Social Steven crowder demonetized

[Islam Imamate]

Am I supposed to know this?

He was killed in Bolivia in a town called La Higuera which means "The Fig Tree"

Har har har, I'm lmao here...

 

[all caps]

He was killed in Bolivia in a town called La Higuera which means "The Fig Tree"

Har har har, I'm lmao here...

Just did my research @Lord of Lies and ROFL please send me a link, I've got to buy 4 immediately.

 

[franklinstower]

Taking away millions = what?

Nice IQ bro.

As in millions support people like Alex Jones but hundreds of millions dont so advertising dollars go to the majority of non idiots.

 

[spamking]

At least you're acknowledging your dodge so that's a start.

I already addressed things with @nac386 I think we're good now.

What's your point? Was there something specific you think you're telling me?

Crowder's content didn't get removed though so try again.

Why? What do I need to try again with/for?

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

As in millions support people like Alex Jones but hundreds of millions dont so advertising dollars go to the majority of non idiots.

You make zero sense and have no clue of wtf you're talking about.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I already addressed things with @nac386 I think we're good now.

What's your point? Was there something specific you think you're telling me?

Like I said, you acknowledged your dodge so that's good enough for me.

Why? What do I need to try again with/for?

At your argument. Its not really relevant since Crowder was not banned and people can still watch his content on YT.

 

[spamking]

Like I said, you acknowledged your dodge so that's good enough for me.

Except it really wasn't, but whatever makes you feel better about chiming in . . . your input was very valuable.

At your argument. Its not really relevant since Crowder was not banned and people can still watch his content on YT.

What argument is that?

If Crowder's content had nothing pulled and YT said he didn't actually break ToS and they still decided to use the Vox complaint to demonetize his channel (along with others) that should worry everyone.

So my argument is that content should be left alone, monetized if sponsors agree to monetize and let folks decide for themselves what they want to view.

My life would remain unchanged if Crowder's (or anyone else's) content was completely pulled . . . but I don't see that as a reasonable approach for controlling content. YT needs to decide if it's a platform or a publisher and stop benefiting from both.

 

[Islam Imamate]

What argument is that?

If Crowder's content had nothing pulled and YT said he didn't actually break ToS and they still decided to use the Vox complaint to demonetize his channel (along with others) that should worry everyone.

So my argument is that content should be left alone, monetized if sponsors agree to monetize and let folks decide for themselves what they want to view.

My life would remain unchanged if Crowder's (or anyone else's) content was completely pulled . . . but I don't see that as a reasonable approach for controlling content. YT needs to decide if it's a platform or a publisher and stop benefiting from both.

So you're arguing that Crowder is entitled to monetization despite YT's concerns and interest? You're not just arguing that content should be left up, you're arguing that YT is responsible for paying content creators?

Can't disagree more. An edgy YT "comedian" was demonetized after complaints, I see no reason why that should worry me or anyone else. For those whining about why this or that other video isn't demonetized, report them or stop complaining.

 

[spamking]

So you're arguing that Crowder is entitled to monetization despite YT's concerns and interest?

If sponsors agree to monetize someone why shouldn't the content be monetized? What's the risk to YT?

You're not just arguing that content should be left up, you're arguing that YT is responsible for paying content creators?

I'm arguing that content should be left alone. I'm arguing that if sponsors choose to pay or ask that their products not be associated with a specific channel then what's the problem? Shouldn't the sponsor make that decision?

Can't disagree more. An edgy YT "comedian" was demonetized after complaints, I see no reason why that should worry me or anyone else.

What are you not getting? This can be just as easily applied across the board to EVERYONE. This is bigger than Steven Crowder. Especially after his history with YT. A decision to suddenly demonetize perhaps the most popular "conservative" channel is idiotic.

For those whining about why this or that other video isn't demonetized, report them or stop complaining.

Just as those whining about ANY content being available and monetized . . . get over it. Don't watch it.

 

[Islam Imamate]

If sponsors agree to monetize someone why shouldn't the content be monetized? What's the risk to YT?

YT has a brand and it sees moderation like this as a way to protect its brand and make it more friendly to advertisers which is in its best interest. Crowder can still get independent sponsors for his channel as many YTers already do, he jsut can't take advatange of YT's ad system.

I'm arguing that content should be left alone.

Why though? YT has a right and an interest to moderate its platform which includes moderating who gets to be monetized and who doesn't

I'm arguing that if sponsors choose to pay or ask that their products not be associated with a specific channel then what's the problem? Shouldn't the sponsor make that decision?

The relationship is not directly between the sponsors and the content creator, its mediated by YT which means YT sets the conditions for it. Its also the case that advertisers don't really choose exactly which videos get their ads and vice versa so its either ads or no ads and YT gets to decide where that line is. As I said before if Crowder wants sponsors he can still get them by appealing to them directly.

What are you not getting? This can be just as easily applied across the board to EVERYONE. This is bigger than Steven Crowder. Especially after his history with YT. A decision to suddenly demonetize perhaps the most popular "conservative" channel is idiotic.

So should his popularity shield him from moderation? Or should YT just not moderate for some reason?

Just as those whining about ANY content being available and monetized . . . get over it. Don't watch it.

Not really though, the system only works if people report content they find in violation of YT's ToS such as in this case. YT wants people to report videos that people find objectionable and want removed.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

 

[Lead]

Is it possible to see who is and who isn't monetized?

If an ad plays during the video at some point, it means it’s monetized. Those who aren’t monetized can still advertise by placing the advertising in the video itself, usually with the broadcaster reading the ad or something like that.

 

[xcvbn]

Nearly 700 posts of outrage ITT

Here's the man you can support who has a history of attacking corporate and government censorship:

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

That was an excellent video. Crowder has turned chicken shit into chicken salad with this whole debacle.

 

[IamStryker]

That was an excellent video. Crowder has turned chicken shit into chicken salad with this whole debacle.

Good video that I doubt the leftist whiners will say anything about.

 

[spamking]

I guess I missed this last week . . .

YT has a brand and it sees moderation like this as a way to protect its brand and make it more friendly to advertisers which is in its best interest. Crowder can still get independent sponsors for his channel as many YTers already do, he jsut can't take advatange of YT's ad system.

Why though? YT has a right and an interest to moderate its platform which includes moderating who gets to be monetized and who doesn't

YT needs to decide what the company is IMO. A platform or a publisher.

If YT is a platform why does it need to moderate anything? It isn't responsible for content someone creates and publishes on the platform any more than ATT or Verizon are responsible for the conversations people have on the phone IMO.

The relationship is not directly between the sponsors and the content creator, its mediated by YT which means YT sets the conditions for it. Its also the case that advertisers don't really choose exactly which videos get their ads and vice versa so its either ads or no ads and YT gets to decide where that line is. As I said before if Crowder wants sponsors he can still get them by appealing to them directly.

Again, this is YT taking advantage of benefits as both a platform and publisher. They need to pick one.

So should his popularity shield him from moderation? Or should YT just not moderate for some reason?

Not necessarily, but I believe popularity comes into play in many situations on the various platforms. Crowder and his brother were some of the original YT partners and were offered monetization if YT hosted their content.

Not really though, the system only works if people report content they find in violation of YT's ToS such as in this case. YT wants people to report videos that people find objectionable and want removed.

What system?

If you don't want to support something then don't watch it.

Didn't YT state that Crowder's channel didn't break any ToS? Wasn't his channel really demonetized over that stupid shirt? According to Crowder's attorney YT only provided links to a couple of questionable videos and referenced the t-shirt. Maza himself referenced this as a response from YT.

 

[IGotAHugePeckah]

So is Crowder still demonitized? Will he commit seppuku? Someone please update me.

Some of his stuff is good and some of his stuff is SO FUCKING CRINGE.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I guess I missed this last week . . .



YT needs to decide what the company is IMO. A platform or a publisher.

If YT is a platform why does it need to moderate anything? It isn't responsible for content someone creates and publishes on the platform any more than ATT or Verizon are responsible for the conversations people have on the phone IMO.

So if they accept being a platform they are not entitled to moderation? That's ridiculous. all these sties have to have some level of moderation to make them acceptable to the general audience. Even 4chan has moderation.

Not necessarily, but I believe popularity comes into play in many situations on the various platforms. Crowder and his brother were some of the original YT partners and were offered monetization if YT hosted their content.

So not necessarily but also kind of? Which one?

What system?

If you don't want to support something then don't watch it.

Didn't YT state that Crowder's channel didn't break any ToS? Wasn't his channel really demonetized over that stupid shirt? According to Crowder's attorney YT only provided links to a couple of questionable videos and referenced the t-shirt. Maza himself referenced this as a response from YT.

The system of moderation which YT has in place. They don't want to be this ideal free speech platform that you apparently want them to be for some reason. They want people to flag objectionable content.

 

[abiG]

So if they accept being a platform they are not entitled to moderation? That's ridiculous. all these sties have to have some level of moderation to make them acceptable to the general audience. Even 4chan has moderation.

So not necessarily but also kind of? Which one?

The system of moderation which YT has in place. They don't want to be this ideal free speech platform that you apparently want them to be for some reason. They want people to flag objectionable content.

Moderation is fine, and with the levels of idiocy we find on the net, a necessary evil.

That said, base it on the first amendment. Easy fix that men smarter than today's left figured out over 200 years ago.

 

[franklinstower]

Moderation is fine, and with the levels of idiocy we find on the net, a necessary evil.

That said, base it on the first amendment. Easy fix that men smarter than today's left figured out over 200 years ago.

There is no reason to base it on the first amendment. It is not a first amendment issue. The issue is what does a PRIVATE company have the right to do. The answer is pretty much whatever improves the bottom line.