4 ms·

Demonetized.

rayiner 6y ago
Censorship by definition includes not only banning and deletion, but “suppression,” which fits denying monetization to particular content on a site otherwise designed for it. For example, it wouldn’t get around the first amendment for the government to say “we’re not banning this book, you just can’t charge money for it.” (I understand that Google as a private actor is permitted to engage in censorship while the government is not. My point is that demonetization is clearly censorship because of the government did it it would be illegal.)
- nickysielicki 6y ago
  Demonetization is not censorship, imho. They support YouTube through their advertisers, and their advertisers don't want to be affiliated with guns. It makes sense that they won't pay you for videos that they can't monetize -- they're just passing on the loss to the video producer. Beyond demonetization, YouTube did categorically ban videos demonstrating how to install and/or fabricate an autosear. In practice, this also extends to purely educational videos explaining how an autosear works.
  - inglor_cz 6y ago
    "their advertisers don't want to be affiliated with guns" Which ones? All of them? Who asked them? What about gun companies, they do not want any ads?
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    If you think that this isn't censorship, then I strongly encourage you to read Manufacturing Consent.
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      There is a difference between for-profit content and free speech.
      - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
        Sorry, I'm not sure how this is a reply to my comment. Can you clarify?
        rbanffy 6y ago
        The right to say something is not to be confused with the right to be paid to say something. In fact, monetization creates a perverse incentive to prioritize financial gain over informing the public.
        disgruntledphd2 6y ago
        So, the central point (or one of them, at least) of Manufacturing Consent is that news/media organisations are shaped by what advertisers desire, such that the reporting is mostly friendly to a capitalistic worldview. This is 100% analogous to what Google are doing with respect to demonetising youtube videos, and troubling for exactly the same reasons.
        rbanffy 6y ago
        Isn't it troubling that the videos are not created to inform, but to keep the audience paying for them?
        disgruntledphd2 6y ago
        Yeah of course. But I'm not sure what else one would expect, given our societal structure.
        rbanffy 6y ago
        If we can remove one perverse incentive at a time, it's still progress, but i agree that, without punishment for misinforming the public, and it's delicate to draw lines there, the problem won't go away.
- remarkEon 6y ago
  I think you should extend this thought a little bit further. If tech companies start deciding that certain gun content (to use the example in the parent) shouldn't be allowed, that will of course have an effect on the general population's opinion about guns and gun rights given their market control of online video. To me it's fairly obvious that this channel of media can be used to control what people think is "normal" or "allowed".
  - inglor_cz 6y ago
    At the risk of Godwinizing the thread, one of the first oppressive operation against Jews in the Reich was a campaign "Kauft nicht bei den Juden" (Do not buy from Jews). It did not carry weight of the law, you COULD still go to a Jewish shop and buy something, but the message was that the society disapproves, the state disapproves and you are a dirty being for doing so. The result was severing of an important daily interaction between Jews and non-Jews. Once such casual contacts were severed, it was easier to convince the society that all Jews were evil, without the people having doubts like "but ironmonger Katz is such a nice person!" They did not know ironmonger Katz anymore, only a caricature of his people.
    - rbanffy 6y ago
      This is not the same thing. The campaign you refer to was created to harm a large group. Demonetization targets only the content makers but not their audience.
      - TMWNN 6y ago
        What, do content makers make videos purely for themselves? That's the whole point of monetization. As rayiner said, the government can't get around the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech by only allowing the seller of a work to do so for free. Demonetization of certain topics on a blanket basis means that content creators have less incentive to make videos that they would have made otherwise, harming their potential audience.
- tptacek 6y ago
  When's the last time you saw a commercial for a handgun on TV?

Demonetized.

Censorship by definition includes not only banning and deletion, but “suppression,” which fits denying monetization to particular content on a site otherwise designed for it. For example, it wouldn’t get around the first amendment for the government to say “we’re not banning this book, you just can’t charge money for it.” (I understand that Google as a private actor is permitted to engage in censorship while the government is not. My point is that demonetization is clearly censorship because of the government did it it would be illegal.)

nickysielicki 6y ago
Demonetization is not censorship, imho. They support YouTube through their advertisers, and their advertisers don't want to be affiliated with guns. It makes sense that they won't pay you for videos that they can't monetize -- they're just passing on the loss to the video producer. Beyond demonetization, YouTube did categorically ban videos demonstrating how to install and/or fabricate an autosear. In practice, this also extends to purely educational videos explaining how an autosear works.
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  "their advertisers don't want to be affiliated with guns" Which ones? All of them? Who asked them? What about gun companies, they do not want any ads?
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  If you think that this isn't censorship, then I strongly encourage you to read Manufacturing Consent.
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    There is a difference between for-profit content and free speech.
    - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
      Sorry, I'm not sure how this is a reply to my comment. Can you clarify?
      - rbanffy 6y ago
        The right to say something is not to be confused with the right to be paid to say something. In fact, monetization creates a perverse incentive to prioritize financial gain over informing the public.
        disgruntledphd2 6y ago
        So, the central point (or one of them, at least) of Manufacturing Consent is that news/media organisations are shaped by what advertisers desire, such that the reporting is mostly friendly to a capitalistic worldview. This is 100% analogous to what Google are doing with respect to demonetising youtube videos, and troubling for exactly the same reasons.
        rbanffy 6y ago
        Isn't it troubling that the videos are not created to inform, but to keep the audience paying for them?
        disgruntledphd2 6y ago
        Yeah of course. But I'm not sure what else one would expect, given our societal structure.
        rbanffy 6y ago
        If we can remove one perverse incentive at a time, it's still progress, but i agree that, without punishment for misinforming the public, and it's delicate to draw lines there, the problem won't go away.
remarkEon 6y ago
I think you should extend this thought a little bit further. If tech companies start deciding that certain gun content (to use the example in the parent) shouldn't be allowed, that will of course have an effect on the general population's opinion about guns and gun rights given their market control of online video. To me it's fairly obvious that this channel of media can be used to control what people think is "normal" or "allowed".
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  At the risk of Godwinizing the thread, one of the first oppressive operation against Jews in the Reich was a campaign "Kauft nicht bei den Juden" (Do not buy from Jews). It did not carry weight of the law, you COULD still go to a Jewish shop and buy something, but the message was that the society disapproves, the state disapproves and you are a dirty being for doing so. The result was severing of an important daily interaction between Jews and non-Jews. Once such casual contacts were severed, it was easier to convince the society that all Jews were evil, without the people having doubts like "but ironmonger Katz is such a nice person!" They did not know ironmonger Katz anymore, only a caricature of his people.
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    This is not the same thing. The campaign you refer to was created to harm a large group. Demonetization targets only the content makers but not their audience.
    - TMWNN 6y ago
      What, do content makers make videos purely for themselves? That's the whole point of monetization. As rayiner said, the government can't get around the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech by only allowing the seller of a work to do so for free. Demonetization of certain topics on a blanket basis means that content creators have less incentive to make videos that they would have made otherwise, harming their potential audience.
tptacek 6y ago
When's the last time you saw a commercial for a handgun on TV?