YouTube drops mask, Mass Demonetizes right wing content

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

For what I gathered, her channel wasn’t breaking rules. She pinpointed the decline to the upload of one particular video. Right after, viewer engagement and views went down fast. Her subscribers weren’t getting informed of her new uploads (something that happens fairly regularly to many creators, like YT just unsubscribes them from channels) and the channel wouldn’t figure in search engines. At all. She didn’t violate TOS.

That right there is what I find to be crazy. Youtube itself shouldn't be screwing around with end user's settings. What is the rationale for this? This arguably makes it so people can't trust Youtube or will find it unreliable for their purposes. People will defect to a video website that leaves their personal configurations alone.

The end user should decide if they want to be subscribed to a channel or not. (except if the channel gets deleted of course). Even if a channel doesn't get advertised, it usually can still be found via word of mouth or someone else having found it and linking to it.

As probably said by several others, the demonetization is aimed at content promoting Neo-Nazism, White Supremacy and other such ideologies. I see this as a good move because those who spread the mentioned ideologies will no longer have a platform. Among those I am sure will be removed are the Golden One (a Swedish Nazi), David Aurini (a crazy person) and many others. These kinds of people never should've had a platform to preach their despicable views in the first place peddling pseudoscience, racism, sexism and absolute falsehoods.

They'll just move to another platform that is "on their side" but is arguably less visable or mainstream. Stormfront for example, has managed to stay alive. At least some people are always going to be willing to participate in their donation drives.

If a neo-Nazism channel on Youtube is done in such a way as to not violate its ToS and the content itself isn't illegal, they have a right to be there whether Google likes it or not. Unless they want to go out of their way to remove them of course. For every major channel that gets taken down, two tends to fill any vacuum present.

The only explanation I saw was something to do with a change in the algorithm. Which was measuring not just views but also comments and like (interactions) in the channel. If your subscribers were only watching but not giving the video a like, the bell wasn’t set to notify or didn’t left a comment, they were unsubscribed from your channel. Or they wouldn’t get notified of your new uploads.

[Cedoria]

*hate speech. Pretty big part of the topic.

what is hate speech and why is YouTube the arbiter of it?

YouTube is the arbiter of what passes for hate speech on its website just like Max is the arbiter for it on Nationstates.

I think there's an argument for restructuring fundamental laws on this given your point about the Internet being the new public domain, but the situation at the moment is yes, Youtube can decide whatever it likes on this topic, and it'll decide what it's advertisers are willing to let it decide.

[Cedoria]

Youtube isn't denying service. They're just not paying people for their videos. Those people are still free to upload content.

Providing ad revenue to content creators is part of Youtube's service.

Not necessarily. It's something it can choose to provide. It doesn't have to.


Whether there's an argument for treating the Internet more like public property and less like the corporation's playground is another matter. I'd say yes, but the way things are at present Youtube can demonetize you for whatever it likes.

[Dontriptia]

Standard Oil in 1911 when it was broken up controlled 64 percent of their market.

YouTube right now controls 76%. There is no effective "free market".

We cannot allow this censorship to continue, and it would be pretty easy to do. Just pass a law saying that major social media companies may not engage in viewpoint discrimination.

Youtube controls 76% of social media? Facebook must be upset about that....

Youtube controls 76% of video sharing

[Cedoria]

As probably said by several others, the demonetization is aimed at content promoting Neo-Nazism, White Supremacy and other such ideologies. I see this as a good move because those who spread the mentioned ideologies will no longer have a platform. Among those I am sure will be removed are the Golden One (a Swedish Nazi), David Aurini (a crazy person) and many others. These kinds of people never should've had a platform to preach their despicable views in the first place peddling pseudoscience, racism, sexism and absolute falsehoods.

Except the Golden one isn't a Nazi so you're blatantly proving my point that the bans and demonetizations are banning people ACCUSED of being "Nazis" regardless of what their actual beliefs are.
YouTube's definition of a "Nazi" is Antifas definition which is everyone who's not a Marxist.

I bet you think Jews like Ben Shapiro and Milo are "Nazis" too.

Word of advice friendo, don't pretend to know what other people think about unrelated topics.

Second word of advice, don't pretend to care about freedom of expression when you're an out-and-out fascist. We can all see you for what you are.

[Fartsniffage]

Youtube controls 76% of social media? Facebook must be upset about that....

Youtube controls 76% of video sharing

So why does that mean that all social media companies need a law to stop them not paying people for their content?

[Galloism]

Youtube controls 76% of video sharing

So why does that mean that all social media companies need a law to stop them not paying people for their content?

Tbh we don’t. We need to do the same thing we did with ma bell and standard oil, though.

[Fartsniffage]

So why does that mean that all social media companies need a law to stop them not paying people for their content?

Tbh we don’t. We need to do the same thing we did with ma bell and standard oil, though.

Good luck finding more people to take on a very marginally profitable business.

[Galloism]

Tbh we don’t. We need to do the same thing we did with ma bell and standard oil, though.

Good luck finding more people to take on a very marginally profitable business.

That’s why we need to do what we did with ma bell and standard oil.

[Fartsniffage]

Good luck finding more people to take on a very marginally profitable business.

That’s why we need to do what we did with ma bell and standard oil.

So you want less payment to content providers? Seems counter-intuitive.....

[Galloism]

That’s why we need to do what we did with ma bell and standard oil.

So you want less payment to content providers? Seems counter-intuitive.....

You don’t know what we did to ma bell and standard oil do you?

[Fartsniffage]

So you want less payment to content providers? Seems counter-intuitive.....

You don’t know what we did to ma bell and standard oil do you?

I assume you split them up. But no, I don't know.

[Zizou]

Meh, good for YouTube I guess. They delete what they want, whenever they want, to everyone.

[Galloism]

You don’t know what we did to ma bell and standard oil do you?

I assume you split them up. But no, I don't know.

We did. Into several pieces. Six or eight each, as far as I recall.

We segregated them into multiple competing companies and divided their assets and customers between them. At the time, they (the parent companies) each had something like 80% market share, as I recall.

Competition fosters better results. Right now, Alphabet Inc. has very little effective competition, and has similar market share in its segment. It’s probably why the DoJ just opened an antitrust suit against them.

[Fartsniffage]

I assume you split them up. But no, I don't know.

We did. Into several pieces. Six or eight each, as far as I recall.

We segregated them into multiple competing companies and divided their assets and customers between them. At the time, they (the parent companies) each had something like 80% market share, as I recall.

Competition fosters better results. Right now, Alphabet Inc. has very little effective competition, and has similar market share in its segment. It’s probably why the DoJ just opened an antitrust suit against them.

With regards to Youtube that simply wouldn't work. It just doesn't make money even with the economies of scale being huge gives them. You split that up and the smaller companies would lose money. Thousands of hours per day of uploads means huge amounts of server space.

[Saiwania]

With regards to Youtube that simply wouldn't work. It just doesn't make money even with the economies of scale being huge gives them. You split that up and the smaller companies would lose money. Thousands of hours per day of uploads means huge amounts of server space.

Well, lets admit it- a lot of video on Youtube is objectively junk or content that is no good or done by amateurs, with no quality production or control. Many such videos don't need to be permanently housed on the website and if a voting feature were added where a video requires so many votes from different IPs to stay on the website was added, I could see this scheme maybe being successful in saving a massive amount of server space.

Youtube could be like the video version of Newgrounds. All the trash or junk content (in theory) gets deleted off of Newgrounds and only the stuff that gets votes or views is kept for permanent showcasing.

Also, don't do anything 4K in resolution. Videos going up to only 480p or the maximum of Standard Definition is good enough, and would presumably take up less space than anything in HD resolution or above.

[Galloism]

We did. Into several pieces. Six or eight each, as far as I recall.

We segregated them into multiple competing companies and divided their assets and customers between them. At the time, they (the parent companies) each had something like 80% market share, as I recall.

Competition fosters better results. Right now, Alphabet Inc. has very little effective competition, and has similar market share in its segment. It’s probably why the DoJ just opened an antitrust suit against them.

With regards to Youtube that simply wouldn't work. It just doesn't make money even with the economies of scale being huge gives them. You split that up and the smaller companies would lose money. Thousands of hours per day of uploads means huge amounts of server space.

Indeed it does. But if we split them into six or eight pieces, the six or eight competing companies still have the same server space and capacity as the original one. We don’t burn half the servers in effigy.

Except now there’s competition.

The reason we split them into that many pieces is we expect a couple of them to fail and be reabsorbed by the most successful ones.

YouTube is not unique in regards to economies of scale, incidentally. But we can break them up and will still all operate at enormous scale. It’s like if you divided Alaska in half because it’s two damn big of a state - making Texas the third largest state in the union.

Plus, with competition, you’re likely to have multiple innovative different solutions. It’s why we like it.

[Necroghastia]

With regards to Youtube that simply wouldn't work. It just doesn't make money even with the economies of scale being huge gives them. You split that up and the smaller companies would lose money. Thousands of hours per day of uploads means huge amounts of server space.

Indeed it does. But if we split them into six or eight pieces, the six or eight competing companies still have the same server space and capacity as the original one. We don’t burn half the servers in effigy.

Except now there’s competition.

The reason we split them into that many pieces is we expect a couple of them to fail and be reabsorbed by the most successful ones.

YouTube is not unique in regards to economies of scale, incidentally. But we can break them up and will still all operate at enormous scale. It’s like if you divided Alaska in half because it’s two damn big of a state - making Texas the third largest state in the union.

Plus, with competition, you’re likely to have multiple innovative different solutions. It’s why we like it.

What would happen to the content and user profiles already on the site, though? Youtube isn't an oil company, it's essentially an archive.

[Galloism]

Indeed it does. But if we split them into six or eight pieces, the six or eight competing companies still have the same server space and capacity as the original one. We don’t burn half the servers in effigy.

Except now there’s competition.

The reason we split them into that many pieces is we expect a couple of them to fail and be reabsorbed by the most successful ones.

YouTube is not unique in regards to economies of scale, incidentally. But we can break them up and will still all operate at enormous scale. It’s like if you divided Alaska in half because it’s two damn big of a state - making Texas the third largest state in the union.

Plus, with competition, you’re likely to have multiple innovative different solutions. It’s why we like it.

What would happen to the content and user profiles already on the site, though? Youtube isn't an oil company, it's essentially an archive.

Not sure. We've never broken up a digital company like this.

My preference would be that we setup some kind of user interface where you could choose which company all your data would migrate to.

[Rostavykhan]

What would happen to the content and user profiles already on the site, though? Youtube isn't an oil company, it's essentially an archive.

Not sure. We've never broken up a digital company like this.

My preference would be that we setup some kind of user interface where you could choose which company all your data would migrate to.

That's actually what I was about to suggest. Some kind of transfer process, kinda like how certain games allow users to transfer save data across consoles or platforms.

[Telconi]

Good luck finding more people to take on a very marginally profitable business.

That’s why we need to do what we did with ma bell and standard oil.

>Ma Bell

She was too good for this world...

[Risottia]

Youtube controls 76% of video sharing

Where?
Source?

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Where?
Source?

https://www.datanyze.com/market-share/o ... rket-share

Presumably this.

[-Ocelot-]

Standard Oil in 1911 when it was broken up controlled 64 percent of their market.

YouTube right now controls 76%. There is no effective "free market".

Are you saying the countless video services out there, collectively making up 24% of market share are still not enough for all the "oppressed" fascists to express themselves? Nobody stops you from using other websites like Vimeo or Metacafe and nobody forces you to upload videos on Youtube.

We cannot allow this censorship to continue, and it would be pretty easy to do. Just pass a law saying that major social media companies may not engage in viewpoint discrimination.

Youtube is not a nation and it doesn't censor anything. For one, it demonetized channels without removing the content itself for the most part. If you are so hell-bent on uploading your calls to violence and holocaust denial videos, you can probably do so somewhere else. Or even better, don't.

[Kavagrad]

Fascists, neo-nazis and far-right reactionaries shouldn't be allowed to profit off of their propaganda. This is a good thing.