No, that's not what he is saying. Censorship doesn't mean what you think it does if that's what you think he's saying.
Imagine you're a comedian. Your audience loves the way you tell your jokes. However, the best comedy club in town suddenly decides your jokes are too dirty. They aren't going to pay you to perform there unless you clean them up. However, if you clean them up, your jokes won't be as funny and you'll lose your audience.
Like it or not, some people do make a living on Youtube. You can say anything you want, but if you say these things or in this way, you're not getting paid. That's censorship.
I use words as they are defined. Either they are stopping you from speaking or they are not. They aren't. The issue of payment isn't a factor.
And YouTube is under no obligation to it's content providers, none. They could end monetization across the board tomorrow and nobody could say dick about it.
People make a living digging coal. I'm not obligated to support them if I put solar panels on my roof.
Now, since both sides here are dug in, I could look for a middle ground and look to the origin of the term. To censor is to assess. If you want to say censorship is just reviewing content, I could go for that. But in today's world, most people look at censorship with only negative connotations. In the same way discriminate is almost always taken as a bad thing when really it just means making a distinction between things.
Let's use your analogy a little more accurately.No, that's not what he is saying. Censorship doesn't mean what you think it does if that's what you think he's saying.
Imagine you're a comedian. Your audience loves the way you tell your jokes. However, the best comedy club in town suddenly decides your jokes are too dirty. They aren't going to pay you to perform there unless you clean them up. However, if you clean them up, your jokes won't be as funny and you'll lose your audience.
Like it or not, some people do make a living on Youtube. You can say anything you want, but if you say these things or in this way, you're not getting paid. That's censorship.
The problem is this is not the advertisers choice but googles as they prevent such ad's from being used on certain videos.
Not to mention this could get peoples channels removed from youtube because of their 3 strike rule and a lot of actual news videos have had this happen because the "news" they talk about is deemed inappropriate yet you can see it on any normal tv news shows.
Let's use your analogy a little more accurately.
The best comedy club in town decides that "we're having open mic might from now on. If your jokes are family friendly, we'll even give you some money. If your jokes aren't family friendly, we won't pay you money." Youtube never said they can't post their videos on Youtube. It's seems ridiculous to make the claim that advertisers should pay for all content, not just the content they're in favor of. And, youtube IS giving these people a free platform on which to air their videos. Bandwidth isn't free - there are real, tangible costs to Youtube to even host this content. "Hey, you need to pay for my offensive videos, else you're oppressing me!" :roll:
No, that's not what he is saying. Censorship doesn't mean what you think it does if that's what you think he's saying.
Imagine you're a comedian. Your audience loves the way you tell your jokes. However, the best comedy club in town suddenly decides your jokes are too dirty. They aren't going to pay you to perform there unless you clean them up. However, if you clean them up, your jokes won't be as funny and you'll lose your audience.
Like it or not, some people do make a living on Youtube. You can say anything you want, but if you say these things or in this way, you're not getting paid. That's censorship.
Three strikes has been in place longer than this has. That's for account termination. If you do something like trademark/copyright infringement, defame, breach of contract, etc, even if unintentional, and are reported for it 3 times, you lose your account. There was a big explanation by The Cynical Brit (TotalBiscuit) about it when he did a video on Day One: Garry's Incident. The publisher reported his video because he gave the game a bad review. He went off on them in a followup video and explained the 3 strikes rule in great detail.Google does what it thinks will make the advertisers happy. I don't know if they're are reacting to advertiser complaints or doing it on their own.
I'm not a creator and don't know all of YouTube's rules. Is the three strike thing about actual content removal or just the current topic of demonetization?
And if the only reason the club is popular in the first place is because of these vulgar comedians? By the way, "advertiser-friendly" videos aren't necessarily offensive. If YouTube can't put their republican ads on your liberal video they won't pay you.Let's use your analogy a little more accurately.
The best comedy club in town decides that "we're having open mic might from now on. If your jokes are family friendly, we'll even give you some money. If your jokes aren't family friendly, we won't pay you money." Youtube never said they can't post their videos on Youtube. It's seems ridiculous to make the claim that advertisers should pay for all content, not just the content they're in favor of. And, youtube IS giving these people a free platform on which to air their videos. Bandwidth isn't free - there are real, tangible costs to Youtube to even host this content. "Hey, you need to pay for my offensive videos, else you're oppressing me!" :roll:
So forcing the content provider to censor themselves if they want to get paid is somehow not censorship?The problem with your analogy is that in this case, the 'club' is telling the 'comedian' that they won't get paid unless they clean it up. If they don't want to clean it up they can go ahead and perform for free. The club is within their rights to do this thus no censorship. The club is telling the comedian that everyone is welcome to come to the club to perform but the club only pays for.clean material.
Not getting paid is not censorship, it's not getting paid. This is a business decision, not censorship.
...
So forcing the content provider to censor themselves if they want to get paid is somehow not censorship?
...So forcing the content provider to censor themselves if they want to get paid is somehow not censorship?
That's irrelevant to the argument. If the club puts in place policies whereby they willingly allow vulgar comedians to perform (with no pay), and as a result, the comedians themselves decide to stop performing (no one made them stop performing), and it results in a loss of popularity for the club - that could hit the business in the bottom line - it has nothing to do with censorship.And if the only reason the club is popular in the first place is because of these vulgar comedians?
It's the entitled generation. That's the only thing I can surmise.I can't believe there are people who view this as censorship. It's not a right to post on Youtube. Play by the rules or play for free. It's really very, very simple. Youtube can say only people who post unicorn videos with rainbow backgrounds will get paid and everyone else will not, which would be perfectly valid and within the site's rights to implement. Why is this confusing anyone?
I'll agree to disagree. I suppose we'll see what the courts decide.
What. the. fuck.I'll agree to disagree. I suppose we'll see what the courts decide.
You really suck at reading.It's the entitled generation. That's the only thing I can surmise.
No, I think I understood quite well, and my summarization seems rather accurate.You really suck at reading.