11 ms·

YouTube Drops Online Star Logan Paul from Premium Advertising

73 points by ucaetano 9y ago

gitgud 9y ago
I'm not a fan of Logan Paul or his content. But I admire his hustle, he literally makes [1] millions of dollars off of daily youtube videos. [1] https://socialblade.com/youtube/channel/ucg8rbf3g2amx70yod8vqizg https://socialblade.com/youtube/channel/ucg8rbf3g2amx70yod8v...
- Waterluvian 9y ago
  I thought he was just one of those examples of someone finding the shortest path to tweens' dopamine receptors, particularly in the absence of any broadcast standards of quality.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- akras14 9y ago
  Not anymore
mc32 9y ago
Well, now that YT is all grown up, they are learning the value of having producers, or generally people who can nix something before it hits the "airwaves" -as well as take the "heat". So, yeah, maybe for your premier channels, you don't have live streamers without a net. On the other hand, it's a bit ridiculous to crucify this guy or that Swedish guy when they have thousands of worse , much worse offenders around the globe. But hey, outrage of the day. I mean, I'm shocked, shocked they want to run lean as possible (on oversight, etc.) and cut loose the "ta[l|r]ento[1]" at first sign of trouble. And, if you head down to Lawson's konbini, you can buy the "101 ways to kill yourself without leaving a mess for your family" polite suicide book. [1] And by ta[l|r]ento I mean that in the most Japanese way because YT see their creators only as cheap conduits to monetization and only care about them insofar as they create revenue for them.
- viraptor 9y ago
  > it's a bit ridiculous to crucify this guy or that Swedish guy when they have thousands of worse Do they have to be bad in comparison? I'm happy both were affected. YT can also take care of worse offenders, not instead.
  - Tehnix 9y ago
    If you ever look into the reason Pewdiepie got affected, it’s a massively disgusting play of how massive media outlets can twist a narrative by editing videos out of context together and put pressure on a platform to respond to a blatantly (at least it’s a 20 sec google away) false narrative.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Are any of the worse offenders premium advertisers?
  - mc32 9y ago
    Not that I'm aware of [but not certain]. That said, you can see this points to their concern. It's not the content that _really_ offends them. Rather, it's the offense to their pocketbook.
the_common_man 9y ago
He apologized for his actions - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwZT7T-TXT0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwZT7T-TXT0 . Not sure why should be crucified more.
- swang 9y ago
  because he was dumb enough to post it in the first place? and he didn't even get punished for it until the huge wave of backlash youtube received. hell it took them a week to bother making an announcement, like they were waiting and hoping it would die down instead of having to actually enforce their own rules.
  - prostoalex 9y ago
    I haven’t seen a single video by the guy, but the linked NYT article seems to imply it displayed gory details of someone who committed suicide recently. Would it be possible that such grisly scene would turn some teens (which were his main audience, from my understanding) off the topic of suicide? In a way that raw photos and videos of war atrocities horrify us but force us to introspect on the value of life and peace?
    - ars 9y ago
      I watched it. It had a shot of the guy hanging from a tree with his face blurred out. That's it. No gore. And they don't go close to the body. But do talk about it while staring in shock. He talked a bit about suicide, and about being shocked to actually see a dead body. I didn't watch the whole thing (not really that interested in what he has to say), but the part I saw didn't seem like such a big deal to me. Maybe I'm missing something? Is it the simple fact that they show a [partly blurred] dead body? Something else? (I hope I can actually ask this here. It seems like people are really sensitive about it, so I'm hoping not to get attacked for asking. But I really don't see what the big deal is.)
      - threeseed 9y ago
        1) He was smiling and joking at the scene. 2) He failed to report the incident to police despite being close to the station and having a phone. 3) The rest of that video had a wealth of racist and disgraceful content. 4) He exploited the incident for monetary gain.
hmokya 9y ago
YouTube should be careful in how they approach this. Treating top talent poorly is a great opportunity for an incumbent. Logan is generating tremendous value. As technology becomes more accessible in order for YouTube to maintain it’s dominate position they need to realize that the creators have the power.
- tirpen 9y ago
  Is Logan generating value for Youtube though? Guys like Logan and PewDiePie are scaring away advertisers, and the kids who watch them would probably just switch and watch some other YouTuber instead if they were to go away.
  - hmokya 9y ago
    Logan and prediepie won out on the YouTube platform for a reason. They are the ones generating the value. In the extreme case imagine that all YouTube videos were of paint drying. Would people still watch? There is real entertainment value. Content is king. Netflix agrees.
    - Rapzid 9y ago
      I watched 3 or 4 videos of paint drying just this evening. Well, it was actually wood floor filler.. Close enough.
- georgemcbay 9y ago
  If this is true then explain how YouTube has any talent left since they have almost all been universally bitching and moaning post-"Adpocalypse" and yet continue to use YouTube as their platform. If it were so easy to move off of YouTube, these many "creators" would have already banded together to create something new, backed by VC funding based on their "star-power". But this hasn't happened. Making a YouTube clone is easy, making a YouTube clone that isn't a sinkhole that just eats millions and millions of dollars is hard.
  - hmokya 9y ago
Tehnix 9y ago
For people that don’t follow the YouTube community, YT has a terrible track record of not treating creators equally, and demonetizing a ton of creators for little to no reason, while some of their other creators, namely Jake and Logan Paul could violate these same guidelines that the rest were slapped over the wrist with. This has been a long time under way, and while I don’t particularly think they should drop shows like they stupidly did with Pewdiepie, there definitely had to be some backlash for posting a video of a dead guy, when they were striking against videoes talking about that video, for being in violation. It’s also worth noting, that YouTube were not the ones taking down the video, Logan did this himself after the backlash, and that they waited so long is rather indicative of them trying to see where the wind blows and if they could get away with it. Honestly, YT has been writing the book on “how to shit on your creators” for 2017 and more, but they might finally be setting back on a better track.
- aphextron 9y ago
  We are seeing the rediscovery of the network monopoly business model in these online giants like YouTube, only without the former safeguards of production contracts that television and film have developed. It's no different than the "uberization" of the rest of our economy over the past 10 years. All of the marginal costs and inefficiencies involved with running a business have been externalized to the employees and customers of that business because there is no other option for them. Those in control of the distribution will always have final say. Only now they have the power to make arbitrary rulings with zero means of recourse by those affected, short of mass organization.
- l33tbro 9y ago
  Downvote me to coach, but I've never understood why people assert that Youtube owes their users advertising dollars, where other social media platforms are exempt. Youtube has for years run at a loss, providing free high-quality video streaming with no bandwidth restrictions. These "creators", who are actually a very tiny portion of users, pay zero overheads to have a worldwide broadcasting platform where they're unrestricted to promote third-party products and monetise their content in countless ways. If people are going to complain about Youtube, then surely you've got to go after other social networks first who aren't sharing revenue with users who are bringing engagement to their platform (Reddit, Instagram, Snapchat, etc).
gigatexal 9y ago
Eh, if I were Logan I'd (hopefully have enough of said millions I earned being a hooligan) take my money and retire with the ability to do whatever I want. He had a good run, maybe he can now go do something productive with his time and money.
dakomind 9y ago
Google has taken a stand against antisemitism, which means it is enacting a political agenda. Google should be punished for attempting to enact its political agenda. It has no legitimate business. Politics is not legitimate business.
mbrumlow 9y ago
I don't know who's to blame. But somewhere along the line we let people's outrage have more control than it probably should. I don't know who Logan is but read what he did. It was disgusting. But the market should have naturally handled it. The problem is had YouTube done nothing it likely would not have affected his views. That should tell you something about how loud and powerful we have let the offended become. I think there is a second problem that actually might be bigger. Intolerance for mistakes. I did not see the video in question but I know that humans can often loose judgment and make mistakes. I think it is going to make shitty society to live in if you will be judged in perpetually for the worst moments of your public life. There are talks about him breaking YouTube rules. That is fine. He should be punished within those guidelines. But it seems people want blood.
- eastWestMath 9y ago
  The market did handle it, there was enough bad press for YouTube so that it was no longer a good business decision to continue their partnership with Paul.
  - mc32 9y ago
    I think that depends on how you define "market". Is it the viewers, the concerned culture watchdogs who obviously speak for everyone, one gigantic internet medium with outsized influence?
    - eastWestMath 9y ago
      Should viewers have decided whether or not Weinstein should still be producing movies? There’s clearly a point where the press around someone becomes too toxic to have a close business relationship with them.
      - mc32 9y ago
        You know, I don't like the guy. Because I don't like the guy, I like that the mob contributed to his fall. But, to answer your question, I don't have an answer. Do I not listen to music because the musicians are not my politics, or do I not read an author because they have horrible views or they belong to the Church of Scientology? When I look at it from that prism, I'm not sure. Then there is the irony of Hollywood, the most misogynistic and misandristic, sexist, exploitative group of people lecturing the rest of the country on what proper conduct is.
hugozap 9y ago
Besides the forest video, he was incredibly disrespectful with Japanese people in the other videos. That alone should be a reason to ban him. [Edit: By disrespectful I mean actually harassing people (at least in the Japan videos). That's a valid cause for banning in most communities]
- jackvalentine 9y ago
  Should it?
  - smt88 9y ago
    From speaking and publishing his videos? No. From participating in a private online community that doesn't want people peeing in the pool? Sure. Harm done to Paul in exchange for others' benefit. Seems like an easy choice.
  - ssyphon 9y ago
    Yes.
  - threeseed 9y ago
    Yes it absolutely should. His behaviour was unconscionable, immoral, illegal and sets a terrible example for the young kids who largely make up his audience. By allowing this content YouTube is defacto endorsing it which then encourages others to follow in his footsteps. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
    - DennisAleynikov 9y ago
      You literally dont have to watch his content. why do people jump to bans to try and shut up poplar idiots. same goes for the most popular of idiots, Trump. I see frothing at the mouth when people mention banning him from twitter! whats the point???
      - Jack000 9y ago
swang 9y ago
should i be surprised that the first few comments are somehow defending logan paul in some way? are we so desensitized that we just kinda shrug our shoulders when someone posts a video of a dead guy? what about if a large portion of his audience is kids? "but wow his viewcount!" i mean what about that warlord that murdered and maimed a whole bunch of innocent people. he was bad but the efficiency in which he did it took my breath away! logan paul posts a lot of dumb, sometimes racist, mostly shit videos that manipulates kids into buying their "merch" and while i'm sure someone like this has existed for every single generation, the fact that no one is there to ask him whether doing this kind of shit is beneficial besides "for the views!" i mean it wouldn't be so bad if logan or his brother were actually mentally sound enough to make just the baseline level of common decency. maybe i am just too old, but the ability to influence so many kids at once scares me.
- Rapzid 9y ago
  I'm shrugging it off like a papercut. It's not good, I don't like it, and I don't want it to happen again but I'm not going to waste more than a few seconds on it. Honestly, what surprises and worries me are the number of people acting like they lost an arm..
- mc32 9y ago
  I think it's more complicated than that. YT makes money off these people for virtually pennies on the dollar. They could be more vested in their content creators, they could treat all their creators equally (rather than selectively). They could do so much more to be even handed and create expectation and you know, provide some guidance. No, that costs money. So the easy way out of all that costly messiness is cut that cheap troublemaking "talent" at the drop of a tweet because you know you have a firehose of more creators waiting.
- martin_bech 9y ago
  You are aware that death is a part of life right? I think is way overblown to be so mad, at someone showing a part of life.
  - Rebelgecko 9y ago
shangxiao 9y ago
Philip DeFranco has analysed this well and covered this in several videos, the latest being [1]. I agree with his analysis that the problem here is YT itself, not the content creators. I personally believe this latest development makes Logan Paul somewhat of a scapegoat, especially since his video apology [2] was one of the most sincere public apologies I've seen. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-ePy-2WLfY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-ePy-2WLfY [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwZT7T-TXT0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwZT7T-TXT0
- mattmurdog 9y ago
  You mean the one where he attached an ad to so he made money off it? If he was sincere he would have turned that off like most apology videos. Also let's not forget his history of racism towards Asians.
  - toomanybeersies 9y ago
    Why would he turn ads off if he was sincere? I don't really understand the relation. I'd understand if you suggested that he donate the profits from the video to a suicide prevention charity or something similar. If I fuck up at work, I don't apologise and offer to work for free.
    - mattmurdog 9y ago
      It's an YT apology etiquette. But donating it is also a great idea. Too bad he did neither like the dbag he is.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
debt 9y ago
I think this was a way for Logan Paul to start his own streaming service. I have to believe this was intentional so he could essentially force his audience to go some paid network he owns. I don't think it was as accidental as their making it seem. Disney is trying to start their own streaming network as well. I have to think these are all related.
imhoguy 9y ago
Why death is so much taboo in Western world today? Why teenagers should forget about death and life risks? One climbing skyscrapers risks death, but rarely there is material to show and visually warn young brains how that may end up. Most bodies in that forrest had suits, possibly office workers, who knows maybe pushed into karoshi - that is the problem and warning too. I am not sure if Mr Paul was disrespectful in the material, that wasn't covered by the article. But death is real, why to reject it? Why to not discuss it openly?
- awaythrowaway 9y ago
  The issue isn't that Jake is confronting the issue of death itself, the issue is that he is effectively objectifying a physical, very recent suicide for his fans to oogle and oggle over and deliver a payload of clicks, irrespective of the identity of the victim or his family.
King-Aaron 9y ago
I feel the outrage generation has had far too much say in how this has been handled. Videos of death appear all the time across various platforms. The fact that he made a video featuring a corpse should not enough to warrant a ban I don't feel - rather an immediate setting to 'age restricted content' perhaps - but If we're banning youtubers over showing a corpse on the screen, then most news media outlets would need to shut up shop. I know some people "don't like to see death", but it is a part of life. Do we really need to make death a taboo subject? Now, I know that it's not simply because he video taped a corpse. His response and handling of the situation is clearly the underlying factor, and to that I ask - what happened to the idea that people can apologise, learn from mistakes, rehabilitate their behaviour and improve as a result of it? He apologised and removed his video, which seems like a reasonable response. We all (i.e. the greater internet consuming population) seem to be going down a path of extreme responses to events without offering any ability for fixing mistakes. As soon as someone does something that's perceived to be wrong, everyone flips out and makes outrageous statements in comments threads (and in fact, it doesn't seem to require a majority voice - just loud and persistent small groups). The media perpetuates these stories as people love to keep getting more and more outraged. And people start posting more outlandish and aggressive responses in order to garner their own 'likes' and responses which feeds the snowball effect. It seems like as time rolls on, there's less and less margin for error that people are willing to accept. And if you anger the mob for any reason, your life and career is over. It's a big risk for anyone in the public light I feel, and I wonder if we'll reach a stage where content creators (actors, writers, vloggers, streamers, or whoever) will change how they see any value in their career if it could be immediately and permanently extinguished for minor reasoning. Edit: That wasn't supposed to sound as ranty as it did, apologies.
Rainymood 9y ago
>Last year, YouTube dropped another one of its stars, Felix Kjellberg, better known by his YouTube alias PewDiePie, from its top-tier advertising after reports surfaced about anti-Semitic comments he made on video. I generally really respect the NYT but to phrase the whole PewDiePie situation like this is utterly disgusting and a misguided narrative.

73 points by ucaetano 9y ago

I'm not a fan of Logan Paul or his content. But I admire his hustle, he literally makes [1] millions of dollars off of daily youtube videos. [1] https://socialblade.com/youtube/channel/ucg8rbf3g2amx70yod8vqizg https://socialblade.com/youtube/channel/ucg8rbf3g2amx70yod8v...

Waterluvian 9y ago
I thought he was just one of those examples of someone finding the shortest path to tweens' dopamine receptors, particularly in the absence of any broadcast standards of quality.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
akras14 9y ago
Not anymore

mc32 9y ago

Well, now that YT is all grown up, they are learning the value of having producers, or generally people who can nix something before it hits the "airwaves" -as well as take the "heat". So, yeah, maybe for your premier channels, you don't have live streamers without a net. On the other hand, it's a bit ridiculous to crucify this guy or that Swedish guy when they have thousands of worse , much worse offenders around the globe. But hey, outrage of the day. I mean, I'm shocked, shocked they want to run lean as possible (on oversight, etc.) and cut loose the "ta[l|r]ento[1]" at first sign of trouble. And, if you head down to Lawson's konbini, you can buy the "101 ways to kill yourself without leaving a mess for your family" polite suicide book. [1] And by ta[l|r]ento I mean that in the most Japanese way because YT see their creators only as cheap conduits to monetization and only care about them insofar as they create revenue for them.

viraptor 9y ago
> it's a bit ridiculous to crucify this guy or that Swedish guy when they have thousands of worse Do they have to be bad in comparison? I'm happy both were affected. YT can also take care of worse offenders, not instead.
- Tehnix 9y ago
  If you ever look into the reason Pewdiepie got affected, it’s a massively disgusting play of how massive media outlets can twist a narrative by editing videos out of context together and put pressure on a platform to respond to a blatantly (at least it’s a 20 sec google away) false narrative.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Are any of the worse offenders premium advertisers?
- mc32 9y ago
  Not that I'm aware of [but not certain]. That said, you can see this points to their concern. It's not the content that _really_ offends them. Rather, it's the offense to their pocketbook.

the_common_man 9y ago

He apologized for his actions - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwZT7T-TXT0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwZT7T-TXT0 . Not sure why should be crucified more.

swang 9y ago
because he was dumb enough to post it in the first place? and he didn't even get punished for it until the huge wave of backlash youtube received. hell it took them a week to bother making an announcement, like they were waiting and hoping it would die down instead of having to actually enforce their own rules.
- prostoalex 9y ago
  I haven’t seen a single video by the guy, but the linked NYT article seems to imply it displayed gory details of someone who committed suicide recently. Would it be possible that such grisly scene would turn some teens (which were his main audience, from my understanding) off the topic of suicide? In a way that raw photos and videos of war atrocities horrify us but force us to introspect on the value of life and peace?
  - ars 9y ago
    I watched it. It had a shot of the guy hanging from a tree with his face blurred out. That's it. No gore. And they don't go close to the body. But do talk about it while staring in shock. He talked a bit about suicide, and about being shocked to actually see a dead body. I didn't watch the whole thing (not really that interested in what he has to say), but the part I saw didn't seem like such a big deal to me. Maybe I'm missing something? Is it the simple fact that they show a [partly blurred] dead body? Something else? (I hope I can actually ask this here. It seems like people are really sensitive about it, so I'm hoping not to get attacked for asking. But I really don't see what the big deal is.)
    - threeseed 9y ago
      1) He was smiling and joking at the scene. 2) He failed to report the incident to police despite being close to the station and having a phone. 3) The rest of that video had a wealth of racist and disgraceful content. 4) He exploited the incident for monetary gain.

hmokya 9y ago

YouTube should be careful in how they approach this. Treating top talent poorly is a great opportunity for an incumbent. Logan is generating tremendous value. As technology becomes more accessible in order for YouTube to maintain it’s dominate position they need to realize that the creators have the power.

tirpen 9y ago
Is Logan generating value for Youtube though? Guys like Logan and PewDiePie are scaring away advertisers, and the kids who watch them would probably just switch and watch some other YouTuber instead if they were to go away.
- hmokya 9y ago
  Logan and prediepie won out on the YouTube platform for a reason. They are the ones generating the value. In the extreme case imagine that all YouTube videos were of paint drying. Would people still watch? There is real entertainment value. Content is king. Netflix agrees.
  - Rapzid 9y ago
    I watched 3 or 4 videos of paint drying just this evening. Well, it was actually wood floor filler.. Close enough.
georgemcbay 9y ago
If this is true then explain how YouTube has any talent left since they have almost all been universally bitching and moaning post-"Adpocalypse" and yet continue to use YouTube as their platform. If it were so easy to move off of YouTube, these many "creators" would have already banded together to create something new, backed by VC funding based on their "star-power". But this hasn't happened. Making a YouTube clone is easy, making a YouTube clone that isn't a sinkhole that just eats millions and millions of dollars is hard.
- hmokya 9y ago

Tehnix 9y ago

For people that don’t follow the YouTube community, YT has a terrible track record of not treating creators equally, and demonetizing a ton of creators for little to no reason, while some of their other creators, namely Jake and Logan Paul could violate these same guidelines that the rest were slapped over the wrist with. This has been a long time under way, and while I don’t particularly think they should drop shows like they stupidly did with Pewdiepie, there definitely had to be some backlash for posting a video of a dead guy, when they were striking against videoes talking about that video, for being in violation. It’s also worth noting, that YouTube were not the ones taking down the video, Logan did this himself after the backlash, and that they waited so long is rather indicative of them trying to see where the wind blows and if they could get away with it. Honestly, YT has been writing the book on “how to shit on your creators” for 2017 and more, but they might finally be setting back on a better track.

aphextron 9y ago
We are seeing the rediscovery of the network monopoly business model in these online giants like YouTube, only without the former safeguards of production contracts that television and film have developed. It's no different than the "uberization" of the rest of our economy over the past 10 years. All of the marginal costs and inefficiencies involved with running a business have been externalized to the employees and customers of that business because there is no other option for them. Those in control of the distribution will always have final say. Only now they have the power to make arbitrary rulings with zero means of recourse by those affected, short of mass organization.
l33tbro 9y ago
Downvote me to coach, but I've never understood why people assert that Youtube owes their users advertising dollars, where other social media platforms are exempt. Youtube has for years run at a loss, providing free high-quality video streaming with no bandwidth restrictions. These "creators", who are actually a very tiny portion of users, pay zero overheads to have a worldwide broadcasting platform where they're unrestricted to promote third-party products and monetise their content in countless ways. If people are going to complain about Youtube, then surely you've got to go after other social networks first who aren't sharing revenue with users who are bringing engagement to their platform (Reddit, Instagram, Snapchat, etc).

gigatexal 9y ago

Eh, if I were Logan I'd (hopefully have enough of said millions I earned being a hooligan) take my money and retire with the ability to do whatever I want. He had a good run, maybe he can now go do something productive with his time and money.

dakomind 9y ago

Google has taken a stand against antisemitism, which means it is enacting a political agenda. Google should be punished for attempting to enact its political agenda. It has no legitimate business. Politics is not legitimate business.

mbrumlow 9y ago

I don't know who's to blame. But somewhere along the line we let people's outrage have more control than it probably should. I don't know who Logan is but read what he did. It was disgusting. But the market should have naturally handled it. The problem is had YouTube done nothing it likely would not have affected his views. That should tell you something about how loud and powerful we have let the offended become. I think there is a second problem that actually might be bigger. Intolerance for mistakes. I did not see the video in question but I know that humans can often loose judgment and make mistakes. I think it is going to make shitty society to live in if you will be judged in perpetually for the worst moments of your public life. There are talks about him breaking YouTube rules. That is fine. He should be punished within those guidelines. But it seems people want blood.

eastWestMath 9y ago
The market did handle it, there was enough bad press for YouTube so that it was no longer a good business decision to continue their partnership with Paul.
- mc32 9y ago
  I think that depends on how you define "market". Is it the viewers, the concerned culture watchdogs who obviously speak for everyone, one gigantic internet medium with outsized influence?
  - eastWestMath 9y ago
    Should viewers have decided whether or not Weinstein should still be producing movies? There’s clearly a point where the press around someone becomes too toxic to have a close business relationship with them.
    - mc32 9y ago
      You know, I don't like the guy. Because I don't like the guy, I like that the mob contributed to his fall. But, to answer your question, I don't have an answer. Do I not listen to music because the musicians are not my politics, or do I not read an author because they have horrible views or they belong to the Church of Scientology? When I look at it from that prism, I'm not sure. Then there is the irony of Hollywood, the most misogynistic and misandristic, sexist, exploitative group of people lecturing the rest of the country on what proper conduct is.

hugozap 9y ago

Besides the forest video, he was incredibly disrespectful with Japanese people in the other videos. That alone should be a reason to ban him. [Edit: By disrespectful I mean actually harassing people (at least in the Japan videos). That's a valid cause for banning in most communities]

jackvalentine 9y ago
Should it?
- smt88 9y ago
  From speaking and publishing his videos? No. From participating in a private online community that doesn't want people peeing in the pool? Sure. Harm done to Paul in exchange for others' benefit. Seems like an easy choice.
- ssyphon 9y ago
  Yes.
- threeseed 9y ago
  Yes it absolutely should. His behaviour was unconscionable, immoral, illegal and sets a terrible example for the young kids who largely make up his audience. By allowing this content YouTube is defacto endorsing it which then encourages others to follow in his footsteps. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
  - DennisAleynikov 9y ago
    You literally dont have to watch his content. why do people jump to bans to try and shut up poplar idiots. same goes for the most popular of idiots, Trump. I see frothing at the mouth when people mention banning him from twitter! whats the point???
    - Jack000 9y ago

swang 9y ago

should i be surprised that the first few comments are somehow defending logan paul in some way? are we so desensitized that we just kinda shrug our shoulders when someone posts a video of a dead guy? what about if a large portion of his audience is kids? "but wow his viewcount!" i mean what about that warlord that murdered and maimed a whole bunch of innocent people. he was bad but the efficiency in which he did it took my breath away! logan paul posts a lot of dumb, sometimes racist, mostly shit videos that manipulates kids into buying their "merch" and while i'm sure someone like this has existed for every single generation, the fact that no one is there to ask him whether doing this kind of shit is beneficial besides "for the views!" i mean it wouldn't be so bad if logan or his brother were actually mentally sound enough to make just the baseline level of common decency. maybe i am just too old, but the ability to influence so many kids at once scares me.

Rapzid 9y ago
I'm shrugging it off like a papercut. It's not good, I don't like it, and I don't want it to happen again but I'm not going to waste more than a few seconds on it. Honestly, what surprises and worries me are the number of people acting like they lost an arm..
mc32 9y ago
I think it's more complicated than that. YT makes money off these people for virtually pennies on the dollar. They could be more vested in their content creators, they could treat all their creators equally (rather than selectively). They could do so much more to be even handed and create expectation and you know, provide some guidance. No, that costs money. So the easy way out of all that costly messiness is cut that cheap troublemaking "talent" at the drop of a tweet because you know you have a firehose of more creators waiting.
martin_bech 9y ago
You are aware that death is a part of life right? I think is way overblown to be so mad, at someone showing a part of life.
- Rebelgecko 9y ago

shangxiao 9y ago

Philip DeFranco has analysed this well and covered this in several videos, the latest being [1]. I agree with his analysis that the problem here is YT itself, not the content creators. I personally believe this latest development makes Logan Paul somewhat of a scapegoat, especially since his video apology [2] was one of the most sincere public apologies I've seen. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-ePy-2WLfY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-ePy-2WLfY [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwZT7T-TXT0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwZT7T-TXT0

mattmurdog 9y ago
You mean the one where he attached an ad to so he made money off it? If he was sincere he would have turned that off like most apology videos. Also let's not forget his history of racism towards Asians.
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  Why would he turn ads off if he was sincere? I don't really understand the relation. I'd understand if you suggested that he donate the profits from the video to a suicide prevention charity or something similar. If I fuck up at work, I don't apologise and offer to work for free.
  - mattmurdog 9y ago
    It's an YT apology etiquette. But donating it is also a great idea. Too bad he did neither like the dbag he is.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

debt 9y ago

I think this was a way for Logan Paul to start his own streaming service. I have to believe this was intentional so he could essentially force his audience to go some paid network he owns. I don't think it was as accidental as their making it seem. Disney is trying to start their own streaming network as well. I have to think these are all related.

imhoguy 9y ago

Why death is so much taboo in Western world today? Why teenagers should forget about death and life risks? One climbing skyscrapers risks death, but rarely there is material to show and visually warn young brains how that may end up. Most bodies in that forrest had suits, possibly office workers, who knows maybe pushed into karoshi - that is the problem and warning too. I am not sure if Mr Paul was disrespectful in the material, that wasn't covered by the article. But death is real, why to reject it? Why to not discuss it openly?

awaythrowaway 9y ago
The issue isn't that Jake is confronting the issue of death itself, the issue is that he is effectively objectifying a physical, very recent suicide for his fans to oogle and oggle over and deliver a payload of clicks, irrespective of the identity of the victim or his family.

King-Aaron 9y ago

I feel the outrage generation has had far too much say in how this has been handled. Videos of death appear all the time across various platforms. The fact that he made a video featuring a corpse should not enough to warrant a ban I don't feel - rather an immediate setting to 'age restricted content' perhaps - but If we're banning youtubers over showing a corpse on the screen, then most news media outlets would need to shut up shop. I know some people "don't like to see death", but it is a part of life. Do we really need to make death a taboo subject? Now, I know that it's not simply because he video taped a corpse. His response and handling of the situation is clearly the underlying factor, and to that I ask - what happened to the idea that people can apologise, learn from mistakes, rehabilitate their behaviour and improve as a result of it? He apologised and removed his video, which seems like a reasonable response. We all (i.e. the greater internet consuming population) seem to be going down a path of extreme responses to events without offering any ability for fixing mistakes. As soon as someone does something that's perceived to be wrong, everyone flips out and makes outrageous statements in comments threads (and in fact, it doesn't seem to require a majority voice - just loud and persistent small groups). The media perpetuates these stories as people love to keep getting more and more outraged. And people start posting more outlandish and aggressive responses in order to garner their own 'likes' and responses which feeds the snowball effect. It seems like as time rolls on, there's less and less margin for error that people are willing to accept. And if you anger the mob for any reason, your life and career is over. It's a big risk for anyone in the public light I feel, and I wonder if we'll reach a stage where content creators (actors, writers, vloggers, streamers, or whoever) will change how they see any value in their career if it could be immediately and permanently extinguished for minor reasoning. Edit: That wasn't supposed to sound as ranty as it did, apologies.

Rainymood 9y ago

>Last year, YouTube dropped another one of its stars, Felix Kjellberg, better known by his YouTube alias PewDiePie, from its top-tier advertising after reports surfaced about anti-Semitic comments he made on video. I generally really respect the NYT but to phrase the whole PewDiePie situation like this is utterly disgusting and a misguided narrative.