Youtube censors by "demonitizing", that is, not allowing content creators to profit from material if said material is considered hateful or promotes hate speech.
That said, this is the claim of Youtube/Google. (Since youtube is owned by Google.)
And many, MANY channels with conservative views or anti Leftist views are being demonitized.
(Basically, Youtube makes money from advertisers from ads seen when customers view content on their site, and if monitized, content creators receive a portion of that ad revenue from the traffic their content creates.
Demonitized means Youtube has withdrawn one's ability to receive ad revenue on their created content. Doesn't matter then how much traffic you generate, the content creator receives nothing for it.)
Now, many say Youtube is a private company, but when a company has over 75% of a market share under U.S. law, it is considered by law a monopoly, and google is already over 60%.
(63.8 % as of 2015.) And remember, Google owns Youtube. Thus giving Youtube search results a vast advantage over any competitors like Vimeo, Wistia, SproutVideo, Brightcove, and others. Even though these sites have content similar to Youtube, they will never, NEVER be in the front page of a google search. And it has been reported Google has been found guilty of manipulating search results, that is, search results are advertised by Google to be based on popularity of the search result based on traffic, except in reality it is not, but based on Google directive. In fact, the European Union has even filed a 2.7 billion lawsuit for Google manipulating search results.
Sources.
Now, According to Youtube's own policies, content can be demonitized at their descretion (fair to point out) but also, in black and white in their own company policies, when it shows violence, hateful content, or uses inappropriate language. Now, one may say since Google is nearly a monopoly, it is unethical to pick who receives monotization, since they have such a large impact on social commentary, being a near monopoly, and since they control search results for a large portion of society via search result manipulation. But that isn't the meat of this discussion. It is the hypocrisy of Youtube, in violating their own policies in favor of promoting their chosen ideology. Verbatim from Youtube's published terms and conditions regarding monitized content.
" Harmful or dangerous acts: Video content that promotes harmful or dangerous acts that result in serious physical, emotional, or psychological injury is not eligible for advertising."
Well, it must not be considered promoting violence to show a kid getting lynched, that is hanged. Because there is a video receiving full advertising funds that shows a mock hanging, in fact glorifies it, thus "promotes harmful or dangerous acts that result in serious physical, emotional, or psychological injury".
Why is this video, that has received full monitization, that shows the singer in the video putting a noose around the neck of a child, and then hanging the child, killing him, receiving full monotization?
Maybe, I don't' know, the killer hanging the child is black and the child killed is white? That makes it not hateful or dangerous, since one cannot be hateful to whites, right?
Also, this video, showing the gruesome horrific mock murder of a child, does not even receive an age warning for graphic content!
Oh, this video also shows
The video has been viewed almost five million times. It is being praised by black supremacists. Thus, promoting violence and hatred, but doesn't violate policy for some reason.
And youtube has been quick and heavy handed in demonitization, but, it appears only if one isn't far left in the political spectrum.
Examples.
Link to a site describing the hateful video in question.
///////////////////////////
So......Discussion.
1-Is youtube morally justified in allowing this video to receive no restrictions whatsoever, allowing the content creators to profit from said content?
2-Should this video be considered hate speech?
3-Does Youtube have a double standard?
4-Finally, what about the UN's lawsuit?
/////////////////////
My answers.
1-Youtube is not only morally bankrupt allowing this content creator to profit from this hate speech, they are violating their own policies to promote a chosen ideology, that is, white hate. (But I guess some would say I have "white fragility" for pointing this out)
2-Yes.
3-Yes.
4-Something good from the UN? I can scarcely believe it!