4 ms·

One of her complaints was that YouTube age-restricted her yoga videos (which were modest by Western standard, she was just wearing shorts, a shirt and no socks)

One of her complaints was that YouTube age-restricted her yoga videos (which were modest by Western standard, she was just wearing shorts, a shirt and no socks), while not age-restricting much more explicit Nicki Minaj and Miley Cyrus videos. Is there any explanation to why YouTube does this?

Nuzzerino 9y ago
That depends on your definition of explanation. There are loads of complaints and theories. Here's the official policy: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en I'm really not a fan of the policy, and it would be a real shame if it wasn't changed. But it would also be a shame if it was changed because of a shooting. It shouldn't have come to this in the first place.
- nailer 9y ago
  The presence of the 'Advertiser-friendly content guidelines' document isn't an answer to the question, which is why the guidelines aren't consistently applied.
- verylittlemeat 9y ago
  She had a pretty good point. Any given popular music video is loaded with borderline porn. Why were her fully clothed yoga videos (that weren't even questionably sexual) not allowed but the former were?
  - silveroriole 9y ago
    Part of this is obvious: youtube restriction policies are largely based on what is advertiser-friendly, and popular music videos are advertiser-friendly by definition. I don’t know what caused her videos to be demonetised, but she’s not wrong - it does seem pretty much arbitrary with no proper channel for disputing it.
    - prawn 9y ago
      Is it possible that the decision to demonetise or age-restrict was algorithmic, then she was too small-fry to get any interest/reconsideration from support? We've heard loads of stories of people getting AdSense accounts shut unfairly and without recourse, for example. If that was your entire income, you already felt hard done by, and were so inclined, I could see how you might go off the rails.
      - silveroriole 9y ago
        For sure. Its like if your boss used an algorithm to decide your pay, and he wouldn’t disclose this algorithm to you. Some months “the algorithm” declares all your work bad and the boss pays you nothing. Meanwhile, you can see other employees’ much worse work getting paid regularly, essentially because they’re more popular and the boss likes them more. Anyone would feel unfairly treated under those circumstances, and would harbour a great deal of resentment. Most people would leave such a “job” or try to game the algorithm, but killing the boss does also look like an obvious (if wrong and probably unproductive) option!
        Consultant32452 9y ago
        This just made me realize how much of a pass Youtube gets compared to Uber. Youtube expects you to provide it with content and it may arbitrarily choose to never pay you for your work. With Uber you will at least get something.
        sutterbomb 9y ago
        With uber you are paid when you serve a customer. Creating content, on its own, is not serving either a customer or an end user, so there can be no expectation of payment.
        Consultant32452 9y ago
        Well, there are at least some cases in which Youtube pays people who upload videos. When a Youtuber does get paid, who is the customer?
- BRAlNlAC 9y ago
  >But it would also be a shame if it was changed because of a shooting. Well I put this 100% on the greed of Alphabet/Google. Building up a huge base of creators on your platform over the course of a decade, only to bow to advertiser pressure over a slim minority of your videos and demonetize algorithmically is terrible, straight up inhumane really. Youtube represents some of these creators livelihoods, and they don't seem to recognize that; I really think that the salary levels in the Valley insulate people here from how much more money is worth literally everywhere else. Honestly I've been waiting for something like this to happen, it only seemed like a matter of time to me and unless distribution platforms are much more careful about how they demonetize going forward, I don't think it will be the last. They should be promoting a campaign to shame their advertisers for acting so rashly and putting this front and center. "See what happens when you force a major overhaul of advertisements? People lose their livelihoods and lives. People think less of you on Youtube because we can't control our creators calling you out for demonetizing, it's bad PR and we're gonna make it worse because these actions resulted in this tradgedy."
majani 9y ago
The big boys like VEVO get on YouTube's "Preferred Partner" program where the policies are way less strict. Last year Pewdiepie got kicked off the Preferred Partner program and makes jokes at the beginning of his videos about how he's constantly getting demonetized nowadays. Watch the first 1:20 of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBJcC6ZqVPY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBJcC6ZqVPY
mnarayan01 9y ago
Mix "other quite similar videos are explicit" with "other videos from the uploader are inappropriate for children" and pour it into an overly-aggressive automated algorithm.

Nuzzerino 9y ago

That depends on your definition of explanation. There are loads of complaints and theories. Here's the official policy: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en I'm really not a fan of the policy, and it would be a real shame if it wasn't changed. But it would also be a shame if it was changed because of a shooting. It shouldn't have come to this in the first place.

nailer 9y ago
The presence of the 'Advertiser-friendly content guidelines' document isn't an answer to the question, which is why the guidelines aren't consistently applied.
verylittlemeat 9y ago
She had a pretty good point. Any given popular music video is loaded with borderline porn. Why were her fully clothed yoga videos (that weren't even questionably sexual) not allowed but the former were?
- silveroriole 9y ago
  Part of this is obvious: youtube restriction policies are largely based on what is advertiser-friendly, and popular music videos are advertiser-friendly by definition. I don’t know what caused her videos to be demonetised, but she’s not wrong - it does seem pretty much arbitrary with no proper channel for disputing it.
  - prawn 9y ago
    Is it possible that the decision to demonetise or age-restrict was algorithmic, then she was too small-fry to get any interest/reconsideration from support? We've heard loads of stories of people getting AdSense accounts shut unfairly and without recourse, for example. If that was your entire income, you already felt hard done by, and were so inclined, I could see how you might go off the rails.
    - silveroriole 9y ago
      For sure. Its like if your boss used an algorithm to decide your pay, and he wouldn’t disclose this algorithm to you. Some months “the algorithm” declares all your work bad and the boss pays you nothing. Meanwhile, you can see other employees’ much worse work getting paid regularly, essentially because they’re more popular and the boss likes them more. Anyone would feel unfairly treated under those circumstances, and would harbour a great deal of resentment. Most people would leave such a “job” or try to game the algorithm, but killing the boss does also look like an obvious (if wrong and probably unproductive) option!
      - Consultant32452 9y ago
        This just made me realize how much of a pass Youtube gets compared to Uber. Youtube expects you to provide it with content and it may arbitrarily choose to never pay you for your work. With Uber you will at least get something.
        sutterbomb 9y ago
        With uber you are paid when you serve a customer. Creating content, on its own, is not serving either a customer or an end user, so there can be no expectation of payment.
        Consultant32452 9y ago
        Well, there are at least some cases in which Youtube pays people who upload videos. When a Youtuber does get paid, who is the customer?
BRAlNlAC 9y ago
>But it would also be a shame if it was changed because of a shooting. Well I put this 100% on the greed of Alphabet/Google. Building up a huge base of creators on your platform over the course of a decade, only to bow to advertiser pressure over a slim minority of your videos and demonetize algorithmically is terrible, straight up inhumane really. Youtube represents some of these creators livelihoods, and they don't seem to recognize that; I really think that the salary levels in the Valley insulate people here from how much more money is worth literally everywhere else. Honestly I've been waiting for something like this to happen, it only seemed like a matter of time to me and unless distribution platforms are much more careful about how they demonetize going forward, I don't think it will be the last. They should be promoting a campaign to shame their advertisers for acting so rashly and putting this front and center. "See what happens when you force a major overhaul of advertisements? People lose their livelihoods and lives. People think less of you on Youtube because we can't control our creators calling you out for demonetizing, it's bad PR and we're gonna make it worse because these actions resulted in this tradgedy."

majani 9y ago

The big boys like VEVO get on YouTube's "Preferred Partner" program where the policies are way less strict. Last year Pewdiepie got kicked off the Preferred Partner program and makes jokes at the beginning of his videos about how he's constantly getting demonetized nowadays. Watch the first 1:20 of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBJcC6ZqVPY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBJcC6ZqVPY

mnarayan01 9y ago

Mix "other quite similar videos are explicit" with "other videos from the uploader are inappropriate for children" and pour it into an overly-aggressive automated algorithm.