On the surface, it doesn’t sound like a bad thing. But the details matter, as they say. I think YouTube will not stop here, that the definition of extremism will be expanded quite generously. For sure, every last pro-Trump video is likely being reported for “extreme” content. Let’s see how far the purge goes.
Who will define extreme.
Will disagreeing POV’s be allowed?
Don’t know. But last year Google and other social media companies were called to testify in Washington and one of the themes of the questions they received is why they were not doing anything to stop the spread of extremist ideas online. I imagine in part this might be a response to the apparent pressure that the questioning put on them.
They can do whatever they want. It’s none of our business. You don’t like YouTube? Don’t use it.
I keep waiting for a conservative alternative to YouTube to show up.
I suspect we will see it soon.
This is no different than every newspaper and magazine. They make decisions about what they will and will not print, when they will and will not run, how they will not and will print, Etc it’s the way media is supposed to be. Same as television.
There are a lot of other video services available. But each one has their use cases of speciality. The one that might be the best fit for you (if any of them are suitable) will depend on what you are looking for.
Here is what the policy was (on hate content) in January vs today.
This is due to you tubers fighting. Once from VOX LGBT saying Steven Crowder is hate speech. It is literally a Liberal vs Conservative fight. And youtube took matters in hand.
Edit: to put it in content. Steven Crouder is the Stephen Colbert orTrevor Now or Samantha bee of the conservatives.
Except they are regulated under different rules than newspapers or magazines on the premise that they do not make decisions about what will and will not “run”. And Google and YouTube do business on the idea that they do not control the content on their platforms.
For a small example, this corner of Catholics Answers is called a “forum”. Named after the ancient Roman forum, or the town center where news was read and people could speak to the public. This idea carried over to public squares across the Christian and Western world. In the public square, you can speak without censor as long as you are not calling for criminal activity. Hence internet message boards are called forums, where people can talk about ideas.
Unlike Catholic answers, which is a niche forum (as many forums are), YouTube advertises the fact that they are an umbrella media organization that accommodates all niche forums. Except they actually don’t. They increasingly target right-wing voices on YouTube or even topics politically conservative users gravitate towards, like firearms videos. So the point is they aren’t actually a neutral platform and have bias that results in them applying their supposedly neutral user standards only to people and channels they disagree with. Google I believe actually audited themselves and found this to be the case.
The demonetization happening is quite something. People not even in the firing line are gone.
The reason given to Steven Crouder was to remove the sale of a t-shirt, that VOZ found offensive. And when Steven stopped the sale and removed them, Youtube went and demonetized all of his videos spanning back 10 years. Which do not hurt the guy because he makes the money in a different way, something bout a mug club.
Anyhow, many of the people I watch on youtube are very concerned, and many are loosing monihtazation. This are centrist people who use youtube. A gay interviewer, a skateboarding school drop out, and a few others. Interesting few days to come with youtube and the drama.
I don’t think it is quite that simple since the shirt can be debatable interpreted as referencing a slur for a homosexual.
I will leave that up to you, to make up your own mind. It is not offensive to me, but could be offensive to you.
It says: Communism is for figs.
There’s no actual letter I between the G and the F.
I think it suggestive enough such that it would not be wise to post an image of it here.
Right, the I in Figs, is actually a fig leave. It is suggestive, but that is “comedy”
In the same token youtube allows a lot, and I mean a lot of abuse and cursing to happen. Samantha Bee calling Ivanka a nasty word. Steven Colbert many times insulting the President with offensive language, and Trevor Noah even mocking the accent of Indian people. All of those fall in the category Youtube has set rules for.
However, Youtube’s ONLY reason, so far, for not only demonetizing Steven Crouder and many others, it is a Che Guevara shirt that says: Communism is for Figs.
This is what youtube called White Supremacy?
VOX parent company is NBC. I have been watching this debacle happen for a few days. It is not a black and white as youtube has stated so.
NBC has a lot of power, and this is quite a massive purge of dissenting voices to an ideology.
Carlos Maza of VOX has done quite many videos even advocating for people throwing stuff at others. How is that not a violation?
From what I’ve seen advertisers appear to be the entities that are in the better position to influence change. There have been events in the past in which advertisers have pulled back from YouTube in unison, and YouTube has responded in making changes to keep them happy (Advertisers are the primary revenue source for YouTube). Videos being able to have a status as ineligible for advertisement revenue is a change that YouTube made after advertisers stopped advertising after their ads showed up next to content that they didn’t want associated with their brands.
YouTube does not exist for some high minded political agenda, it exists to sell advertising. Period. They will do what makes their advertisers and stockholders happy.
You do not have a clear understanding of how youtube demonizing works.
It does not matter how many people want to have you promote them. Youtube has too much money and they no longer care.
This is why many of the people I watch, have taken the add to themselves, meaning they insert it in their videos, because Youtube demonetized the revenue for them. I think Ben Shapiro started that trend. I do not like him too much, but saw that he did it a lot.
Steven Crouder will not get hurt because he has been on a fight with Youtube for a long time, to which he has complied to all the rules, but his videos where demonetized anyway, so he started a mug club, kind of like EWTN does, supported by the viewers.
Carlos Maza does videos where he attacks Fox News most of the time. It was funny he did a video complaining that Fox News controls the Media and he was “bleeding” from his eyes because everyewhere he looked Fox News was there.
More to come, I am looking in to this drama.
Zzyzx_Road . . .
I think YouTube will not stop here, that the definition of extremism will be expanded quite generously.
I think you are absolutely right Zzyzx_Road.
I think my understanding is sufficient. How thing work have changed over time. The biggest changes were during apocalypse when advertisers pulled out over controversial and extremist content being shown on their ads. Among other changes the requirements for being eligible for earning money changed; someone had to maintain a certain amount of viewer activity and have an account in good standing for so long before being eligible. An account going into bad standing can result in loss of status of being able to get ads.
For any given video the video could be eligible for any advertiser, a limited set of advertisers, or no advertisers at all. A channel or an account can have standing to be eligible or not eligible. Among other things an advertiser can choose if their advertisement is allowed to be paired with videos that contain sensitive, tragic, or controversial content.
Videos that are marked as containing sensitive or controversial content are partially monetized (or partially demonetized depending on your perspective). You might be able to see how the advertiser options and the video status line up here. If an advertiser decides that their ads can show on such content then it might be paired with that controversial content. But videos with this marking are not available to as many advertisers and can’t make as much money.
Remember, YouTube’s real customers are the advertisers. The viewers are the product that the advertisers are trying to get to. This could be said to be the case for Social Media in general.
YouTube was built in 2005 but operated at a loss for much of its beginnings. It relied on seed funding to keep it’s head above water and it accumulated quite a set of legal problems. Google eventually purchased it for 1.65 billion dollar and was able to make good with the people looking to sue YouTube and even make some deals. With their Content ID technology they were able to policy some copyright violations in an automated sense. I think that was 2006. Google integrated Ad Sense into YouTube to allow it to generate revenue. But it still operated at a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars per year before it finally started to make a profit.