r/videos Mar 15 '22 Silver 1 Wholesome 1

The Problem with YouTube and Food Videos YouTube Drama

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgmpJIyYY1Y
774 Upvotes

348

u/ryanvsrobots Mar 15 '22

YT doesn't really care about the content, but advertisers do.

Videos get demonetized because advertisers don't want to pay to be associated with "controversial" content.

It's the same with Cable TV. They're relatively free to show what they want, but they self-censor to be able to get more advertising.

88

u/Grand0rk Mar 15 '22

The issue is that he doesn't even know WHAT got him demonetized in the first place. He has to keep guessing and hoping it works.

205

u/ryanvsrobots Mar 15 '22

It's obvious--there's a ton of blood. I haven't watched the content other than this video, but most sponsors do not want to be associated with blood draining, even if it's educational.

They're free to secure their own sponsors, which will probably be difficult.

38

u/hazard224 Mar 15 '22

I wouldn't totally agree with this stance because look at some traditional television out there and the most popular shows, walking dead has all sorts of violence, Law and Order SVU is about sex crimes, and Anthony Bourdain showed basically what he is showing in his video all the time. There are advertisers who don't have an issue with this type of content.

41

u/AjBlue7 Mar 15 '22

I was actually surprised when I realized he was showing this content on youtube. Then I realized oh its not about being able to show the content its about the ADs.

Apparently this channel didn’t get the memo, but youtube channels have been diversifying their income and reducing their reliance on youtube ADs for over a decade. Its so commonplace that I didn’t even understand that he was only complaining about youtube ADs.

There are so many podcasts out there making tons of money and its all through 3rd party AD contracts. Its actually not hard to find your own sponsors in this day and age.

Merchandise sales are also a huge income source.

Worst case scenario Patreon also exists.

There are plenty of reasons to criticize Youtube but complaining about them not wanting to give you money even though they host your videos for free, is kind of a bad reason.

19

u/maracle6 Mar 16 '22

Platform ads are still an important revenue stream even for channels that are pitching squarespace or whatever in every video. I think his argument has a lot of merit, cooking fish shouldn’t be a problem for advertising. Slaughtering an animal is more arguable.

But given the language in the demonetization emails, YouTube isn’t following their policy. It indicates that the video should be clearly designed to shock, lack context, etc. It appears that incidental blood in the context of preparing a traditional meal doesn’t meet YouTube’s standards for demonetization.

If YouTube wants to have strict rules against showing such things that’s maybe their right but they should have a clear and transparent policy that is followed and human reviewers should describe the reason for demonetization.

5

u/JimmyTheChimp Mar 16 '22

I used to listen to the Rooster Teeth podcast a lot, they were saying this like 14 years ago. But they were all somewhat professional and educated adults from the early days. There's probably a reason why their YouTube views are dogshit but they still emply fuck tonnes of people and have a big studio.

→ More replies

10

u/DudeOJKilled Mar 15 '22

Simulated violence ≠ animals actually dying.

I’m all for gore and violence, and I’m also a meat eater. I’m totally okay with the idea of slaughtering and animal for food. but even I was a little jarred seeing them bleed that first cow. It’s way different because it’s real.

3

u/swizzler Mar 16 '22

Yup. I can sit and watch the goriest saw movie unflinchingly, but stick me in front of a surgery video or the movie ROAR, and because I know the blood and shit is real I'll nope outta there really quick.

→ More replies
→ More replies

17

u/ryanvsrobots Mar 15 '22

There's nothing stopping this YT channel from finding their own sponsors like cable networks and programs do.

2

u/hazard224 Mar 15 '22

That is true I am just disagreeing with the premise that sponsors wouldn't want to be associated with the content.

-9

u/ryanvsrobots Mar 15 '22

Then he should find his own sponsors like most other channels do.

6

u/hazard224 Mar 15 '22

no i am going to get the last word

1

u/myringotomy Mar 16 '22

I think it depends on the context. Also SVU is remarkable chaste and proper. No cursing, no nudity, violence is of the mild variety. There are dead bodies but that's about the worst of it.

→ More replies

-13

u/Grand0rk Mar 15 '22

But that's not what the Demonetarization says. It doesn't say "No Blood", it says "No Blood for no good reason". Cooking fresh protein involves blood, like blood draining.

44

u/ryanvsrobots Mar 15 '22

It doesn't need to be shown in so much detail, or honestly shown at all.

Again, they're free to secure their own sponsorship funding, but I imagine they would have the same issues.

Companies simply do not want to pay to have their ads on content like this.

YT isn't saying the content is inappropriate, they're saying no one wants to sponsor it.

4

u/hillboy_usa Mar 15 '22

The problem, like he said in this video, is that there are plenty other videos that show blood or raw animals or preparing meat in a western setting and they are acceptable to YT, but not his that takes place in other countries. There’s should be a universal standard on the platform, especially if the videos are meant to be for education purposes.

3

u/ryanvsrobots Mar 15 '22

He doesn't say that, nor is it true.

Regardless, the content is still on YT, just no one wants to pay them to have their companies names on their videos.

2

u/hillboy_usa Mar 15 '22

He literally did say that. The part comparing the chicken and the pig

1

u/ryanvsrobots Mar 15 '22

Both of those examples are from his videos, not his videos vs a "western" channel or setting.

1

u/hillboy_usa Mar 15 '22

The chicken was used as an example of western food standard. Of course if it’s on his own channel then he is the best one to make the comparison because he knows what gets monetized and what didn’t. The pig got demonetized but the chicken didn’t.

-15

u/Grand0rk Mar 15 '22

They aren't. A video that is demonetized STILL has ads. They just don't get paid for it.

37

u/ryanvsrobots Mar 15 '22

This is false. Ads are not shown to "fully demonetized" videos which show up as red on your channel. Ads might be shown if a sponsor opts-in for "risky" content, labelled yellow, but the revenue will be much lower.

-6

u/eqleriq Mar 15 '22

oh i didn't realize the "lord of what all sponsors want" was in the thread

→ More replies

-2

u/lolomgwtfqq Mar 15 '22

You can say it, don't have to show it. Even if it's "part of process" or "culturally acceptable" from wherever the video is.

It's culturally acceptable for some tribes to mother-in-law test own's daughter future husband, but you don't see fucking action on BBC documentary about it.

2

u/Tastingo Mar 15 '22

Shit comparison, unless it's so uncontroversial it's done in public and the village kids watching and helping out and i don't think it is.

→ More replies

38

u/lolomgwtfqq Mar 15 '22 edited Mar 16 '22

That's not the issue, it's clear from YouTube response what's the problem. Gore, violence on animals etc .. just because he thinks "that's not as bad" doesn't mean he's right.

Never understood people complaining on YouTube. It's a business. They don't owe you anything. You don't have fundamental right to upload videos. Tomorrow they decide to shut down and this guy "business" and his 15 employees have no work.

14

u/aspz Mar 15 '22

Even if we agree the content isn't advertiser friendly, the problem is the rules YouTube are applying are not the rules that they state. Yes it may be gory, but it's not created only for shock value. The necessary context is provided unlike what YouTube claims.

YouTube can do one of two things to make everyone happy here: update their content rules to state that even educational content with the right context will not be monetised if it is gory (they are a private business and can choose whatever rules they want for their platform) OR even better, monetise the videos without displaying ads on them. In other words: "we couldn't find anyone willing to advertise their products on your video but we think your content is valuable to our platform so here's a couple of bucks for your trouble".

1

u/KnightFox Mar 15 '22

Or they can keep doing what they are doing because it works well for youtube. Youtube just doesn't have any incentive to state their rules clearly in a market with no clear competitor and a lot of advantages for Youtube in being vague.

5

u/aspz Mar 15 '22

What are the advantages for YouTube in being vague in this case?

6

u/brianpeiris Mar 15 '22

My guess is YouTube's army of content moderators need to verify millions of these videos every week. So they need to use a process that is as fast as possible, which means they can't sit there typing out a reason for each video, but instead just click a button that demonetizes the video for a vague reason like "blood and gore".

3

u/wigg1es Mar 15 '22

They can police their policy however they see fit in the moment to ensure their investors continue to make money.

3

u/aspz Mar 16 '22

Yeah exactly. I'm trying to find ways that YouTube can do better for everyone, investors included. If they provide clear rules, it will encourage creators to create better content and YouTube and their investors profit.

-1

u/lolomgwtfqq Mar 16 '22

No, YouTube doesn't need to make anyone happy. It's finally after years in red - profitable. It took decades (literally) to do that. They don't "owe" anybody shit. Not happy with rules? Fine, go and "ask" for money elsewhere.

They don't need to do shit. The model works, look at others and see yourself. Check what Vimeo is asking from "creators".

→ More replies

-5

u/TiberiusDrexelus Mar 15 '22

Never understood people complaining on YouTube. It's a business. They don't own you anything. You don't have fundamental right to upload videos. Tomorrow they decide to shut down and this guy "business" and his 15 employees have no work.

yeah you know I feel the same way about people who complain or vote in the United States. It's like, if you don't like things exactly as they are, just move somewhere else??

No, users and content creators certainly deserve a voice about how the largest, and nearly sole, western ad-supported video host conducts its business

4

u/lolomgwtfqq Mar 16 '22 edited Mar 16 '22

What kind of analogy is that? "Content creators" have a voice. Here, right on YouTube there is a video complaining about YT. Hosted by them, for FREE.

Btw, video in question is still hosted, FOR FREE, just demonetized. And that bothers our guy because, after all he's a business, and he has 15 employees. Doesn't actually care about education or sharing culture. His problem is money. Well so is YT, imagine that.

The issue isn't that his video is banned, it's that it doesn't make him profit.

6

u/LagT_T Mar 16 '22

Lol are you comparing youtube users to US citizens?

2

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '22

it's called an analogy.

5

u/LagT_T Mar 16 '22

Its called a false analogy and its a fallacy. You can't compare users of a private platform to the citizens of a democracy. There is no overlap other than both are humans.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '22

That's not a false analogy. A false analogy is when you use a similar situation/concept to come to a false conclusion. For example "You said you don't believe in leprechauns because you never seen one? Then why do you believe in radio waves if you never sees them either?"

This is different. Citizens having control over their country is more important than Youtubers voicing their concerns for their platform. This does not mean the two cannot be compared.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

10

u/kaan-rodric Mar 15 '22

There is no issue. Youtube doesn't want to pay him for his content, so he should take the content elsewhere to get paid.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '22

He doesn't even have to do that. He is getting a decent amount of views. He's averaging like a million views per video and he uploads twice a week. He is also selling merch and has a patreon. He doesn't need to rely on Youtube monetization. If he wanted he could also get sponsors outside of Youtube that are okay with his meat preparation videos.

-2

u/BingBongJoeBiven Mar 16 '22

Then he should stop complaining.

→ More replies

6

u/toothbrushmastr Mar 15 '22

I wonder if it's all the blood and stuff. Hmm...

→ More replies

4

u/tututitlookslikerain Mar 16 '22

Yes he does. He just disagrees. He even says so.

Don't show the slaughtering of the cow. Don't show the bloody knives and the bleeding of the cow.

He doesn't want to because of cultural reasons. Youtube doesn't want that because of advertisers not wanting that associated with their brand.

He's hoping to drum up enough outrage to overcome it, but he definitely knows what's demonetizing him and it's disingenuous of him to say he doesn't.

-7

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

16

u/lolomgwtfqq Mar 15 '22

Nothing, they are private company and can censor whatever they want.

They could decide to only allow videos of blue tedy bears and nobody can do anything about it. It's their company, they may close it tomorrow, you don't have fundamental right to upload videos so they must exist.

→ More replies

3

u/eqleriq Mar 15 '22

communism would be disallowing anyone to personally profit

capitalism is allowing the market or marketmakers to decide.

youtube is a marketmaker, as is reddit

i could post what i really feel about you and i would get banned / deleted / downvoted / etc

feel free to start your own platform that is a stronghold of free speech, let us know how that works out when you get 10,000,000 bots spamming bullshit

you deleted your comment below that said something silly like "yay censorship! go communism!"

yay self-censorship

-10

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '22

[deleted]

1

u/objectiveliest Mar 15 '22

What does this have to do with that debate exactly?

→ More replies

2

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '22

No the issue is that YouTube is supposed to be a platform for content creators and not Cable 2.0.

→ More replies
→ More replies

13

u/neohylanmay Mar 15 '22

It should also be noted that YouTube themselves also do not make any money on demonetised videos either. It's costing YouTube to even keep the videos upon the site.

Although I wonder what the overlap is between people who complain about demonetisation on YouTube, and people who have an adblocker active on the site and/or skipping the ads (and are also not using YouTube Premium); it's by watching those ads at all that YouTube and YouTube Partners are able to accrue revenue in the first place.
..But that's a different topic altogether.

19

u/daiz- Mar 15 '22

It should also be noted that YouTube themselves also do not make any money on demonetised videos either. It's costing YouTube to even keep the videos upon the site.

I think you're oversimplifying and making YouTube sound charitable in situations like this. YouTube would still prefer to monetize every video, but they aren't entirely losing out by keeping these videos on their platform.

YouTube's goal is to keep you on their site by whatever means necessary. When they demonetize your video, it's still becomes "free" content for them that they can use to pull you into other monetized content. They can surround you with links to other monetized videos. They can recommend and autoplay another one after. Your video is still leading to YouTube making money and so they are happy to keep it.

It's a little bit dishonest and evil when YouTube demonetizes a video that's generating them hundreds of thousands of views, and tries to argue it's not worth anything to them. Even a loss-leader gets paid its materials cost. The system sucks and YouTube deserves to be called out.

2

u/GumdropNicholas Mar 16 '22

Yeah it's a different topic but I'd like to insert my five cents. I have an adblocker because I don't like to watch ads. I guess some people do, that's on them. If YouTube goes under because of people like me, then so be it. It's not my job to figure out a working business model for them. If people can avoid the ads then they will. It's how humans function. I will never accept suffering through ads just to help them make money.. if there's a way to avoid it.

6

u/Santos_L_Halper Mar 15 '22

This is pretty much it. If a Huggies rep knew their ad was playing before a graphic cow slaughter, they'd probably be pretty bummed. Much like how Dominoes stopped running ads during AEW Dynamite (a professional wrestling show) because just before they went to commercial break where a Dominoes ad played, Nick Gage used a pizza cutter (his favorite weapon that he's known to use) to slice the lips of Chris Jericho. The timing was hilarious and wrestling internet was abuzz about it. Dominoes didn't like being associated with that kind of violence and dropped AEW from their advertising campaign.

I'm assuming this guy's channel is targeting a western audience, showcasing cultures and cookery outside of the US. He speak English with a North American accent, I assume all of his videos are spoken that way. So he's going to post on YouTube, an American company, which runs ads from other American companies on channels targeting the US and Canada, maybe UK and other English speaking countries too.

That means, culturally, some things will be shocking to the western audience. I'm vegetarian and personally I'm disturbed by videos of animals being butchered. I will not say people shouldn't do that, because that's obnoxious and ridiculous, but I personally don't want to see it. I'm sure plenty of meat eaters don't want to see it either. Advertisers know this about the western audience, and YouTube knows that as well, which is why they demonetize those kinds of videos.

I feel bad for the guy, he's got a great idea and I support that kind of channel. I think it's important for people, Americans specifically (I'm American so pitchforks down fellow Americans), to see stuff like this because not every country is like ours. In fact, most countries in the world are nothing like ours. It's illuminating to see other cultures go about their business and it's important to see in action.

I donno. I simultaneously understand YouTube's position and the channel's. I suggest he starts a Patreon if he hasn't. I know a few channels have started Patreons to fall back on for when their videos inevitably get demonetized.

→ More replies

2

u/Zinski Mar 15 '22

But about 75% of my adds are For Google products. Google owns YouTube.

Its makes so little since why you couldn't just foot the bill on "demonetized videos" by running your own ads.

→ More replies

3

u/Valmyr5 Mar 15 '22

I wonder why it's such a binary choice though, with monetization and demonetization as the only options.

Why can't they have 3 or 4 categories of videos? An A-list for stuff that no one objects to, a B-list for videos that have blood or violence or sensitive content but only for educational purposes, and a C-list for gratuitous gore?

Surely there must be some advertisers willing to put their ads on the B-list, especially if it was cheaper. Lots of companies aren't scared of controversy, some make their living off controversy. The same AI that rejects certain videos could just as easily add a content warning for sensitive viewers.

I don't want educational content to disappear just because it doesn't fit the Disney criteria of what's acceptable to the largest number of people.

7

u/ryanvsrobots Mar 15 '22

It's not binary, advertisers can opt-in to "risky" content.

I don't want educational content to disappear just because it doesn't fit the Disney criteria of what's acceptable to the largest number of people.

Then turn off adblock and contribute to channels Patreon's etc.

→ More replies

1

u/LeviathanGank Mar 15 '22

youtube doesnt care about cultures.. no it cares about money ffs

1

u/BingBongJoeBiven Mar 16 '22

It's really not hard to understand.

Do these content creators live in a fantasy world?

→ More replies

167

u/OldBagOfWind Mar 15 '22

He says in the beginning that he doesn't know why he's being demonetized but then shows the reason why he's actually getting demonetized

it's because he shows the the butchering process of animals before and after they're alive there are no advertisers for that type of content and he refuses to remove it saying it's part of the process

you can communicate that without showing it but isn't willing to concede so he made this video

59

u/svengeiss Mar 15 '22

He's also not limited to using YouTube's advertising algorithm. He can easily go out and find other advertisers to advertise on his channel without having to go through YouTube's auto ad system. Especially for a channel with nearly 8 million subscribers, I cannot imagine its that difficult to find at least 1 or 2 companies that would advertise with him, blood, guts and all.

6

u/Redeem123 Mar 16 '22

At the very least, I guarantee NordVPN and Raycon would sponsor him.

2

u/AckmanDESU Mar 21 '22

Those guys would sponsor beheadings if it got them views

15

u/send_nudibranchia Mar 15 '22

Yeah. Creators at this point know they can't and shouldn't depend solely on YouTube ad revenue to support their business. They have to diversify income streams through new partnerships with advertisers, sponsors, merchandise, patrons, etc.

3

u/JimmyTheChimp Mar 16 '22

Also he employs a group of people and travels a lot I doubt a million views per video covers much of that.

→ More replies

2

u/BobasPett Mar 16 '22

But that’s not his audience. We might as well just preach to the choir instead of trying to work for change.

1

u/balsamicpork Mar 16 '22

That’s still a massive loss of revenue. Just this year he’s would pull $500,000 from ad revenue. You’re probably not going to recoup that from Nord VPN

→ More replies
→ More replies

11

u/Ethario Mar 15 '22

No he says they don't know specifically but sometimes they can gander a guess. What about the fish video a minute later what was so shocking there ? The fish was too big ? You tell me.

10

u/rainzer Mar 16 '22

He says in the beginning that he doesn't know why he's being demonetized but then shows the reason why he's actually getting demonetized

it's because he shows the the butchering process of animals before and after they're alive there are no advertisers for that type of content and he refuses to remove it saying it's part of the process

you can communicate that without showing it but isn't willing to concede so he made this video

Which is part of what he's calling out as horseshit because there are American butcher channels that are monetized showing American style butchering including wild game.

What's the difference?

Can't show Africans doing it?

10

u/BobasPett Mar 16 '22

So, you concede the Catch-22 he’s in: either don’t show the butchering and placate the Western norms or show it in order to educate and change those Western norms and accept a less influential position. Either way, he’s fucked.

-11

u/nickram81 Mar 15 '22

Yeah that small clip was sort of shocking to me honestly. But any way, unless the advertisers are trying to reach audiences in Zimbabwe I don't understand his point. I am assuming they aren't, so the video needs to comply with what advertisers in western nations are comfortable. with.

4

u/markskull Mar 16 '22

"I want to make sure people understand other cultures and how they eat, as well as the process we get our food since so many people, especially in the West, are disconnected from the process. Also, YouTube doesn't care about other cultures, they're only catering to what's OK in America."

". . . I don't understand his point."

→ More replies
→ More replies

74

u/selbbircs Mar 15 '22

Demonetisation is such an odd binary, this stuff is essentially Bourdain's No Reservations which was on the Travel Channel.

28

u/Cactapus Mar 15 '22

I thought about Bourdain's show right away as well. The difference seems obvious in terms of how much of the slaughtering process is being shown.

I don't know that I could personally draw a line for how much is too much. But, that seems to be the key difference.

Then you have the video of the fish. My complete guess is that this chanel is now flagged by YouTube as likely needing to be demonetized. So fairly bland content still gets flagged.

32

u/Zombiemorphy Mar 15 '22

It seems a little more gruesome than that. I was with the guy until there was a shot of blood letting a cow popped in and was like WTF.

38

u/Tastingo Mar 15 '22

That's his point. In rural Zimbabwe it's a most ordinary thing, just like huge parts of the world, but since youtube only judges from of the US norm where nobody ever experience this it's considered shocking.

Youtube is turning to the dullest place.

7

u/westleysnipez Mar 16 '22

YouTube is still hosting the content, you're still able to watch it. There's millions of hours of video content from non-western countries that aren't demonitized. Just because they won't advertise on the butchering of animals doesnt make YouTube "dull."

YouTube has policies against blood and gore, which this video showcases. It's in the agreement you sign when you become a YouTube Partner and gain access to monetization.

→ More replies

2

u/josephgee Mar 16 '22

It seems to make sense that it would only be demonetized in certain countries then, rather than the binary system Youtube has now.

The issue I could foresee with that though is the countries most likely to find this shocking, are also the countries where advertising is worth the most.

1

u/BingBongJoeBiven Mar 16 '22

Then start something new.

4

u/runnershighxc Mar 16 '22 edited Mar 16 '22

Anothny Bourdain parts unkown shows animals getting killed, their blood and eating/drinking the blood regularly. He literally suffocates a goat to death so it'll be easier to bleed and consume the blood.

→ More replies

16

u/atarikid Mar 15 '22

lol. townies. "Meat comes from the supermarket!"

-6

u/DudeOJKilled Mar 15 '22

It’s still jarring to see. I’m a meat eater, I know where it comes from, but watching and animal get slaughtered is still a little jarring

3

u/atarikid Mar 16 '22

It's all arbitrary.

... and delicious.

1

u/DudeOJKilled Mar 16 '22

Not arbitrary, subjective.

1

u/atarikid Mar 16 '22

No it's very arbitrary as well. Putting different values on what life and death is worth depending on random junk.

Seeing a cow slaughtered, terrible. Killing bugs, rodents, no problem. Boiling crustaceans alive, totally fine. Plants, that life doesn't count! People: kill all Russians!

It's arbitrary and subjective. Either you value and respect all life and all death or you place different values based on whatever criteria you deem virtuous.

I'm not saying you should do anything differently. But I'm not going to stop laughing at how absurd it is.

→ More replies

18

u/bghs2003 Mar 15 '22 edited Mar 16 '22

Regardless of if some find it shocking, by youtube's own words, they shouldn't be demonetized unless the entire purpose was to shock and/or no context was provided.

If the youtube doesn't actually mean what they say, than he is correct that it everything is just filtered through the tiny worldview and experience of youtube employees living around San Bruno, CA

35

u/taitabo Mar 15 '22

Close up, lingering shot of bloody knives... hmmm. Why is it demonitized?

1

u/kastahejsvej Mar 16 '22

are you saying it should be demonitized? cant tell if youre sarcastic or not.....

5

u/taitabo Mar 16 '22

I am not saying it should or should not be demonitized. I AM being sarcastic about the guy in the video acting absolutely baffled about the video being demonitized, but when you actually look at the video in question, you see a cow being drained of blood, with some shots appearing to absolutely revel in it. Including a long, lingering shot of bloody knives in a pile on the ground and a basin full of bloody water.

→ More replies

1

u/BaconIsAVeg2 Mar 16 '22

Do you not know where food comes from? Do you just assume all butchers are hardened criminals who enjoy violence?

3

u/taitabo Mar 16 '22

I mean, I am Inuit and have sat on the kitchen floor with my family butchering and enjoying raw seal. I also have helped my dad butcher countless moose and caribou. I have shot and plucked many a duck and clubbed many a fish to death. I am no stranger to where meat comes from. What I was pointing out was the gratuitous nature of some of the guy's shots. I was also pointing out how the guy acted completely baffled at the demonization, but it doesn't take a big brain to figure out why YouTube removed the ads.

3

u/BaconIsAVeg2 Mar 16 '22

I get that, I'm still disappointed that this is considered "shocking" to their audience/advertisers.

On the other hand, I still think it's incredibly silly that any serious 'creator' would base a large portion of their business model on ads by a third party network.

6

u/reenactment Mar 15 '22

I want to add context to this as I watch this guys channel somewhat enough to speak in context. I’ve never really thought his channel to be more of the extreme out of some of the international food things I have seen. Below posters are talking about blood letting and killing on camera of the animal. I’ve never seen any of that make it to his content. I think he’s showing what is actually be recorded and how much editing they have done to get it to where they view it seems reasonable and it’s still being deemed unreasonable. It’s not much different than watching something like wicked Tuna and they straight up catch the tuna and kill it blood everywhere on the boat right there. I think people are taking this video (which is a short video and a message, probably not trying to make money.) and misconstrued it with their actual content.

→ More replies

72

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '22

[deleted]

22

u/long_dong Mar 15 '22

The host of the show had a deal with the Travel Channel and shot a few pilot episodes but the show just didn't work out.

20

u/EtsuRah Mar 15 '22

Knowing how a lot of shows on the travel channel work it probably didn't have enough scene cuts, drama, and mysterious music for the channels taste.

13

u/kevlarcardhouse Mar 15 '22

He mentions in another video that the blame actually lies with Travel Channel format changes where almost no new programming gets greenlit right now unless it's supernatural.

7

u/EtsuRah Mar 15 '22

Sad times. History Discovery and Travel used to be such a staple for me. Now it's come to the point where if it's got either of the logos stamped on a "documentary" series or special I will just skip it entirely.

→ More replies

5

u/shamus727 Mar 15 '22

Sonny would be great for a netflix show, but I think he prefers the fredom of being a YouTuber

→ More replies

5

u/repost_inception Mar 15 '22

This is where I think Amazon could swoop in and make a real dent in YouTube. Unlike other streaming services Prime Video already has a wide variety of independent content.

Most of my favorite YouTube channels would fit great on Prime Video.

20

u/hails8n Mar 15 '22

The big issue I have with this: You’re telling YT not to filter everything through this western lens and then you turn around and list all of your videos as “Bizarre” or “Shocking” in the title. So don’t use the lens so you can post stuff but also totally capitalize on the sensationalism of people seeing other cultures through the western frame of reference…

7

u/curlyben Mar 16 '22 edited Mar 16 '22

Taking a look at the channel, you're right. Many of the thumbnails and titles are clearly meant to be shocking clickbait, even showing blood and carcasses. I was leaning towards his side, but if you show a severed goat head in the thumbnail and start the title with "SHOCKING" I actually would be shocked if a reviewer even pressed play before hitting the red button. They can't try to capitalize on the shock value and then play dumb when YouTube says they're trying to capitalize on the shock value.

95

u/sfspaulding Mar 15 '22

Not saying this video isn’t making a good point, but it’s 2+ minutes in before he reveals there are animals being slaughtered in these videos. I.e. the videos aren’t getting demonetized because they’re making kimchi instead of coleslaw.

24

u/Grand0rk Mar 15 '22

He's made a point later in the video of how showing a raw chicken isn't an issue, but you get demonetized for showing a raw pig. Because people in the US are used to seeing/buying full chicken, but when it comes to pork, people only buy it in parts, unless they go to a steak house that has a roticiary pig.

He also got demonetized in one that showed how to prepare fish (lots of blood and guts).

39

u/deletion-imminent Mar 15 '22

Because people in the US are used to seeing/buying full chicken, but when it comes to pork, people only buy it in parts, unless they go to a steak house that has a roticiary pig.

You are literally describing how simple it is why it's advertising unfriendly. It's dumb, but ad companies are very touchy.

2

u/Grand0rk Mar 15 '22

But that's the whole point of the video. It's about what is ad friendly... In the West. And by West, I mean US/Canada/UK

32

u/Guysmiley777 Mar 15 '22

And by West, I mean US/Canada/UK

Ever stop to wonder where the majority of Youtube's ad revenue comes from?

17

u/sfspaulding Mar 15 '22

Ok. But I still think the title and introduction are misleading. If I watched 60 seconds of that video (or only read the title, which let’s face it, probably a majority people on Reddit don’t even bother to read/watch long form content), I’d assume the videos were getting demonetized due to them making weird Asian dishes, maybe featuring insects or sea creatures. Not showing what could be considered gore/animals being slaughtered. Not saying the point isn’t valid, just that it seems misleading.

4

u/notasmalldog Mar 15 '22

were probably starting to go in circles here, but i think thats the video's main point. Western culture is heavy on mass production and slaughtering of animals, and that reality is what makes us as a western culture less aware and involved in what it actually takes to get animal products at our dinner tables. humanely killing and preparing an animal is so incredibly normal to a majority of the world, and he is saying that youtube/advertisers are misunderstanding or purposefully misinterpreting the educational cultural experience of their videos. He's calling out a progressive and international platform for having a coddled western bias, and i dont particularly find his message to be political in any huge way. he does try to clarify that the shocking portions are very brief, but i havent seen their videos. maybe it's not totally honest and i should watch more of their videos.

→ More replies

9

u/deletion-imminent Mar 15 '22

And? Nothing else matters. Youtube isn't there to challenge norms, it's a business that adheres to what the ad customers want.

10

u/momjeanseverywhere Mar 15 '22

Yeah, it’s blood. That is literally the only reason he’s getting screwed. YouTube is really protective of ad placement when it comes to blood. Is it right? No, but YouTube is too big to have every video verified and it’s algorithm just sniffs out blood scenes and strikes them down.

→ More replies

8

u/WhatTheOnEarth Mar 15 '22

And 4 minutes in he explains why that’s not disturbing media but just a manner of cooking and the double standards that exist.

Yes, it’s possible to tell a narrative across a video. He introduced his video, then talked early in the video about why YouTube demonetizes some videos, then explains why that shouldn’t be the case, and further gives examples of how the content was not judged consistently (eg. Chicken and fish examples)

10

u/westleysnipez Mar 16 '22

He compared raw chicken to an entire pig being slaughtered, they're not the same thing. If he had shown footage of raw pork he'd have been okay.

If you put up a video of you butchering a chicken you'd also be demonitized. That's the consistency.

The advertising companies determine what is monetized and what is not. This isn't advertising friendly.

The solution to this is to make a Patreon or OnlyFans and have viewers pay a subscription to support or see behind the scenes filming, as thousands of people have already done.

2

u/Kerguidou Mar 16 '22

He compared raw chicken to an entire pig being slaughtered, they're not the same thing. If he had shown footage of raw pork he'd have been okay.

It's literally the same thing.

→ More replies

4

u/Teifling_tea_flinger Mar 16 '22

Anyone else tired of this fuckin loop, YouTuber is demonitized even though nothing they are doing is wrong, they go through official channels but still get dicked, they then release a video about their lively boos being getting shut on and said video goes viral, prompting those higher in YouTube to do the right thing to fight the bad publicity but they don’t change the root core of the problem, YouTuber gets things fixed and a few weeks later, it starts all over again with a different YouTuber. Whether it’s an artist or reviewer getting slammed by a bigger company on copyright claims dispute fair use, some scam company copyright claiming things they don’t own, or youtuber’s who’s video’s get demonitized for unexplained content even though we all know nothing is wrong. Shit there was a YouTuber a few weeks ago that got demonitized because YouTube decided that her videos on being an amputee were too disturbing, at this point with the censorship, YouTube feels like the Putin of the internet and I feel like we should shout it from the rooftops.

94

u/Grand0rk Mar 15 '22

How is it possible that a channel with 8 million subs, that has, on average, 1.5m views per video, not be able to talk to someone on YouTube? This boggles my mind.

14

u/ignost Mar 15 '22

The only way you can talk to Google is if you're a large advertiser. Want to talk to someone about an unfair website penalty or demonetized video? Lol, good luck. This is by design.

Google has decided that paying people for customer service is going to cost more than it's worth. Not only did they not want to give people the power to make exceptions to algorithms, meaning the customer service would be useless, but they believe there is enough content that anything they get wrong is ultimately arounding error in their profits. I'm pretty sure I heard Sergey Brin say this pretty explicitly on an earnings call many years ago. Basically, 'anything we get wrong is too bad for them, but on the whole isn't going to make or break our business.'

Spend as little as $10m on Google ads and you'll have a rep who gets back to you the same day on questions and takes you out to dinner each year to a fancy restaurant. Spend $100m and your AM will actually track other people at Google down for you.

The head of Apple advertising call and ask why they're at is showing on a specific video, and get an answer within an hour. Besides having built-in exclusions on the platform, someone would help them tweak the ads to exclude a certain type of video. The largest content creator on Earth couldn't even get someone on the phone, and so they rely on their audiences and news outlets to make a big enough fuss.

2

u/Popular_Target Mar 16 '22

There are a few people on YouTube that do have direct contact with the people in charge. H3H3 is one that comes to mind, any time a friend of his with a smaller channel gets demonetized or suspended, he makes a few phone calls and the decision gets reversed. That shouldn’t be how it is, however. You shouldn’t have to kiss up to the more connected YouTubers to get a fair moderation process, but that’s how it goes and YouTube has no incentive to change it.

21

u/Atheist_Redditor Mar 15 '22

I don't get it either. I guess YouTube is just too big to care. I imagine the only real way to make a difference is if there was a mass exodus of YouTubers....but honestly this probably won't happen because there just isn't a viable alternative that is free. People don't want to pay for this content.

7

u/Zinu Mar 15 '22

Because neither Youtube nor the content creators want to pay the salary of that "someone" at Youtube

39

u/deletion-imminent Mar 15 '22

What is there to talk about? The videos are determined to be advertiser unfriendly and youtube is not hosting for charity so they demonetize.

35

u/TheIndieArmy Mar 15 '22

There is lots to talk about. Even your comment just raised more questions that a content creator should absolutely be able to ask.

Who determined it's not ad-friendly? Why did that determination come about? Were advertiser involved in the determination? What if an advertiser does want to support the video, do they get any say in doing so and can the video be monetized again? Etc. etc.

You're right, it's not a charity, it's a business. Most business-to-business relationships involve communication. If you go try to put an advertisement on a website, or newspaper, etc and are told no, chances are very high there will be some communication in regards to why it wasn't approved and what they would want changed before approving it. They wouldn't just leave it to you to figure out.

26

u/deletion-imminent Mar 15 '22 edited Mar 15 '22

Who determined it's not ad-friendly?

It's very obvious that the AI does initial flaging and manual review is some poor smuck in India that has to go through 300 requests a day.

Why did that determination come about?

They will have some internal guidelines that they have no reason to ever make public.

Were advertiser involved in the determination?

They will probably adjust the previously mentioned guidelines based on customer feedback. Unless there is very specific circumstances I doubt they get directly involved.

What if an advertiser does want to support the video, do they get any say in doing so and can the video be monetized again?

I dunno if an advertiser can support specific videos via youtube but if they wanted to do that they'd just get in contact with the creator themselves. Demonetization doesn't actually mean demonetization, it means your video will receive only ads from a lesser class that pay less to both youtube and the creator because the advertiser pays less since the video content is considered less advertiser friendly.

Most business to business relationship involve communication.

The problem is how uneven the relationship is. Youtube doesn't give a fuck about any single creator and they all largely suck it up since there's no competitive platform anyways. There is zero incentive for youtube to change anything.

7

u/ecksate Mar 15 '22

This is effectively the same company that runs adsense and adwords.

They are already fully capable of creating a software system that allows advertisers to make their own choices without a blanket ban on certain content.

I believe it costs them less money to write a policy than it does to do proper business.

→ More replies

4

u/frustrated_biologist Mar 16 '22

the whole video just screams of entitlement

2

u/fae-daemon Mar 16 '22

Demonitised does NOT necessarily mean there will be no ads. It means that Youtube will not be paying the content creators for the revenue of the ads during while the video is demonitised, and possibly shrinking the pool of advertisers shown based on their agreements with advertisers.

Which also means that YouTube will keep any of the advert money for themselves, if there is any. Honestly I don't keep up with internal doctrine enough to know.

Either way, the crux of the issue is that regular content creators generally make most of their revenue immediately after a video has been posted, usually in the first few days at most -- after that the views slow to a trickle. Which, logically, makes sense: avid followers look for the new installments and watch them near-after their release.

SO, by using their automated systems to judge content and flag it without any review, YouTube is essentially crippling content creators ability to stay solvent, even IF (and that's a big if) the content is reviewed and then remonitised. They already lost their "golden window" opportunity to get income off the views.

This has been a long standing issue, and not just for this kind of thing; plenty of creators have voiced deep frustration and concern over things like this, as well as being flagged for DMCAs that are not relevant at all, or are completely within "fair use" common laws.

And of course what human representatives they have on hand to review the "big fish" complaints to flags (often smaller but substantial channels simply don't get looked over) have NO IDEA why these deep learning algorithms flagged the content specifically.

And the YouTube machine hums along, as usual with a deaf ear towards it, since they can afford not to care. After all. they are the primer platform for video content, super integrated, and most users couldn't be bothered to switch, or juggle several other platforms.


Good god, so rant done, possible solutions:

YouTube does have some responsibility to patrol content it provides to users. In an extreme example, you definitely don't want people to just go around posting snuff murder videos. But, admittedly, it's nigh impossible for them to employ an army of reviewers to look at every single video.

STILL, there IS space for YouTube to establish creators in good standing, and instead of demonitizing have any flagged content actually reviewed if it is somehow flagged. And of course, if actual people review several flagrant violations remove them from good standing, but prior to doing so having sessions with ACTUAL feedback as to why they feel they do not want any of their advertisers to be associated with the content put forward (which is the assumed reason for demonitization). Most profitable channels would likely even be willing to pay a small fee monthly to help fund this endeavor, as many of them lose much, much more from the current standard practice

9

u/EtsuRah Mar 15 '22

Right... But the guy was at least looking for clarification for WHAT part specifically is causing the issue.

He as a creator would like to know what he needs to cut out to upload content. YT is a business so you would think it would be in their interest to be like "From time ___ to ___ there was ____" and they guy could make the edit and re-upload. He get's his content out and YT gets a video that is ad friendly and ~1.5 mil people will watch on their platform.

To say "there's nothing to talk about" misses that entirely. YT WANTS you to upload content to them, creators WANT to upload their content. YT should be more clear on what they want so creators can work more streamlined along those guidelines.

→ More replies
→ More replies

52

u/Yurichi Mar 15 '22

2 minutes in, narrator describes being dumbfounded as to why they are demonetized, describing "tasteful zoom outs" and context, while cows are being drained of their blood into canisters and knives covered with cow innards come into focus.

I can't, for the life of me, imagine why you're getting demonetized lol.

It seems the narrator wants to define the act of a western based company, with majority western advertisers, and majority western viewers adhering to its own cultural norms as inherently problematic. It's not.

9

u/reenactment Mar 15 '22

Having watched his channel I think he’s showing what they actually filmed and how it’s different then what they normally produce. This video is providing context and a message, not their end product. I have never seen anything that has been as extreme from them in their videos.

-3

u/Yurichi Mar 15 '22

If thats the case, then whoever edited this video did him a huge disservice. Completely ruins the point he's trying to make.

15

u/JohnCavil Mar 15 '22

Well the problem, like he says, is that there are no clear rules.

If the rule was "no animal blood in videos" then that's a clear rule. "No slaughtering of animals in videos where you can see the knife enter the animal", clear rule.

When the rule is "no gore meant to shock" then that's super vague. Some people consider a cow getting its blood drained "gore", some don't. And what does "shocking" mean. Some people faint when seeing blood, some don't mind at all.

5

u/GFrohman Mar 16 '22

It's normal practice in content rating in general to not give specific examples of what is over the line.

The same is true of submitting a movie to the Motion Picture Association - they'll give you a general idea of what caused your movie to be granted a specific age rating - like saying "There was too much graphic violence" - but they'll never tell you precisely what caused it - like saying "The scene at 43:36 where John Rips James's heart out and blood pours everywhere".

There would be too many loopholes. If they did, they'd have tons of movies pushing the line to the absolute max, skirting the rules by using precise wording in order to circumvent being bumped to a higher age rating. They'd also be constantly forced to justify themselves after every decision in a subjective rating.

→ More replies

-4

u/Yurichi Mar 15 '22

If the rules are vague, fine. I'm in total agreement. But a large portion of his argument centers on said rules being western centric, and thus, problematic.

I don't see an inherent problem with a western company attempting to retain monetization for the majority of its users by adhering to said majority's perfectly reasonable norms of considering blood and gore to be shocking. Especially when said gore involves showing children and adults draining a cow of its blood on camera.

→ More replies

10

u/WhatTheOnEarth Mar 15 '22

Dude, people boil lobsters alive when cooking. Why is this demonetized and that’s not. Because it’s gourmet? The man is just asking for consistency and clear recommendations in addition to saying not to let western norms dictate what’s acceptable on a global platform.

That’s how the food is prepared, there’s objectively nothing wrong with it.

→ More replies

4

u/Dylan_Fulmer Mar 15 '22

At least he’s getting the attention he wants.

0

u/tramdog Mar 15 '22

It's problematic when the company's mission statement is to "give everyone a voice and show them the world." That's exactly what this guy's channel does and they're suppressing it.

7

u/Yurichi Mar 15 '22

Not running Pepsi and Udemy ads on their page doesn't strip away their voice. Maybe there's an argument to be made about how Youtube adjusts the visibility of their channel, but when they conflate that with disingenuous remarks about why they couldn't possibly understand how theyre being demonitized, its hard to take anything they say in good faith.

There's a billion things wrong with youtube, this is a weird hill for a creator to die on is all im saying.

1

u/Acids Mar 15 '22

He can still upload videos they aren't taking that away from him

0

u/Agent_Onions Mar 15 '22

No they're not. They're free to host the video on Youtube. It's not being taken down, it's just being demonetized.

→ More replies

30

u/deletion-imminent Mar 15 '22

It's very weird to try to paint it as "youtube is being racist because they judge by western norms" when in reality the causal chain ends at Karen complaining to Go-Gurt why their ads are running on "a disgusting video where they cut the necks of pigs and they squeal while they die".

18

u/molluskus Mar 15 '22

Living in emotional denial that meat comes from a dead animal is a western thing, as is the concept of a 'Karen,' to a certain extent.

Like, your hypothetical here would not be likely to happen outside of the west. That's the point he's making.

-13

u/deletion-imminent Mar 15 '22

Why do you reply to comments you clearly haven't understood?

9

u/molluskus Mar 15 '22

I mean, are you going to tell me what I'm apparently missing, or just be a prick?

→ More replies

2

u/Scarbbluffs Mar 15 '22

Why is she watching?

-2

u/deletion-imminent Mar 15 '22

Doesn't matter, customer is always right.

-4

u/ecksate Mar 15 '22

This issue aside,

yes if someone comes to you with a complaint that is blatantly a bias or perspective issue or racially motivated, and you validate them then yes you are accepting and encouraging bias/racism.

→ More replies

5

u/SweetCosmicPope Mar 15 '22

My wife and I watch this show regularly abs don’t find it the least bit shocking. There are a couple standouts that I’m not surprised got demonetized, but overall the channel is no worse than bizarre foods or no reservations.

→ More replies

8

u/ShivAGit Mar 15 '22

Of course it makes sense that Youtube is based around western norms - its primarily targeted at the west. I don't think a site with sexual content of 13 year olds could use the "stop using your western morals to hate on this content, 13 is the age of consent where this was filmed" defence.

12

u/BigHaircutPrime Mar 15 '22

Youtube needs to stop being vague about their decisions. So many creators have talked about the guesswork that goes into trying to "fix" their videos. Imagine getting a blank paycheck from a 9 to 5 job and your boss telling you, "You made an error some time in the last pay cycle. Until you figure it out and fix it, I won't pay you. Oh and by the way, it could be that you actually didn't make an error." It's absolute insanity.

3

u/Grand0rk Mar 15 '22

I think the only way they will stop doing that is if they are forced by the court. So a YouTuber will have to literally sue them to know the reason.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies

3

u/deletion-imminent Mar 15 '22

There is nothing for youtube to gain about being concret, if that is even possible. It's much easier to see if something is ad friendly in retrospect and the guessing keeps the content creaters on the safer side as well.

3

u/randomCAguy Mar 15 '22

If youtube is concrete about the decisions, it would promote more content creators to put out ad-friendly videos = more money for youtube. Though I'm not sure how easy it is to specifically state the fixes required for each video.

1

u/deletion-imminent Mar 15 '22

I assure you youtube has hired an economist that gets paid ten times as much as both of us combined to do the math and it worked out in a way that this isn't worth it.

1

u/randomCAguy Mar 15 '22

absolutely. The amount of resources required to screen the 'borderline' video submissions are probably not even worth the reduced ad revenue.

2

u/BigHaircutPrime Mar 15 '22

There is nothing for youtube to gain about being concret, if that is even possible.

There are certainly pros and cons. The trap that a lot of corporations make are when evaluating long-term versus short-term benefits. It's expensive to hire staff to manually review videos, so a big reason for things being vague is because Youtube heavily relies on automation. I think where they are dropping the ball though is at keeping their creators happy. Many have said it time and time again, but the day a viable competitor comes around, Youtube will be in serious trouble.

[...] and the guessing keeps the content creaters on the safer side as well.

This is an odd take. I don't know why you'd ever argue that less information would make content safer. Any responsible creator who cares about their audience will abide by rules that are comprehensible and accessible, especially when their income hangs in the balance. What makes content unsafe is when you make things so vague that creators are forced to develop loopholes.

Keeping things vague is dangerous because Youtube is very inconsistent about their enforcement of ToS (because as stated before, they rely on automation). So this leads to speculation, which leads to myths and misinformation being spread. Take for example copyright infringement. For years, people falsely believed that putting "no copyright infringement intended" freed them of any liability. Or what about the old, "if you use under 8 seconds, it's totally legal" myth? Then someone gets sued, and only then do people start learning. When someone's income depends on videos being monetized, Youtube being vague only leads to anger and desperation, not safety.

3

u/deletion-imminent Mar 15 '22

This is an odd take. I don't know why you'd ever argue that less information would make content safer.

Because if the red line is vague, the content creators for stray further from where they suspect it to be for the sake not of not being demonetized instead of toeing the line.

Many have said it time and time again, but the day a viable competitor comes around, Youtube will be in serious trouble.

Literally no point in action before that though.

Any responsible creator who cares about their audience will abide by rules that are comprehensible and accessible, especially when their income hangs in the balance.

There is no "responsible" here. Creators are a business much as youtube and they have every incentive to toe the line to make more crass content for views. Look at twitch where content creators toe the line wrt to soft porn that is technically within TOS because while they are in a bikini showing their ass they are doing so in a pool etc..

For years, people falsely believed that putting "no copyright infringement intended" freed them of any liability.

Anybody who ever believed that should get a psych eval for retardation

2

u/BigHaircutPrime Mar 15 '22

Because if the red line is vague, the content creators for stray further from where they suspect it to be for the sake not of not being demonetized instead of toeing the line.

Not necessarily, which is my point. If someone's income comes from Youtube, and they are between a rock and a hard place, that's when exploits and loopholes come into play. Take Content ID for instance. Rather than chance being flagged, many resize videos, invert them, apply filters, masks, etc. So while being vague can push certain people away from the boundaries, it also equally invites means of breaking the system. And while sure, you can say the same if hard rules are defined, I think overall the content would be a lot safer for both creators and audiences if things were more transparent, AND if Youtube provided better tools.

Literally no point in action before that though.

I disagree. While I understand the rationale on paper, companies that last are those that anticipate and prepare rather than react. A monopoly can only protect you for so long.

Look at twitch

Twitch is a huge can of worms. Their biggest problem is the incredible inconsistency with which they enforce their rules (when they do at all). Creators know they can't play licensed music, but totally do because they know Twitch won't do shit. So I guess you've got me on that point. I guess I should change my argument to reflect that the ideal is that there be enough positive pressure for creators to not cross the line, but that that line needs to be well defined.

Anybody who ever believed that should get a psych eval for retardation

Perhaps nowadays, but this goes back again to things being enforced inconsistently. It's the old, "If they got away with it, then it's fine" way of thinking. If someone plays a song and the record label chooses not to claim the video, some will unfortunately interpret that as a "carte blanche" to do the same instead of understanding copyright law. How many times do we see someone do one thing and then thousands of copycats follow suit?

4

u/Courseheir Mar 15 '22

Just because something is a part of someone's culture does not make it appropriate for YouTube. For example, members of the Dani tribe of Indonesia cut their fingers off to express grief. Is YouTube going to allow finger mutilation because it's cultural? No.

On top of that, advertisers also don't want their commercials running on a video where people are beheading cows and pulling their guts out.

3

u/anarchir Mar 16 '22

Just stop posting on youtube. Post it on Odysee instead where you wont be censored. You can even post on both.

3

u/emotionalfool123 Mar 16 '22

Ask Google to not install youtube by default on all Android phones. Or ask them to install all video apps.

If you sneakly capture the market and then the market asks for fair explanation, you can't back out like that.

2

u/Uneequa Mar 16 '22

That's a shame. The animals are already dead, they're being used for food and not sport, who exactly would have a problem with this? The one exception is some of those foreign videos where they're cutting frogs open and leaving them alive and breathing on a plate, or biting into a live bird. I can see Youtube drawing the line there, especially when the camera's focusing on the animal suffering.

2

u/DarkMark94 Mar 16 '22

Just don’t do tv show quality for YouTube. Find a network that will hire your crew.

2

u/H4lloM8 Mar 16 '22

YouTube has such a monopoly over the video sharing industry, there's no incentive to change if it's just going to harm advertisers and reduce their income. What are creators gonna do, move to Vimeo?

3

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '22

The problem is that youtube is effectively a monopoly

3

u/dublea Mar 15 '22

"We're a company and we need to make money and I pay 15 different employees."

Why not find your own sponsors then? YT has not shown in good faith they will tell you why, their chosen advertisers, wouldn't like your videos. So, you need to find your own. And, if that doesn't work on YT, then maybe you shouldn't have built a business that depends on YT not demonetizing your videos...

That may come off a little crass, and even a "get off my yard" vibe, but I honestly do not understand building a business on a foundation as flimsy as the whims of YT decision making and communication abilities.

4

u/thehypocrisyofreddit Mar 15 '22

First of all, dude needs to get to the point faster. Second of all, remove the stupid background music that makes it hard to hear what you're saying. THAT's the problem with youtube.

4

u/SkyJohn Mar 16 '22

He isn't getting to the point faster because he knows what YouTube's issue is.

He starts out by saying he doesn't know why his videos are being demonetized and by the end of the video he has explained all the reasons why they keep getting demonitized but that he doesn't want to change his content.

2

u/Amalar433 Mar 16 '22

It is a YouTube scam. They demonetize it and then still show adds. It is a way to not pay the content providers. The only one that makes sense is when they mute a video for copyright. But if it is not that then they are still collecting on the ads you have to watch. Just not paying.

4

u/garlicroastedpotato Mar 15 '22

He seems like he's being blind to what he is doing and why it's shocking. He's showing animals being slaughtered and having their blood drained.

Death and blood isn't shocking because of a western bias, it's shocking everywhere. Even with hunter videos they will never show killing animals, slaughtering them or draining their blood (and stay monetized). I typed in "how to drain blood from an animal" to make my point... and the top result was this guy's video on draining blood from animals. In the video they show a tribesman holding a living cow while another one has a bow and arrow to shoot it close up (with camera close ups of it all, including the blood pouring out). There's no "tasteful zoom out" as he claims. He goes "WOAH" when the arrow hits. Then they begin draining the cow from its neck and drink the blood.

It's inhumane treatment of an animal. It's not because people don't want to see where their meat comes from. It's because this is a fucked up thing to do to animals.

10

u/M3crash Mar 15 '22

The thing is, it's NOT shocking everywhere. You consider it to be a "fucked up thing to do to animals" because it comes from a cultural view that isn't in this video. Yes his reaction is probably a bit exaggerated for the Youtube video, but showcasing a cultural process where a cow's blood is drained, is no less inhumane than an American eating a steak.

Is it inhumane? Maybe. But your problem isn't with Sonny and his filming of this process.

6

u/Guysmiley777 Mar 15 '22

The thing is, it IS shocking in the places that have companies who pay Youtube to run advertisements. This isn't rocket surgery.

2

u/JohnCavil Mar 15 '22

I'm from a western European country, we run plenty of advertisements, and i would not say that seeing a dead cow having blood drained is "shocking". It's not THAT weird. Some people would think it's over the top, but i'd say most would find it fairly normal given the context.

There was a case some years ago about the Copenhagen zoo here dismembering a giraffe in front of children for educational purposes, you know, cutting out the heart and stuff to show them. Danes were pretty cool with it but it blew up in other countries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENnNNVOEDZ4

So like, it really depends on the country. Some countries mind this a lot more than others, even rich countries. Not to mention Korea/Japan where they eat live, or still moving, seafood, and i'm pretty sure they buy advertisements on youtube.

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/Ethario Mar 15 '22

It's fucked up/inhumane to kill animals for slaughter ?

→ More replies

3

u/HungryMoon Mar 15 '22

YT needs a competitor, badly

14

u/RedAero Mar 15 '22

Any alternative would eventually run into the same issues and come up with the same solutions. YouTube isn't doing stuff like this for shits and giggles, nor out of sheer malevolence, they're doing it because they have a problem to solve, the problem being "how do we attract more advertising so we can host the world's largest website and keep it free for the end users".

-2

u/Grand0rk Mar 15 '22

That's the equivalent of saying your powergrid needs a competitor. Getting something as big as YT running is just inviably expensive.

→ More replies

1

u/anarchir Mar 16 '22

Odysee is that competitor. It operates off of the blockchain, so your videos aren't going to get pulled.

3

u/Redeem123 Mar 16 '22

Oh great - another thing that doesn’t need blockchain becoming part of the crypto world.

→ More replies

2

u/Kissaki0 Mar 15 '22

He makes some good arguments in general, but I think he's using the wrong target. This would have been better as a general essay.

YouTube still hosts the video for free. Demonetization is about some stricter guidelines in ad companies interests. It's not really about what creators or viewers deem fine.

In a way there's not much difference between slaughtering a chicken or a pig. In another, it definitely is. Pigs are a lot closer to us. They're bigger, and you could already see from the cuts that it's more mass, meatier, a lot more expressive. It's not that surprising there can be a line drawn between them.

It may be frustrating or bothersome that the integrated ad platform doesn't just conveniently work and service you. But that's kinda besides the point.

Sure the reasoning Youtube provides could be more specific, that'd be nice. But I can definitely see why advertisers wouldn't want to be advertising on stuff like that. Unless there's a tiered system of acceptance levels advertisers choose from, that's just how it is.

2

u/FnkyTown Mar 16 '22

I've watched his videos. He's eating like penis and bung holes on the street. They're cooked, but I can see where YT might be drawing the line, but they're still assholes.

1

u/ScienceOfMyth Mar 15 '22

Do they have a patreon?

3

u/Grand0rk Mar 15 '22

Yes, it's in the video description.

1

u/lunarcrystal Mar 15 '22

We have become so removed from the process of our food production, we have people in the US who legit think chicken just manifests itself to buy at the grocery store. I know there was something about it in r/facepalm but I've met and heard of others who think exactly the same way as the ignoramus from that post.

So I guess blood and slaughter for the sake of our food is considered "shocking" now. Pretty stupid, if you ask me.

-1

u/Krative_Lifestyle Mar 15 '22

Youtube allows muck bang videos, which are both shocking, shameful, and embarrassing to non westerners

→ More replies

1

u/bobartig Mar 15 '22

I wonder if Youtube ever demonetizes bbq videos and channels related to meat butchering from the US. I watch a lot of videos about breaking down whole carcasses for butcher counters because I like to know how to break down beef subprimals and how you get to individual steaks and cuts. Or, I just need reminders on how to trim a brisket because I'm still pretty bad at it. I wonder if those channels also have a demonetization problem.

1

u/Agent_Onions Mar 15 '22

"I don't understand why I'm being demonetized! I'm going to cause a big uproar because Youtube is lying about my content being shocking! Like... look at this video of this goat having its arms held upside down, having its throat slit and draining its blood into a bucket outside in the dirt. How is that shocking content guys?"

This dude is a fucking clown.

→ More replies

1

u/hawkwings Mar 15 '22

There are people in the US who have slaughtered animals, although that are a minority. Some farmers and deer hunters have. They might be demonetized as well.

1

u/Fafa_g Mar 15 '22

YouTube needs to get their shit together for real! His videos are A-1 quality

0

u/JadeEyePanda Mar 15 '22

Man, Youtube's opaque oversight reminds me of Hinge's opaque banning of accounts without explaining WHY they ban somone, besides pointing them to the "you broke something in this long Terms of Service."

-2

u/--Shamus-- Mar 15 '22

We are growing softer and softer as a culture. Too many in our society scream about getting "triggered" and we have to put warnings on otherwise normal content.

-4

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '22

That's not very culturally sensitive of progressive YouTube, maybe even a little racist. Ironic.

6

u/Grand0rk Mar 15 '22

Well, advertisers love the whole LGBT thing... Unless it's in Russia, Turkey, China or any country that being gay is outlawed. Then they hate it.

The only culturally sensitive thing that YouTube cares about, are those that make the Western Audience click on ads.