Youtube Demonitization of Videos

[The Human Q-Tip]

This is an odd conversation.

Some of the people responding to the criticism of YT by pointing out that it is a private organization, and can therefore do what it wants, are some of the same people advocating for greater restrictions on the ability of companies like YT to influence politics.

Anyway, I think the legitimate concern here is that YT will actually enforce/interpret this policy in a biased manner that will lean significantly left. Left-leaning videos will be permitted to make money, right leaning ones won't. They'll probably end up moving more towards actually banning, not just demonetizing.

I don't like it, but it should remain legal for them to do it.

But the response to this kind of thing should be for those on the right to complain loudly about it, to point out that bias, and criticize it. The claim that people shouldn't be upset or criticize YT because "they have a right to do it" is just bogus. Calling out/criticizing bias is the only legitimate direct response to speech/conduct you consider biased.

Having the legal right to say/do something - whether you're YT, Kaepernick, or Donald Trump - doesn't have shit to do with whether or not you should be supported or criticized for what you choose to say or do.

 

[gourimoko]

This is an odd conversation.

Some of the people responding to the criticism of YT by pointing out that it is a private organization, and can therefore do what it wants, are some of the same people advocating for greater restrictions on the ability of companies like YT to influence politics.

Influence elections through electioneering.... I actually mentioned this in this thread.

So just to be clear, the specifics of the argument being made about Google influencing elections is quite different than the policy changes being made by Google/YT with respect to it's advertising.

In fact, these two things have literally nothing to do with each other.

I'm not sure if you're not up-to-speed on the issue, but YouTube is not targeting a particular ideological leaning here; they are saying what they will or won't pay for, and they won't pay for content that is not "advertiser-friendly."

That has nothing to do with Google/YouTube clandestinely manipulating search results by filtering content to the benefit of a particular candidate prior to an election; i.e., electioneering.

Anyway, I think the legitimate concern here is that YT will actually enforce/interpret this policy in a biased manner that will lean significantly left.

I'm not sure what you mean by this in a real or practical sense?

Left-leaning videos will be permitted to make money, right leaning ones won't.

There's no evidence of this at all.

They'll probably end up moving more towards actually banning, not just demonetizing.

There's no evidence of this either; this is nothing more than a rather obvious slippery slope argument.

Moreover, left-leaning media was hit the hardest by this decision, as evidenced by the top sites' commentary on this. The largest right-wing outlets on YT generally aren't monetized because they're not YouTube partners.

I don't like it, but it should remain legal for them to do it.

What's not to like? YouTube is cleaning up the space; that's a good thing. I'm not sure why you would say you "don't like it?"

But the response to this kind of thing should be for those on the right to complain loudly about it, to point out that bias, and criticize it.

The reason you don't see this is because the left was hit harder.... Again, where in the policy is there political bias?

Maybe you're extrapolating a political issue for the right that isn't there? Somehow manufacturing outrage?

I mean, I'm not sure how you've walked away from this thinking that the right has a reason to complain?

Again, I ask, what am I missing here?

The claim that people shouldn't be upset or criticize YT because "they have a right to do it" is just bogus.

But that's not the claim, that's just one premise entailed within the whole argument; that is to say, we've established that this is not censorship and the only entity with a right to free speech in this instance is YouTube not the content creators.

The argument here is that this is what's genuinely best for YouTube, and I agree with their decision. You may not, but again, I don't really understand why given there is no evidence whatsoever of bias; and, in this case, YouTube is discussing what it is or is not willing to pay for -- again why should it pay for objectionable content?

This is not a question of banning material based on political leanings... and I noticed you mentioned that in your argument. That's a red herring. The issue here is what is YouTube and it's ad partners willing to pay for; and no, I don't think it's reasonable to demand they pay for objectionable material.

Having the legal right to say/do something - whether you're YT, Kaepernick, or Donald Trump - doesn't have shit to do with whether or not you should be supported or criticized.

Criticized for what?? That's the ongoing question here..

What exactly are you criticizing them for??

If YouTube says "we're not paying for you to call another YouTuber a pedophile, regardless of how many views you get;" is that somehow wrong on their part? You understand that's a big problem on YT right now; i.e., a legal problem?

If YouTube says "we're not paying for gambling content," is that somehow wrong? You understand there is a massive class-action lawsuit that was just filed a month ago on this very subject?? YouTube is directly implicated in the case... You're saying this isn't in their interests??

If YouTube says "no, we're not paying for videos that talk about 9/11, or ISIS, or violence, or any of these topics; it's not what we want to pay for;" how is that wrong? If I'm advertising my product; no I don't want that product to be displayed during a video that talks about the melting point of steel and the deaths of 3,000 Americans.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the platform, but I think you've conflated this conversation with the one we had about Google (same company) and these two topics are completely different.

Not only does YouTube have every right to respond to the use of it's platform to promote objectionable material; but they also are well within reason to refuse to pay content creators who make content that is shocking or otherwise objectionable.

If you don't understand this; then I have to say, you really do not understand YouTube and how it works - and that goes for the content creators complaining about this, many of whom I have respect for but think they are confused about how the revenue sharing program actually works.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I'm not sure if you're not up-to-speed on the issue, but YouTube is not targeting a particular ideological leaning here; they are saying what they will or won't pay for, and they won't pay for content that is not "advertiser-friendly."

How do we know that what they judge to be "advertiser friendly" will not develop, over time, any kind of an ideological component? How do we know that advertisers, who themselves may be subject to pressure from interest groups, will not affect that "advertiser-friendly" determination as well?

What's not to like? YouTube is cleaning up the space; that's a good thing. I'm not sure why you would say you "don't like it?"

Because no matter what their stated intentions are, i do not trust them to actually administer this in a truly unbiased manner. Why should I, or anyone else, simply take that on faith?

The reason you don't see this is because the left was hit harder.... Again, where in the policy is there political bias?

You are focusing on the policy as written. I am talking about how it may be applied over the long term. And that shit happens behind the cuetain unless you pay very close attention.

Maybe you're extrapolating a political issue for the right that isn't there? Somehow manufacturing outrage?

Or perhaps i think that preemptively bitching about it, and actively looking for bias, may help ensure that the policy is actually enforced as you envision. And as long as that happens, i think it is fine.

I simply do not accept, on faith, that this policy would otherwise be administered in an entirely ideologically neutral manner. And frankly, Google has nobody to blame for that mistrust but themselves.

 

[Stark]

I made a Walking Dead death predictions video for season 6 last year and was just demonetized on it today. I think I say "shit" or something like once, and apparently that is too vulgar of content? Fuck outta here.

I already made a clean $85 off of that video that is already in my bank, so YT can go fuck themselves.

 

[gourimoko]

How do we know that what they judge to be "advertiser friendly" will not develop, over time, any kind of an ideological component?

We don't... But let's assume that it did; for the sake of argument. Should YouTube be required to pay for political content?

How do we know that advertisers, who themselves may be subject to pressure from interest groups, will not affect that "advertiser-friendly" determination as well?

They absolutely have influenced it; but how has that influence manifested itself in anyway that would be considered unreasonably biased at this point?

See Q-Tip, the problem here is that we're dealing with a slippery slope argument that projects a future that has little to nothing to do with the current issue.

Because no matter what their stated intentions are, i do not trust them to actually administer this in a truly unbiased manner.

Again, this complaint really doesn't make sense.

You're arguing that YouTube should have laxed standards when it comes to determining what they will or won't pay. You're also arguing that advertisers get no say in what content they are in turn paying for..

It's a nonsensical position... Of course YouTube can decide what content is worthy of their money and their advertisers money...

IF I make a video of myself rubbing my crotch with a head of lettuce and it gets 1 million views, should YouTube be forced to monetize that in some need to appear "fair?" Or, in their better interests, should we accept their decision to say "we're not paying for this? this is not the kind of content we're willing to partner with?"

Why should I, or anyone else, simply take that on faith?

Faith?

Where is the evidence to support the argument that YouTube is acting in a politically biased manner? Moreover, where have you derived this belief that YouTube owes fairness to people it gives money to? That seems like an outrageous claim to me; and again, this has nothing to do with ideology because again, the guys screaming the loudest are leftist outlets that I happen to be subscribed to (see: TYT).

You are focusing on the policy as written. I am talking about how it may be applied over the long term. And that shit happens behind the cuetain unless you pay very close attention.

I'm focusing on it as a business that pays Google Adwords and deals with AdSense, Google Marketing and Merchant accounts and the accounts of my clients. I'm focusing on it as someone who is well aware of how YouTube works and how and why this decision was not only made but why it is necessary.

Q-Tip, again, this has nothing to do with ideology; the left is furious about these changes. I disagree with them vehemently.

These changes are for the best for YouTube as a platform, and I'm trying to understand this argument that this is somehow censorship or somehow dangerous or stiffing discussion, but I cannot for the life of me understand the argument... It makes no sense. This is not censorship.. It's YouTube saying "we cannot pay you if you make material that violates these straight-forward guidelines..."

How is that problematic?

And if your argument ventures off into a thought-experiment of what YouTube might decide to do if it decides to start banning (non-objectionable) right-wing videos, then yes, I would agree with you that YT shouldn't do something like that... But you must understand, what we're talking about has nothing to do with banning your standard fare conservative media; and the videos that YouTube does ban that are right-wing do generally violate their Terms of Service in quite clear ways.

So, without some kind of understanding of what you mean in a specific sense, it's hard for me to relate it to what's actually happening with YouTube and in the YouTube community of users, content creators and advertisers.

Or perhaps i think that preemptively bitching about it, and actively looking for bias, may help ensure that the policy is actually enforced as you envision. And as long as that happens, i think it is fine.

But bitching about what??

People are talking about this as though YouTube is censoring a particular group or is somehow acting in a politically biased manner; but offering absolutely zero evidence to that effect.

What is there to bitch about???

Q-Tip; literally all that has happened is YouTube has said: "We will no longer pay you for content that is x,y,z."

That's it.... What's wrong with that?

I simply do not accept, on faith, that this policy would otherwise be administered in an entirely ideologically neutral manner.

SMH... Q-Tip, you're complaining about something that is not real. And you're saying, "well, it might happen someday in the future; so, we should raise hell."

What is it that you think is happening?

And frankly, Google has nobody to blame for that mistrust but themselves.

The YouTube policy that went into effect has nothing to do with Google's aggregation policies.

 

[gourimoko]

I made a Walking Dead death predictions video for season 6 last year and was just demonetized on it today. I think I say "shit" or something like once, and apparently that is too vulgar of content? Fuck outta here.

I already made a clean $85 off of that video that is already in my bank, so YT can go fuck themselves.

That's fine... There's tons of people getting demonetized. And I've gotten flack from some friends for supporting YouTube..

But again, people are misunderstanding where this money is coming from... YouTube ain't printing it in the backroom. And as an advertiser, no, generally speaking, I want to pay for content that is as unobjectionable as possible.

But, with your specific case, if all you said was "shit" then you could request an appeal and your video would likely be re-monetized.

But just to be clear; yes, YouTube is no longer paying for content with vulgar or profane language. Why? Because the people handing out checks don't want their ads associated with such content.....

 

[Stark]

That's fine... There's tons of people getting demonetized. And I've gotten flack from some friends for supporting YouTube..

But again, people are misunderstanding where this money is coming from... YouTube ain't printing it in the backroom. And as an advertiser, no, generally speaking, I want to pay for content that is as unobjectionable as possible.

But, with your specific case, if all you said was "shit" then you could request an appeal and your video would likely be re-monetized.

I wasn't exactly racking the income in from the video anymore anyways since it is over a year old, but I legit went and looked it up and all I said was "and as you've seen, Rick Grimes doesn't take any shit". That's legit the one swear I said over a 37 minute video and it got picked up within a day or two of this change?

I'm almost impressed with their censorship tech.

 

[gourimoko]

I wasn't exactly racking the income in from the video anymore anyways since it is over a year old, but I legit went and looked it up and all I said was "and as you've seen, Rick Grimes doesn't take any shit". That's legit the one swear I said over a 37 minute video and it got picked up within a day or two of this change?

Stark, you can likely get that video re-monetized.. And even if you can't, then if the video is important to you, you can edit it, re-post it, and place annotations in the original video linking all new views to the new edited video. You shouldn't really have to lose anything by this decision.

I'm almost impressed with their censorship tech.

I'm not sure if you're serious but, it's not censorship man... They didn't take the video down, right? They just said "we can't pay you for this..." That ain't "censorship"...

But the way it works is that Google is, just as they've done with music, using sound-pattern matching as well as speech-to-text algorithms to transcribe what you say. If objectionable material is detected, then the algorithm will err on the side of caution (with respect to spending other people's money, which is a good thing) and not continue monetizing the video.

Content creators can appeal this decision on the basis that the algorithms are not perfect.

But the policy is straight-forward... If you want $$$ don't break the policy.

And why is the policy in effect? Because the people handing out ends don't want to be paying for all kinds of ill-shit with their money. That's reasonable, right?

p.s.
You may not realize this, but there is a big problem on YT with respect to video content having nothing to do with the tags (which was the original method for assigning advertisements)... What YouTube started doing about a year ago (IIRC) was sampling videos to ensure that content related to the tags/thumbnail/title.

Now they're saying "we've done this for quite awhile now, but we're providing you an appeals process and rolling it out en masse." And with that, people are flipping out screaming "censorship."

 

[BooyaCS]

I wasn't exactly racking the income in from the video anymore anyways since it is over a year old, but I legit went and looked it up and all I said was "and as you've seen, Rick Grimes doesn't take any shit". That's legit the one swear I said over a 37 minute video and it got picked up within a day or two of this change?

I'm almost impressed with their censorship tech.

It also depends on the title and tags. Their bots have also been demonitizing videos that don't have swearing but have words like dead, depression, mental health and others in the tags and titles.

 

[gourimoko]

It also depends on the title and tags. Their bots have also been demonitizing videos that don't have swearing but have words like dead, depression, mental health and others in the tags and titles.

Yeah, that's definitely a good point.

 

[Stark]

Stark, you can likely get that video re-monetized.. And even if you can't, then if the video is important to you, you can edit it, re-post it, and place annotations in the original video linking all new views to the new edited video. You shouldn't really have to lose anything by this decision.





I'm not sure if you're serious but, it's not censorship man... They didn't take the video down, right? They just said "we can't pay you for this..." That ain't "censorship"...

But the way it works is that Google is, just as they've done with music, using sound-pattern matching as well as speech-to-text algorithms to transcribe what you say. If objectionable material is detected, then the algorithm will err on the side of caution (with respect to spending other people's money, which is a good thing) and not continue monetizing the video.

Content creators can appeal this decision on the basis that the algorithms are not perfect.

But the policy is straight-forward... If you want $$$ don't break the policy.

And why is the policy in effect? Because the people handing out ends don't want to be paying for all kinds of ill-shit with their money. That's reasonable, right?

p.s.
You may not realize this, but there is a big problem on YT with respect to video content having nothing to do with the tags (which was the original method for assigning advertisements)... What YouTube started doing about a year ago (IIRC) was sampling videos to ensure that content related to the tags/thumbnail/title.

Now they're saying "we've done this for quite awhile now, but we're providing you an appeals process and rolling it out en masse." And with that, people are flipping out screaming "censorship."

Censorship was the wrong word; I meant I'm like legit impressed that they dug up a year old, 37-minute video from a channel with ~150 subscribers and caught the one swear word I uttered throughout it. It's impressive tech if it's being done electronically, because there's no way in hell some talking head from YouTube actually sat through my video.

 

[gourimoko]

Censorship was the wrong word; I meant I'm like legit impressed that they dug up a year old, 37-minute video from a channel with ~150 subscribers and caught the one swear word I uttered throughout it. It's impressive tech if it's being done electronically, because there's no way in hell some talking head from YouTube actually sat through my video.

Scary though, isn't it?

 

[BooyaCS]

Censorship was the wrong word; I meant I'm like legit impressed that they dug up a year old, 37-minute video from a channel with ~150 subscribers and caught the one swear word I uttered throughout it. It's impressive tech if it's being done electronically, because there's no way in hell some talking head from YouTube actually sat through my video.

It is an automated bot and it is the same automated bot that they use for the appeal process. It goes over the Metadata, Title and Tags/Comments of the video (Rumor on the Comments TBH though).

The thing is this bot has been in existence for 2 years. Only after a few Youtubers made videos of the "ALT Porn CEO" going off on Lyft driver for a Hula Girl bobblehead in his car did this demonitization happen in bulk. That is why the majority of the community is saying that if ANYONE (not even advertisers as some videos demonitized still have ads running on them) can call a video questionable and the "catch all" is Not Advertiser Friendly.

And yes they have demonitized videos over 2-3 years old. It just seems ironic with the timing of blasting an SJW on Youtube do the demonitization come out (keep in mind Anitia Sarkeesian is part of the content advisory council on youtube (which determines what videos are offensive and which aren't). A little bit of background she has called telling someone online that you suck is a form of harassment and that it shouldn't be allowed.

 

[gourimoko]

It is an automated bot and it is the same automated bot that they use for the appeal process. It goes over the Metadata, Title and Tags/Comments of the video (Rumor on the Comments TBH though).

There's no indication, from what I can tell, that comments affect a video's ability to be monetized.

The thing is this bot has been in existence for 2 years. Only after a few Youtubers made videos of the "ALT Porn CEO" going off on Lyft driver for a Hula Girl bobblehead in his car did this demonitization happen in bulk.

Yeah; there's no evidence of causation here.

That is why the majority of the community is saying that if ANYONE (not even advertisers as some videos demonitized still have ads running on them)

Sigh.. This is misleading....

Content creators enable ads on their videos and request monetization. They may or may not get paid for their video views but ads may also play if the video is enabled for advertisements. If a video has ads, then the content creator is well aware of it.

The complaint here is that content creators are being robbed; but the reality is that they're not because that's not how the partner program works.

can call a video questionable and the "catch all" is Not Advertiser Friendly.

Because YouTube explicitly states in the ToS that the community can determine what is or is not objectionable; so, if you have a large portion of the community saying "we object to this," and that content somehow violates the ToS of the partner program then YouTube won't pay for it.

This isn't complex.

And yes they have demonitized videos over 2-3 years old.

Right, because those videos are receiving $$$ today with views.

It just seems ironic with the timing of blasting an SJW on Youtube do the demonitization come out (keep in mind Anitia Sarkeesian is part of the content advisory council on youtube (which determines what videos are offensive and which aren't).

So what?

Like... I'm extremely confused by this, and this notion about "SJWs" and all this shit... Like, what is really the point here?

YouTube is saying "don't do this if you want to get paid by us..." Where is this indignation coming from??

If what you're promoting is likely to upset a large viewership, why on Earth do I want my ads associated with your content??!?!

A little bit of background she has called telling someone online that you suck is a form of harassment and that it shouldn't be allowed.

If you make a video about another YouTuber to tell them "You Suck," and in essence, the purpose of your video is to essentially tear down another YouTuber; then yes, that violates the Terms of Service of YouTube.

And FWIW, Anitia Sarkeesian is often a target of these kinds of videos, and regardless of her ideological views (views I strongly disagree with, mind you), she should not be harassed online; nor should YouTube use it's ad partners' money to fund such endeavors.

Honestly Booya, when I read this, it tells me that you're imagining that YouTube is somehow some kind of playground for people to do inappropriate things without any repercussion whatsoever.. Where is there any notion of personal responsibility for the content being published on YouTube's platform? Why should YouTube have an "anything goes" policy? How does that benefit them and their ad partners?

 

[KI4MVP]

The thing with the internet is if one site like YouTube starts excessively demonetizing/censoring content, it opens up an opportunity for another company to fill that void and attract exclusive content. But even that company will do some censoring. First there is the issue of IP violations and other illegal activity that has to be banned. Second is there is a great divide between sites that allow porn and others that don't.