The Washington Post, in an article by Elizabeth Dwoskin,
reports on YouTube’s inconsistent moderation and monetization standards, and
maintains big stars like Pewdiepie and Logan Paul get “wrist slaps” and are
allowed to go back to their usual business because they generate so much revenue
for YouTube.
ArsTechnica has a similar article here.
ArsTechnica has a similar article here.
The article also describes the difficulties in content
moderation, which is becoming unsustainable.
Another problem is inconsistent culture. Probably a majority of mainstream adult viewers
are not offended or very sensitive to videos that marginalized communities call
out. Pewdiepie is a good example, as most viewers see his games and animation
as satire or plain entertainment and don’t see it as prodding the right wing. It’s
hard work to be a consistent entertainer who can bring in so much revenue with
video that is of good technical quality. OK, Logan Paul wants do push hyper-masculinity. Maybe some of us need that. Prager U will approve.
The article also notes that the FTC is already regulating
some social media issues (despite the controversy over Trump’s intended
executive order, yesterday’s post).
David Pakman, in particular, has noted that YouTube
seems to be trying to drive viewers to “ad safe” content from larger companies
and legacy creators. But there also
seems to be an underlying political motivation.
There is a belief that independent creators are diluting viewer hours
and causing layoffs and job losses in more guilded legacy companies. Non-profits and activists, especially on the
left, complain that independent creators dilute activism and solidarity and
tend to get in the way of getting political change to happen. YouTube (and Facebook, recently, too, with
its plan to have a legacy news page and to make its normal user interaction
more ephemeral) seem to be taking the position that “do it yourself” activism
may not be such a good thing and that people with strong egos need to
reconsider their priorities.
Tim Pool (Timcast) also weighs in here. He mentions low-profile conservatives getting banned. That can happen to me, although I have an "unusual" business model which refuses to "play ball" with conventional activists (who really want me to join them).
Tim Pool (Timcast) also weighs in here. He mentions low-profile conservatives getting banned. That can happen to me, although I have an "unusual" business model which refuses to "play ball" with conventional activists (who really want me to join them).
No comments:
Post a Comment