Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Businesses Youtube Technology

YouTube Suspends Ads on Logan Paul's Channels After 'Recent Pattern' of Behavior in Videos (techcrunch.com) 162

More problems and controversy for Logan Paul, the YouTube star who caused a strong public backlash when he posted a video of a suicide victim in Japan. From a report: Google's video platform today announced that it would be pulling advertising temporarily from his video channel in response to a "recent pattern of behavior" from him. This is in addition to Paul's suspensions from YouTube's Preferred Ad program and its Originals series, both of which have been in place since January; and comes days after YouTube's CEO promised stronger enforcement of YouTube's policies using a mix of technology and 10,000 human curators.

YouTube Suspends Ads on Logan Paul's Channels After 'Recent Pattern' of Behavior in Videos

Comments Filter:
  • by Revek ( 133289 ) on Friday February 09, 2018 @09:07AM (#56094735) Homepage

    We can add him to a long line of useless internet stars. May he serve as an example of what not to be.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Iâ(TM)ve never seen him, so Iâ(TM)ll take your word that he is a douche. However, I worry that this is another step in censorship and the stifling political correctness taking over the US.
      Maybe Google should let the advertisers choose sites they donâ(TM)t want to be seen on?

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Viol8 ( 599362 )

        Agreed. So long as he hasn't broken the law it should be up to viewers and advertisers to decide.

        But then youtube/google are stinking hypocrits anyway - they're quite happy to have videos of people burning to death or dying in vehicle accidents but some guy who's a bit of a dick and perhaps doesn't follow the liberal party line? Well, thats a different story - ban him, cast him out!

        • by Anonymous Coward

          There is a you tube star who got into trouble for his video on making gunpowder using urine. Plenty of people have made gunpowder on youtube but it seems his real sin was in being anticonsumer by not purchasing all his ingredients at the store.

        • by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Friday February 09, 2018 @10:18AM (#56095089)

          So long as he hasn't broken the law it should be up to viewers and advertisers to decide.

          Google literally owns the platform in it's entirety so they get to decide what is allowed on it. It's not the only platform, so if you do not like how they do business then you don't have to support them by viewing.

          There could be a different platform that exclusively allows conservative ideals, it's a matter of creating it. You need to grasp that a website is private property.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            It's long past time to regulate google.

            They no longer compete in a marketplace of ideas but instead use their power in one area to win market share in others.

            This is a direct textbook violation of anti-trust laws.

            Once your boy, Trump, is out of office, I expect the next pro-citizen POTUS' DoJ to break them up.

            • by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

              If you pull your head out of your ass, you'll note that Trump was elected specifically because non-mainstream views were allowed on social media. He is the person that has the actual deep vested interest in non-mainstream views continuing to remain visible.

              I can't think of any political actor in US that would have this much of a vested interest in freedom of speech. No one else is even remotely as vilified and lied about on mainstream as a matter of routine.

          • by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

            We had this model of thought before. It's what gave us Trusts. There's a reason why anti-monopoly legislation was forced through as a result of what Trusts did to the economy.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Are you actually defending the guy that posted a video of himself fucking around near a corpse? Check yourself.

          • by Falos ( 2905315 )

            Check what he's actually defending, instead of trying to equate elsewhere.

            ARE YOU SRSLY DEFENDING TERRORISM? REALLY? ACTUALLY?

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          So long as he hasn't broken the law it should be up to viewers and advertisers to decide.

          That's exactly what has happened. What do you think is going on?

          The videos are still up, YouTube hosts them for free. Viewers can decide to watch them. Advertisers decided that they don't want to have their ads run on any of his videos though, as is their choice.

          The ad networks aren't interested in reviewing every video for content. They just want their brands to be safe from the taint of asshats like Logan, so they err on the side of caution and demand YouTube be quite conservative about monetization. That

        • Durn liberals - and their media, and deep states...

        • isn't advertisers deciding pretty much part of the adpocolypse thing? In general youtube isn't cutting the content off, they are demomotizing it. Basically youtube is trying really hard to both put ads on everyones content... and make sure that advertisers ads aren't on anything they don't want to be associated with, and that's where the mess comes in. advertisers don't want to be on the re-active camp. They don't want to pull their ads from the KKK after the walstreet journal points it out. They want to n
        • by GNious ( 953874 )

          Agreed. So long as he hasn't broken the law it should be up to viewers and advertisers to decide.

          Advertizers did decide - they decided to leave YT, as long as this dickhead was allowed to be a dickhead on their bucks.
          YT is now deciding it doesn't like not making monies.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 09, 2018 @09:25AM (#56094815)

        What censorship? They didn't pull his videos, and he's free to say whatever he wants in his videos, it's just that Google doesn't want to pay him anymore for the type of videos he's making.

        • by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Friday February 09, 2018 @09:46AM (#56094909)

          What censorship? They didn't pull his videos, and he's free to say whatever he wants in his videos, it's just that Google doesn't want to pay him anymore for the type of videos he's making.

          It's more along the lines of, Google doesn't want advertisers to be able to put their ads on his channel. Maybe there are advertisers who would love to put their ads on his channel. Now they can't.

          I've seen Youtube channels that have been demonetized that now do their own native ads, so advertisers definitely support some of them. If that trend continues, I can see Youtube banning that practice as well.

          • They didn't pull his ads to punish him because they want to control his content. They pulled his ads because when his content gets negative publicity advertisers pull their ads from the entire platform, not just his channel. Large corporations are extremely risk adverse. They aren't going to stop anyone from putting their own ads in their own content because that advertiser specifically chose to be in that video. There's no ripple effect. They would however start demanding a cut of that money if that b
      • by mccrew ( 62494 )

        However, I worry that this is another step in censorship and the stifling political correctness taking over the US.

        Methinks you worry too much. It's Google's platform, Google's terms of service. Violate the terms of service? No ad revenue for you!

        While I might agree that there is some selective enforcement going on here, this is not censorship.

      • I agree but it would help to see things in perspective. Posting a video where you say something that offends some politically overcorrect feminist is a different league than looking to make profits of a suicide.
    • We can add him to a long line of useless internet stars. May he serve as an example of what not to be.

      Yes, and also thank $DEITY Google/YT is protecting our children from horrors like PragerU by putting them behind an "adult content sign in and confirm " wall. /s

      Yeah, no political bias there at all. What's really hilarious is all the snowflakes that call PragerU "Nazi" and "fascist" when Prager is a Jew.

      Strat

    • 1. Who the fuck is Paul Logan?

      2. Google sure does love arbitrary censorship.

      3. Stop Google before it's too late. Break it up. Anti-trust action now!

  • This is why you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket. Time to get a real job.
  • Weak remedy (Score:2, Informative)

    by SirGarlon ( 845873 )
    From TFA:

    "After careful consideration, we have decided to temporarily suspend ads on Logan Paul's YouTube channels," a spokesperson said to TechCrunch in an emailed statement elaborating on the Tweet. "This is not a decision we made lightly, however, we believe he has exhibited a pattern of behavior in his videos that makes his channel not only unsuitable for advertisers, but also potentially damaging to the broader creator community."

    If Mr. Paul is as much of a douchebag as TFA's summary of his recent vide

  • by SmaryJerry ( 2759091 ) on Friday February 09, 2018 @09:46AM (#56094915)
    I donâ(TM)t know why YouTube thinks they have to police the entire video library the same so all advertisers can advertise on all of their videos. All they need to do, like any tv show on cable tv, is let an advertiser exclude a channel or type of you tube channel. All this demonetizing everything so basically only childrenâ(TM)s shows or those YouTube arbitrarily allows get the most money is crazy. Treat people like adults and let people choose what they want to watch, advertise on, and make for videos.
    • by ledow ( 319597 )

      That would require categorising every single video and every single channel.

      And it would also mean that one channel would be fought over to advertise on, and everything else nobody would care or bid for. Big companies wouldn't waste their views on tiny groups of viewers, and would be annoyed that they can't all get fair shares of the big groups.

      It would then quickly become a Ford / Barclays / McDonald's / whatever-channel of approved content anyway, as they'd basically buy up the channel and dictate the co

    • Do that, and what value does Google have? Their entire value comes from being an intermediary between ad buyers and ad viewers that choses where to place the ads to maximise return. If the ad buyers are choosing where to put their ads, then they don't need Google.
      • Someone has to host the videos. The advertisers are going to do it themselves.

        • Hosting videos was really expensive when YouTube launched, but it's pretty cheap now. The hosting company that I use includes 2TB/month free. For a 200MB video (around 5 minutes at 720p), that's 10,000 downloads per month, which is more than a lot of things on YouTube. Above that, it's about €0.1/GB, or about €0.02 per complete view of the video. If you're dealing with the kinds of volume where that gets expensive, then CDNs like Cloudflare kick in and charge based on the largest file, rather

    • Treat people like adults and let people choose what they want to watch, advertise on, and make for videos.

      The result of this? Is that advertisers are lazy. Easier to just pull out. Maybe if YouTube had considered the problem of monetizing racist and stupid videos before they could have fixed it some other way but the advertisers got burned. Their ads were found on videos that look bad. And as the saying goes one bitten twice shy. The advertisers are super skittish about putting stuff on YouTube now and argu

  • Hypocracy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mwvdlee ( 775178 ) on Friday February 09, 2018 @09:53AM (#56094949) Homepage

    YouTube was all fine with him being an asshole when he was making them a ton of advertising money, but just a little bit of negative press and they drop him like a brick.

    • Re:Hypocracy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Friday February 09, 2018 @10:20AM (#56095097)

      just a little bit of negative press and they drop him like a brick.

      The saying, "that's showbiz for you" comes to mind. They are funded by ads, so why wouldn't they drop him like a brick?

      • just a little bit of negative press and they drop him like a brick.

        The saying, "that's showbiz for you" comes to mind. They are funded by ads, so why wouldn't they drop him like a brick?

        Uh, have you ever heard of Howard Stern before? Being a Professional Asshole sure as shit didn't hurt his career, or prevent anyone from handing him hundreds of millions of dollars. Even people who hated him tuned in to listen. The antics of Logan Paul aren't much different.

        • Re:Hypocracy (Score:4, Informative)

          by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Friday February 09, 2018 @12:53PM (#56095993)

          The antics of Logan Paul aren't much different.

          His popularity is irrelevant if YouTube doesn't want their network to be known for that kind of content or if the advertisers are seeking a specific demographic. Their business strategy is larger than any one star, so it's up to them to decide who and what they will allow and promote. Like I said, "that's showbiz for you."

          • The antics of Logan Paul aren't much different.

            His popularity is irrelevant if YouTube doesn't want their network to be known for that kind of content or if the advertisers are seeking a specific demographic. Their business strategy is larger than any one star, so it's up to them to decide who and what they will allow and promote. Like I said, "that's showbiz for you."

            Popularity is irrelevant? Yeah right. Popularity is what drives YouTube revenue. And their stance against Logan Paul is complete and utter bullshit when you look at tons of other shit on their website. I'm not a fan of Logan Paul at all. I'm just not a fan of attacking this type of content while turning a blind eye to far worse.

            • Popularity is irrelevant? Yeah right. Popularity is what drives YouTube revenue.

              That's true but you are focusing on the short term rather than the long term impact it could have. Logan pissed off a lot of people and if YouTube does nothing, it could turn those people bitter and drive them away completely. This could in turn result in another site gaining popularity. You are focused on Logan when you should be thinking about the audience. YouTube is trying to please the site users so that they will use YouTube more, not less. That's showbiz for you!

    • Exactly. They WANT channels like this. Controversy and douchbaggery attracts clicks.

      They are only dropping him because of the public backlash. They are also dropping every channel that isn't over a certain level of clicks or anyone else they can manage to steal money from.

    • by Holi ( 250190 )
      Yeah, I don't get the "recently", it's not like the douchenozzle's "patterns" were ever different.

      It also hurts my faith in humanity that this is a person we want to see more of. In fact many of our internet celebrities are intensely disappointing.
      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        He has been getting more "edgy" lately. The suicide victim video was a watershed but he's been pushing the limits a lot recently.

        The problem with Logan and all the similar channels is that they have to keep escalating to stay on top. Otherwise the kids go elsewhere. Most of them are just kids themselves, suddenly millionaires with fame and no-one telling them when they went too far until after the video was posted.

        • ...The problem with Logan and all the similar channels is that they have to keep escalating to stay on top...

          ...which is NO different than damn near any other form of entertainment. Music got more offensive, movies got more violent, and reality TV concepts got more obscenely stupid. Entertainment 101.

    • by houghi ( 78078 )

      So you say that an advertising company, like Google, who gets their income from advertisers is more concerned about the advertising money than the people they use to lure in the product they sell (you)?
      I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you.

      Disclaimer: I knew they where assholes since they raped Dejanews.com and did not care about any of the user feedback. We are not their customers. We are their product. The ONLY think we can do as product is not show up, so they do not have a product to sell to their customers

    • You said "drop him like a brick" which they did NOT do. What they did was get him back in the "news" which will lead to more views and ultimately more revenue when they turn ads back on.

      It doesn't even take shiny things to divert people's attention anymore.

  • What will it take for YouTube to just delete his channel. The CAUCASITY of this dude after losing deal after deal after deal (I didn't even know YouTube had deals like that for Tubers) for literally showing dead bodies hanging in a forest to then come back and taser dead rats? It's sick and the fact that his channel wasn't permanently and irrevocably suspended just shows YouTube (and I can't remember if it's Alphabet's or Google's) doesn't care. It's YouTube just nuke this loser and get on. You don't have t

  • Why should I care about some youtube teenager? Please don't post this to /. This isn't "news for nerds" This is clickbait buzzfeed bs.
    • I couldn't care less about this content creator either; it is the policy and behavior of one of the world's largest video platforms that is worth discussing.
  • Never heard of this guy? Are they talking about Paul Hogan?

To spot the expert, pick the one who predicts the job will take the longest and cost the most.

Working...