re: Youtube demonitizes Dave Rubin's channel

quote:

---

YouTube isn't censoring free speech, they are censoring content that isn't deemed advertiser safe.

---

Yeah, I don't know a lot of HOW it works (the monetization), but it does seem that what you're saying is the case.

quote:

---

YouTube isn't censoring free speech, they are censoring content that isn't deemed advertiser safe.

---

and that argument works for a Milo

it doesn't work for Dave Rubin

The idea that they should only "monetize" content that generally seeks to appeal to everybody, seems rather short-sighted from a purely business perspective.

quote:

---

wrong

90% of videos are about politics, that is why they are being demonetized

---

And 90% of his politics are about letting people be free to do what they wish. It isn't controversial stuff. He's promoting the very thing this country was founded on. Only in 2017 would that be considered "offensive".

quote:

---

The idea that they should only "monetize" content that generally seeks to appeal to everybody, seems rather short-sighted from a purely business perspective.

---

It does seem to oversimplify. Microcosms within cultures/groups mean different interests/ideas which means different needs in the market.

For example, an online gun broker would have more success on a hunting channel on YouTube than on the EverdayFeminism channel.

quote:

---

Can you explain to me how YouTube monetization and demonetization works? Or do you have a link?

---

some of it is proprietary so it's not fully known, but after the WSJ hit piece on pewdiepie, Youtube has overreacted and created mechanisms to remove ads on "hate speech". what this has done is allow a disproportionate amount of flags for "hate speech" for non-progressives (within the field of political discussion).

LINK

quote:

---

In response, Schindler has promised a three-tier overhaul of Google’s advertising policies, both on YouTube and on the company’s wider ad products.

First, Google itself is going to tighten its policies around what can live on its platforms, and what subset of that content can support advertising on it. “Starting today, we’re taking a tougher stance on hateful, offensive and derogatory content,” Schindler says. The company is also ensuring that fake creators – those who impersonate other channels – can’t host advertising. Schindler also says YouTube is “taking a hard look” at existing community guidelines to see if any content is allowed on the platform that shouldn’t be, though no action is promised.

Second, the company is promising better controls for advertisers to choose where their money goes, and to prevent accidentally spending it on hateful content. The default options for advertisers will be tightened, to exclude “potentially objectionable” content from the off. Advertisers themselves will be given account-level tools to exclude specific sites and channels from all of their campaigns at once, as well as more fine-tuned controls for when advertisers need specific say over where their ads appear.

Third, Schindler writes that advertisers and agencies will be offered “more transparency and visibility on where their ads are running”. That should help advertisers avoid awkward situations like those that prompted the boycott in the first place, where advertisers only discovered their ads were showing up on extremist content after a Times report. The Google executive also promises to hire “significant numbers of people”, as well as bring in new AI-powered tools, to increase the company’s capacity to review questionable content for advertising.

---

the first category is how they're targeting non-progressive political speech

how are they doing this?

quote:

---

So the company relies on tricks which do scale: algorithmically classifying videos, by scanning the titles and video content itself; relying on users to flag problematic uploads; and, in large part, by trusting creators themselves to correctly label their work. That trust is backed up by force, though, with YouTube reserving the right to pull channels entirely from the site if creators consistently miscategorise their work.

---

Jordan Peterson recently had his ENTIRE Google account deleted

i believe Gad Saad had a video reviewed before it was even published

quote:

---

The idea that they should only "monetize" content that generally seeks to appeal to everybody, seems rather short-sighted from a purely business perspective.

---

well, its partly because its easier to just demonetized it all rather than to pick and choose which advertisers are going to deem "okay"

itd be silly from a business perspective to not make more money off of Rubin, but that is what they are choosing to do

let's also remember Google has banned Gab from its app store

buth muh "hate speech"

quote:

---

well, its partly because its easier to just demonetized it all

---

So, all political videos should be demonetized, correct?

quote:

---

They're choosing to do this because of the political ideologies held by a large portion of the company and to placate the screeching SJWs.

---

theyre choosing to make less money while keeping his videos on their platform

advertisers are pulling the strings here, not youtube.

but even if was a big conspiracy theory and youtube is to blame, rubin can go elsewhere with his content