Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's not a family friendliness issue causing this, it's an 'advertiser friendliness' one.

Anytime an ad was shown on a slightly controversial video, an internet outrage mob would descend on the advertiser saying how dare they provide money to <odious cause>.

Advertisers pressured Youtube for ways to advertise only on non-controversial videos. Youtube responded by demonetizing anything even halfway controversial.



> It's not a family friendliness issue causing this, it's an 'advertiser friendliness' one.

What's the difference? In my mind those are the same thing.


Take something like the Rubin Report [0], which is reasonably family friendly but that covers socially/politically controversial topics and/or speakers.

Not too long ago, a large amount of their back catalog was demonetized. It's not 'advertiser friendly' because sometimes even just the presence of a controversial speaker is enough to bring a hate mob down on anyone advertising on a video with them in it.

0: https://twitter.com/RubinReport


I watch a lot of video game content that is advertiser friendly (a conclusion I make since I see ads before it), but is not "family friendly."


While you don't have any inherent right to, in practice you can post a pretty wide range of content to YouTube without charge. But certainly no one has an obligation to pay you for that just like no one has an obligation to pay you for writing a blog on pretty much any topic you desire.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: