
YouTube Demonetizes Anti-Vaccination Videos - Udik
https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/22/youtube-demonetizes-anti-vaccination-videos/
======
idDriven
this is the third _repeat-appearing_ article in 24 hours?

~~~
Udik
Sorry, didn't know that. Link to previous discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19230245](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19230245)

~~~
sidcool
Can you delete this one?

------
buboard
I 'd like to suggest the word demonyzes for its double entendre

------
t0astbread
Are there any notable movements to move away from YouTube coming from or
supported by content creators?

A lot of content creators have voiced concerns over demonetization and/or
false positives regarding copyright violations but I've rarely heard anyone
talk about collectively moving to a different platform without centralized
control.

~~~
ndnxhs
There is no other platform. No one else could afford to run youtube. Google is
practically giving it out for free. Video hosting is too expensive.

------
seanwilson
I'm guessing YouTube bans videos that promote self-harm and harm to other
humans? At what stage does anti-vaccination material cross that line?

Governments already ban certain ways of promoting smoking and alcohol use in
an effort to reduce harm. Why should anti-vaccination material be considered
differently when people not being vaccinating can be directly linked to the
death of others?

~~~
geowwy
Fair point, but junk food does way more damage than not vaccinating. Yet
there's no crackdown on McDonalds

~~~
ryantriangles
There is a crackdown on falsely promoting junk food as healthy or promoting it
to people who don't know better (namely children). Maybe not on YouTube, but
in various countries' legislation.

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6154600.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6154600.stm)

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106919100053167300](https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106919100053167300)

[https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmbills/110/0...](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmbills/110/04110.1-i.html)
(Section 3)

It's not really a fair comparison, though. The main issue with anti-
vaccination content is dangerous misinformation, not simply promoting
something harmful. The other issue is that the people who fall for this
content aren't usually the ones who get hurt, their innocent children are. It
would only be a fair comparison if there were a large movement of very
influential, powerful, and famous people posting "vegetables cause autism, and
Burger King cures it" videos out there to hundreds of millions of viewers and
a boom in child obesity tied directly to parents viewing them.

------
dr_coffee
This comes at a very important time, with measles outbreaks occuring around
the world from Brooklyn to Japan. It is horrible because it puts at risk the
lives of those who are too young to receive the vaccine. I completely agree
with Google but I think that the government and/or healthcare workers need to
make a bigger effort to teach the public about how vaccines work and how safe
they are for the person receiving them.

------
akerro
Is this censorship?

~~~
demarq
I think it definitely is. Creators depend on Ad-Revenue so taking that away
when they publish something you don't agree with is censorship. Also Google
doesn't have to be a state to engage in censorship, anyone can be a censor i.e
a parent who prevents their children watching shows with a gay character.

I think the Anti-Vaccination movement is misleading and eventually harmful to
public health.

That said I think censorship should be something that should take place (if it
has to) in a public office, not in a corporate boardroom.

Here is what Google should have done. If you google anything related to
depression google suggests suicide prevention hotlines. If facebook notices a
popular article in your timeline it follows it with a snopes link to check if
it is real. In other words Google should place a banner/ad/link that educates
people on the real facts concerning Anti-Vaccination.

At the end of the day, Google own their platform and can do whatever they
want, but is it the right thing to do? Or better yet is there a better way.

~~~
fredley
Censorship is not about the right to make a profit, it's about the right to
publish.

~~~
demarq
I think that is a brittle and somewhat superficial definition of censorship.

Here is the Oxford dictionary definition:

> The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that
> are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security

Note there is nothing there about "rights".

~~~
alistairSH
YouTube hasn't suppressed or prohibited any of those items. The videos are
still there. They just don't have ads targeted at them.

------
solarkraft
I'm torn. On one hand it's great, this is a group we all hate and it's good PR
for YouTube.

On the other hand they also like to demonetize anything containing anything
close to curse words or talking about anything too serious.

~~~
alecco
...Unless it serves the agenda.

