I think it's even simpler: No one is owed advertising revenue. There are entire classes of content for which the risks of being associated with outweigh the benefits as far as advertisers are concerned. This goes well beyond YouTube; it's affected a lot of network and radio shows as well.
The most recent example is Laura Ingraham, e.g. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/laura-ingraham-advertisers-drop... .
I think that the best way to support video creators going forward is Patreon or YouTube's built-in sponsorships. You can't rely on ad dollars from big companies anymore unless you yourself are a big content producer, on the level of an actual network.
I think content creators are owed not being gas-lighted by Youtube. Whatever you may think of these rules, the truth is that these will only be applied selectively, and then YouTube will deny that they are applying them selectively, and lie to us by saying that this is a platform for all.
The truth is, there is a whitelist that big corporations and celebrities are on, where they always get monetized no matter what.
For example, when Logan Paul infamously uploaded video of a corpse in the Japanese "suicide forest"[1] he continued to monetize the video of a corpse, in blatant violation of YouTube policy, until he chose to take the video down on his own. His video was never flagged. His video was never demonetized. Despite a torrent of complaints and blatant violation of policy. However, people who criticized Logan Paul's actions not just had their videos demonetized, some of them had their entire channels deleted. The reason for this is that suicide is not advertiser friendly, so if auto-generated captions talked about it, they were demonetized. And if the title of your video is too similar to a much more popular video, then it is considered misleading metadata, and that can get your channel that you've had for years nuked. So reality tv show buffoon gets to make thousands of dollars off his video where he gawks at a dead body, but people making sincere criticism of this behavior are severely punished, and so have to tiptoe around criticizing him.
But, I think the most egregious hypocrisy on YouTube's part is their handling of mass shootings. The YouTube channels for CNN and Fox News were heavily monetized during the Las Vegas shooting. I mean, these corporate YouTube channels increased the number of ads because they knew lots of people would be watching them. But at the same time, any smaller channels that even mentioned guns or shootings had large swaths of their videos demonetized.
Dr Pepper and Coca Cola are thrilled to appear in ads every five minutes during a mass shooting, care of CNN[2]. But they act as if their sacred brand is too good to appear on a smaller, more authentic channel that wants to have serious discussion about issues. You can see a more complete account of this double standard here. [3]
This narrative about caring where ads appear is nothing more than a dishonest tactic to increase their leverage, as well as punish independent media that might rock the boat and provide an alternative viewpoint.
I know people who have spent years making a living from YouTube ad revenue, making frankly innocuous videos, like alternative history animations, who have had their YouTube careers virtually ruined, and have had to put in a huge amount of effort to please the YouTube algorithm, while big corporations and celebrities can revel in clickbait and salacious fetishization of violence for money. [4]
The most interesting and unique content on YouTube is what is being demonetized. The content that is being most monetized is what is already monetized on cable television. YouTube piggybacked on small independent creators to build their platform, and then drove them away by gas-lighting them with inconsistent demonetization policies to make room for reality tv channels and Fox News. Egregious.
If money is involved, and YouTube is being dishonest about what their real policies are, then I think this easily falls under antitrust laws, if not outright criminal fraud. They are lying when they say that they are an open platform. They are actual a platform where they mislead people into working to create content, and then unfairly picking the winners through back-channel agreements.
And, on top of YouTube's borderline fraudulent practices with demonetization, they are also the largest video platform in the world, and are increasingly a de-facto "channel" on nearly all smart tvs, through the ubiquity of their app. So, I really really hope that the federal government comes down on them hard. I hope that they are forced to have transparent and equally applied policies, and I hope that there is a pathway for small YouTube creators to get some justice.
>The YouTube channels for CNN and Fox News were heavily monetized during the Las Vegas shooting. I mean, these corporate YouTube channels increased the number of ads because they knew lots of people would be watching them. But at the same time, any smaller channels that even mentioned guns or shootings had large swaths of their videos demonetized.
I'm a little confused by what people mean when they say "monetized".
1. Are you saying that Youtube showed more ads with one group over the other?
2. Are you saying that because Youtube puts more ads on CNN videos that CNN is getting paid more?
Finally, unrelated to my questions, I am genuinely curious: Why do people think Google owes content creators anything? I am asking more in the down-to-earth legal sense, not in the nebulous realm of ethics. Did Google ever promise:
1. That you will get money if they show ads on your video?
2. That they will decide who gets ads/money based on a well defined criterion?
Essentially, I'm wondering why people think Google owes them anything. What if Google says "We run ads on videos to help pay the bills, and to make a profit. You, in turn, get a nice service. We do not need to pay content creators anything." Has Google ever deviated from that stance? As in are they paying content producers as part of a strategy, or because they are obligated to by their terms of service?
> I'm a little confused by what people mean when they say "monetized".
> 1. Are you saying that Youtube showed more ads with one group over the other?
> 2. Are you saying that because Youtube puts more ads on CNN videos that CNN is getting paid more?
Basically yes.
Google (YouTube), CNN, and their advertisers financially benefited from news coverage of mass shootings. Which doesn't bother me, because that's also what cable tv does.
Also, with coverage of things like disasters, CNN can elect to increase the number of ads to maximize the money they make. So, for example, during the Las Vegas shooting, they. Someone made a conscious decision to inject extra ads.
What is a problem, is that YouTube is very strict about not letting videos that contain anything controversial have any ads. Their justification for this is that advertisers don't want to be associated with it. But that is demonstrably untrue. YouTube also says that they don't want to monetize tragedy, but that is also not true.
So, YouTube is lying about their policies, and picking winners on what is presented as a neutral platform. YouTube is misrepresenting their policies and selectively enforcing their rules, while saying that it is not their fault because algorithms.
Another example of this is when reality tv show stars engage in harassing or grossly offensive behavior. Like Logan Paul posting a video of a bloated corpse. This video was trending, which means that it was reviewed by someone at YouTube, and was closely monitored by advertisers. And yet it remained up for almost 24 hours. But people criticizing this were demonetized or had their videos outright deleted.
> Finally, unrelated to my questions, I am genuinely curious: Why do people think Google owes content creators anything? I am asking more in the down-to-earth legal sense, not in the nebulous realm of ethics. Did Google ever promise:
> 1. That you will get money if they show ads on your video?
I'm not a lawyer, but I think that they "promised" as much as any ad network promises to approve your content to show ads.
I think the problem though, is that their own rules that they lay out are obviously not enforced with any consistency. There is probably a case that could be made that it is unlawful, but I'm not a lawyer.
> 2. That they will decide who gets ads/money based on a well defined criterion?
Absolutely not, and that is the problem. Some content creators (well connected people) will always get monetized, while the rest of us have totally arbitrary and secret rules that are very difficult to follow. Some content producers are just completely locked out.
> Essentially, I'm wondering why people think Google owes them anything. What if Google says "We run ads on videos to help pay the bills, and to make a profit. You, in turn, get a nice service. We do not need to pay content creators anything." Has Google ever deviated from that stance? As in are they paying content producers as part of a strategy, or because they are obligated to by their terms of service?
Honestly if Google was just transparent about what their policies ACTUALLY are, that would be fine with me. That's essentially what YouTube did for the first 7 or so years of operation. Then they opened up monetization to all, which spurred a flurry of independent content creators, and it was really cool. Then they decided that they wanted to compete with cable TV, and that they didn't need us anymore, so they decided to drive us away in an underhanded way. Not just that, but they are retroactively demonetizing videos that were fine for many years. It is part of a very clear pattern to pick winners in what they present as an open and neutral platform.
Google should just disclose that there are two tiers to YouTube, and only people that they like will get a guarantee of monetization. But, by not disclosing this fact, they are misleading content creators for their financial benefit.
YouTube's behavior is unquestionably immoral, dishonest, and hypocritical. And probably illegal.
I whole-heartedly agree. Another incident was Jimmy Kimmel's emotional speech about gun control where they left ads on his diatribe but demonitized anyone that pointed it out. Google is literally in a "holier than thou" position regarding fundamental constitutional rights and it's really starting to piss people off and not just conservatives if the Youtube shooting tells us anything. Personally I'm getting off the Google ecosystem as fast as I can, they're no longer pro-free speech in fact they're extremely hostile to it.
> here are entire classes of content for which the risks of being associated with outweigh the benefits as far as advertisers are concerned. This goes well beyond YouTube; it's affected a lot of network and radio shows as well. The most recent example is Laura Ingraham, e.g. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/laura-ingraham-advertisers-drop.... .
That doesn't have anything to do with whether advertisers are willing to be associated with her or her content, though. Are you proposing that YouTube start hiring video creators full time?
No, that's what you were proposing indirectly by bringing up Laura Ingraham as an example. She's a salaried employee – as long as Fox News doesn't fire her over this, she sees none of the downside of pissing advertisers off, so there's nothing particularly "risky" about it. The same logic doesn't apply to 99.99% of YouTube creators, who are paid directly by their advertisers.
I think that the best way to support video creators going forward is Patreon or YouTube's built-in sponsorships. You can't rely on ad dollars from big companies anymore unless you yourself are a big content producer, on the level of an actual network.