A couple days ago, a gun channel was taken off youtube. Youtube shortly restores it and says it was taken down because it was thought to have violated the Google+ TOS, but it turned out to be nothing. Several other youtubers and fans expressed their concern, considering the highly suspicious timing and Google's already widely known stance. Tonight it was taken down again. Is this pure stupidity, or flagrant censorship?
"Should they do it if they want to be friendly to new creators? No."
Is YouTube friendly to new content creators? Absolutely. Anyone can create content and post it up at zero cost to a potential audience of billions.
Is YouTube friendly to new content creators who create content for the purpose of making money? That's a different question altogether.
And it's a question that YouTube is best positioned to ask since it's its own bottom line that the answer will affect.
Yes, there is evidence. I've explained it throughout my replies. Read my replies to Max and Liam specifically.
And who gives a crap if it's a public service or not? Who is saying it is? Who is saying it should be? Who is calling for government intervention?
You've only produced evidence that YT has in the past acted the best interest of its bottom line by shutting down channels that scare off advertisers.
In any event, the temporary shuttering of a gun channel does not seem to fall in that category and no evidence suggests that it was an attempt to stifle legitimate political expression on YT just because YT execs personally do not like the gun channel's views.
I again ask, who here is arguing for youtube not having the rights of any other private entity? Who? Was your statement an honest argument or not?
1. The youtubers I mentioned getting censored previously are in a different league than the ones being punished now.
2. If they were doing it only for their bottom line why did they temporarily shut down a gun channel *only* during a heated gun debate? Why did they do the equivalent of shadowbanning PragerU instead of outright telling them to stop?
If enough reports are received about a channel, twitter account, Facebook, etc. the course of action is to take down that profile receiving all the reporting, and investigate ASAP. Why do you insist it is YT trying to censor, rather then an organized effort by some other group to get an account taken down?
I posted about this case and said that it is motivated by the desire to censor. By demonstrating the proven motives of the advertisers, and bringing to light Youtube's proclivity for censorship, I have sufficiently proved it. Nowhere have I said that this particular case is in itself censorship. When I denied saying that earlier, you said that I did, bringing up something I said about a different case. I posted this new instance on this thread because it is related, and shows Youtube's past transgressions. Frankly if I didn't know you better than it, I would suspect sophistry.
And another thing, why would I consider the number of people who agree with me when forming my opinion based on observation and deduction? Both you and Clinton have made an appeal to the masses. Why?
"By demonstrating the proven motives of the advertisers"
We disagree. Their motives are to not have their brand associated. Not to censor.
"bringing to light Youtube's proclivity for censorship, I have sufficiently proved it."
No. You haven't. They don't have a proclivity for censorship. They have a proclivity for blinding enforcing TOS, paying too much attention to anonymous reports, and looking for money for their investors - all may be problematic. But they are not censorship.
"Both you and Clinton have made an appeal to the masses. Why?"
I'm not really - just pointing out that we can arrive at the same conclusion, but that the reasons are different. I don't disagree that this is a problem, they just disagree on attributing motivation that is not supported by evidence. You are not using observation and deduction, you are making assertions and claims to knowledge you don't have because it fits your own narrative of conservative oppression, or whatever.
This thread is still percolating along?
Just in case some folks hadn't noticed, companies and their advertising agencies have ALWAYS determined what are appropriate venues for advertising their products.
What's happening with YouTube is simply that the vendors and advertisers are merely asserting their right to specify the placement of their advertising.
YouTube was placing advertising on the basis of their algorithms, and not considering whether the ad placement was appropriate. AoM had members complain about exactly that in the past. The company that was placing ads on AoM was, among other things, routinely putting women's clothing ads on the site's main page.
In a similar vein, I could see GM complaining that Ford and Dodge ads were attached to GM's YouTube posts...or the makers of Viagra complaining that their ads were appearing on YouTube posts about Barbie dolls or My Little Pony.
Bottom Line, internet advertising is still a "young field." As such it hadn't developed the tools to appropriately place ads, and given the strong technical only bias of the service providers, there simply aren't enough experienced "ad men" to edit ad placement.
I've heard a bit about Youtube demonetizing some channels with controversial content lately, though the complaints seem to be coming from YT folks of various political stripes, including some progressives and/or atheists such as "SecularTalk".
If there's a trend from what I've gathered, it's that YT now seems to be favoring channels with "family friendly" content, and demonetizing channels with controversial content.
I suppose it's a double-edged sword, because to be honest there's a fair amount of content on YT which is culturally and intellectually vapid, such as "TheAmazingAtheist", which I consider pretty much to be rubbish, so that's the type of channel I'm not sad to see get the shaft. Seems some folks will just half to get a real job now instead of creating clickbait videos about "sex robots" and other vapid nonsense.