SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From The Verge, an article on autonomous weapons systems:
YouTube’s new policies designed to more aggressively tackle supremacist content have also led to some creators claiming their videos have been improperly removed or hidden in the process. They argue that YouTube is not distinguishing between actual hate content and videos that document hate groups for educational or journalistic purposes.
In militaries, there is a saying: "Friendly fire isn't."
YouTube announced on Wednesday that it was taking stronger measures to ban “videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status.” It was only minutes later that creators began to see channels being removed or videos pulled down — including a channel run by a history teacher, a video uploaded by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and independent journalist Ford Fischer.
Fischer is a YouTube-based reporter who covers politics, activism, and extremism. He’s shot footage at events like the Unite the Right white supremacy rally that occurred in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017, as well as gay pride parades. Some of his footage is used by documentarians and educators to study extremism and activist groups around the world, Fischer tells The Verge.
Looks like YouTube is going to demonetize aristarchus!
Previously: YouTube Clamps Down Further on Undesireable Speech
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20 2019, @01:43AM (50 children)
Right-wing channels get demonetized: "There is no right to freezed peach on a privately owned web site. Go start your own video hosting website, you literal Nazi."
Left-wing channels get demonetized: "WAAAAAAAHHHHH"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gaaark on Thursday June 20 2019, @01:54AM (7 children)
No: stupidity gets demonetized, actual educational stuff got caught in the chum of alt-right.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20 2019, @02:12AM (6 children)
No. If stupidity were demonetized, there would be no "influencers" left.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20 2019, @02:21AM (4 children)
Good, why should anyone get paid to troll.
(Score: 4, Funny) by MostCynical on Thursday June 20 2019, @03:35AM (3 children)
Hold on..
You can get paid?
But people on SN are doing it for free!
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday June 20 2019, @04:19AM
That's "l'art pour l'art".
In contrast with "Ars gratia artis (Leo the Lion roaring)"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20 2019, @02:08PM (1 child)
Isn't that the same difference between whores and hussies?
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday June 21 2019, @04:38AM
One up-front payment vs bleed your wallet all night long?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 20 2019, @06:01AM
If stupidity were demonetized, money would be worthless.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20 2019, @02:16AM (23 children)
The "right wing" (if that's what you want to call it) have already made their own sites. The "left wing" (whatever) are people who will wait for a corporation or government to do it for them.
Btw, I tried to watch some 9 part WWI documentary on one of those "right wing" sites that was supposed to be good. I couldn't make it through the first episode due to all the unsourced question quotes they kept using.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20 2019, @02:17AM (1 child)
*citation needed*
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20 2019, @02:21AM
https://www.bitchute.com/video/QtLvxZ9d0yEY/ [bitchute.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20 2019, @02:19AM
*questionable quotes
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday June 20 2019, @02:38AM (19 children)
Good lord that's weird comment.
What? Since when are the left in favour of corporations? I though they were all communists. Also,
So, they're just the same thing now are they?
We seriously need a + or - 1 Weird mod on this site.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20 2019, @02:42AM (16 children)
Yea corporations are created by governments, they act according to rules set by governments and have access to special laws. The same people run both.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 20 2019, @06:13AM (15 children)
Yea corporations are created by governments
Wagging the dog. Business creates and finances a government to protect and enforce contracts. If/when a government fails to comply, all that money goes to the opposition to form a "new" government. Sometimes it happens peacefully, sometimes it doesn't.
The same people run both.
This is true, kind of. The government itself remains subservient to finance.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20 2019, @06:17AM (14 children)
A corporation is literally a legal entity, ie something devised by the government. And I don't know what hair you are trying to split, the point is it is all one big organization.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 20 2019, @06:26AM (10 children)
it is all one big organization.
"Corporation" is just a name. Instead let's call them financiers. They create the government through finance. There is no other way.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20 2019, @06:33AM (9 children)
No it isn't just a name, wtf are you talking about? Corporations are always created by the government, by definition. Like I said, the same people are behind both most big corporations and the government, but that has nothing to with the meaning of a corporation or which comes first.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 20 2019, @06:45AM (8 children)
The name "Corporation" was created by government. It's about branding. Financiers need a government to protect their finances, really to legitimize their theft of property. They create a government to stamp the deed so they can sell it back to the indians, or you if you make a higher bid. A government cannot exist without high finance from above. The first governments were created by pirates.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20 2019, @12:42PM (7 children)
Alright, you have no idea what a corporation is, go look it up. Big business != corporation.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 20 2019, @03:46PM (6 children)
Big business != corporation
Never said it was. You're the one "splitting hairs" over nomenclature. Big business creates the government to "incorporate", to "legitimize" its business. It's strictly a paper thing, sealed with a kiss.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20 2019, @04:04PM (5 children)
No, you are just trying to twist a simple fact (governments create corporations and define what they are) into supporting some bizarre pre-existing worldview you have.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 20 2019, @04:47PM (4 children)
Governments incorporate a business. But business always precedes government.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20 2019, @06:39PM (2 children)
And... your point is?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 20 2019, @06:47PM
:-) Thank you!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 20 2019, @06:50PM
Oh! So very sorry..
The point is that government is always subservient to its business financiers.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 21 2019, @01:33PM
They're both cylons. We created monsters that got away from us.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday June 20 2019, @01:28PM (2 children)
People who do business "create[] and finance[] a government to protect and enforce contracts." The corporation happens to be one tool "to protect and enforce contracts" designed by these people and implemented through government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20 2019, @02:09PM (1 child)
I have no idea what distinction you are trying to make but surely you don't believe corporations "just happen" to be one tool used to protect and enforce contracts.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Friday June 21 2019, @12:12PM
I do in fact believe that. A corporation is a group of people who enter into contracts as a group. Acts of the legislature that define corporations, such as the Joint Stock Companies Act 1844 [wikipedia.org], its successors, and its counterparts in other countries, are intended to facilitate this collective contracting.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Thursday June 20 2019, @02:51AM
Would you be surprised to learn they are actually the same thing at a certain level?
'cause both of them has one thing in common: chasing power and control. Right, the ways they manifest those things and the declared purposes are different, but I argue that the people that make both the Frankenstein monsters to live, move and act in certain way are showing the same authoritarian traits.
Even funnier (if you have a quirky sense of humour), they are declared frenemies. Wrangling over the control over you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20 2019, @02:54AM
Try this, go look up the pH of la croix... You'll find a bunch of people looking around for some authority figure (someone paid by a corporation or government) to tell them the answer, except for a little kid on YouTube who measured it for himself. Btw, we double checked him and his answer is good.
The former type of person is now what gets called "left wing" and wants to censor everything they don't like, but (like I mentioned in that post) that's not a good term for them.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Thursday June 20 2019, @03:24AM (17 children)
Sorry friend, but "demonetization" is*not* censorship. I'll explain. And I'll use small words so you'll be sure to understand.
If you have a message (whatever message that may be), there are plenty of ways (including youtube without ad revenue) to get that message out.
If your goal is to use whatever "message" to generate revenue, that's a very different proposition. Even then, not getting paid for disseminating your message is *still* not censorship.
For YouTube, it's simple economics. Because their *actual customers* (those paying to place ads) are often rather picky about the kinds of messages which their ads appear alongside.
Is that a little clearer now, or do we need to use pictures?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20 2019, @03:37AM
Yes, that is exactly what is happening.
(Score: 5, Informative) by MostCynical on Thursday June 20 2019, @03:42AM (14 children)
No: it is theft.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Thursday June 20 2019, @04:08AM (13 children)
How so?
According to Youtube's Terms of Service [youtube.com]
[emphasis added]
IANAL, but it appears that when uploading to Youtube, you grant both Youtube and viewers a license to use your content. Since you have given that license, there's no theft there, right?
If you decide (for whatever reason, like being "demonetized") to do so, you can *revoke* that license by removing or deleting the content from YouTube.
Let's review. Uploading content *voluntarily* grants a license to YouTube. Removing that content *revokes* that license. Both of those actions are voluntary and the terms of said license are clearly defined.
Where is this "theft" you mention?
I don't use youtube to upload stuff, nor am I a frequent consumer of the content there. As such, I may well be missing something important. If you could explain it to me, it would be much appreciated. Thanks!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MostCynical on Thursday June 20 2019, @05:33AM (12 children)
"make money uploading content"
"No, not you, we're keeping the money your video/ channel has earned"
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 1) by Mer on Thursday June 20 2019, @08:58AM (5 children)
It's more that the deal Youtube offers to content creators is very shitty and one sided. Essentially asking you to work for exposure until you break through and allow you some revenue but not set any proper rules for you earning money so they can take it away if they want.
If that were a contractor and creator situation it'd be a hard pass. But it's just a platform and you're responsible for your numbers (but hey you can make as much as you want assuming you've got the talent).
The success stories of the few top youtubers have tainted the view people have of youtube. Success is an exception.
Shut up!, he explained.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday June 20 2019, @10:01AM (4 children)
There is a difference between "success" and "sone revenue". This is not just about big earners.
If your video, or channel, has viewers, the ads are generasting income for youtube.
Youtube withholding money at whim is therfore theft.
Even if it were only 2 cents.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 1) by Mer on Thursday June 20 2019, @11:27AM (2 children)
By that logic, facebook updates or tweets should also be remunerated.
Obviously that's not the case.
Shut up!, he explained.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday June 20 2019, @12:18PM (1 child)
There is no agreed mechanism for payment, so, no.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday June 20 2019, @01:33PM
What is that "agreed mechanism" and where can I find it documented?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday June 20 2019, @11:35AM
> If your video, or channel, has viewers, the ads are generasting income for youtube.
> Youtube withholding money at whim is therfore theft.
what planet are you on?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday June 20 2019, @01:32PM (4 children)
I guess I don't understand how, and under what circumstances, youtube pays people based on ads (is it just on-page ad views? click-throughs? both?), and is that documented anywhere?
I use ad-blockers, so I wouldn't know whether any particular youtube content has ads displayed alongside it. If particular content is "demonetized," does youtube *still* display ads next to that content? Also, what is the policy concerning payments for ad revenue "generated" *prior to "demonetization?"
If there's a bright line where ad revenue is being generated, and youtube pays, and once you're "demonetized", they no longer display ads alongside your content and you're not being paid, I still don't see how that's theft unless they refuse to pay monies that had *already* been generated via ad revenue.
I'd expect that the terms and conditions are clearly defined, and likely rather one-sided, but if you know what they are up front and you agree to them, I'm still not clear on how the term "theft" applies.
And this is where I'm still not getting the "theft" angle. Creators voluntarily upload content with (presumably, and if its a *business*, you'd think folks would make sure they know what they're getting themselves into) a clear understanding of how things work.
And if you can take down your content whenever you wish, it seems that you have just as much agency to terminate such an arrangement as youtube.
I'm not defending youtube or google here. They are parasitical and their business model turns my stomach. Which is why I use ad-blockers.
I'm curious, do you consider me to be a thief because I use ad blockers?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday June 21 2019, @02:59AM
No, you didn't agree to watch ads.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday June 21 2019, @10:19AM (1 child)
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/youtube-payments-work-38102.html [chron.com]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday June 21 2019, @05:11PM
Thank you!
That answers most of my questions.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 21 2019, @01:42PM
Not just alongside the video. I've occasionally experience YouTube without an ad blocker. They actually interrupt the videos, like with commercials. It's intolerable!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 20 2019, @08:22PM
On the one hand you have a good point. On the other hand, https://xkcd.com/1150/ [xkcd.com]
I feel like there is a difference, but I can't figure out what it is.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday June 20 2019, @07:37AM
If a YouTube clip isn't available, a picture should do just enough. (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford