[xanderlewis]

A lot of YouTubers have been very critical of YouTube’s approach to things and treatment of creators in the past.

Also, just as an example, YouTube demonetises (and therefore effectively punishes) you for using words like ‘suicide’ so now we have to say silly things like ‘unalive’ — at least until Google/the advertisers catch on. These days YouTube is more censored than traditional TV.

[Aunche]

YouTube doesn't print money out of thin air. They make money by making advertisers happy, and advertisers will only buy ads if their customers are happy. This isn't anything new either. Creatives have always been beholden to censorship boards in traditional media too, which are typically much stricter. The fact that you so many YouTubers make money from criticizing YouTube is evidence of how much YouTubers don't understand their own privilege.

[xanderlewis]

Which customers are offended by the word ‘suicide’ and would prefer something like ‘unalive’?

As with all of this crap, it’s about taking offence on behalf of those who aren’t offended or don’t even exist.

> censorship boards in traditional media too, which are typically much stricter.

Which ones? In which country would the word ‘suicide’ be censored? There are countless other examples of topics that YouTube has decided are beyond discussion — even the left-leaning BBC aren’t as censorious.

Yes, they can do what they like on their platform. But by the same token, we can complain about it.

[Aunche]

I'm pretty sure that unalive came from TikTok because they wanted to keep their app upbeat.

My point is that average YouTube is going to be less censoring overall. The perception may be that there is more censorship because there is simply more content on it that can be censored and they have more stakeholders that they have to appease. BBC released The Modi Question, which got censored on YouTube. However, YouTube has significantly more Modi criticism than anything on TV in India. Likewise, YouTube censors covid related conspiracy theories, but you're still going to find more of them on YouTube than the BBC.

[xanderlewis]

Your point seemed to be that if advertisers are unhappy, then YouTube can’t make money. And advertisers are unhappy if their customers are unhappy.

This is true; the problem is that the customers aren’t unhappy. No sensible person cares about this kind of posturing, virtue-signalling, euphemism treadmill-riding for-lack-of-a-better-word ‘wokery’. It’s pushed by an incredibly small vocal minority of people who stand to benefit — mainly because it’s now possible not only to gain social cache but to have a whole career and make lots of money pushing this stuff.

Yes, YouTube may find that advertisers choose to virtue signal, ‘make a stand’ and leave their platform when their chosen magic words are not used, but ultimately they’ll come grovelling back. YouTube shouldn’t be so soft. Ultimately it’s just the endless cycle of unsolicited offence-taking.

And, by the way: this is all totally separate from Musk’s management of X, which purports to be rules-based and morally sound but is in reality entirely ad hoc. What Elon says goes… until he changes his mind tomorrow. At least YouTube has policies, even if they’re bonkers.

[specialist]

Are their advertisers happy?

[Jensson]

They continue to pay for ads, so yeah for now. That is the kind of "happiness" companies care about.

[mewpmewp2]

Demonetisation is not the same as censoring though.

[sunaookami]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

[xanderlewis]

No — it’s not quite the same. But if you systematically demonetise any content you don’t like, in the long term it does amount to a form of censorship.

It’s as if a government said ‘we’ll tax you 1000% if you criticise us on social media’. You’d still get some bozos online saying ‘it’s not censorship; people are free to speak’ because you’re not directly prevented from speaking. But you can imagine the effect it would have.

[mewpmewp2]

Yeah, but there is always going to be different incentives for different content. Some content will always pay more. It is up to the author which kind of content they want to create.

E.g. clickbait content might bring you more, but it doesn't mean the other type of content is censored.

[xanderlewis]

Clickbait content brings more via an organic process (because people actually want to click on it). The type of de facto censorship I’m talking about is anything but organic — it’s an unnatural distortion imposed on creators and consumers who don’t want it.

[throw0101d]

> These days YouTube is more censored than traditional TV.

This is evident in (e.g.) WW2 documentaries where an old 4:3 television broadcast is simply put online, and the original footage had perhaps footage of corpses but on Youtube it is blurred.

[TMWNN]

I think the "unalive" nonsense is idiotic too, especially when it increasingly bleeds into elsewhere online (and probably offline, too). But that's not the same thing as "mixed opinions" in general on HN. That would be more accurate of, say, Twitter (where we are nearing two years and counting of the imminent collapse of the site any day now post-Musk acquisition, as opposed to seemingly every news event proving that it is more important than ever).

[xanderlewis]

I think perhaps what there are ‘mixed opinions’ on is the actual management and day-to-day practice of YouTube as a company, rather than the site itself. We’re all very, very grateful to have such an amazing place to learn and be entertained. And, in my opinion, the website and apps are very nicely designed and work better than anything else.

I do wish the TikTokification would stop, though. But that’s never going to happen, given how effective it is at holding our eyeballs hostage.

[ChrisNorstrom]

Which is interesting because the news and media and movies and music videos can be as "advertiser unfriendly" as they want and still get ads to support the corporation that produces it. But indie content creators and the general public are punished for talking about the same topics.

Corporations get freedom of speech, freedom of reach, no consequences. The people do not.

To the HN crowd, sorry but I'm not going to hold back. Death does not turn you into a saint. Susan is the one who turned YouTube into the censored mess it is today, pushed for unliked mainstream channels over popular organic content creators (changed the algorith to push late night talk shows), ruined the algorith to always push "authoritarian" channels (CNN, CBS, MSN, NBC, PBS, etc), gave creators the option to disable the dislike button, permanently banned thousands of channels that even mentioned "pedophilia" like Mouthy Buddha's channel during the Q-anon nonsense. Creators at the time made 30 minute long videos analyzing data and proving that the recommended mainstream channels being pushed were inorganic.

She helped ruin YouTube. I will not apologize. Bye Susan. Come back in your next life and help fix it. Downvote away. I do not care.

[kortilla]

How are you still digging in here? There are very clearly mixed opinions in these threads about youtube.