the suggestions algorithm has completely boxed me in both on Youtube.com in the browser and in the Youtube Android app. I keep seeing the same artists and same types of songs being suggested over and over, as if the rest of the musical world doesn't exist at all. The only way to "break out of the box" is to start searching for a completely different type of artist whose name you already know. So from a technical/engineering/UX design standpoint, Youtube is NOT a well designed site at all. Maybe if you search for simple stuff like "Rihanna" or "SNL", the site will work for you. But if you want a text-based or better visual network-graph based UI that really lets you explore the site, that just doesn't exist on Youtube. I bet Alphabet see Youtube that way in their offices, but we ordinary Tubelings only get the search box and the -15 IQ suggestions algorithm that was probably put together by 3 programmers. THIS is what Youtube should be focusing their efforts on. A better UI, especially for the mobile app.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by vix86 ( 592763 )

      This is sort of my biggest complaint about YouTube as well: their algorithm sucks. Its way too over-eager when it wants to suggest stuff on the home page and there isn't a quick way to slap the algorithm on the wrist when it comes to correcting the issue. You have to hover over the video link, get the 3 dots, click, say not interested then get the "Why not?" dialog. This takes ~3-4 seconds depending on the responsiveness of the UI and I might have to do this for upwards to 8 videos in the "Recommended" sect

  • Anita Sarkeesian (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FerociousFerret ( 533780 ) on Friday February 02, 2018 @05:19PM (#56058229)
    Then Anita Sarkeesian should be banned for life.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's kinda sad that you guys are still upset about that. She finished that series a couple of years ago now, and moved on to moaning about Star Trek Discovery.

      It's also kinda frustrating that I need to remind you that disagreement isn't trolling.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Finished a couple years ago? The last one (so far) was released April 27, 2017 and she wasn't regular in releasing them before then. Not to mention, she didn't cover all the subjects her original KickStarter said it would, and the total run time of 4:50 is less than the length of the 6 videos she promised as a minimum. No, she just wanted to get out from under that and out of the spotlight. Can't have too many eyes when you are trying to sneak your millions past the IRS.

  • Oh, right. Because there's no real competitor.

    They killed me with the copyright review process. I can't even get one because my views are too low.

    They killed me when they de-monitized all the small channels.

    The threaten to take action against "bad actors" and people who "misbehave" without defining the terms. I mean, I was never a great actor, but I don't think I qualified as a bad one. At least I hope not.

    And I do misbehave from time to time.

    I'm having a really hard time wondering why I don't dump YouT

    • All Facebook would have to do it start a video directory for live and non live videos and it would cut into YT pretty quickly. The only other alternative Dailymotion is now done too.

      • I'm hoping that by Sunday, I'll be streaming to every service. I do a live SF/genre review show Monday-Wednesday; then an anything-goes talk-show on Thursday. I'll also get on if I think I have something useful to say. I have some production values, and since I'm older, I bill myself as "The Fandi Master."

        If you're curious, I did one a couple of hours ago on the Nunes memo (what a surprise). However, I'm bringing my 40 years of IT and ITSec with me rather than the 53 years of fandom. Tonight's is at Th [youtube.com]

    • Ah, yes. Now I remember why I almost never post to /.

      Within a few moments, some troll is down-moderating my posts as trolling. In so doing, it fraks up my karma, etc.

      It happens every frakking time.

      Screw you guys. If /. can't fix this obviously broken system, I'm going back to lurking. Posting is a pointless exercise in futility.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • What is the point of paying for YoutubeRed in order to avoid advertisements and to support content creators, when most have been demonitized and have resorted to product sponsorship and patreon begging anyway? I'm happy to go back to using an ad blocker or use another platform entirely that doesn't play games with subscribing, notifications, 'limited state' censorship, and catering to a particular political ideology.

  • Oh, the irony of a site that has outsourced its censorship to its audience (like /. [1]) talking propagandistically [gnu.org] about another site threatening comparably vague censorship of its users. The propaganda of the term "creator" in this context isn't copyright related, but it's still aimed at "elevat[ing] authors' moral standing above that of ordinary people" to justify another power, denying freedom of speech.

    [1] Where posts have scores, low-scoring posts are hidden by default, users who score aren't allowed

  • My how politically correct Youtube has become - I wonder why.

    Some of the channels I have seen demonetized would appear to have committed the mortal sin of not obeying the strictures and eschewing following the acceptable ideology of Susan Wojcicki, which also happens to fall in line with Googles, firing of a man for an illegal opinion.

    Looks like the brave new world of far left liberals will have some pretty important restrictions on those who dare to commit the crim of disagreement, and this is what t

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jetkust ( 596906 )
      It was never was about politics. There is something that YouTube doesn't want to admit. Their monetization system was being exploited by bots and scammers. My guess advertisers knew it too. Political people are trained to ignore details. The fact that everyone regardless of "political position" is complaining about being demonetized.

      • It was never was about politics. There is something that YouTube doesn't want to admit. Their monetization system was being exploited by bots and scammers. My guess advertisers knew it too. Political people are trained to ignore details. The fact that everyone regardless of "political position" is complaining about being demonetized.

        So they just demonetized channels that looked like they didn't fall in line with Youtube's agenda and future narrative? It's an interesting concept, but when the complaints come in from those who cannot take criticism, or do not fit a particular narrative, I'm a little skeptical of it. One of the posters here noted that hunting channels he watched were demonetized. There are definitely people out there who have an objection to hunting, and if they are demonetized, it means someone complained. I don't hunt a

  • Sounds like time for another service to start. Can't disagree with the snowflakes, they'll get booboo feelings. Give em all a participation trophy.
  • Little by little they are screwing themselves. Just like the cable companies are with their price increases. Oh well!

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close