YouTube strikes again

[tRidiot]

YouTube (and Google) try to claim exemptions and protections provided to public use platforms - when you begin censoring content for political purposes, you are no longer a public platform, but a publisher. This is the distinction, and why they are being sued.

YouTube has routinely censored conservative viewpoints including subjects like the Ten Commandments, all while claiming protection as a public use platform. Are you ok with that?

I'm not... if you want to claim public use, you have to abide by the rules governing that, and they are not.

 

[BobbyV]

I'm afraid I have to agree with this. YouTube is a business, that has the right to make their own decisions about how to run their business (within certain limits). We all support the Constitution, and that means that we support it even when we don't like a certain business, etc.

We have the right to watch or not watch. If a business begins to lose revenue, they may decide to change certain decisions, or not.

We cannot allow ourselves to become like the snowflakes, ranting against those things that we don't like.

This isn't the point though . . . FCC rules apply differently to platforms than they do publishers.

At least as I understand it.

 

[Hobbes]

Most of these demonitizations are related to alleged copyright violations.

The channel uses a short segment of music or video that belongs to someone else and a copyright infringement claim gets filed with google and it's nearly automatic enforcement policy.

That's not to say you can't use copyrighted video or music in your video.
You just can't profit from it.

I watch a channel by todderbert where he demonstrates various AM radio's by tuning between stations and he always
uses only voice broadcasts, never music, to avoid having a copyright infringement claim filed against his content.

Almost anyone can claim to be the copyright holder.
My guess is some anti-gun zealot filed a false infringement claim against Patreon with the intention of severing their monetary support.
It's a harassment technique.

 

[BobbyV]

Again, so what? If it's that bad of a business practice, creators can stop uploading content and let viewers leave. Maybe youtube will suffer.

And tighten the laws if you don't like them playing both sides of the issues. But in terms of its own TOS, short of breaking a contract, i don't see why its not allowed to do what it does.

 

[BobbyV]

If you care enough to understand why folks feel like they do about YouTube just search for some info on Crowder vs Carlos Maza . . . should show you all you need to know.

 

[Catt57]

Most of these demonitizations are related to alleged copyright violations.

The channel uses a short segment of music or video that belongs to someone else and a copyright infringement claim gets filed with google and it's nearly automatic enforcement policy.

That's not to say you can't use copyrighted video or music in your video.
You just can't profit from it.

I watch a channel by todderbert where he demonstrates various AM radio's by tuning between stations and he always
uses only voice broadcasts, never music, to avoid having a copyright infringement claim filed against his content.

Almost anyone can claim to be the copyright holder.
My guess is some anti-gun zealot filed a false infringement claim against Patreon with the intention of severing their monetary support.
It's a harassment technique.

This has been a major issue as well. Someone will claim a copyright that they don't own and YouTube automatically decides the poster is "guilty until proven innocent" and then diverts all the revenue from the poster to the claimant. Even when the claim is proven to be false (after a very tedious and risky process for the poster) there are countless reports of that revenue never being restored to the poster and the fake claimant getting off scot-free and keeping the money.

Google YouTube fake copyright claims and you'll see just how bad it is.

https://torrentfreak.com/youtubes-c...ystem-is-a-total-mess-can-it-be-fixed-181222/

 

[Hobbes]

 

[okierider]

My problem with demonetizing is they just take the money that you have earned. They do not remove the content. If it is bad enough to "break the rules " then it should be removed. So it seems a lot hypocritical of them. You do not get to earn from your content any more BUT google does!!! The no set rules, which are open to interpretation by who ever happens to be looking at the content today, makes it hard to conform to their rules.
Does not matter who owns what, it should be consistent and clearly stated.

 

[Catt57]

Further update. The big problem is that Youtube does not provide any real way to dispute or talk to anyone and does not clarify their reasons.