4 ms·

YouTube stops monitization on controversial subjects and political conflicts

16 points by pdkl95 10y ago

privateersman 10y ago
Google's the puritans of the web. If you have an association with them then you must live under their strict rules. That said, I think something has changed. I'm not sure why it is, but they have become more prudish in recent years. Is it a generation thing? A change sent down from their corporate clients? Pressure groups? Perhaps more government influence? All of the above?
- ganeshkrishnan 10y ago
  A programmer we hired had a banned personal android dev account. He used multi-login to login to corporate account and personal account. Google tied both together and brought our startup down wiping out adsense, youtube, docs and play account. They kept adwords alive billing for $200 a month for almost an year. I emailed them and the silence was deafening. Too cold Google. Too cold.
  - flukus 10y ago
    I've been thinking lately that SAAS may have been a spectacularly bad idea. If google banned my account they could do a tremendous amount of damage.
mdonahoe 10y ago
So if I don't want ads to appear on my videos, should I put a bunch of inappropriate content at the end of them?
- ganeshkrishnan 10y ago
  Start every video with "I pledge my allegiance to one and only true Lord, our Savior , Maker of walls, The first of his name, Sire Donald Trump"
pvdebbe 10y ago
Nice. My Firefox with a very old custom set of AdB rules actually breaks youtube videos with ads. The video just restarts a couple times until it starts showing cute static noise.
demarq 10y ago
Isn't this somehow discouraging youtubers from covering important news and developments from around the world?
CM30 10y ago
This is a really, really bad idea. Heck, the 'inappropriate language' one alone is ridiculous, since that basically means (if enforced) that the likes of the Angry Video Game Nerd, Channel Awesome, the Yogscast, Angry Joe and even Pewdiepie couldn't monetise their videos... In other words, it'd basically drive every 'caustic critic' off of YouTube for good, and with it, probably a very large chunk of the site's traffic. The political conflicts one basically means amateur journalism and investigative reporting is unsustainable on the platform, since by definition most journalism deals with political subjects that often involve things like war, crimes, terrorism, etc. The stuff about violence and sexual content could easily be applied to media like video games, and end up driving off whatever gaming channels aren't already annoyed by the swearing prohibitions. And then there's talk of 'harassment', which can be applied so vaguely it's almost meaningless. Especially in today's age where 'harassment' has basically come to mean 'anything that makes anyone feel uncomfortable or criticises them or their ideas'. So yeah, they'd better get rid of these guidelines soon, otherwise they could well kill a large percentage of the site's traffic in one foul swoop. They're trying to turn a video platform in network television (well, very watered down network television) and it won't work.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > (if enforced) The enforcement already started with Philip DeFranco's videos[1], and quickly spread to various other youtubers. The targets seem to be the usual "controversial" topics and political content in general. Videos about depression seem to be one of the targets[2]? Maybe? There also seems to be inconsistency between hitting certain popular youtubers that produce some form of "news"[3], while allowing blatant clickbait, bullying, and propaganda[4] about the same topics. > so vaguely it's almost meaningless That's vague enough, but their cornerstone of selective enforcement will be the "...but is not limited to..." clause. > otherwise they could well kill a large percentage of the site's traffic I fear that may be the goal. If YouTube isn't profitable for Google, they may want to cut their expenses by encouraging some of their heavier users off the site. [1] https://twitter.com/PhillyD/status/771026030442090496 https://twitter.com/PhillyD/status/771026030442090496 https://twitter.com/PhillyD/status/771054150733803521 https://twitter.com/PhillyD/status/771054150733803521 [2] https://twitter.com/LukeIsNotSexy/status/771124768280043521 https://twitter.com/LukeIsNotSexy/status/771124768280043521 [3] I'm being very generous in what might be called "news". I may not like a lot of it, but even shallow clickbait can contain at least some journalism. [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEUR7xsAtA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEUR7xsAtA
arprocter 10y ago
"Inappropriate", "controversial" or "sensitive" in who's opinion?
- forgottenpass 10y ago
  Like any other content policy from the Valley, the opinions that matter will be: Embarrassing news stories Busybody Googlers Internet tabloids that Googlers read over lunch Complaining advertisers Complaining friends of Googlers Everyone else will be politly told to fuck off using a vague statement about letting uploaders express themselves.

16 points by pdkl95 10y ago

Google's the puritans of the web. If you have an association with them then you must live under their strict rules. That said, I think something has changed. I'm not sure why it is, but they have become more prudish in recent years. Is it a generation thing? A change sent down from their corporate clients? Pressure groups? Perhaps more government influence? All of the above?

ganeshkrishnan 10y ago
A programmer we hired had a banned personal android dev account. He used multi-login to login to corporate account and personal account. Google tied both together and brought our startup down wiping out adsense, youtube, docs and play account. They kept adwords alive billing for $200 a month for almost an year. I emailed them and the silence was deafening. Too cold Google. Too cold.
- flukus 10y ago
  I've been thinking lately that SAAS may have been a spectacularly bad idea. If google banned my account they could do a tremendous amount of damage.

mdonahoe 10y ago

So if I don't want ads to appear on my videos, should I put a bunch of inappropriate content at the end of them?

ganeshkrishnan 10y ago
Start every video with "I pledge my allegiance to one and only true Lord, our Savior , Maker of walls, The first of his name, Sire Donald Trump"

pvdebbe 10y ago

Nice. My Firefox with a very old custom set of AdB rules actually breaks youtube videos with ads. The video just restarts a couple times until it starts showing cute static noise.

demarq 10y ago

Isn't this somehow discouraging youtubers from covering important news and developments from around the world?

CM30 10y ago

This is a really, really bad idea. Heck, the 'inappropriate language' one alone is ridiculous, since that basically means (if enforced) that the likes of the Angry Video Game Nerd, Channel Awesome, the Yogscast, Angry Joe and even Pewdiepie couldn't monetise their videos... In other words, it'd basically drive every 'caustic critic' off of YouTube for good, and with it, probably a very large chunk of the site's traffic. The political conflicts one basically means amateur journalism and investigative reporting is unsustainable on the platform, since by definition most journalism deals with political subjects that often involve things like war, crimes, terrorism, etc. The stuff about violence and sexual content could easily be applied to media like video games, and end up driving off whatever gaming channels aren't already annoyed by the swearing prohibitions. And then there's talk of 'harassment', which can be applied so vaguely it's almost meaningless. Especially in today's age where 'harassment' has basically come to mean 'anything that makes anyone feel uncomfortable or criticises them or their ideas'. So yeah, they'd better get rid of these guidelines soon, otherwise they could well kill a large percentage of the site's traffic in one foul swoop. They're trying to turn a video platform in network television (well, very watered down network television) and it won't work.

pdkl95 10y ago
> (if enforced) The enforcement already started with Philip DeFranco's videos[1], and quickly spread to various other youtubers. The targets seem to be the usual "controversial" topics and political content in general. Videos about depression seem to be one of the targets[2]? Maybe? There also seems to be inconsistency between hitting certain popular youtubers that produce some form of "news"[3], while allowing blatant clickbait, bullying, and propaganda[4] about the same topics. > so vaguely it's almost meaningless That's vague enough, but their cornerstone of selective enforcement will be the "...but is not limited to..." clause. > otherwise they could well kill a large percentage of the site's traffic I fear that may be the goal. If YouTube isn't profitable for Google, they may want to cut their expenses by encouraging some of their heavier users off the site. [1] https://twitter.com/PhillyD/status/771026030442090496 https://twitter.com/PhillyD/status/771026030442090496 https://twitter.com/PhillyD/status/771054150733803521 https://twitter.com/PhillyD/status/771054150733803521 [2] https://twitter.com/LukeIsNotSexy/status/771124768280043521 https://twitter.com/LukeIsNotSexy/status/771124768280043521 [3] I'm being very generous in what might be called "news". I may not like a lot of it, but even shallow clickbait can contain at least some journalism. [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEUR7xsAtA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEUR7xsAtA

arprocter 10y ago

"Inappropriate", "controversial" or "sensitive" in who's opinion?

forgottenpass 10y ago
Like any other content policy from the Valley, the opinions that matter will be: Embarrassing news stories Busybody Googlers Internet tabloids that Googlers read over lunch Complaining advertisers Complaining friends of Googlers Everyone else will be politly told to fuck off using a vague statement about letting uploaders express themselves.