
Why Is YouTube Demonetizing LGBTQ Videos? - lkrubner
https://www.autostraddle.com/why-is-youtube-demonetizing-lgbtqia-videos-395058/
======
dottrap
YouTube has been demonetizing everything across the board, from gaming videos
to non-political sketch comedies, and without much explanation.

This is all part of the "Adpocalypse" that YouTube content creators have been
complaining about this past year.

Content creators are left guessing why many of their videos are being
demonetized. Even fairly bland material gets demonetized by "the algorithm".
Some speculate just having a somewhat risqué hashtag or image in the poster
image is enough to get demonetized.

~~~
caseysoftware
Realistically, this is the natural consequence of our current political
climate. When you offend [group X] and they go after your advertisers, it's
effective.

Advertisers naturally say "I don't want to be associated with anything/anyone
controversial, so let's exclude those!"

The problem is that most things are "controversial" to some group.. therefore,
large swaths of content are no longer "advertiser appropriate" and all
creators suffer.

~~~
webkike
The number one YouTube channel in size by subscribers, PewDiePie, said the N
word live on stream and his fan base essentially attacked people who came out
as offended.

I love the part of YouTube that gives you an incredibly personal insight on
intelligent people, but I think there is a huge problem with how much leeway
the content creators have and are still able to make money. And the fact that
this harms the smaller channels like videogamedunkey that doesn't say racist
things is extremely disheartening.

I don't have an opinion here other than it sucks that you can't just give
people money based on how many people watch their videos.

~~~
pavel_lishin
I think it should be made clear that he didn't just say "nigger"; he actually
called someone that.

~~~
Yetanfou
Well, listen to a few rap tracks and you'll hear many, many people being
called that, loudly, clearly, repeatedly.

~~~
pavel_lishin
You're being downvoted because you're completely deaf to context.

------
jgrowl
I thought it was just as simple as the fact that the big companies don't want
to advertise their products on "controversial" videos... which are defined
very loosely based on key words. For example if you make something like a rape
surviver support video and include 'rape' in the description.

I can see why advertisers would not want to risk hurting their brand by
playing before a video that is anyway offensive to anyone. If you give that
power to them then they will use it. Which can be a problem if you are trying
to have an open free speech platform where ideas are shared. I think that is
not Google's motivation though. They want to make money. Which again is
understandable but not necessarily what the world needs.

~~~
dahdum
It was less of a problem a few years ago, before groups started claiming that
Google & advertisers were explicitly supporting / promoting controversial
content. With the PR fear in full swing, there is very little upside to either
party allowing advertising.

For example, groups were actively hitting the top commercial websites and then
visiting Breitbart so they could screenshot retargeting ads to use in shaming
the company on social media.

------
jlouis
My bet:

1\. Advertisers don't want to be featured on an ISIS recruitment video, or
something like that.

2\. Google implements a filter. It is fuzzy and based on machine learning,
because Google are strong believers of machine learning.

3\. The algorithm let a single ISIS recruitment video through. Advertisers
form a coalition and yell "NO ISIS RECRUITMENT VIDEOS!"

4\. This forces Google to implement either whitelists, or tune the algorithm
for detecting bad content such that it produces a lot of false positives.

5\. Most people are now demonetized, and since the system is based on machine
learning, it is not possible for Google to tell you exactly why the neural
network decided what it did.

It is clear that the current demonitization algorithm hits unfairly hard on
content creators. It forces them to run a Patreon-model. I'm willing to bet
that Youtube is now powerful enough that people are willing to pay for content
and no ads for certain channels, so in the end this is not necessarily good
for advertisers.

~~~
klodolph
> It is fuzzy and based on machine learning, because Google are strong
> believers of machine learning.

It seems like YouTube must be backed into a corner where that's the only
feasible way to do it, at least as a first pass. Video is uploaded at what,
5000x realtime? Or 100 years of video per week?

~~~
polishTar
>400 hrs of content are uploaded every minute. You’re exactly correct that an
algorithmic first pass is the only thing that’s feasible.

It’s important to mention that creators can appeal monitization decisions to a
human reviewer for videos with at least a thousand views.

~~~
pavel_lishin
I'd love to see how many minutes of video-with-1000+-views gets uploaded per
minute.

------
pjc50
The real problem is the lack of explanation. If a film is refused
certification, it will usually come with a list of reasons, making it possible
to recut to an acceptable version. If it's demonetised by youtube you get no
explanation.

Yes, that will result in people working exactly up to the line, but at least
having a line is something that people can work with.

~~~
sp332
I'm not sure if there is a line. Here are two identical videos, and the one
with "transgender" in the title was demonetized.
[https://twitter.com/GeekRemix/status/910942349928419328](https://twitter.com/GeekRemix/status/910942349928419328)
(edited with larger sample)

~~~
patryn20
That is extremely troubling. I wonder if it's because the algorithm is taking
into account previous negative uses of the word in comments/commentary and
flagging it as possible hate speech?

~~~
pjc50
This is the point that various people such as Maciej Cegłowski have been
making - if they had a policy which banned that word, we could argue about it;
but if they have an _algorithm_ that emits the same result but without
explanation, it's much harder to make criticism stick. And unless people go to
special effort, the algorithm will pick up the prejudices of the training
data.

------
squeeeeeeeeeee
YouTube is demonetizing any and all content that is politically charged or
even just not interesting to the advertisers. If content by Brady Haran is not
safe, no one is safe.

[https://twitter.com/BradyHaran/status/901041339105673217](https://twitter.com/BradyHaran/status/901041339105673217)
[https://twitter.com/BradyHaran/status/901044151806021632](https://twitter.com/BradyHaran/status/901044151806021632)
[https://twitter.com/BradyHaran/status/906592700132196352](https://twitter.com/BradyHaran/status/906592700132196352)

------
gamesbrainiac
With all due respect for those who create these videos, is it not up to google
to determine what they do and don't monetize? At the end of the day, it is
their platform, and they will do whatever makes the most business sense.
YouTube is not a government service, it is a private company, and as such it
holds to right to make whatever decision it needs to make in order to maximize
its business potential.

~~~
482794793792894
It is up to Google to do that. And it's up to the people to complain, strike
and whatnot about it and to leave the platform, if the problem becomes
unbearable. This is a perfectly normal dynamic that exists any time anyone is
being paid money to do a job.

------
kasajian
Content providers think they want their videos to stay monetized, but I don't
think they don't.

With regard to monetizing videos, am I totally wrong to assume that this is
entirely based on what advertisers are willing to sponsor? So if company A
decides, for whatever reason, they don't want to pay for ads on videos that
talk about some subject that they don't agree with, I think we can all agree
that they should have the right to do that. And if that causes a community
backlash against that advertiser, then that's a good. Boycotts are better than
laws.

If some video has content, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with it,
and youtube is seeing advertisers shy away from such content, then why would
youtube continue to force that advertisers ads to show up on that video. They
would lose the advertiser. No advertiser. No money. So leaving it monetized
only to lose advertisers and thus money isn't exactly what the content
creators want either.

~~~
indubitable
I think what you're saying explains the situation quite concisely.

It seems that it would be somewhat difficult to argue that advertisers truly
care where their ads are placed in terms of moral values. There's no shortage
of western companies setup and advertising in places like Saudi
Arabia/Belarus/etc. If there was any money to be made in North Korea and they
were allowed, there's every reason to believe that there'd be McDonalds and
Starbucks on every corner.

However, the whole point of advertising is to positively influence the
population regarding your product's brand. If an advertiser's ads are shown on
something that's domestically controversial and the face a social backlash,
well that's a complete waste of money. And even if an advertiser chooses to
pull their advertising from something some group found controversial not only
does it rarely appease the offended group, but it's increasingly likely in
today's society that another group will counterprotest - again resulting in
brand damage and a complete waste of money.

The only completely economically safe path is to restrict your ads to the most
neutral, neutered, and completely inoffensive content possible. Well, at least
unless the target is large enough - in which case the brand image gained from
that viewership will likely dwarf any sort of brand damage from people
protesting against it. And this seems to be, in a nutshell, the solution that
YouTube and advertisers are choosing. For that matter it could even go some
way to explaining the increasing sterilization of things like mass
entertainment.

We did this to ourselves. We, as a culture, are simultaneously becoming
increasingly intolerant and turning politics into a team sport - quick to
finger "allies" and "enemies" alike. People, and companies, who choose to
choose no side are left walking on egg shells for fear of being damned or
claimed by one side or the other. Read, for instance, the entry on 'gun
controversy' relating to Starbucks [1]. This is the no-win situation we're
putting companies in today. It sucks.

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbucks#Gun_controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbucks#Gun_controversy)

------
amelius
It's one thing if a government regulates a market, yet another if a company
regulates it.

~~~
sp332
But at the same time they're trying to avoid responsiblity by pointing to an
algorithm. I mean they put a rainbow flag on their site and then also pull
monetization from videos! I guess it's their legal right but they can't duck
accountability.

~~~
1337biz
'But it's the algorithm' has become the new 'but I am a comedian, what kind of
a fool are you to take my political propaganda serious' defense.

~~~
ouid
He says, trying to make a humorous analogy to further his political ideals.

~~~
1337biz
I remember that from some Jon Stewart vs Bill O'Reilly discussion, where
Stewards basic argument was: 'But I am running a joke show, haha'.

------
TheAdamAndChe
What frustrates me with the adpocalypse is that YouTube and advertisers are
treating it like the television industry when it's not. Real life isn't a
perfect, cuss-free, conflict-free utopia like television shows are, and
content created by normal people shouldn't expected to be that way.

Instead of demonetizing everything, I think YouTube should emphasize to its
advertisers that while both television and YouTube are media companies, that
doesn't mean they have the same market share, and thus shouldn't be advertised
on in the same way that television does. At the same time, I think YouTube
should make it known that advertisement on a video shouldn't equate to
endorsement by that advertiser.

------
WmyEE0UsWAwC2i
I believe YouTube's algorithm takes into account comments in shuch a way that
some motivated group of activists could demonetize the videos of a channel by
posting hate-speech.

------
larrykwg
The adpocalypse had an obvious chilling effect on youtube, lots of channels
closed as a result of this. And while you can repeal the demonetization, this
takes time and even if its successful will remove 90%+ of the income from a
video anyways (since most ad revenue is generated in the first day[1]). The
arbitrary nature of YouTube's decisions have always made doing YouTube as a
full time job really risky. A large number of gaming related video creators
have already transitioned to twitch.

YouTube is 100% opaque, nobody knows why and when they are doing anything.
Including things that cause a huge damage for people that make their
livelihood on their platform. They clearly don't really know what they are
doing, I hope there is going to be a viable alternative to this terrible
company in the future.

[1] source:
[https://youtu.be/ULtjwGN2olM?t=373](https://youtu.be/ULtjwGN2olM?t=373)

------
panic
According to Google, the "machine is learning every day":
[https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/911340451696971776](https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/911340451696971776)

I wonder how long it'll take!

------
Animats
Why should Google be monetizing anybody's propaganda?

~~~
DanBC
Why do you think someone talking about their wedding is propaganda?

------
ben_jones
One of the mentioned videos was a sex-ed video. Honest question wouldn't sex-
related content violate TOS even if its for educational purposes?

~~~
smallerize
If it violated the TOS they would just take the video down. Talking about sex,
even with very explicit language, isn't against YouTube's rules. Heck they'll
sell you softcore porn! NSFW
[https://www.youtube.com/results?q=red+shoe+diaries&sp=EgIQBF...](https://www.youtube.com/results?q=red+shoe+diaries&sp=EgIQBFAU)

------
KaoruAoiShiho
Is there a specific marker that marks a video as "demonetized" vs no
advertiser wants to put an ad on it?

~~~
giggles_giggles
Yes

~~~
noncoml
Any more info?

------
slaymaker1907
I wonder if this violates various local ordinances against LGBT
discrimination?

~~~
Shivetya
whose ordinance do we appease? how do internet companies not cross a line in
some area of the world one way or another. the simple matter is, let them post
but don't facilitate the message one way or another.

it is going to give these sites all sorts of ways to make revenue without
having to share it

------
rhapsodic
FWIW, youtube has been demonetizing videos that promote conservative POVs.

(Edit: Gee, I didn't think this would upset people enough to attract so many
downvotes. Looks like I was wrong.)

~~~
fjert
I am willing to wager that more action will be seen with regards to LGBTQ
channels being demonetized than conservative channels. Google never really
tried to hide their left leaning biases.

~~~
patryn20
Anecdata, a lot of the popular conservative user-generated content on YouTube
I've come across tends to trend negatively towards "black people are causing
all this crime and police drama", "I don't hate LGBT people, I just think
their sexual preferences should be criminal again", etc.

I don't think YouTube is purposefully demonitizing videos on conservative
fiscal theories.

------
vfulco
More importantly some countries are reverting back to demonizing LGBTQ people
and behavior. Go after them first before we return to the Dark Ages.

~~~
tommorris
Pure whataboutery. The fact that a significantly worse harm happens in other
countries doesn't mean this isn't something people are allowed to discuss.

------
jlebrech
Sexuality is an adult topic. so there's that.

~~~
tommorris
Seeing two straight people getting married or discussing their romantic
relationship isn't an adult topic, but seeing two gay people doing the same is
treated as one.

Nobody is talking about adult or mature-rated LGBT content, they are talking
about the disparity in treatment between non-adult content containing LGBT
themes vs. non-adult content that doesn't contain LGBT themes.

------
eighthnate
Is it "controversial" and "offensive" to some people? Then yes.

This is why I was so taken back when the left demanded censorship for
"offensive" and "hateful" content. Don't the LGBT, atheists, etc understand
that much of the country and even more of the world view them as hateful and
offensive?

The greatest boon for the LGBT, atheist, etc movements was free speech. Free
speech is want advanced their cause. Why attack it?

------
lkrubner
Does anyone know why this article would disappear from the front page of
Hacker News? Right now, some of the articles on the front page:

 _this one:_

46 points

50 comments

1 hour old

 _A 1979 War-Game That Takes 1,500 Hours to Complete_

31 points

11 comments

3 hours old

 _LeakyX, a vulnerability that Apple and Microsoft have known about for years_

30 points

12 comments

1 hour old

 _Artificial ‘skin’ gives robotic hand a sense of touch_

20 points

0 comments

7 hours ago

There are several articles with less points and less comments and which are
either the same age are older, yet they are on the front page. Does anyone
understand the algorithm?

