
YouTube Bans Sexual Humor, Profanity, Political Conflict, etc in Partner Content - protomyth
https://reason.com/blog/2016/09/01/youtube-bans-sex-drugs-and-politics
======
mdaniel
If anyone wants a succinct example of how misguided this is,
[https://www.youtube.com/user/Kurzgesagt](https://www.youtube.com/user/Kurzgesagt)
is an _amazing_ channel filled with thoughtful and well researched videos, but
their Twitter account reported last night that their second video _discussing_
nuclear power ran afoul of the "content guidelines" and was de-monetized.

I can't imagine an educational channel deserving this treatment - it makes me
so sad for everyone involved.

~~~
ramblenode
"Nuclear power, Syrian refugees, clear cutting the Amazon--those are a lot to
think about and we don't want to offend someone. We'll just double up on cat
videos instead. Everybody likes cat videos, right?"

~~~
blackflame7000
Nothing controversial about cats... Unless they are the feral kind in which
case you can find many arguments online that are in favor of their
eradication.

~~~
baldfat
These are house cats :P ERADICATION IS NEEDED :)

“The results were certainly surprising, if not startling,” said Kerrie Anne
Loyd of the University of Georgia, who was the lead author of the study. “In
Athens-Clarke County, we found that about 30 percent of the sampled cats were
successful in capturing and killing prey, and that those cats averaged about
one kill for every 17 hours outdoors or 2.1 kills per week. It was also
surprising to learn that cats only brought 23 percent of their kills back to a
residence. We found that house cats will kill a wide variety of animals,
including: lizards, voles, chipmunks, birds, frogs, and small snakes.”

[http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/index.php?option=...](http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&id=610:new-
research-suggests-outdoor-cats-kill-more-wildlife-than-
thought&catid=34:ONB+Articles&Itemid=54)

------
deadmik3
YouTube renamed to Google SafeSpaces

As a real comment though, maybe this is Google's way of trying to put the
pillow over YouTube's face? It's been costing them money for a long time,
maybe this is their way to kill it without just going "yeah iz ded"

~~~
icebraining
Profitable or not, YouTube is the uncontested king of web video right at the
moment when cord cutting is starting to get significant. They'd be insane to
let that go.

Besides, they're only removing monetization, not banning the videos. It's just
a way to avoid offending their advertisers by getting them mixed up with
uncomfortable content.

~~~
_0ffh
They're not even trying to be flexible.

Advertisers could be given a choice, if they are fine with controversial
content. Maybe use a handful of tags, like politics and swearing are fine, but
no sex, violence or cat videos, please! All the pussy companies can then
choose to only advertise on reaction videos, for all I care.

------
btym
Prohibiting the open discussion of "controversial or sensitive subjects" is
unbelievable. Partners are no longer allowed to have political opinions or
discuss major world events. What the fuck, YouTube?

~~~
krapp
Youtube isn't prohibiting the discussion of these subjects, they're just not
allowing those videos to be monetized.

Partners exist to make money for Google, on Google's terms, and in Google's
best interests. Monetizing videos is a service Google provides for their
advertisers and licensed content owners first, content creators last.

~~~
carnegie
Youtube's rules doesn't apply to CNN and other corp accounts. They can
continue monetizing while breaking the new rules.

That's the real story here.

~~~
angry-hacker
There is no story. Welcome to life.

While I don't support it, most of the youtubers are spoiled with ad money for
no good reason. Same policies apply to adsense and every other ad network too.

~~~
Anasufovic
Yeah, large corporation favoring other large corporations and not giving the
small guys even a fighting chance. I wish I could act surprised.

------
DanBC
> Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related
> to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if
> graphic imagery is not shown

Evolution is (for some bizarre reason) both controversial and political.

Will videos explaining evolution be de-monetised?

EDIT: YT seem to be doing a boneheaded "search for problem words in titles,
and demonetise that video". Hence this channel (which is full of stuff that is
possibly against the new terms is mostly monetised apart from one video about
preventing veteran suicide.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRo1KI1JC3A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRo1KI1JC3A)
)

(Not sure if it counts as political conflict, or if that means more along the
lines of Basque Seperatism?)

------
wodenokoto
What I do find odd is that Youtube is not auctioning advertisement space based
on content of the video + user profile.

Why not allow small advertisers a discount on "controversial" videos?

I'm also surprised how much advertisers considers themselves linked to the
content they advertise next to. I consider FB and Youtube ads completely user
profile based, but maybe I live in my own little tech bubble.

------
CommanderData
The tables are in favor of those with money i.e. Advertisers. The new rules
seem to stem from normal TV advertising rules.

Leaving or boycotting while in some situations is good, I don't think is not a
solution in this case - the dynamics of the web / content content creation
means there will be someone to replace a creator quickly if they no longer
provide (users will just look elsewhere for their needs).

No doubt these policies were pushed anticipating a backlash. This move is a
thought-out strategy - it will be interesting to see how this will turn out,
or if it follows YouTube's expectations.

------
ramblenode
> Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and
> abuse of such items

Regulated by whom? Alcohol is banned in some countries, so does that mean a
video on wine tasting is eligible for monetization if uploaded in the UK but
not eligible if uploaded in Saudi Arabia?

It seems like a reactive and overbearing policy change, but I'll admit to
being ignorant of their motivations. This kind of soft censorship is a loss to
the end user, regardless.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Also, does that mean I can't promote Gruyère cheese because the EU regulates
that it can only be produced in Switzerland?

------
imh
I don't get the accusations of censorship here. They aren't stopping people
from publishing of these videos, they're just telling the creators they won't
pay for them anymore (beyond hosting costs, distribution, etc).

------
Cortez
YouTube has been dying for years now

~~~
dragonwriter
> YouTube has been dying for years now

If by "dying" you mean "growing up into mass-market, big-money commercial
media" then, sure, its been dying.

~~~
Psyonic
Nobody goes there anymore -- it's too crowded.

~~~
ry_ry
Too crowded for what, though?

The comments threads have always been an internet Mos Eisley cess-pit, so I'm
unconvinced the social aspect have ever been particularly prevalent, and the
competition amongst content creators is obviously intense, but to say _nobody
goes there_ is just plain wrong.

Heck, the content glut means the likely hood of hitting relevant content
quickly is higher than ever, quality notwithstanding.

~~~
serge2k
"Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded" is a classic joke.

~~~
ry_ry
Oh christ... That moment when you realise a joke has sailed clean over your
head? Yep. Exactly that.

Too late to edit and spare my blushes sadly. Still, it got a sheepish chuckle
out of me when I finally twigged, so it's not all bad news!

------
tomlock
I don't think this is particularly surprising. Advertisers often won't run
their ad on a particular show on TV because of its content. Youtube is most
likely bowing to advertiser pressure on this.

------
serge2k
Time for content creators to start banding together. Force youtube to deal
with their lousy policies.

