Comments by "MarcosElMalo2" (@MarcosElMalo2) on "Houthis Lose a Blowfish (USV)| MV Pumba Dodges the Houthi in the Red Sea" video.

@bcluett1697 Given that the advertisements often contain more graphically violent imagery than the videos in question, the argument that YouTube is catering to advertisers’ sensibilities is unsupportable. YouTube also still sells ads for demonetized videos, which also undermines that argument. The evidence shows that YouTube is arbitrarily imposing its standards merely to cheat creators of commissions. YouTube doesn’t have the right to engage in unfair business practices despite the right of a company to make a profit.
2
@billpugh58 I generally agree with that sentiment. But there is a different principle here regarding YouTube’s business practices with regard to creators working on commission. YouTube’s business practices are still governed by laws defining unfair business practices. Here are some facts I have observed as a viewer. • I am still shown advertisements on demonetized videos. • Many of the ads depict violence much more graphic than in the videos themselves. • YouTube is arbitrarily applying standards to video creators while giving advertisers a pass. YouTube’s practices contradict its justifications for those practices. When the ads themselves contain graphic violence, the argument that YouTube will lose advertisers is very weak. When the audience is shown “objectionable” violent imagery in the ads, YouTube doesn’t have an argument that they’re protecting the audience from objectionable violent content. YouTube pattern of behavior strongly suggests that their policies and arbitrary practices are cheating creators of commission revenue for the sake of YouTube’s own profits. YouTube cannot claim a loss of profits because advertisers avoid violent content. Clearly there are plenty of advertisers who do not find violent content objectionable. They cannot argue that they are protecting the public from violent imagery when they are clearly not protecting the public from advertisers’ violent imagery.
1
⁠ @nic12344 I see no dearth of ads that contain graphic depictions of violence that far exceed the standard that YouTube imposes on creators, so this argument doesn’t hold water. I saw three advertisements for video games over the course of this video that contained much more violent imagery than did the video itself. YouTube also shows ads on demonetized videos. The claim that advertisers avoid violent content is unsupportable.
1
⁠ @ivanbluetarski9071 I think it’s completely arbitrary, and it’s done to deprive creators like Saul of their rightfully earned commissions.
1
@cageordie Advertisements for realistically violent games, it should be noted. I saw three ads for games that featured explosions, targeting vehicles, and assassinations with a sniper rifle. It seems that violence is OK when YouTube is getting paid, but reporting of real world violence is an excuse to minimize paying commissions to video creators doing actual journalism.
1
@ThatOpalGuy They make some of the rules, but there are other rules that govern unfair business practices in the United States. I saw three ads for violent video games. One of the ads was for a sniper game that depicted an assassination. All the ads feature violent explosions. The inconsistency undermines YouTube’s justifications for demonetization. They’re not protecting the user audience from depictions of violence. Nor can they claim that advertisers find depictions of violence to be objectionable, when the advertisers use depictions of violence in their advertisements. I am not one of those that believe litigation is the solution for all of life’s problems. But there is a winnable case to be made here if creators joined together to challenge YouTube’s unfair business practices in a courtroom. Contractual language to which Saul and others have agreed does not supersede the law.
1
@danielch6662 But advertisements are not reviewed for objectionable content. The rules are being applied inconsistently and unfairly, and not in accordance with laws governing unfair business practices. Such laws are in force regardless of whatever agreements YouTube has extracted from video creators doing actual journalism. They cannot justify the practice by claiming that violence is objectionable to advertisers, nor can they claim that they are protecting the audience from objectionable violent content when the ads themselves contain much more violent imagery. Labor costs are not a sufficient defense to unfair business practices that allow YouTube to arbitrarily avoid paying commissions to content creators.
1
100%. They do not publish their standards and they actively resist creators’ attempts to receive guidance. YouTube is engaging in a pattern of cheating creators out of advertising commissions, and their stated justifications don’t hold water.
1
Ironically, YouTube showed me three different advertisements for wargame/shooter games over the course of this video. If YouTube is concerned about depictions of violence, they are far from consistent in how they apply their rules. It really seems like YouTube is happy to show violence when they’re being paid, and happy to demonetize videos to pay less to content creators. It’s just one more example of YouTube’s malignant business practices. Don’t get me started.
1