5 ms·

YouTube doesn't want to be demonetized by advertisers, so they are demonetizing Brand. It's basic reputation management / income stream protection. Brand is fre

YouTube doesn't want to be demonetized by advertisers, so they are demonetizing Brand. It's basic reputation management / income stream protection. Brand is free to go elsewhere or set up his own streaming / video publishing service.

christkv 3y ago
I doubt YouTube worries about being demonetized by advertisers at this point. Where exactly will this advertisers go to advertise on long form videos otherwise?
- adrr 3y ago
  Every streamer out there? Netflix, Hulu, Paramount, Disney,ESPN, Tubi,Plex,Plutotv etc.
- angulardragon03 3y ago
  They’ll just go to other forms of media, and/or skip long form videos altogether. With platforms like TikTok also being extremely popular, advertisers may simply choose to focus their budgets on these platforms instead of YouTube.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > I doubt YouTube worries about being demonetized by advertisers at this point. They've been the target of that twice at least, in 2017 over hate speech [1], in 2019 over pedos[2]. Large brands spend insane amounts of money on advertising, and they do not want their content to appear next to people facing allegations of sexual misconduct or otherwise bad behavior. Hell just look at Twitter and how much advertising income they lost in the matter of a few months [4], as brands didn't want their ads to show up next to actual Nazis [3]. And instead of recognizing this and getting rid of the Nazis, Musk wants to sue the ADL [5]. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/24/15053990/google-youtube-advertising-boycott-hate-speech https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/24/15053990/google-youtube-a... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jilliandonfro/2019/02/21/advertisers-boycott-youtube--and-if-history-is-a-guide-theyll-be-back-soon/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jilliandonfro/2019/02/21/advert... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/06/twitter-ads-elon-musk/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/06/twitter... [4] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66217641 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66217641 [5] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/05/elon-musk-sue-adl-x-twitter https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/05/elon-musk...
  - thallium205 3y ago
    I’m pretty sure YouTube still shows ads on demonetized channels.
    - eropple 3y ago
      They will show ads between videos, and maybe they do that when one or the other is demonetized, but they do not show interstitials on demonetized channels.
      - developer93 3y ago
        Sounds like an inventive to go watch some Brand..
        eropple 3y ago
        It's not, he sucks.
        developer93 3y ago
        Well yes, it was a slightly flippant comment.
  - nullifidian 3y ago
    Maybe a bit too conspiratorial but I can easily imagine some Google exec asking advertisers: "Give as a casus belli for a crack down on free speech".
    - judge2020 3y ago
      It is way too conspiratorial, simply because when it's demonetized it's still shown completely for free with no limits on number of views. It's as simple as the execs at every fortune 500 company with an advertising budget being religious in some form and being shown "here's your Diet Coke ad next to <insert spiderman+elsa/terorrism/podcast debating if hitler was bad>" by someone with an agenda/some journalist' article. Even if they don't really care, it's enough of a reason to go to Google and get a marketing discount for x years.
FormerBandmate 3y ago
YouTube is a massive platform and inherently has power. People used the exact same argument for Twitter but I don’t think you can deny that arbitrary management choices made a huge difference in how it worked, which had substantial impacts that a private company shouldn’t have.
- ncallaway 3y ago
  I continue to assert that the solution to this is not to regulate how an individual private company decides who to associate with (which is a core First Amendment right), but rather to pass strong anti-trust laws to prevent any one company from individually having enough power over society. YouTube should be free to decide who can be on its platform however it sees fit. However, YouTube shouldn’t hold such power over us that when they arbitrarily ban someone it severely harms them.
  - majormajor 3y ago
    Or just aggressively tax large/high-revenue companies. And speaking of taxing! I'm not sure why highly-successful companies draw so many more "they have too much power" criticisms than highly-successful individuals who often have power over media companies and spend a lot on lobbying politicians.
    - ncallaway 3y ago
      For the broader media ecosystem, we used to have stronger regulations preventing individual entities (be them individuals of corporations) from owning certain percentages of the media ecosystem. I’d be a fan of modernizing that concept, defining social media companies as being a part of the media ecosystem, and lowering that ownership percentage. Force individual social media companies to be broken up into smaller entities, and force a rollback of a lot of the traditional media consolidation.
      - vel0city 3y ago
        It's easy to imagine such things when it relates to owning all the movie theaters or television stations in a given market. But if it's just because people choose to type YouTube into their browser or upload to YouTube over competitors, how do propose to do it?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
EGreg 3y ago
Don’t you mean they are managing their Brand? ducks
corethree 3y ago
>Brand is free to go elsewhere or set up his own streaming / video publishing service. Obviously there's problems with this reasoning right? Why bother mentioning pointless rationalization here? You and Youtube both know there's only one video service that offers long form format and that's youtube themselves. Just tell it like it is. Youtube having a monopoly over online video content is effectively gagging and censoring Brand because of the alleged crimes influencing their business. It is not technically eliminating freedom of speech but it is both practically and effectively doing the same thing. This points to a an overall problem within the US today regarding freedom of speech. We effectively do not have freedom of speech because all public speaking platforms are controlled by business interests. That's what's going on here. Not some "oh you're free to go to another video service" bullshit.
- tibbydudeza 3y ago
  He is on Rumble - youtube is a commercial company - they can decide who and what they want on their platform.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
  I don't think we should equate demonetization with censorship.
  - randomcarbloke 3y ago
    Exactly, he can still post his incoherent rhetoric on YouTube, he just can’t generate revenue from it.
    - defrost 3y ago
      He can mention other means for his fans to support him (Patreon et al) and fund raise | blog elsewhere with links to youtube, etc. It's not beyond the bounds of reason that he may even see an increase in revenue over a longer time period as a result of wearing sackcloth and ashes and complaining about youtube .. just not direct YT revenue.
    - 3y ago
benj111 3y ago
[flagged]
- valdiorn 3y ago
  > Ultimately the citizens of N Korea are 'free' to move elsewhere They literally are not. They are held in by landmines and barbed wire. Nobody is going to execute Brand and his entire extended family if he moves away from YouTube. But that WILL happen if you leave North Korea. Quit your sh*t.
  - benj111 3y ago
    Ultimately you can climb over the barbed wire fence and jump over the land mines. They absolutely have agency to try. Just the same as Brand has agency to set up his own YouTube alternative. Where do you want to set the limits? Is it at you and your extended family being executed? What about starving people in Africa? They won't be executed if they leave, so it's their own fault for staying? What about USians that want an abortion? They can travel to another country, what about the first world unemployed in a recession? They could travel off to Africa and subsistence farm rather than complain about their mortgage. Brand doesn't have a practical alternative to YouTube, so simply saying he can go elsewhere is stupid.
    - mvuijlst 3y ago
      He'll be warmly welcomed at X.
- enaaem 3y ago
  Why should he go? He is not being censored. He is still allowed to post videos, ask for Patreon support, sell tshirts etc… Youtube simply cancelled their commercial partnership.
- TheGigaChad 3y ago
  [dead]
- weeblewobble 3y ago

christkv 3y ago

I doubt YouTube worries about being demonetized by advertisers at this point. Where exactly will this advertisers go to advertise on long form videos otherwise?

adrr 3y ago
Every streamer out there? Netflix, Hulu, Paramount, Disney,ESPN, Tubi,Plex,Plutotv etc.
angulardragon03 3y ago
They’ll just go to other forms of media, and/or skip long form videos altogether. With platforms like TikTok also being extremely popular, advertisers may simply choose to focus their budgets on these platforms instead of YouTube.
mschuster91 3y ago
> I doubt YouTube worries about being demonetized by advertisers at this point. They've been the target of that twice at least, in 2017 over hate speech [1], in 2019 over pedos[2]. Large brands spend insane amounts of money on advertising, and they do not want their content to appear next to people facing allegations of sexual misconduct or otherwise bad behavior. Hell just look at Twitter and how much advertising income they lost in the matter of a few months [4], as brands didn't want their ads to show up next to actual Nazis [3]. And instead of recognizing this and getting rid of the Nazis, Musk wants to sue the ADL [5]. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/24/15053990/google-youtube-advertising-boycott-hate-speech https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/24/15053990/google-youtube-a... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jilliandonfro/2019/02/21/advertisers-boycott-youtube--and-if-history-is-a-guide-theyll-be-back-soon/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jilliandonfro/2019/02/21/advert... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/06/twitter-ads-elon-musk/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/06/twitter... [4] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66217641 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66217641 [5] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/05/elon-musk-sue-adl-x-twitter https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/05/elon-musk...
- thallium205 3y ago
  I’m pretty sure YouTube still shows ads on demonetized channels.
  - eropple 3y ago
    They will show ads between videos, and maybe they do that when one or the other is demonetized, but they do not show interstitials on demonetized channels.
    - developer93 3y ago
      Sounds like an inventive to go watch some Brand..
      - eropple 3y ago
        It's not, he sucks.
        developer93 3y ago
        Well yes, it was a slightly flippant comment.
- nullifidian 3y ago
  Maybe a bit too conspiratorial but I can easily imagine some Google exec asking advertisers: "Give as a casus belli for a crack down on free speech".
  - judge2020 3y ago
    It is way too conspiratorial, simply because when it's demonetized it's still shown completely for free with no limits on number of views. It's as simple as the execs at every fortune 500 company with an advertising budget being religious in some form and being shown "here's your Diet Coke ad next to <insert spiderman+elsa/terorrism/podcast debating if hitler was bad>" by someone with an agenda/some journalist' article. Even if they don't really care, it's enough of a reason to go to Google and get a marketing discount for x years.

FormerBandmate 3y ago

YouTube is a massive platform and inherently has power. People used the exact same argument for Twitter but I don’t think you can deny that arbitrary management choices made a huge difference in how it worked, which had substantial impacts that a private company shouldn’t have.

ncallaway 3y ago
I continue to assert that the solution to this is not to regulate how an individual private company decides who to associate with (which is a core First Amendment right), but rather to pass strong anti-trust laws to prevent any one company from individually having enough power over society. YouTube should be free to decide who can be on its platform however it sees fit. However, YouTube shouldn’t hold such power over us that when they arbitrarily ban someone it severely harms them.
- majormajor 3y ago
  Or just aggressively tax large/high-revenue companies. And speaking of taxing! I'm not sure why highly-successful companies draw so many more "they have too much power" criticisms than highly-successful individuals who often have power over media companies and spend a lot on lobbying politicians.
  - ncallaway 3y ago
    For the broader media ecosystem, we used to have stronger regulations preventing individual entities (be them individuals of corporations) from owning certain percentages of the media ecosystem. I’d be a fan of modernizing that concept, defining social media companies as being a part of the media ecosystem, and lowering that ownership percentage. Force individual social media companies to be broken up into smaller entities, and force a rollback of a lot of the traditional media consolidation.
    - vel0city 3y ago
      It's easy to imagine such things when it relates to owning all the movie theaters or television stations in a given market. But if it's just because people choose to type YouTube into their browser or upload to YouTube over competitors, how do propose to do it?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

EGreg 3y ago

Don’t you mean they are managing their Brand? ducks

corethree 3y ago

>Brand is free to go elsewhere or set up his own streaming / video publishing service. Obviously there's problems with this reasoning right? Why bother mentioning pointless rationalization here? You and Youtube both know there's only one video service that offers long form format and that's youtube themselves. Just tell it like it is. Youtube having a monopoly over online video content is effectively gagging and censoring Brand because of the alleged crimes influencing their business. It is not technically eliminating freedom of speech but it is both practically and effectively doing the same thing. This points to a an overall problem within the US today regarding freedom of speech. We effectively do not have freedom of speech because all public speaking platforms are controlled by business interests. That's what's going on here. Not some "oh you're free to go to another video service" bullshit.

tibbydudeza 3y ago
He is on Rumble - youtube is a commercial company - they can decide who and what they want on their platform.
0xDEAFBEAD 3y ago
I don't think we should equate demonetization with censorship.
- randomcarbloke 3y ago
  Exactly, he can still post his incoherent rhetoric on YouTube, he just can’t generate revenue from it.
  - defrost 3y ago
    He can mention other means for his fans to support him (Patreon et al) and fund raise | blog elsewhere with links to youtube, etc. It's not beyond the bounds of reason that he may even see an increase in revenue over a longer time period as a result of wearing sackcloth and ashes and complaining about youtube .. just not direct YT revenue.
  - 3y ago

benj111 3y ago

[flagged]

valdiorn 3y ago
> Ultimately the citizens of N Korea are 'free' to move elsewhere They literally are not. They are held in by landmines and barbed wire. Nobody is going to execute Brand and his entire extended family if he moves away from YouTube. But that WILL happen if you leave North Korea. Quit your sh*t.
- benj111 3y ago
  Ultimately you can climb over the barbed wire fence and jump over the land mines. They absolutely have agency to try. Just the same as Brand has agency to set up his own YouTube alternative. Where do you want to set the limits? Is it at you and your extended family being executed? What about starving people in Africa? They won't be executed if they leave, so it's their own fault for staying? What about USians that want an abortion? They can travel to another country, what about the first world unemployed in a recession? They could travel off to Africa and subsistence farm rather than complain about their mortgage. Brand doesn't have a practical alternative to YouTube, so simply saying he can go elsewhere is stupid.
  - mvuijlst 3y ago
    He'll be warmly welcomed at X.
enaaem 3y ago
Why should he go? He is not being censored. He is still allowed to post videos, ask for Patreon support, sell tshirts etc… Youtube simply cancelled their commercial partnership.
TheGigaChad 3y ago
[dead]
weeblewobble 3y ago