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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Youtube Advertising Social Networks The Almighty Buck The Internet

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube Looks To Demonetization As Punishments For Major Creators, But It Doesn't Work

Comments Filter:
  • Google is evil (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @07:56PM (#58824912)

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Indeed. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9373135/google-exec-secretly-recorded-stop-trump-election-2020/amp/

    • Re:Google is evil (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26, 2019 @05:43AM (#58826798)

      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/

  • by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @07:59PM (#58824926)

    punishments with no legal review or DMCA checks

    • only the govt needs to have a "legal review" You can kick me out of your house without a legal review. You can kick me out of your business if i violate your rules. No legal review needed.
    • 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.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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!!!!

    • by Noishkel ( 3464121 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @11:56PM (#58825794)
      There's already a law on the books that could possibly solve the issue entirely with this sort of politically and ideologically based censorship. Its the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Specially section 230. The basic gist of it is that an internet service provider must either be legally be a publisher or a platform so that can not be held legally liable for that is on their platform. This is a legal protection actually for the providers themselves so that if someone is doing something illegal on their platform they can not be held legally responsible. But as you can probably surmises most of the Big Tech companies have been operating as both a platform and a provider with impunity for years. It only really became a problem when they decided to start suppressing or banning content that was not illegal, but simply content that Big Tech found objectionable.
      • They are acting as a platform, merely - according to them - enforcing some basic house rules. Platforms are allowed to do that, they are not obliged to suffer trolls or off-topic rants, but they are obliged to take down material that violates the law even if they are not held responsible for its appearance. The problem with Google (and Facebook and Twitter) is not that its unclear whether they are a publisher or a platform, but that they are being biased in the application of their house rules.
        • In the case of Crowder, it's not only bias in application of house rules, it's an inability or unwillingness to actually publish what their house rules are. According to Crowder on his podcast (and I'm not a regular listener, but I did listen to his podcast on the Youtube imbroglio), they - multiple times - had their lawyer contact them to get clarification on what was allowed and what wasn't allowed, and more than once they've had a video that was specifically reviewed and approved, and then later removed
      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        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)

          by Mashiki ( 184564 )

          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.

          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            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.

    • by ChoGGi ( 522069 )

      How do you break up a video website monopoly, only allow certain videos/creators on one or the other?

    • 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

  • by beepsky ( 6008348 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @08:11PM (#58824978)
    Crazy idea, but maybe YouTube isn't a neo-fascist website like Twitter that forces you to conform to their very narrow standards of what is "correct" and what is "hate" or "fake news". Maybe as an American company they respect the American ideal of free speech and don't want to kick people off the platform for wrongthink. 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. Wouldn't that be crazy?
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      • by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @09:47PM (#58825326)
        Quite frankly that's their business choice. 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. If they want to turn customers away, they're only making it easier for their competition to gain a foothold.

        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.
        • 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.

          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            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.

        • by Chas ( 5144 )

          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

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • 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.

        • The issue people have with Youtube/Google is that they still keep trying to insist that they're somehow neutral and are merely banning people who harass others and produce illegal speech like incitement to violence and other illegal things.

          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
        • >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.

          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).
      • 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.

    • by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @08:50PM (#58825146)

      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.

      • This isn't a freedom of speech issue. They aren't removing the speech, they are demonetizing it. They are saying, "we won't pay you for this speech."

        Anyone who has a problem with that is just weird.
        • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

          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?

      • > 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.

        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
      • by epine ( 68316 )

        You must be new to capitalism.

        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

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by blindseer ( 891256 ) <blindseer@noSPAm.earthlink.net> on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @08:20PM (#58825024)

    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?

    • 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'.

      • 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.

      • by Chas ( 5144 )

        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".

    • 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

    • >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.

      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.
  • "The punishment is meant to revoke a key source of income, presenting a strong incentive for users to change their behavior." It also tries to kill of people from making videos period. They don't have good enough reason to ban these people's channels as they would really like to do so they cut off making any money on their content but yet YT still makes money off them.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @08:43PM (#58825130)

    So if I report all of my (favorite) videos as possible hate speech, YouTube will remove their stupid ads?

  • by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @08:51PM (#58825156) Journal

    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)

      by Noishkel ( 3464121 )
      I don't have really much love for Crowler myself, but I'm getting real damn times of the authoritarian left using assholes like him as an excuse to perpetually stamp upon the freedom of thought, speech, and even association just in a vein attempt to try and get ride of him and those like him. Much in the same they digitally unpersoned Alex Jones.
    • by Chas ( 5144 )

      Because this is Clown World.

      HONK HONK!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      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

  • by Anonymous Coward

    '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.

  • by Archfeld ( 6757 ) <treboreel@live.com> on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @09:04PM (#58825188) Journal

    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.

  • All of the "content creators" I know regularly say that ad revenue from YouTube is so small as to be insignificant to them. They basically use YouTube as a vehicle for viewer exposure and make most of their money, in no particular order, from (a) commissions from affiliate links, linked from their video descriptions; (b) product sales from their own stores, linked from their video descriptions; and (c) convention appearance fees.
  • Funny outcome (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PrimaryConsult ( 1546585 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @10:29PM (#58825466)

    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.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      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.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      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.

  • 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.

  • like Julia Alexander wants Youtube to police the internets?

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • ...even if you give them less money.

You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.

Working...