(2/4) Our teams spent the last few days conducting an in-depth review of the videos flagged to us, and while we found language that was clearly hurtful, the videos as posted don’t violate our policies. We’ve included more info below to explain this decision:
-
-
Replying to @TeamYouTube @gaywonk
(3/4) As an open platform, it’s crucial for us to allow everyone–from creators to journalists to late-night TV hosts–to express their opinions w/in the scope of our policies. Opinions can be deeply offensive, but if they don’t violate our policies, they’ll remain on our site.
1,263 replies 382 retweets 5,327 likes -
Replying to @TeamYouTube @gaywonk
(4/4) Even if a video remains on our site, it doesn’t mean we endorse/support that viewpoint. There are other aspects of the channel that we’re still evaluating– we’ll be in touch with any further updates.
2,757 replies 177 retweets 3,816 likes -
Replying to @TeamYouTube @gaywonk
Update on our continued review–we have suspended this channel’s monetization. We came to this decision because a pattern of egregious actions has harmed the broader community and is against our YouTube Partner Program policies. More here:https://yt.be/help/xLtT
4,286 replies 221 retweets 2,433 likes -
Replying to @TeamYouTube @gaywonk
Morality question dear
@TeamYouTube@YouTube ... : did you and/or will you continue to make monetary gains from these same videos that you are / have suspended monetization to the creators...? And the answer is.... yes. Do we agree? Otherwise prove this incorrect.1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @s_8_8 @TeamYouTube and
Burdon of proof lies on the accuser (YOU) Not the accused (YouTube) we learned this in the Kavanagh V. Ford situation As long as there are no ads playing on his videos there will be no monetary gains for anyone. Fact check... there are no Ads playing on his videos.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DanKxStar @TeamYouTube and
great point!however, do said videos bring traffic to other videos on Youtube?see the dilemma? We completely understand sensorship at some levels-it is neccessary with such platforms. Point being-not simple to just pull monetization. I am not providing a solution/only perspective.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @s_8_8 @DanKxStar and
Why keep content available if has been demonitized to the creator? How is it feesible for youtube(host) to keep content available which facilitates millions of views. There is cost to host for every view. if no fiscal gain to host per view, operation cost is in the negative.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @s_8_8 @TeamYouTube and
Yes, they do link to other potentially monetized videos. But in response to your first question, No YouTube does not make direct monetary gain from demonitized videos. But yes,
@scrowder does bring in millions of unique views and viewers daily that will browse@youtube 1/21 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DanKxStar @s_8_8 and
But as YouTube has already admitted
@scrowder has not violated any direct rules, and his legal team has won every appeal against censorship Demonitizing his channel is already a step too far, a ban would be unreasonable, just because 1 bully's feelings were hurt.#VoxAdPocalypse1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Agreed. I am extremely curious cost per view from youtube's perspective.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.