YouTube Will Remove Ads of Channels Posting Offensive Videos

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
YouTube has outlined a new series of punishments that creators will face if they embrace harmful content: in addition to having their advertising suspended, creators will also be dropped from recommendations and premium categories such as YouTube Originals. These sanctions will last until the user removes or alters the offensive material.

The moves come at a time when the site is making a much more concerted effort to raise the overall quality of what is posted and shared and viewed by millions of people every day, after repeated accusations that it has facilitated a range of bad actors, from people peddling propaganda to influence elections, to those who are posting harmful content aimed at children.
 
i wish they can remove more ads from a lot of videos.

On the one hand, I hate looking at Logan's clownass doucheface,
On the other hand, youtube is full of pussies who are clamoring for un-american censorship. People are so worried about corrupting kids minds, which will be corrupted eventually anyway.
 
Honestly this is a good thing - Now it will mean that people will be forced finally move away from YouTube because videos are being pulled. The more of an agenda Google pushes on their platforms the more users they will loose.
 
Hate all you want but Google is a business can do what ever they want on their platform. Freedom of speech only offers protection from the government. You can get fired from any company if they deemed your speech/actions offensive and have no recourse. Until a new competitor comes out to challenge YouTube you either accept it or stop using it.
 
Private company, they can censor all they like as they like as long as it doesn't target protected statuses, like gender, race, etc.

And if you think YouTube is going to fail over this, you're out of your god damn mind.
 
vegeta535 said:
Hate all you want but Google is a business can do what ever they want on their platform. Freedom of speech only offers protection from the government. You can get fired from any company if they deemed your speech/actions offensive and have no recourse. Until a new competitor comes out to challenge YouTube you either accept it or stop using it.
Click to expand...

So if the government gets all private companies to censor political speech they don't like it's totes fine cause muh lolbertarianism? Or if all the incredibly powerful tech companies decide to censor one form of political speech together that's just fine? What about when the government starts unofficially running these corporations? Or when these corporations start unofficially running the government?

The cuckservatives just won't stop demanding to lose...
 
youtube is looking to recreate cable television for their corporate customers and its disgusting.
 
Snowdensjacket said:
So if the government gets all private companies to censor political speech they don't like it's totes fine cause muh lolbertarianism? Or if all the incredibly powerful tech companies decide to censor one form of political speech together that's just fine? What about when the government starts unofficially running these corporations? Or when these corporations start unofficially running the government?

The cuckservatives just won't stop demanding to lose...
Click to expand...
If they decide to do it on their own, it's fine. If the government tells them to censor anything, thats not fine. If they become a news outlet, then its not fine.
 
Kdawg said:
i wish they can remove more ads from a lot of videos.

On the one hand, I hate looking at Logan's clownass doucheface,
On the other hand, youtube is full of pussies who are clamoring for un-american censorship. People are so worried about corrupting kids minds, which will be corrupted eventually anyway.
Click to expand...

Not as if YouTube only answers to those United States of America at that.
 
EODetroit said:
Private company, they can censor all they like as they like
Click to expand...

I love when people tout this fallacy. "It's a private corporation, they can do whatever they want if it's within the law!"

No, they can't. Do you know what Google's main product is? The user. How about Google's largest concern? The interests of their shareholders. The intersection between those two groups is known as "doing business." The main concern for them with YouTube is actually external - companies who don't want their content infringed, which is only tangentially related to government regulation, and their relationship with advertisers. More critically, YouTube is considered a social platform, which leaves it open to criticism and undue influence; yet, Google has determinedly been close-lipped about their AI algorithms even as it has steadily eroded the value of smaller channels. Now it's moving towards political or ideological censorship - and for example H3H3, a known liberal, has spoken out about this multiple times. If you're willing to admit your platform is inherently social it becomes more than the property of a private company de facto due to the content and potential influence. This could in fact hurt YouTube (despite people laughing at the idea) but more importantly people arguing as you do are living in the 20th century in terms of thought patterns. The businesses of tomorrow will follow new rules.
 
Last edited:
Dekoth-E- said:
My problem with this is YT's definition of "Offensive material" is getting really broad.
Click to expand...
Broad is not a problem, undefined is the problem. They can declare anything as offensive and there is not a damn thing you can do about it. Youtube is run by software, not people. If you dispute any moderation you won't get to talk to a human representative unless you are a big profile youtuber (meaning millions of subs). It will simply generate a generic dismissive answer for you based on a number of templates.
The bulk of ad removal is done by algorithms anyway, which can be triggered (here the world actually applies in a literal sense) by any number of keywords that can be harmless depending on the context. For example it will de-monetize videos which have "naked" in the title, even if the video has nothing to do with nudity. And it can ignore videos that have certain trending keywords in it. Although none knows exactly for sure the exact workings.
Maxx said:
I love when people tout this fallacy. "It's a private corporation, they can do whatever they want if it's within the law!"

No, they can't. Do you know what Google's main product is? The user. How about Google's largest concern? The interests of their shareholders. The intersection between those two groups is known as "doing business." The main concern for them with YouTube is actually external - companies who don't want their content infringed, which is only tangentially related to government regulation, and their relationship with advertisers. More critically, YouTube is considered a social platform, which leaves it open to criticism and undue influence; yet, Google has determinedly been close-lipped about their AI algorithms even as it has steadily eroded the value of smaller channels. Now it's moving towards political or ideological censorship - and for example H3H3, a known liberal, has spoken out about this multiple times. If you're willing to admit your platform is inherently social it becomes more than the property of a private company de facto due to the content and potential influence. This could in fact hurt YouTube (despite people laughing at the idea) but more importantly people arguing as you do are living in the 20th century in terms of thought patterns. The businesses of tomorrow will follow new rules.
Click to expand...
Yes, the product of google are the users. They're producing users that watch the ads that they run, and in turn they get paid by the advertisers. But most of the advertisers began to get very sensitive what videos their ads run on, so in a sense it is not youtube who wants censorship, it's their clients. And as you may know the age old mantra: The customer is always right.
 
youtube is totally F'ed on up this stuff anymore. people are losing revenue for pretty much no reason. Users like Eric the Car Guy had their channel recently removed pretty much for some random reason. the guy has nothing offensive.
 
M76 said:
And as you may know the age old mantra: The customer is always right.
Click to expand...

Of course. The problem here is that they're sacrificing their user base and more importantly their (smaller) content creators to appease certain (not all) advertisers. A private company is free to do so but it tends to lead to a narrowing of their market share.
 
YouTube faces a huge revolt from advertisers who told them they don’t want their brands running on certain videos. I don’t understand how people just complain and ignore that. If YouTube didn’t demonetize and protect the platform everyone would stop making money.
 
Maxx said:
Of course. The problem here is that they're sacrificing their user base and more importantly their (smaller) content creators to appease certain (not all) advertisers. A private company is free to do so but it tends to lead to a narrowing of their market share.
Click to expand...

The wrinkle is that with the amount of content creators they're paying, Youtube's payout to creators is far greater than the ad revenue. I think this is a rather insightful video into what is happening, and yes, a lot of small content creators are going to get screwed over. The problem is that there is simply no good solution to the dilemma.

 
Maxx said:
I love when people tout this fallacy. "It's a private corporation, they can do whatever they want if it's within the law!"

No, they can't. Do you know what Google's main product is? The user. How about Google's largest concern? The interests of their shareholders. The intersection between those two groups is known as "doing business." The main concern for them with YouTube is actually external - companies who don't want their content infringed, which is only tangentially related to government regulation, and their relationship with advertisers. More critically, YouTube is considered a social platform, which leaves it open to criticism and undue influence; yet, Google has determinedly been close-lipped about their AI algorithms even as it has steadily eroded the value of smaller channels. Now it's moving towards political or ideological censorship - and for example H3H3, a known liberal, has spoken out about this multiple times. If you're willing to admit your platform is inherently social it becomes more than the property of a private company de facto due to the content and potential influence. This could in fact hurt YouTube (despite people laughing at the idea) but more importantly people arguing as you do are living in the 20th century in terms of thought patterns. The businesses of tomorrow will follow new rules.
Click to expand...

When you completely fail to disprove my assertion (they literally can, be it wise or unwise, they can), don't use a word like fallacy. You'd be better off accusing me of using a truism than a fallacy, because they literally are doing it.

Also, you seem triggered.
 
EODetroit said:
When you completely fail to disprove my assertion (they literally can, be it wise or unwise, they can), don't use a word like fallacy. You'd be better off accusing me of using a truism than a fallacy, because they literally are doing it.

Also, you seem triggered.
Click to expand...

There's nothing to disprove. Your assertion was based entirely on heresy. A private company "can censor all they like" as long as it doesn't impact "protected statuses," according to you. Yet you're trying to suppose my words are open to interpretation while yours are not? I'm not triggered, you're just drunk.
 
Now if everyone would just remove YouTube, Facebook and google, the internet may just be ok.
 
Maxx said:
There's nothing to disprove. Your assertion was based entirely on heresy. A private company "can censor all they like" as long as it doesn't impact "protected statuses," according to you. Yet you're trying to suppose my words are open to interpretation while yours are not? I'm not triggered, you're just drunk.
Click to expand...

A private company can do whatever they want within the limits of the law, and the law does not prohibit censorship. And this isn't even about censorship, it is about demonetization, which is not, strictly speaking, censorship. Doing what they want and continuing to survive as a company is a different story entirely. His words are not open to interpretation; they are technically correct. You are trying to bring in the business, political, moral, and financial aspects of it, all of which are open to interpretation because what you think is necessary for Youtube to survive might not be the reality.

So yes, you really do sound triggered.
 
Last edited:
Tsumi said:
A private company can do whatever they want within the limits of the law, and the law does not prohibit censorship.
Click to expand...

The quotation of which only proves your ignorance, especially since it completely contradicts your quoted statement from my very post above ("which is not, strictly speaking, censorship"). My "all righty then" was perhaps too much of an admission of your complete irrelevance; I apologize.

"His words are not open to interpretation; they are technically correct. You are trying to bring in the business, political, moral, and financial aspects of it"

Yes, because there are SO many other aspects to it outside of those. Let's ignore those aspects. Wait...
 
Last edited:
Maxx said:
The quotation of which only proves your ignorance, especially since it completely contradicts your quoted statement from my very post above ("which is not, strictly speaking, censorship"). My "all righty then" was perhaps too much of an admission of your complete irrelevance; I apologize.
Click to expand...

Continue to be triggered and ignorant then, I have no problem with it.

This is taken directly from the Hardforum rules:

Remember that this is a privately owned and operated forum. The first amendment/freedom of speech does not apply here.
Click to expand...

Why don't you go report Kyle for violating the law if you want to get on Google's case for it?
 
Tsumi said:
Why don't you go report Kyle for violating the law if you want to get on Google's case for it?
Click to expand...

I've never reported a thing on this forum and never will (they will back me up on that). The fact you even suggest that shows you are willing to go there to win an argument which says more about you than me? Not entirely sure why you even mentioned that.
 
Maxx said:
I've never reported a thing on this forum and never will (they will back me up on that). The fact you even suggest that shows you are willing to go there to win an argument which says more about you than me? Not entirely sure why you even mentioned that.
Click to expand...

It's because it seems like you don't even know what you're talking about. You're pulling catch phrases, talking points, and fancy words out of your ass to make you sound smart without actually understanding what is being discussed, why, and the context. Case in point, I did not suggest you reporting someone to Kyle. I suggested you reporting Kyle to the law because he states he can and will censor anything he feels like censoring, basically doing whatever he wants with his forum, which is a social platform, and you are saying he does not have the right to do that because it is a social platform.

Again, EODetroit is technically correct, the best kind of correct. Youtube can do whatever they want, and if they decide to become a video site that only shows lame cat videos and collapses because of it, so be it. Alternatively, if they become very successful, so be it as well. They do not have a legal or moral obligation to uphold social justice or whatever politically correct BS is the flavor of the month.
 
Maxx said:
The quotation of which only proves your ignorance, especially since it completely contradicts your quoted statement from my very post above ("which is not, strictly speaking, censorship"). My "all righty then" was perhaps too much of an admission of your complete irrelevance; I apologize.

"His words are not open to interpretation; they are technically correct. You are trying to bring in the business, political, moral, and financial aspects of it"

Yes, because there are SO many other aspects to it outside of those. Let's ignore those aspects. Wait...
Click to expand...
What is incorrect about his statement though? Corporations CAN do whatever they want as long as it's within the realms of the law. As for morality, that by and large doesn't apply to major corporations now. Their sole reason to exist is to make money. Morality doesn't enter into the picture at all unless it's privately owned and that's the direction the owner wants to take it. Corporations function almost completely as amoral institutions.
 
tetris42 said:
What is incorrect about his statement though? Corporations CAN do whatever they want as long as it's within the realms of the law. As for morality, that by and large doesn't apply to major corporations now. Their sole reason to exist is to make money. Morality doesn't enter into the picture at all unless it's privately owned and that's the direction the owner wants to take it. Corporations function almost completely as amoral institutions.
Click to expand...
iow, corporations have their own moral compass, which may not and likely does not (although not always the case) reflect the same morals as our own or even those of its employees.

They may do what they want within the law (even if it seems dumb to someone else) and they may fail for it. Nothing they are doing is yet illegal (afaik)
/thread
 
Nobu said:
iow, corporations have their own moral compass, which may not and likely does not (although not always the case) reflect the same morals as our own or even those of its employees.

They may do what they want within the law (even if it seems dumb to someone else) and they may fail for it. Nothing they are doing is yet illegal (afaik)
/thread
Click to expand...
I'd argue they don't even have a moral compass, just a cost / benefit analysis. So they have no problems whatsoever with doing something monstrous to people that's profitable, but ONLY if they think the potential negative press won't blow back and cost them more in the long term. That's not morality. Morality is understanding the difference between right and wrong and knowing there are some things you simply would NEVER do, even if they were legal and profitable. I don't know of any major corporation like that. I mean you can prove me wrong and give me example of some "morals" that corporations possess and would never compromise on, but I don't think that's possible.

Again, their only goal is to create profits. How they go about that is where they differ.
 
tetris42 said:
I'd argue they don't even have a moral compass, just a cost / benefit analysis. So they have no problems whatsoever with doing something monstrous to people that's profitable, but ONLY if they think the potential negative press won't blow back and cost them more in the long term. That's not morality. Morality is understanding the difference between right and wrong and knowing there are some things you simply would NEVER do, even if they were legal and profitable. I don't know of any major corporation like that. I mean you can prove me wrong and give me example of some "morals" that corporations possess and would never compromise on, but I don't think that's possible.

Again, their only goal is to create profits. How they go about that is where they differ.
Click to expand...
DnD, an "Evil" character would do bad things without a second thought, whereas they might scoff (or even become enraged) at what you would consider a good deed. A backwards compass, if you will.

I do agree they don't really have mores, but you know what I meant.
 
Dekoth-E- said:
My problem with this is YT's definition of "Offensive material" is getting really broad.
Click to expand...

They have done an absolutely HORRENDOUS job of defining what is "offensive" according to Youtube. As far as I can gather, "offensive" means that which I do not agree with...double plus ungood!
 
fadedlogic said:
They have done an absolutely HORRENDOUS job of defining what is "offensive" according to Youtube. As far as I can gather, "offensive" means that which I do not agree with...double plus ungood!
Click to expand...
Also retro videogames, fix it videos, news.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nobu
like this
Tsumi said:
I suggested you reporting Kyle to the law because he states he can and will censor anything he feels like censoring, basically doing whatever he wants with his forum, which is a social platform, and you are saying he does not have the right to do that because it is a social platform.
Click to expand...

I quoted that excerpt from you earlier because it was a blatant straw man on your part and I was ridiculing that fact and you dignified it further with a reply, so let me just say additionally...no, I never said that. And you claim I used "catch phrases, talking points" when you keep saying "triggered" (hypocrisy much?) and further suggested I used "fancy words" when in reality I was pretty darn simple and direct, so my guess is this is more about you being defensive about your own perceived misunderstandings than anything wrong on my part. You compound it by straight-up saying I don't understand what I'm talking about which is funny since you seem awfully intent on disproving me. All I can say is, good day.
 
Last edited:
tetris42 said:
What is incorrect about his statement though? Corporations CAN do whatever they want as long as it's within the realms of the law. As for morality, that by and large doesn't apply to major corporations now. Their sole reason to exist is to make money. Morality doesn't enter into the picture at all unless it's privately owned and that's the direction the owner wants to take it. Corporations function almost completely as amoral institutions.
Click to expand...

Sure.

"Corporations CAN do whatever they want as long as it's within the realms of the law" - the bedrock of this argument lies in the assumption that laws never change and that new laws are never promulgated, but as someone who has studied law I can tell you the history of corporate law is largely reactionary (not in the political sense as it is used today - in the sense that the laws came in reaction to abuse) so the implication that current law has ever been adequate is naive.
 
Last edited:
Maxx said:
Sure.

"Corporations CAN do whatever they want as long as it's within the realms of the law" - the bedrock of this argument lies in the assumption that laws never change and that new laws are never promulgated, but as someone who has studied law I can tell you the history of corporate law is largely reactionary (not in the political sense as it is used today - in the sense that the laws came in reaction to abuse) so the implication that current law has ever been adequate is naive.
Click to expand...

What does laws changing have anything to do with staying within the law?

Wake me up when the US starts regulating which content creators Youtube pays, more specifically forcing Youtube to pay certain content creators. I guarantee you that will never happen.
 
tetris42 said:
I don't know of any major corporation like that.
Click to expand...

Being careful to separate ethics from morality there actually are some "moral" (or even altruistic) companies around, although your addition of the qualifier "major" makes giving an example more difficult. In either case I think you're dabbling into philosophy here and it's not new ground; Hegel discussed the "social rehabilitation" of corporations, Adam Smith had his own views about how a company should act, etc. - the concept of the company as a self-interested, profit-driven entity without moral responsibility is an old one but not necessarily concrete.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top