I don't even watch H3H3's normal videos. But they're an established, successful, large YouTube channel that chooses to comment on YouTube's business practices on occasion.

As someone who wants to start a YouTube channel at some point, I definitely keep my ear to the wall.

TL;DR: YouTube's advertiser boycott (::cough:: liberal witchhunt ::cough::) was a reaction over "ISIS videos and racism videos" with ads showing up next to them. So YouTube changed their algorithms/tagging/advertising structure to "fix" it. And ever-so-gently, with the most careful of touches, they blew the hell out of any YouTube channel that's more controversial than a wet blanket.

It's so strange how pandering to professional outragers, doesn't yield the best environment for creative content...

This is just another in a long line of YouTube screw-ups. YouTube's been dead for me ever since they required a Google account to use the damned thing. I haven't commented on a video since then. Maybe it's changed now, but I'll never know.

I guess the free lunch is over. The content producers that create quality content can probably survive by using Patreon to finance their YouTube videos, though...

Wet blanket? That's sexual content right there! How do you think that blanket got wet?

That's why programming and businesses do not mix - Probably the advertisers said "It has to catch 100% of cases" where an algorithm that could catch 99.7% of cases would probably be a lot more permissive and be fine for everyone

There is probably a smarter way to do this. For one - censor by channel not by video. Do you really think an established You Tuber is going to post an ISIS video? Use common sense Google.

Actually, from what I understand, you can make much MORE money from other sources than from ad revenue. I watched some about how to make money on Youtube and ad revenue was one of the worst ways. Patreon and sponsors like Amazon were better. I guess if you set something up with Amazon, and someone clicks your link to buy something, you get money for that, but also, if that person buys anything else during that session, even if it is not for what you linked to, you still get credit for that. Fascinating stuff.

I love Youtube. I comment here and there (though less than the past). It's free, what do you want for free? Sounds to me like they did a good thing by limiting advertising revenue for what are obvious ISIS style pages as that money could help fund them. We don't need to be helping those people in any way.

You intentionally missed the whole point.

The actual content CREATORS are saying it's hurting them and being used against non-"Obvious ISIS style pages."

I can bring up at least THREE different very large YouTube creators that have felt compelled to make videos addressing this. For example, here's another by a creator with a quarter of a million subscribers:

Nobody is defending ISIS videos. So don't even use that in an argument. The issue is, the constant steamroll of "we need to protect people!" that over and over and over (yet nobody seems to be noticing a trend) end up cracking down on normal artists.

"We're cracking down on ISIS, and while we're at it let's throw these people we don't like under the bus."

Over and over, I see it happen. Getting rid of obvious bad content, and at the same time, using that same public support to wipe away content the site doesn't like. Content removal that would have been opposed if there wasn't already a "bigger fish" being dealt with. It's the site equivalent of "9/11 happened, we need to go get the bad guys! (Also we're going to spy on you.)"

And if the largest YouTube channels aren't an authority on being harassed by YouTube then who is?

He's only got 54 million subscribers. What does he know about YouTube taking down his videos.

Here's another with 5 million subscribers who says any time he makes a video about a REAL EVENT instead of watering it down and talking about complete B.S., he's demonetized:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbph5or0NuM

All the way back in 2016. Last thing we want encouraged on YouTube is discussion of real events! He's also been on YouTube for a decade. So he's got a decade of experience with the platform.

If you don't like Youtube policy, stop using it. Problem solved. In the end it's their service and if they wish to limit what is on it, we really have no say in it at all.

I've never monetized my videos but I see a lot of people posting similar complaints. Many use Patreon to offset this.

I know. It's basically what happens when your media channel becomes consolidated / a monopoly. You have complete control over people using your channel and all people can say is "tough shit."

Competition is good. And if YouTube had real competition out there, they'd be afraid of losing their content creators.

Thread title reminded me of

On topic, Harmful Opinions has some interesting observations about this:

1. Entertaining revelation about what really prompted the demonetisation move:

2. 'New' media aren't so different from old media in terms of 'world is ending' bias:

1 is the more entertaining and compelling video, but I included 2 as a reminder that blindly believing all these narratives isn't necessarily such a good idea. Meanwhile, if you make completely constructive videos that genuinely improve people's lives (art, not activism), you probably deserve the ad income more - and if you watch those videos, you will be happier

Businesses often do pay attention to what their customer say about them which can result in changes being made. If people stopped discussing it, then nothing would change.

Bruce: That first one reminds me of this:

Cat videos will never die!

See also

Oh absolutely discuss it and push for change if you really prefer their service. But people switching to something else will also cause them to change.

I've seen many services come and go over the years. Youtube isn't impervious to this.

I have to agree, YouTube is simply too big to listen. They do what the corporations want, not what the people want. Typical. No surprise. Everybody hated the Google account integration. It was still forced on everybody.

What we really need are distributed services. No single company, but rather hundreds or thousands or millions that host distributed services. Or Hell, if we can figure it out, eliminate the companies and just run P2P services.

Get involved - find a promising project and contribute, or start one

Or recognise that, like you and me, everyone else also has things they'd prefer to be doing instead, unless they're getting paid for these projects