Corporate Imposed Censorship on YouTube 24 replies

Please wait...

Serio VIP Member

The Dane

149,846 XP

11th November 2006

3 Uploads

12,506 Posts

37 Threads

#1 2 years ago

Well, that's a headline smasher, but it's the truth. A lot of people who make a living off of YouTube are now in danger of losing their livelihood thanks to new guidelines from YouTube. The guidelines, intended to make the site more appealing for advertisers, basically demonetize any video that concerns "controversial" or "sensitive subjects". Congratulations; you're no longer allowed to make an investigational video on work conditions in China if you want to make money. But you're allowed to make a video about all the good things in China, because that's not controversial.

It's a heck of a big blow to anyone involved in political commentary, too, regardless of their position on the spectrum. A lot of people put a lot of effort into their content, and those that are truly serious about making a living off of entertainment may have to start looking at some of the less corporate alternatives.




c0mpliant VIP Member

50 XP

9th March 2003

0 Uploads

1,947 Posts

0 Threads

#2 2 years ago

While I don't particularly like it, it is their website and they're entitled to filter whatever content they want. If their advertisers aren't happy with the content and they still want to keep those advertisers onboard, they're entitled to do it.

It is a bit of a betrayal of those people that helped to make the network as big and popular as it is, but I suspect something will fill the void. If youtube is no longer the platform for them, then the content creators will just go elsewhere. I expect they will rely on donations (through patreon for example) in the short term and find a new content distribution network instead that will support their ad content generation.

I will also say that youtube isn't a charitable organisation even if it is within the google family, the content creators do create content but delivering that content around the world, quickly isn't cheap or easy. If they aren't able to recoup the costs of these large networks because advertisers don't like content they're being advertised on, I understand why they wouldn't want to pay over money to the content creators. They will inevitably lose content creators but but that is their loss. Hopefully the content creators can find the support they need elsewhere




Serio VIP Member

The Dane

149,846 XP

11th November 2006

3 Uploads

12,506 Posts

37 Threads

#3 2 years ago

I think the big problem is that these new rules will inevitably hit the content creators that actually earn YouTube the most money. Phillip DeFranco, for instance, is one of the biggest YouTubers on the website. He's one of the "originals". He has been there for a decade and has millions of views and subscribers. Now, he's being forced to leave because he can no longer provide the content he wants.

Then you have the "smaller" but nonetheless profitable YouTubers such as TotalBiscuit, PewDiePie, or Markiplier; all of whom can risk getting demonetized thanks to these rules. Hell, I don't even know a single YouTuber who isn't at risk right now. It's ridiculous. FileTrekker can no longer monetize his videos about bukake, either!




c0mpliant VIP Member

50 XP

9th March 2003

0 Uploads

1,947 Posts

0 Threads

#4 2 years ago

I suppose he'll have to keep up the bukake at the enthusiast level!

They have opened a bit of a hornets nest with it and I suspect they'll have to modify it mainly because it seems so open for interpretation. 




Serio VIP Member

The Dane

149,846 XP

11th November 2006

3 Uploads

12,506 Posts

37 Threads

#5 2 years ago

I personally feel offended by their actions. Maybe I should file a takedown request on their rules.




Lord Rumpuss V VIP Member

Follow A Paranoid

186,730 XP

25th November 2006

0 Uploads

18,518 Posts

0 Threads

#6 2 years ago

Ah the whole YouTube brouhaha.

I swear to god the SJW's got to them.

Put your tin foil hats on gents, coz' I suspect this is just them (Google) preparing the way for when Obunghole cedes control of the Net to U.N.


Signature brought to you by Carl's Jr.



Lindale Forum Mod

Mister Angry Rules Guy

240,791 XP

1st February 2010

0 Uploads

23,401 Posts

2 Threads

#7 2 years ago

Basically, YouTube wants to be the BBC.


filesnation_by_lindale_ff-da1kplo.png



Mikey Über Admin

Caffiene Fuelled Ravings of an undiagnosed Sociopath.

45,313 XP

13th June 2008

1 Uploads

3,846 Posts

213 Threads

#8 2 years ago

It's their world now. You live with their rules or you don't make money.


Mikey - GameFront.com - Lead Developer



FileTrekker Über Admin

I'm spending a year dead for tax reasons.

267,273 XP

15th December 2002

36 Uploads

22,456 Posts

1,700 Threads

#9 2 years ago
"c0mpliant"While I don't particularly like it, it is their website and they're entitled to filter whatever content they want. If their advertisers aren't happy with the content and they still want to keep those advertisers onboard, they're entitled to do it.

Unfortunately this is the truth.

It's hard to sell advertising when there's a chance your advert could play before a video showing graphic violence, controversial / racist / commentary supporting terrorism, soft pornography, scams, all sorts of stuff.

At the end of the day that's making it hard to sell ads, and they only survive by selling ads.

Now, should they be sensible in what they do and do not allow, yes. But unfortunately YouTube is becoming a victim of it's own success, and is now too big to police effectively.

  


Danny King | Community Manager | GameFront.com



Lindale Forum Mod

Mister Angry Rules Guy

240,791 XP

1st February 2010

0 Uploads

23,401 Posts

2 Threads

#10 2 years ago

I cannot help but think this is due to the rising popularity of Patreon. Seeing as how Youtubers make so much money from people donating on Patreon, then why do they need ad revenue anymore? Youtube needs to find an excuse to take away their ad revenue?


filesnation_by_lindale_ff-da1kplo.png