7 ms·
YouTube Demonetizes Anti-Vaccination Videos
- idDriven 8y agothis is the third repeat-appearing article in 24 hours?
- akerro 8y agoIs this censorship?
- jasonvorhe 8y agoIs Google a state?
- realusername 8y agoHow so? They are still free to post their videos, it's just now they can't profit from making videos which will end up killing people, that sounds reasonable to me.
- golergka 8y agoIt's a good decision, but it shouldn't be Google's place or role to make such decisions.
- simonh 8y agoWhy not? They provision the adverts, collect the payments and take a cut. It seems reasonable they should be able to decide not to do those things. On the face of it the alternative is to coerce them into doing so against their will. What is the argument for doing that?
- paulgb 8y agoAlso, as the article mentions, a number of advertisers "said they will take action to prevent their ads from running in front of anti-vax videos" Google could let the market solve this problem, but ultimately brands don't want to manage their own blacklists, they want to put their ads on platforms where they don't have to.
- Udik 8y agoIt's incredibly easy for youtube to exclude certain ads from certain channels. > they want to put their ads on platforms where they don't have to. Are they going to change platform? To what?
- paulgb 8y ago> Are they going to change platform? To what? The most likely immediate switch is not to a new platform but to a whitelist of the top 100 or 1k channels. Because of the Pareto principle, these channels get the majority of views anyway, and it's easier to manage a 100-1k whitelist than to blacklist every long-tail channel with content you don't like. You could argue that this is no different to YouTube in the short run because they still get the ad dollars, but it's in their best interest in the long-run to make the long tail inventory viable.
- jdietrich 8y agoIt's worth noting that YouTube have both a blacklist and a whitelist for advertising. Most videos that get "demonetised" are still eligible to earn ad revenue, but advertisers have to specifically opt-in to advertise against these videos. A small proportion of videos and creators are completely ineligible to earn revenue because they explicitly violate YouTube's ToS (usually on copyright grounds). Channels also require a minimum number of subscribers and views to be eligible for monetisation. This strikes me as a sensible compromise. Most content creators are frustrated by the lack of transparency and the often arbitrary nature of demonetisation, but they see it as essentially necessary to safeguard their livelihoods. YouTube didn't start demonetising videos apropos of nothing, they did it as a specific response to an advertiser boycott in 2017. To a great extent, demonetisation saved YouTube from economic failure.
- wetpaws 8y agoYou can still watch videos. They are not censored. There is just less incentive making them.
- demarq 8y agoI think it definitely is. Creators depend on Ad-Revenue so taking that away when they publish something you don't agree with is censorship. Also Google doesn't have to be a state to engage in censorship, anyone can be a censor i.e a parent who prevents their children watching shows with a gay character. I think the Anti-Vaccination movement is misleading and eventually harmful to public health. That said I think censorship should be something that should take place (if it has to) in a public office, not in a corporate boardroom. Here is what Google should have done. If you google anything related to depression google suggests suicide prevention hotlines. If facebook notices a popular article in your timeline it follows it with a snopes link to check if it is real. In other words Google should place a banner/ad/link that educates people on the real facts concerning Anti-Vaccination. At the end of the day, Google own their platform and can do whatever they want, but is it the right thing to do? Or better yet is there a better way.
- fredley 8y agoCensorship is not about the right to make a profit, it's about the right to publish.
- demarq 8y agoI think that is a brittle and somewhat superficial definition of censorship. Here is the Oxford dictionary definition: > The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security Note there is nothing there about "rights".
- tclancy 8y agoNothing about profits either.
- alistairSH 8y agoYouTube hasn't suppressed or prohibited any of those items. The videos are still there. They just don't have ads targeted at them.
- 8y ago
- blfr 8y agoPeople are trying various escape hatches in the responses but it obviously is. First, censorship can be carried out by non-state actors. Second, they treat these videos differently to intentionally limit their reach and appeal.
- auntienomen 8y agoYou can call this censorship if you like, but it's not the kind of censorship the government imposes. Anti-vaxxers are perfectly welcome to start their own website. No penalty is imposed when they share their misinformation. This is closer in spirit to a newspaper refusing to publish someone's letter.
- blfr 8y agoExcept this newspaper publishes all letters from all comers making it fairly obvious censorship. "Start your own website" is a brush-off when faced with corporate cenosrhip. People have tried it. Daily Stormer had several domains pulled, Gab had payment processors and Google Play ban them. There is a very real problem with corporate harassment for views their management finds worthy of targeting and people are dismissing it because they like the targeting. For now anyway.
- nkozyra 8y ago> People have tried it. Daily Stormer had several domains pulled, Gab had payment processors and Google Play ban them. I don't see this as a "problem," per se. There are no guarantees in life that you will have unfettered access to services like this, particularly if you use them in a manner the providers deem against their terms.
- armada651 8y agoJust because you have freedom of expression doesn't mean everyone is obligated to listen to it and pay you money for it. "Freedom of expression" is just that, the freedom to voice your opinion. It's not the "Right of attention". Furthermore, like any freedom there are limitations when your freedom starts endangering the freedom of others. We don't allow hate speech and death threats, so where does anti-vax fit in?
- buboard 8y agoI 'd like to suggest the word demonyzes for its double entendre
- solarkraft 8y agoI'm torn. On one hand it's great, this is a group we all hate and it's good PR for YouTube. On the other hand they also like to demonetize anything containing anything close to curse words or talking about anything too serious.
- alecco 8y ago...Unless it serves the agenda.
- t0astbread 8y agoAre there any notable movements to move away from YouTube coming from or supported by content creators? A lot of content creators have voiced concerns over demonetization and/or false positives regarding copyright violations but I've rarely heard anyone talk about collectively moving to a different platform without centralized control.
- seanwilson 8y agoI'm guessing YouTube bans videos that promote self-harm and harm to other humans? At what stage does anti-vaccination material cross that line? Governments already ban certain ways of promoting smoking and alcohol use in an effort to reduce harm. Why should anti-vaccination material be considered differently when people not being vaccinating can be directly linked to the death of others?
- geowwy 8y agoFair point, but junk food does way more damage than not vaccinating. Yet there's no crackdown on McDonalds
- seanwilson 8y agoA major difference is not vaccinating yourself can cause the death of others. How you encourage healthy eating and moderation is also a very complex topic in comparison. Vaccination is a much more binary choice (you vaccinate or you don't), and is highly effective.
- occamrazor 8y agoYes but the line between good and bad food is not as clear as the difference between vax and no-vax. Moreover some countries (eg France) already have restrictions on junk food advertising.
- raverbashing 8y agoDisproportional comparison that misses the point entirely.
- ryantriangles 8y agoThere is a crackdown on falsely promoting junk food as healthy or promoting it to people who don't know better (namely children). Maybe not on YouTube, but in various countries' legislation. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6154600.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6154600.stm https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106919100053167300 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106919100053167300 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmbills/110/04110.1-i.html https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmbills/110/0... (Section 3) It's not really a fair comparison, though. The main issue with anti-vaccination content is dangerous misinformation, not simply promoting something harmful. The other issue is that the people who fall for this content aren't usually the ones who get hurt, their innocent children are. It would only be a fair comparison if there were a large movement of very influential, powerful, and famous people posting "vegetables cause autism, and Burger King cures it" videos out there to hundreds of millions of viewers and a boom in child obesity tied directly to parents viewing them.
- dr_coffee 8y agoThis comes at a very important time, with measles outbreaks occuring around the world from Brooklyn to Japan. It is horrible because it puts at risk the lives of those who are too young to receive the vaccine. I completely agree with Google but I think that the government and/or healthcare workers need to make a bigger effort to teach the public about how vaccines work and how safe they are for the person receiving them.