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.
Another douche bites the dust. (Score:5, Insightful)
We can add him to a long line of useless internet stars. May he serve as an example of what not to be.
Re: Another douche bites the dust. (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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!
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: Another douche bites the dust. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: Another douche bites the dust. (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Another douche bites the dust. (Score:1)
Are you actually defending the guy that posted a video of himself fucking around near a corpse? Check yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Check what he's actually defending, instead of trying to equate elsewhere.
ARE YOU SRSLY DEFENDING TERRORISM? REALLY? ACTUALLY?
Re: (Score:2)
Just out of interest, what is your view on for profit news organisations doing the exact same thing?
Reminder before you attempt to strawman this one: your argument is that:
"He at least attempted to profit from a stranger's death."
So your criteria is that it's wrong to profit from someone else's death. That is what news organisation have done for essentially their entire existence however.
Re: (Score:2)
You are now conflating his behaviour with his ability to show it to the world on what is essentially a monopoly platform.
I would argue that while I think his behaviour was frankly that of an borderline psychopathic asshole, he should be free to air his assholery to the world on said platform. And if some advertiser thinks that this kind of assholery is a good place to advertise on, they should have a choice to do so.
My reasoning is simple. When monopoly platform for publishing is allowed to make complex dec
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Durn liberals - and their media, and deep states...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Another douche bites the dust. (Score:5, Insightful)
But YouTube is not the Internet, and Google should be free to enforce whatever standards they wish on their platform, same as Netflix or Funny or Die or ABC or whoever.
Except YouTube/Google and Facebook are the internet. They pretty much decide what everyone in the US sees and hears. If google/YouTube and Facebook remove everything you ever post you pretty much do not exist because it is hard to exist outside of those platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
Then these should face more rigorous government regulation. Either Facebook/YouTube is the internet in which case it has no business being completely under the control or private corporations or it's just a really successful usage of the internet i
Re: (Score:3)
For video watching, few sites compare to YouTube, especially the ability to handle varying resolutions and bandwidth rates, CDN presence so you watch a video, and not a "buffering" icon for the most part, analytics, and many other things. There are other video sites, but they are either so heavily ad-laden where there isn't any real point in bothering, even with the latest ad blocker. YouTube also centralizes things in one spot. Until recently, it also made revenue generation easy. Upload a video, add a
Re: (Score:2)
Dude you're crazy if you think any subscription fee service will compare to YouTube. There's literally no way. First off a massive segment of the YouTube consuming audience doesn't even have the means to pay for a subscription. All the pre-teens and babies consuming YouTube this is not an audience that gets excited about paying a subscription. I concede the first two ideas are perfectly plausible but
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the case then it's no good moaning about YouTube. Building new platforms it's the only solution to this kind of monoculture.
Re: (Score:2)
If google/YouTube and Facebook remove everything you ever post you pretty much do not exist because it is hard to exist outside of those platforms.
It's easy to exist outside those platforms but it's much more difficult to make money without those platforms. There is a monumental difference between the two things.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Just because something makes it convenient, doesn't transform it into something else. .
"If google/YouTube and Facebook remove everything you ever post you pretty much do not exist because it is hard to exist outside of those platforms."
Think about what you wrote for a minute. Exist? You exist. God remembers your name. Even when Youtube and Google bite the dust, there will be people who remember you - maybe as an ancestor, maybe as someone they loved.
Re: (Score:2)
For those of us not into religious thought however, and who prefer reality, his statement makes perfect sense in context he said it in.
Re: (Score:2)
It would really help if you read what you're replying to.
Re: (Score:2)
Projecting your faults on others will not get you anywhere.
Re: Another douche bites the dust. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It makes YouTube seem arbitrary and capricious to its creators.
Correction, YouTube *IS* arbitrary and capricious to its creators.
If you don't happen to be one of the YouTube/Google "chosen", you can expect all manner of inconsistent, illogical, and outright HOSTILE behavior out of them.
And, because they're shielded behind an entirely automated customer interface system (no REAL way to call anyone up and hold their feet to a fire), they're effectively insulated from their own bad-actor effect.
Case in point.
Two political commentary channels were using the C-Span stream o
Re: Another douche bites the dust. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: Another douche bites the dust. (Score:5, Insightful)
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 pulled his ads to protect themselves (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
'
There you go buddy, that's the character you use here.
I mean, unless you don a with an upwards pointing chevron above it opening parenthesis capital trade mark closing parenthesis t want to, that's your business.
Damn you AC, stop posting from your iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Another douche bites the dust. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Vince Foster comes to mind.
He was a murder victim, not suicide
Re: (Score:2)
There was a recent story of a woman who tried to commit suicide, and killed some guy who was driving by below her.
Here is a similar story from Virginia, but I'm sure I saw another last month.
http://www.independent.co.uk/n... [independent.co.uk]
Re: Another douche bites the dust. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
What reason did YouTube give? Just some generic social justice prattle?
"Inappropriate Content".
Go read up on PragerU's website. https://www.prageru.com/ [prageru.com]
The irony is over 9000.
Strat
Re: Another douche bites the dust. (Score:2)
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!
Sorry dude (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what you're saying is we should all hold multiple jobs as to not put all of our "eggs in one basket"? Sorry, but I can only manage 1 full time job, and part time jobs tend not to pay as well as full time ones.
Re:Sorry dude (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Sorry dude (Score:1)
Well played. Is this little binary name some encoding for creimer?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Parasite
Re: (Score:2)
Look friend, I know you like to tell your mom and dad you work in IT, but cleaning out toilet bowls in an office building does not make you work "in IT".
Sure it is, he works IT by working In Toilets
Re: (Score:2)
Hook, line, and sinker.
Totally. And without a gag reflex to boot.
Re: NO CENSORSHIP (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
Unless you start to become successful. Then YouTube will bribe the politicians to make sure that whatever makes you better becomes illegal.
Re: NO CENSORSHIP (Score:4, Insightful)
Good luck finding advertisers willing to pay all the millions necessary to make such an alternative viable when you have a "no holds barred" policy on what you show.
I think you miss... the advertisers will be the ones asking for this, not YouTube themselves, or other viewers, or politicians. Pretty much all those categories are routinely ignored by YouTube.
But if the advertisers feel they can't be seen to be paying this guy (which is what they're doing), they are going to pull out really quickly and maybe threaten to take large chunks of their business with them.
There's a reason, for instance, that if you see adverts on a porn site they are only ever for more porn and related items. No other ad network would bother to try, as their advertisers would quickly disappear from under them if they were found to be doing that. Nobody selling an ordinary consumer product is going to want to be associated with an idiot like this guy who's in the news taking a huge backlash for the stupid things he's done.
"This guy's a douche... oh look, he's sponsored by Cadbury's..."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
So your definition of censorship includes someone refusing to PAY you? Good one
Re: NO CENSORSHIP (Score:2)
YouTube has immense monopoly power in the video streaming market. Their arbitrary and opaque decision to demonetize a content producer has the effect of censorship.
To make it worse, YouTube's parent company is known for trying to impose its authoritarian elitist fake-progressive ideology everywhere it can. Leading many people to suspect sinister political motivations behind every capricious abuse of YouTube's monopoly power.
Weak remedy (Score:2, Informative)
If Mr. Paul is as much of a douchebag as TFA's summary of his recent vide
Re:Weak remedy (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is in a rare position to do exactly what folks have said on here for years.
"STOP MAKING STUPID PEOPLE FAMOUS!"
The sooner idiots like this stop getting attention for being idiots, the better off our society will be. Youtube should just yank his accounts, or at the very least lower his search status so low that you'd have to go into the trenches (10+ pages) to find him.
Re: Weak remedy (Score:2)
Demand more censorship NOW!
Let advertisers choose where they want to advertis (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Someone has to host the videos. The advertisers are going to do it themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: Let advertisers choose where they want to adve (Score:2)
Google may hate freedom as much as North Korea. But the Norks have vastly more interesting taste in architecture.
Hypocracy (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
...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.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope... that's the game... (Score:2)
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.
Just end it already end his channel (Score:2)
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
This isn't news (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Suspends who? (Score:2)
Never heard of this guy? Are they talking about Paul Hogan?
Re: This is just a statement piece by google. (Score:2)
That's offensive.
Re: The problem isn't with Logan Paul (Score:2)
Protect internet freedom - break up Google.