[Clemmo]

I got a feeling this is influenced by SJWs wanting to crack down on speech they find unacceptable and create a "safe space" from controversial topics. Which will effect anti SJW channels or channels with a lot of cursing such as the biggest Youtuber Pewdiepie, and can ruin their source of income.

Here's one of the biggest Youtubers Phillip DeFranco getting his video of the SJW whacko on Lyft demonizted.

For those who do have Youtube channels. Check and see if your videos were demonitized.

[RBerkley]

It's not only about speech that SJWs want to restrict. Remember that many of these YouTubers rely on Adsense Revenue, so if their Revenue streams are faltering because of SJW censorship, then that is their livelihoods being negatively affected. I'm sure that many SJWs will even resort to making their targets homeless and without any source of income to survive.

Speaking of which, why is it that YouTube flags some speeches by Donald Trump as "Mature/Offensive Content" warnings, but there are New Age Feminist "Mothers" who post videos of themselves naked with 5-10-year-old children "breastfeeding"?

I ain't gonna post such videos here, because while the SJWs are claiming that when a "mother" is posing naked with a child to "breastfeeding" it is considered "natural as eating" to them, but if a man posts that same video on a Manosphere forum of all places, Roosh or whoever lives at his registered domain might get a knock from the FBI for "an investigation into hosting child pornography".

I also heard that many celebrities are being censored for criticizing Hilary Clinton..These SJWs wanna censor now and deprive the income of their critics/enemies

[Parzival]

I have a Youtube channel as well, every time I talk about refugees or Islamic attacks I get some kind of message that this kind of videos is not "advertising friendly". So I got demonetized but other topics still are monetized.
Personal I can understand when a company don't want their advertisement in a video that talks about a terrorist attack - negative association - as long as they are not taken down I can deal with it. Lucky me, I'm not a professional youtuber and don't relay on that money, my channel is to small anyway. I just hope they don't block or ban the videos. Of course when you do youtube for a living you have to switch either your topics to mainstream friendly stuff or seek other sources of income.

[Roosh]

We must assume that this is to maximize profitability. Maybe they're going after big advertisers and the generic Buzzfeed type of content they prefer.

[Leonard D Neubache]

What's the best right-friendly youtube competitor?

[Slim Shady]

(09-01-2016 06:16 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

We must assume that this is to maximize profitability. Maybe they're going after big advertisers and the generic Buzzfeed type of content they prefer.

Could be. On the one hand it makes perfect sense to only monetize channels where the site can garner ad revenue. Then again, this might be YouTube going the way of Twitter: fundamentally not recognizing how they are making money. Twitter thought that they made money off likes and retweets, not page views, so they censored their controversial customers/content producers. The same might happen to YouTube, as fewer people use the platform.

Maybe it is time to short Alphabet stock.

[Yatagan]

(09-01-2016 08:50 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

What's the best right-friendly youtube competitor?

I don't know of a right wing alternative per say, but there's full30.com for gun enthusiasm. Hickok45, Iraqveteran8888, Forgotten weapons,etc are active on there.

[Roosh]

Another explanation is that they are trying to cash starve indie media. For this to be true, they would have to make a collective deal with establishment media (e.g. "Promote our content over the indies and we'll do more advertising.") Plausible, but for that to happen, it must hold true that the indies are not bringing Youtube much money.

[General Stalin]

The good thing is that channels that are affected by this have solid guerrilla tactics for circumventing YouTube's bullshit: get your viewers to run adblockers and donate to the creator's Patreon instead. If enough people do that then YouTube may even change their policy back.

[zigZag]

When your business exists on someone else's platform, this can happen. My feeling is that its purely about money. Youtube is a place that is competing with TV and they wan't more TV ad revenue. It could be that they're trying to attract other advertisers. Youtube exists to make money and i'm 100% sure that whatever they are doing is to make more money.

[8ball]

This will just lead to relying more on Patronage which should cover the loses from ad sense revenue.

Also Amazon is launching their own version of youtube next year for Amazon instant video which will give the ability for content producers to upload their content. It should be healthy competition.



If you really wanna be completely independent you have to have your content accessible exclusively from your own website. You don't have to host your video content, you can use a third party like Ooyala but you must control DISTRIBUTION.

[philosophical_recovery]

I'm waiting for a strong independent to rise and get served IP infringement lawsuits. Google needs to be bitch slapped hard on anti trust.

Between this and Obama handing over ICANN, something needs to happen, soon.

[shameus_o'reaaly]

can you make a YouTube channel subscriber-only and charge your followers?
or just post neutral stuff there and run what people want to see on vimeo or somesuch?

[Svoboda]

I think a major problem is how SJW flag/report videos much more.
Maybe people need to start to flag videos by Big Red, Lindy West (no idea if they have YT channels) to even things out.

[Putin Closes]

(09-01-2016 01:58 PM)shameus_oreaaly Wrote:  

can you make a YouTube channel subscriber-only and charge your followers?
or just post neutral stuff there and run what people want to see on vimeo or somesuch?

Patreon

[Glaucon]

Well we could start reporting SJW videos, who are the top 5 ones?

[BortimusPrime]

It's coming out of political ideology, not economics. If I were running ((()))tube and had advertisers complaining that their ads were being shown on videos about pee pees and wee wees, I would simply set up the ad purchasing service to where the advertiser can choose whether he only wants his ads on non-controversial material or not. Depending on how much this is used the controversial videos might end up getting a smaller share of ad income but they'd still be able to monetize.

If google wants to own the entire internet, they should have to submit to being a common carrier.

[Armada]

So long as no outright censorship like taking down videos or blocking subscriptions takes place, this might even work out positively. If you're making a significant amount of money, you'll probably use Patreon, as said.

The dumbasses who don't use adblock are likely still annoyed by ads, and the creators only get about a quarter of a cent per ad(maybe more?). For every dollar you earn, you have to piss off 400 people. If you have a choice between shitty mainstream videos with ads vs cool indie videos without...

[Comte De St. Germain]

Patreon I think is on its way to being the revenue stream of the future. Many people more than happily will doll out money to see more content. This is already a thing among many of the semi-popular Youtube entertainers. I already donate of my own accord via that. Those $5 monthly donations from a lot of subscribers do add up and it's a minuscule amount from a donation perspective while being extremely profitable.

The second I heard about it the more annoyed I was that I didn't think of it first. Further proof that where there is a need a market can develop without that much thought.

[Clemmo]

Here's a list of videos a Youtuber Mr Repzion made that were deemed not "advertiser friendly". Notice how many of the topics are anti-Islam, feminism, and SJW. This new enforcement is basically a way to censor opinions that are against the narrative.

But even the leftists favorites the Young Turks got a few of their videos demonitized so it might be Youtube wanting to compete with mass media for advertisers.


   

[Roosh]

Patreon is more SJW than youtube. They police your content and then cancel you.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(09-01-2016 04:19 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Patreon is more SJW than youtube. They police your content and then cancel you.

Perhaps another alternative can be made. All in all it's a fairly simple concept. A monthly charge per video released on a platform from people who want to donate.

[CH-Toronto]

(09-01-2016 10:25 AM)Roosh Wrote:  

Another explanation is that they are trying to cash starve indie media. For this to be true, they would have to make a collective deal with establishment media (e.g. "Promote our content over the indies and we'll do more advertising.") Plausible, but for that to happen, it must hold true that the indies are not bringing Youtube much money.

Whether or not this is the "reason" this is definitely what it's doing. As Philip Defranco pointed out- it's not like CNN is going to be having their videos demonetized for violence.

Philip Defranco pointed out this:


So even TALKING about issues is now considered means for censorship. I know it's crazy, but I think this has to somehow all be tied to Hillary Clinton and making sure nothing negative can get said about her. It just seems like too much of a coincidence with everything happening.

[Scesci]

H3h3 productions made a PSA about the issue

[ivansirko]

minds.com

Never tried it.