YouTube Looks To Demonetization As Punishments For Major Creators, But It Doesn't Work (theverge.com) 326
YouTube is looking to send a message to content creators who step out of line by disabling ads on videos that infringe on the site's policies. The punishment is meant to revoke a key source of income, presenting a strong incentive for users to change their behavior. But, as Julia Alexander writes via The Verge, many creators make money through other platforms, rendering YouTube's punishment largely ineffective. From the report: Selling merchandise and subscriptions through other platforms isn't just a way for creators to make more money, it's also a way for creators to insulate themselves from YouTube's ever-mercurial rules and algorithms. And it means that if a creator's ads are cut off for whatever reason, they'll still have a source of revenue. Taking away a channel's ability to run ads is supposed to send a message that YouTube is punishing creators who severely step out of line. The company stated as much in a June 5th blog post, reiterating that channels repeatedly brushing up "against our hate speech policies will be suspended from the YouTube Partner program, meaning they can't run ads on their channel." Creators also won't be able to use alternative monetization techniques like Super Chat or channel memberships, according to YouTube.
For up-and-coming YouTubers reliant on that revenue, it can pose a huge problem. Many people just entering YouTube's Partner Program, a threshold that signifies a creator can start earning ad revenue, may rely on that advertising money as they start their career. Channels that face day-to-day monetization issues, one of the biggest issues within the community, are struggling to understand what works and what doesn't. But for larger creators, who still keep their ability to reach a huge number of subscribers, the punishment doesn't necessarily accomplish YouTube's goals. "YouTube isn't likely to ban high-profile channels, either," Alexander writes. "If a channel's content is borderline, meaning that it doesn't violate YouTube's rules but is considered harmful, moderators will allow videos to remain up. Demonetizing a channel's videos allows YouTube to appear to have taken a strong action, even if that action isn't always effective."
For up-and-coming YouTubers reliant on that revenue, it can pose a huge problem. Many people just entering YouTube's Partner Program, a threshold that signifies a creator can start earning ad revenue, may rely on that advertising money as they start their career. Channels that face day-to-day monetization issues, one of the biggest issues within the community, are struggling to understand what works and what doesn't. But for larger creators, who still keep their ability to reach a huge number of subscribers, the punishment doesn't necessarily accomplish YouTube's goals. "YouTube isn't likely to ban high-profile channels, either," Alexander writes. "If a channel's content is borderline, meaning that it doesn't violate YouTube's rules but is considered harmful, moderators will allow videos to remain up. Demonetizing a channel's videos allows YouTube to appear to have taken a strong action, even if that action isn't always effective."
Google is evil (Score:4, Insightful)
They are now trying to manipulate the 2020 election. In violation of US law mind you.
C'mon Congress, regulate the shit out of them. If that doesn't work, break them up anti trust style.
Re: Google is evil (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9373135/google-exec-secretly-recorded-stop-trump-election-2020/amp/
Re:Google is evil (Score:5, Interesting)
Slashdot will not post this story. Submit to slashdot and ask why??
https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whistle-exec-reveals-google-plan-to-prevent-trump-situation-in-2020-on-hidden-cam/
Re:Google is evil (Score:5, Informative)
NO, there's video out there now of Google executives plotting to throw the election.
https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whistle-exec-reveals-google-plan-to-prevent-trump-situation-in-2020-on-hidden-cam/
Re:Google is evil (Score:4, Insightful)
Truth isn't trolling. You might not like it, but that's another category.
Re:Google is evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Setting aside the incentive or disincentive to creators, as a member of the audience, I prefer to watch videos that don't contain ads, and I will give them more of my attention. If I watch videos from creators I like regularly, I sponsor them on Patreon.
Re: (Score:2)
Project Veritas, which exposes media, is claimed to be "selectively" editing videos by the media it exposes, the same media responsible for such Hits as "The Convington Kids", or "Don't burn our shit down *cut* *Back to you Tom* burn their shit down Sister".
punishments with no legal review or DMCA checks (Score:5, Informative)
punishments with no legal review or DMCA checks
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
punishments with no legal review or DMCA checks
Considering they aren't breaking any laws, why should there be a legal review?
If you insult me while in my house, expect to be shown the door forcefully regardless of how much you shout about "muh free speeches" as you go.
No new laws please! (Score:2, Insightful)
I keep hearing both right and left voices demanding new regulation. That is totally the wrong direction. Google has 2 and arguably 3 monopolies that they are clearly abusing. YouTube and Search are clear monopolies and one could argue that Android is pretty damn close.
Enforce Anti Trust laws!!!!
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is covered by 47 U.S. Code Ââ230. Specifically section (C)(2)(A) which states that there shall be no civil liability for
"any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
In other words they can censor anything they like acco
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In other words they can censor anything they like according to their own or the user's preferences, and it doesn't affect their status as a publisher or common carrier.
And you just happened to miss subsections A, B, and C(1) along the way, fail to take it in context. Fail to understand that "good samaritan" protections are only granted to a "interactive computer service" if they uphold neutrality - as tested under case law.
Damn brilliant I tell you. Just think of the savings if lawyers could skip preambles, inclusion clauses and opening sections of acts - not forgetting act preambles either.
Re: (Score:2)
You failed to read the first sentence:
"The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services"
So Internet services are specifically included, not just interactive computer services.
The word "neutrality" and variations of does not appear anywhere in A, B or C.
Re: (Score:2)
Better go let the EFF know. You can find it easily on their website if you decide you want to look.
Re: (Score:2)
As a matter of fact, here's an article on EFF's site that calls the supposed "neutrality" requirement a "misconception". In other words, I'm saying precisely what the EFF is saying.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/... [eff.org]
Re: (Score:3)
How do you break up a video website monopoly, only allow certain videos/creators on one or the other?
Re: (Score:2)
You don't.
You go after Alphabet. Break IT up.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh now well... if just anyone could open up a - let's call it homepage - and post his video there!
I agree with the search thing as that is the gatekeeper that allows your content to be found, but I have very limited sympathy for people who forgot how to use free speech without the help of platforms raking in millions with this users content. And it's not the 80s anymore where you didn't have a chance of bringing your issue into public without help of newspapers, publishing houses or tv/radio stations. we ha
Not punishing creators for wrongthink... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe they just remove monetization on creators of wrongthink to keep the advertisers happy, but only outright ban people when they do things that are illegal or flagrant abuses of the rules like uploading porn.
Umm, have you seen the latest Project Veritas video?
They are openly engaged in political censorship. It's not an advertiser thing.
Re:Not punishing creators for wrongthink... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you really think what they're doing is wrong, quit using their products and services. Hit them in the pocketbook and maybe they'll start to pay attention.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't believe a business is obligated to give anyone a platform and should have a right to refuse to do business with anyone that they so choose.
While true in principe, these big media companies, with huge influence on the big public, should not be allowed to apply a political bias with the purpose or effect of changing the election outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is going to detect this political bias? Because we both know that some people claim everything they disagree with is bias. For example the BBC is required to be unbiased, but gets claims of bias all the time, as do all the other TV channels that are supposed to be held to the same standard on news reporting.
Re:Not punishing creators for wrongthink... (Score:4, Interesting)
So, ban the press.
The press counts legally as a publisher, which means they can be held responsible for the things they write, and they can be sued for slander or defamation.
YouTube, and several other media companies, are immune from such liabilities thanks to article 230 of the DCA. This means they can shift the liability to the content creators. Even in cases of outright violations of first amendment rights, all they have to do is remove the video.
This gives them a huge power to distort the landscape by selectively removing content they don't like, and pushing for content they do like, even if it's defamatory, or outright lies, such as deep fake videos of political opponents.
You may not think this is bad, because your political preferences happen to align with YouTube at this moment. However, removing any kind of checks and balances in the system, will inevitably lead to greater corruption, and greater abuse of power. And then when you no longer agree with their policies, your power to chance the system has been removed.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube isn't removing the content though, it's de-monetizing it. Or rather, advertisers are telling YouTube they don't want to pay to be on those videos so they had better de-monetize them.
The mistake was the content creators relying on fickle advertisers for income, knowing full-well that advertisers are very conservative when it comes to being associated with controversial content. And sure enough, most of these channels have realized this and set up alternative sources of income.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube isn't removing the content though
You really had to go full-on stupid didn't you. Sargon of Akkad(and the full nuking of one of his shit-posting channels), Tim Pool(and Timcast), Shoe0nHead, Pewdiepie, Kadokawa(one of the largest manga and anime producers in Japan), PJW, Prager U, Mans1ay3r, TL;DR, Laci Green, Chris Ray Gun, Zynxize are all content creators that I can think of just off the top of my head without going to look at the people screaming "@teamyoutubewhateveritis" for them removing videos. And that's without getting into false
Re: (Score:3)
Of course you don't see a problem.
Until they support something YOU don't like.
It's hilarious to see a bunch of dyed in the wool communist wannabes screaming "It's a privately held company!...(For now...)"
And no they aren't.
The cadre of Silicon Valley tech giants, and their parasitic tendrils into various credit card and banking institutions is thumbing the scales to the point where the barriers to entry are essentially impossible to overcome unless you have a couple hundred billion to just throw away...And
Re: (Score:2)
It's more hilarious watching a bunch of dyed in the wool right wing capitalist Republicans go full communist
Not at all. I'm 100% in favor of capitalism and a free market. But in order for both to work, the rules need to be fair, and new parties should not have insurmountable barriers to entry. Unchecked free markets lead to monopolies and concentration of power in fewer and fewer hands. Any system requires checks and balances, and democratic control by the market participants.
Big media companies playing favoritism with political parties (and vice versa) will end up bad for everyone involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Keep telling yourself that when you and/or your favorite content creators get themselves scrubbed off the platform.
I'm CERTAIN it'll be a huge comfort.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe a business is obligated to give anyone a platform and should have a right to refuse to do business with anyone that they so choose.
That depends. You are not obliged to give anyone a platform, but when your platform becomes influential, it can be argued that you should provide equal access to anyone who abides by your house rules, and those rules themselves should be impartial and fairly applied. I would welcome laws like this to be applied to the larger platforms who have, in effect, a monopoly on public eyeballs.
Re: (Score:2)
It's fairly obvious that they want to have to protections under the communications decency act where they're not responsible for their users speech, but at the same time they want to act like publishers and decide what opinions are allowed on their platform well beyond
Re: (Score:2)
That's true to a point, except that Google / Youtube are damn near monopolies, and these platforms have largely replaced the public square as mechanisms for practicing speech (as in freedom of speech).
Re: (Score:3)
That is, in the end, fascism.
Hitler didn't give a shit if the companies themselves weren't nationalized.
Just so long as the people running said companies were "Good Party Members".
Why go to the trouble of running a company when your loyal sycophants will pay through the nose for the opportunity to do it for you?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you accusing Google of being "good party members", presumably referring to the Democrats?
And what of Fox News? They seem to have quite a lot of influence over the President, let alone working for him.
The problem seems a little bigger than just the party that didn't win the election controlling a popular video sharing site.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not accusing Google.
Because not everyone at Google is a frothing Lefty.
But the people running Google, the ones in leadership positions and making the day-to day decisions?
Yeah. They are Good Party Members.
Fox is a news organization. And it's a known right-leaning organization.
Not a tech company in control of billions of e-mail addresses, YouTube (and their partner program), peoples' internet, the largest search engine on the planet, etc, etc, etc.
Not a tech company that professes to be unbiased and ne
Re: (Score:2)
This weird meme has been debunked repeatedly over the last two months. It's pretty persistent though.
Re: (Score:2)
You're twisting the argument. It isn't that to YouTube has to leave up all content to retain platform status. It is that they can't editorialize. The GP defined "editorialize" for you. It is the arbitrary removal of material. If YouTube publishes clear standards, the removals are no longer arbitrary and are therefore not editorializing. Steven Crowder had his lawyers ask specifically what the rules are, and could not get an answer. Ipso facto, YouTube has surreptitiously moved into publishers status.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe they just remove monetization on creators of wrongthink to keep the advertisers happy, but only outright ban people when they do things that are illegal or flagrant abuses of the rules like uploading porn.
Umm, have you seen the latest Project Veritas video? They are openly engaged in political censorship. It's not an advertiser thing.
Project Veritas? Considering their history of secretly recording people and then heavily editing those recordings in a completely different context, I'm inclined to believe the opposite of whatever they report.
Re: (Score:3)
You're full of shit.
This is why you took the brave, bold step of posting as an AC instead of under an actual account.
You embrace the same sort of tactics PV uses, but you can't actually SAY that because your ideological bubble might burst.
Re: (Score:2)
You must admit though, Project Veritas has a fairly poor record when it comes to big secret recording cases that turned out to be complete bollocks. It would be naive to take what they say at face value now, without verifying it first, no?
Re: (Score:2)
As the AC who responded to you also said.
CITATION NEEDED.
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
178 citations.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying that the parent poster is a hypocrite.
He damns Veritas for their undercover journalism and the obfuscation of identity that goes along with it, while posting as an AC and...wait for it...OBFUSCATING HIS IDENTITY!
Re:Not punishing creators for wrongthink... (Score:4, Interesting)
Crazy idea, but maybe YouTube isn't a neo-fascist website like Twitter that forces you to conform to their very narrow standards
You must be new to capitalism. Capitalism is all about maximizing your income while minimizing expenditures. Ideals and morals are only used in that pursuit. If you think this isn't the case then you're as dumb as they think you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who has a problem with that is just weird.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't removing the speech, they are demonetizing it
So how about all those websites that google delisted from search results because they published something that embarrassed google, or someone related to google in some way. That's not a freedom of speech issue, when google holds: Dominant cellphone OS, desktop and mobile web browser, ad network, video hosting and search engine marketshare.
Hrmm...well...how does that work out again?
Re: (Score:2)
So what role SJW lunatics fulfil in these capitalist souless companies then ? They are surely not there to maximize profit, they are a massive profit drain in fact, so what do they do ? Twitter, Google, and others are FULL of ideals and morals, it just happens that the i
Re: (Score:2)
You must be newer to capitalism.
Back in the 18th century, Adam Smith wrote two books.
Second, there was The Wealth of Nations (1776) in which he described a world somewhat more sophisticated than an interconnected network of pointwise greedy algorithm, but at least along the lines of what you have thumbnailed.
But first, as a foundation stone, there was The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) in which Smith wrestles with all the other motivations that make the world go round, both
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech meets free market (Score:4, Interesting)
Let me see if I have this right...
We have some whining petty social justice bitches not liking what someone else said, so they go running to whine, bitch, and moan, to their other petty whiners to complain to where these people got their money. It worked for a while and so the people targeted insulated themselves from this method of petty retaliation. Seeing some success with this tactic they decide to turn up the heat. They want to not just get some of them denied some of their money for some of the time, they wanted to get all the opposing voices denied all their funding for all time.
Then came the people that wanted to hear these opposing voices, they started buying mugs, t-shirts, and subscriptions, to keep these voices in business. They like free speech and are using the free market to make it work.
The plan failed so miserably that this tactic will likely never work again, they highlighted their tactic so plainly that nearly everyone sees it now, and they exposed themselves to be the whiny petty bitches that they are. This didn't just make the opposition stronger, they may have just put themselves out of business.
Instead of making a better argument in an exchange of ideas they thought they could sling some mud to win. Now they are just sinking in their own foul mess.
Sound about right?
Re: (Score:3)
Instead of making a better argument in an exchange of ideas...
To be fair... when has "making a better argument" ever changed mind of someone who presents and represents that opinion in order to make a profit? Hell, when has making a sound and logical argument stopped the willfully ignorant anywhere? You do know there are people who think the Earth is flat, right?
Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
when has "making a better argument" ever changed mind of someone who presents and represents that opinion in order to make a profit?
Even if that's true, there are only a handful of people making a profit selling mugs and t-shirts. You don't have to change their minds. You just have to change the minds of their viewers.
Re: (Score:2)
Changing minds happens all the time.
Changing the minds of the willfully ignorant? Not so often.
But that doesn't mean you stop trying.
Because when you stop trying, you stop reaching those whose minds AREN'T set to "Willful Ignorance".
Re: (Score:2)
if the "opposing voices" are SPREADING vile hate and white nationalism / Nazism then fuck them. They can decide if they want that crap on their platform or not. if they decide they don't want right wing or left wing conpiracy theories spread on their platform that is their choice.
how do you make a better "agrument in exchange of ideas" when people are rabidly shouting "we want a white country" ? People screaming "we "want a western white civilization" and we don't want "mud people" are not people you c
Re: (Score:2)
No, these people don't just want the channels demonetized, they want them removed, and the videos scrubbed from the public space completely. It's not enough that opposing ideas aren't funded, they require that no contrary opinions can be uttered at all.
Re: Let the free market reign! (Score:2)
It was a long time ago that I saw an ad on YouTube.
And the ads I see in other places are rarely relevant anyway. Most ads are often so obnoxious that I more often decide to not buy that stuff when I see the ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, all too often the "silencers" fail to understand that trying to silence your opposition only gave them bigger voices and wound up backfiring.
After reading that I realized what likely sums up what we are both trying to get across....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Or maybe...
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
This is something people constantly fail to understand about people. Why actual democracy does not work, why socialism never works, and why making humans suffer through tyrannical government only makes a nation weaker instead of stronger. Because the more you try to control people... regardless of the mechanism they tend to rebel against it and the more your tighten your grip the more that slips through your grasp. And while it is true that people then to put up with tyranny and government corruption for long periods of time... the bill inevitably comes due. And all the people that fed that beast or did not fight against it, they get eviscerated all the same as those fighting against it.
I remember seeing a very well done video describing governments not as "left" vs. "right" but as the size of the government. Left, right, liberal, conservative, all don't make much sense in describing a government. What we have in fact is a spectrum from one person in charge over everyone, to
Re: (Score:2)
trying to silence your opposition only gave them bigger voices and wound up backfiring.
Since this adpocalypse, I've started following a dozen new channels.
not entirely correct (Score:2)
Finally, a way to get rid of YouTube ads (Score:5, Funny)
So if I report all of my (favorite) videos as possible hate speech, YouTube will remove their stupid ads?
Re: (Score:2)
It's been downhill ever since those kids came over from AOL.
Goodthink(tm) Fascists (Score:5, Insightful)
https://www.louderwithcrowder.... [louderwithcrowder.com] anyone?
His content doesn't violate any of YT's policies, but they demonetized him because screeching leftists hate him.
Yet Carlos Maza (the alleged victim of Crowder's comments) can incite and advocate actual assault on conservatives...but his content stays up?
Please someone explain to me how that's an objectively fair application of the rules?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Goodthink(tm) Fascists (Score:5, Interesting)
Bullshit.
When you kick a man off 90% of the major social media companies ON THE SAME DAY, and get his revenue collection avenues suspended?
That's an attempt to unperson someone.
"Make your own".
Yeah. Tell that to SubscribeStar. They tried to offer an alternative to Patreon when they started booting people who HAD IN NO WAY VIOLATED PATREON'S POLICIES.
Suddenly Square stops providing service, because they were "asked to" by Mastercard.
And PayPal follows suit. The two largest payment processors on the net and a credit card company.
Please tell me you think some dinky little channel with 10K subs is going to have the cash reserves to just kick-start their own payment processing service overnight!
Hell, since the Patreon/SubscribeStar debacle, Jordan Peterson has been trying to get a bulletproof payment platform off the ground for HOW long?
Hell, look at Gab? Had their payment processors yanked.
Had their DNS registrar yank service a couple times?
Had their HOSTS yank service a couple times...
"Make your own" only works when the other side wants to stand by their principles (which they never do).
Re: (Score:2)
Who was making this attempt to unperson him?
Re: (Score:3)
Good question, who indeed is pulling the strings in Silicon Valley to get these persons banned ? Maybe we should look into who is manipulating public opinion in a certain direction.
Re: (Score:2)
A more likely explanation is that once one banned him for content violations the others saw the news, looked at his content and the reasons he was banned and decided to follow suit. Or maybe some random internet person just complained to them all at the same time.
If you look at the timeline it was actually only four sites, and two of them are the same company, so not really a massive conspiracy to silence a clown few take seriously anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, we should not take down IS propaganda or allow paedophiles to publish their own content, criminals to advertise contract killings or illicit trade.
How about WW2 documentaries showing historical Nazi propaganda speeches ? How about an ex-Muslim explaining why he abandoned his faith, and telling us what he dislikes about Islam ? How about saying that it's wrong to allow a 6 year old to start with a sex change procedure ?
Re: (Score:3)
That's completely a strawman, because the reality is, the content being taken down isn't this stuff, it's political content that the tech companies disagree with.
Re: (Score:2)
Pedophilia and pedophile material is already illegal.
Telling someone "I don't agree with you politically"...isn't.
Try harder.
"Someone decides to target your family."
Yet this never actually happened.
And all of the content creators INCLUDING JONES, went out of their way to tell their viewers NOT to harass anyone.
If some whacko still decides to fuck around, that is NOT the content creator's fault!
Because the "what if some rando whack job hears you and decides to do bad?" would essentially MANDATE that YouTube
Re: (Score:2)
Because this is Clown World.
HONK HONK!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are conflating two different things.
Crowder was demonetized, along with many other channels on both the left and right of the political spectrum. YouTube seems to have decided it's not monetizing most political content any more, regardless of leaning.
Maza doesn't have a YouTube channel, so his content can't "stay up" because it doesn't exist. He does occasionally work on videos produced by Vox, but YouTube has always treated big content producers differently. It's not a political thing, it's a money thi
Reminds me of the saying... (Score:2, Insightful)
'The net treats censorship as a defect and routes around it.'
We will see if the free market is like the net. Life is a giant experiment and it will be interesting to see how this plays out. I do find it somewhat humorous to see the outrage move around based on whose ox is currently being gored.
Explicit lyrics stamp (Score:3, Interesting)
This is kind of like when the record industry and the conservative politician's wives marked records with explicit lyric tags and it doubled their circulation. Alice Cooper to this day claims that those tags made his career. AC/DC albums sales went through the roof following their inclusion in that list as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. As evidenced by the fact that his cap and trade solution for climate change is a conservative, market based approach.
Try not to let your head explode on that fact, Scanners style.
Will it have any effect? (Score:2)
Funny outcome (Score:5, Interesting)
By demonetizing "wrongthink", those channels have become more pleasant to watch (for those without adblock) than "correctthink". Also you can see how much these demonetized people make via Patreon and the like - a lot more than Youtube ever gave them.
I whitelisted Youtube from adblock because I wanted to support the creators I watch, and the demonetization effect has been remarkable - watching "official" channels has a bunch of ads, sometimes even ads to watch an ad (i.e. movie or game trailers). Howto videos get interrupted mid-explanation with loud obnoxious nonsense. But commentary? Hours of uninterrupted viewing. And because ad-free subtly conveys quality or a premium nature (HBO and Netflix versus broadcast TV and basic Hulu), they might inadvertently be responsible for shifting public perception of these channels exactly opposite of their intention.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Personally I aggressively ad-block youtube and give to the creators that make stuff I like via Patreon and other options. This way, more ends up in their pockets anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of channels de-monetized their own content years ago anyway, instead relying on Patreon. For various reasons they didn't want to be associated with ads at all - dislike of capitalism, dislike of the advertising companies (Nike, Gillette), or just a preference to rely on tips and donations only.
On the other hand some were reluctant to accept donations because it created pressure to produce more videos, turning a part time hobby into some kind of job. For them adverts made more sense.
Google is stupid (Score:2)
After they badly screwed over many creators, they lost basically most leverage. People went from $2000 a moth to $50 a month and had to find other sources of income. Now that they have that, most could not care less about what Google thinks and are still actively pissed off at them in addition.
My prediction is that youtube is history. And they have nobody to blame for that besides themselves and their stupidity. May still take a few years though to become really obvious.
This almost sounds (Score:2)
like Julia Alexander wants Youtube to police the internets?
Re: (Score:2)
Nazis stay Nazis (Score:2)
...even if you give them less money.
Re: (Score:2)
More like "Muh Google just wants to make a buck. And if you get in the way, fuck you. Even if they agree with you."
Re: (Score:2)
More like "Muh Google just wants to make a buck. And if you get in the way, fuck you. Even if they agree with you."
Er hi, welcome to America, a capitalist country.
Fortunately it's a democracy so if you don't like capitalism, you can vote for a socialist net time.
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately it's a democracy
In order for a democracy to work properly, voters need access to unbiased information, or at least a balance of different biases.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually no.
Your STATE is a Democracy.
The Federal government is a Republic.
And I wasn't complaining so much as clarifying.
Re: (Score:2)
Because that makes THEM do the work.
And it also self-limits their coverage.
So they turn to YouTube to "guarantee"
that their ads will only appear on "safe" content that they agree with.
Re: (Score:2)
A plague on both their houses. Why can't everyone just be sensible, pragmatic and moderate like me?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well you've got politicians in the US that hold major political power supporting groups like BLM and Antifa. Who...well...shit...have been sending their thugs around to beat people up. You can go dig through Andy Ngo's youtube and social media posts for plenty instances if you want.
And then you've got...Google: "We don't want to see a repeat of 2016 and we're working against that." And not only did various high ranking members have emotional breakdowns on stage over Trump and the GOP tromping their ass.