Over the past week, YouTube, one of the fastest growing video services in the business, has received continuous backlash over demonetizing videos that do not fit their terms of service. In other words, YouTube has begun demonetizing videos that they do not consider to be appropriate “for advertising.” This can include anything from nudity, sexual humor, violence, the mention of drugs, “controversial or sensitive subjects…even if graphic imagery is not shown,” and, perhaps most controversially, “inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language.”
This has come to quite a shock to many notable YouTubers, who might fall under the category of being inappropriate, according to YouTube policy. One of those creators who have had videos under this consideration is Philip DeFranco, a creator who runs a news show. Because he frequently reports the news, and because the news is not always the easiest subject to talk about, he could fit under the “controversial or sensitive subject” category. Additionally, he has, as he says, “a dirty, filthy, horrible mouth,” which denotes that his videos are also deemed inappropriate because of his “vulgar language.” DeFranco noted in his video that this is a form of censorship, but YouTube is “well within their rights.”
However, he also says that this is a “concerning” sight to see. He noted two things: they did not previously give YouTube creators a notice that this demonetization was a form of censorship was occurring and this act is also blocking the “real, raw news [stories]” from being reported. It should be noted that this was not a policy change, but YouTube only just started to notify creators about their policy in order to “improve communications and transparency.”
By demonetizing his news-type videos, there is a fear that creators are not getting the money they may need to be able to continue creating content, despite being clean and merely reporting the rough, yet important news to cover. (Although, DeFranco did note that he is not going to worry about his videos being demonetized too much because of his other forms of profit.)
While DeFranco was correct about YouTube being in their right to demonetize because it is in their terms of service, this does raise some red flags with the amount of videos that will now be demonetized because of what might be seen. Some of the biggest creators, including PewDiePie, who has over 47.6 million subscribers, might be affected by this new change because these YouTubers frequently fall under the vulgar language category.
Additionally, people who speak about the news would fall under the “controversial or sensitive subjects” category even if they did not show any videos or play any audio. Even videos speaking about the refugee crisis, like Vlogbrothers’ “Zaatari: Thoughts from a Refugee Camp,” have been flagged because it shows camps from Jordan. There might not necessarily be visual scenes of graphic content, but there is a description from the narrator, John Green, about a horrific bomb being set off.
Although it’s understandable that things like nudity and violence may not be allowed to be seen, things like vulgar language and talking about serious subjects should not be censored, or these creators will have to tell news that is sheltered from the real, sometimes terrible news that may be important to tell. If creators rely on the money they make from advertisements, but their content is demonetized, there is the concern that these creators will not be able to publish what they truly wish to be said.
Yes, YouTube is using their right to be able to do this, since YouTubers have to agree to their policies, but there is still the question of whether it is right to be able to force these vloggers to have to change their typical videos into something that fits into YouTube’s standards.
Another reason why this issue needs to be brought up is because of something that was previously mentioned: this is not a new policy; it’s actually been in effect for over a year. And yet, YouTube only recently had the idea to actually tell YouTubers about this demonetization process. In their efforts to create “transparency,” they ultimately tell their creators that they have not been telling them the whole truth. There’s also a concern about these vague guidelines, which are not really “transparent,” and may bring up many questions over what these terms like “political commentary” or “sexual humor” may mean, which may be subjective, causing some content to be demonetized due to a subjective mind.
ETC Show, a channel on YouTube, was another channel that had many videos demonetized, and decided to conduct an experiment. They requested that their videos be reassessed in whether or not they qualified for demonetization, and, under further review, had the action overturned. This brings up the question on whether using a computer in order to judge a video’s qualifications is even the right choice to begin with. By switching to a human judge, the videos could be monetized and deemed “advertiser-friendly.”
The YouTube community has spoken loudly and has raised many red flags on this subject. Most seem worried about this new possible future form of censorship and its consequences, like what this does to the creators’ content. What is most concerning is the lack of communication between YouTube and its creators. Without contacting these YouTubers, they were not being informed of what was going on behind the scenes with their videos. It seems too sneaky, mischievous, and overall frightening that they were not willing to tell the creators directly what was happening behind their backs.
Although YouTube is doing everything within their rights, YouTube should have foreseen the backlash of not telling its contributors of what these guidelines would entail. There should have been better communication from the start rather than waiting an entire year. And yet, there’s still the factor of using vague language in order to promote guidelines over such a serious topic such as this.
There needs to be a better system put in place if, in fact, YouTube decides to continue this action. It feels wrong that some YouTubers will be hurt, just because they report the news, or just because they are expressing their feelings. YouTube relies on some of these contributors, but it also seems like this is driving them away, which is just a shame. There shouldn’t be a policy that blocks the news from being able to be told in the sad but true facts that are a reality. YouTube needs to correct these problems, and, hopefully, communicate every new change to their contributors.
