.png "back to home page")
Login to comment
“If they don’t violate our policies, they’ll remain on our site”. A crystal-clear statement of rules-based rather than principles-based regulation, in a context where principles-based regulation is the only conceivable hope. https://t.co/6Fq6IBi8aC
— Felix Salmon (@felixsalmon) June 5, 2019
There's a baffling literalism (no idea what else to call it) with the current YT situation.
— Note to Self: Don’t Tweet (@mikerugnetta) June 5, 2019
C.M. can demonstrate cause and effect btwn S.C.'s actions and ongoing harassment. Yet b/c, among other reasons, S.C. doesn't look into a camera and say “harass this man” - he’s fine
Yes it does. It absolutely does. https://t.co/9xWCGjsEm0
— Kat Blaque (@kat_blaque) June 5, 2019
Also: We're very much waiting for an on-the-record explanation about how Crowder didn't violate YouTube's explicit policies around harassment.
— Sean Hollister (@StarFire2258) June 5, 2019
The idea that YouTube needed time to weigh whether he "harmed the broader community" is ridiculous. https://t.co/HZKrJhG2GX
this was always how it was gonna go. how does everyone know this but the platforms!?! https://t.co/69jYMiL4gh
— Charlie Warzel (@cwarzel) June 5, 2019
I can tell you the news cycle from here:
— Dave Lee (@DaveLeeBBC) June 5, 2019
- Equality rights groups get angry, nothing happens
- Politicians get angry, nothing happens
- Advertisers start pulling ads from YouTube... a ha. Action!
I don’t know what to say.
— Carlos Maza (@gaywonk) June 4, 2019
@YouTube has decided not to punish Crowder, after he spent two years harassing me for being gay and Latino.
I don't know what to say. https://t.co/EFvWCNvPms
This statement of “primarily about debating” from @YouTube has implications far beyond the the harassment of @gaywonk because “debating” is also how an enormous amount of transphobia is framed and propagated. “Debating” someone’s existence cannot be a defense of bigotry. https://t.co/mIsVkhjInM
— Emerson Collins (@ActuallyEmerson) June 5, 2019
Independent journalists already being hit by #VoxAdpocalypse https://t.co/AnyVp0uvPb
— Steven Crowder (@scrowder) June 5, 2019
YouTube is so scared to take a policy stand against hatred that it replied to my press inquiry email from anonymous address...with a fedora avatar pic.twitter.com/pbnFWXJTpY
— Josh Constine (@JoshConstine) June 5, 2019
More than 24 hours after first communicating about the Crowder situation on Twitter, in a reply to @gaywonk, YouTube has published its first real, thorough explanation of its reasoning, from comms head Chris Dale. https://t.co/A65xhvX86G pic.twitter.com/dYIagOxouV
— Nick Statt (@nickstatt) June 6, 2019
A review of our policies determined that calling you a lispy queer was legitimate political debate, however it was also damaging to our community, and that damage can only be remedied by removing the link to the socialism is for fags t-shirt.
— Tom Gara (@tomgara) June 5, 2019
“Using racial, homophobic, or sexist epithets on their own would not necessarily violate either of these policies.” - @YouTube’s head of communications https://t.co/gqVh5Lhsvx
— Carlos Maza (@gaywonk) June 6, 2019
YouTube is now demonetizing Steven Crowder, a day after saying he didn't break any rules. I'm confused! https://t.co/jyOFzFf7Eq
— Kevin Roose (@kevinroose) June 5, 2019
Chernobyl was handled better than this https://t.co/SbmYizSgIZ
— Justin Miller (@justinjm1) June 5, 2019
YouTube's falling directly in line with the language and formulations that bigots use to harass their targets, on their and every internet platform. They can't be so clueless as to not be aware of these particular dog whistles.
— Studio Glibly (@NoTotally) June 5, 2019
And in another flip-flop, YouTube now says the bigot will have to fix "all of the issues" with his channel to be remonetized...but hasn't publicly detailed what those issues are. https://t.co/PIi31qtJlC
— Josh Constine (@JoshConstine) June 5, 2019
Lets be real.
— Tim Pool (@Timcast) June 5, 2019
Carlos Maza has gotten tons of journalists stripped of monetization now over this.
He's even demanding more after already getting Crowder removed from the partner program.
Legit journalists who do field work are being purged https://t.co/yQuAembGOe
Sorry for the confusion, we were responding to your tweets about the T-shirts. Again, this channel is demonetized due to continued egregious actions that have harmed the broader community. To be reinstated, he will need to address all of the issues with his channel.
— TeamYouTube (@TeamYouTube) June 5, 2019
Just spoke with YouTube. Confirmed, the second Adpocalypse IS here and they’re coming for you. More details to follow. Stay tuned.
— Steven Crowder (@scrowder) June 5, 2019
The YouTube purge has already unfairly caught up at least one journalist: Ford Fischer, who does great work covering political events. https://t.co/cdZE4RzZ1E
— Will Sommer (@willsommer) June 5, 2019
"If you ban x, what about late night TV hosts?" is a line straight out of the troll's handbook. Surprised to see YouTube essentially repeating it here. https://t.co/5fGhC0blUF
— Dave Lee (@DaveLeeBBC) June 5, 2019
To clarify, in order to reinstate monetization on this channel, he will need to remove the link to his T-shirts.
— TeamYouTube (@TeamYouTube) June 5, 2019
Why would a straight guy in Canada build his whole career out of attacking a gay guy in the United States of America? And why does @YouTube continue to allow this targeted harassment on its platform? https://t.co/1yF4PzrE2E
— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) June 5, 2019
This is a disturbing response from @TeamYouTube to documented hate speech against LGBTQ people. That someone sat down and thought this up—let alone committing to it as a statement—says a lot about the culture at YouTube and who and what they value:
— Charlotte Clymer?️? (@cmclymer) June 5, 2019
Profits over human rights. https://t.co/OcIHsjmEzf
Demonetizing ? doesn't ? work. ?
— Carlos Maza (@gaywonk) June 5, 2019
Abusers use it as proof they're being "discriminated" against. Then they make millions off of selling merch, doing speaking gigs, and getting their followers to support them on Patreon.
The ad revenue isn't the problem. It's the platform.
If you work at YouTube, you can change this. And you owe it to the people endangered by this hate to do so. https://t.co/CLeoSBiFbx
— Anil Dash ? (@anildash) June 5, 2019
If you work at YouTube and you would like to tell me wtf is happening over there today, I am reachable via DM, Signal, or secure email (in bio).
— Kevin Roose (@kevinroose) June 5, 2019
Utilizing a platform to sell merchandise with a slur on it, repeatedly using a person’s sexual orientation in a derogatory way, sending targeted aggression towards an individual for years.. these all appear to be actions fueled by hatred to me.
— connor (@connorfranta) June 5, 2019
Unacceptable. Do better, @YouTube. https://t.co/dJTb43M65N
If there was a ‘how to destroy your own company’ handbook out there it would be based on what you’ve done with this entire situation. https://t.co/aorW3Aiwra
— The?FOO (@PolitiBunny) June 5, 2019
Shortly before YouTube’s announcement, @gaywonk told @KELLYWEILL that existing policies should have already led to Crowder’s outright suspension.
— Scott Bixby (@scottbix) June 5, 2019
“YouTube has explicit, clear policies against harassment, bullying, and hate speech.” https://t.co/4YplxsWB2K
The problem isn't Crowder and the problem isn't monetization.
— Carlos Maza (@gaywonk) June 5, 2019
The problem is that @YouTube allows monsters and bullies to become superstars, break YouTube's rules, build an army of loyal, radicalized followers, and then make millions selling them merch that sustains their work.
This is an *extremely* encouraging approach. The scourge of “on background” in tech is maddening and unacceptable. https://t.co/XeGLzdDH2F
— Dave Lee (@DaveLeeBBC) June 5, 2019
"YouTube’s stance is apparently that it is okay for a host with millions of subscribers (3,846,360 as of early Wednesday) to repeatedly engage in racist, homophobic bullying so long as it’s couched as part of some kind of ambiguously defined ‘debate.’" https://t.co/8r7jWmnaM9
— Jay Rosen (@jayrosen_nyu) June 5, 2019
(4/4) Even if a video remains on our site, it doesn’t mean we endorse/support that viewpoint.
— TeamYouTube (@TeamYouTube) June 4, 2019
There are other aspects of the channel that we’re still evaluating– we’ll be in touch with any further updates.
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://t.co/VmOce5nbGy
— TeamYouTube (@TeamYouTube) June 5, 2019
I wonder what's going on in the room where YouTube leadership is making these content moderation decisions. Powerful few making calls for the many with little transparency and no recourse.
— Alex Kantrowitz (@Kantrowitz) June 5, 2019
I'm not saying YouTube should have stuck to its initial bad call in the face of the backlash. They were right to reverse it. But the reversal—and many others like it, from YT, FB, and others—reminds us that these platforms' claims to be impartial referees were bogus all along.
— Will Oremus (@WillOremus) June 5, 2019
For the record, demonetizing Crowder means that @YouTube now treats anti-LGBT harassment the same way it treats pro-LGBT content. Bonkers. https://t.co/6WqsnQhwvE
— Carlos Maza (@gaywonk) June 5, 2019
“The platforms” have a kind of deep desire to operate like common carriers who aren’t expected to exert any judgment, but they’re also fanatically averse to the kind of regulatory framework that would come with that status. https://t.co/WMqcB7AwBl
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) June 5, 2019
I know brilliant, conscientious people who work at @YouTube. Tonight - between the pathetic response to a tsunami of harassment against a gay Latino man and the pathetic response to new evidence of the platform being a haven for pedophiles - I’d imagine they are despondent.
— Joe Bernstein (@Bernstein) June 5, 2019
YouTube demonetized Crowder less than a day after they said his videos don't violate their policies https://t.co/2iHIVHnNpf
— Will Sommer (@willsommer) June 5, 2019
Remove that rainbow from your logo, @YouTube. You don’t deserve it. https://t.co/ECX9Yohtcp
— Chris Bratt (@bratterz) June 5, 2019
So the fuck what. Basically all political content gets "demonetized."
— Carlos Maza (@gaywonk) June 5, 2019
Crowder's revenue stream isn't from YouTube ads. It's from selling merch and "Socialism Is For Fags" shirts to millions of loyal customers, that @YouTube continues to drive to his channel. For free. https://t.co/ws8mqvRoKU
I know this will sound eccentric, but the more I watch these controversies play out the more I think tech companies are gradually, messily, painfully re-evolving the common law system. This looks like nothing so much as a precedential appellate opinion. https://t.co/OHO7GWCkZQ
— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) June 6, 2019
This is such a weird area for YouTube to put its foot down. I agree in principle that all ideas should be allowed on YouTube—even ones that are politically incorrect or tasteless—but this could reasonably be considered as borderline targeted harassment. https://t.co/YGhZpEQpag
— Quinn Nelson (@SnazzyQ) June 5, 2019
Youtube is making it up as it goes along, because the whole concept of “policy” is, and always will be, subservient to to the flow of capital. https://t.co/pJC882r41p
— Emily of the State (@EmilyGorcenski) June 5, 2019
This makes me feel so sick to my stomach.
— Mitchell Moffit (@mitchellmoffit) June 5, 2019
For years ANY of our 'queer' based content got demonetized.
One time a simple Q&A about our relationship was demonetized.
And now that same company waves the pride flag, but refuses to take action.@YouTube @YTCreators https://t.co/WtH2pigTsa
Cool, YouTube really took an opportunity to assess their cornerstone role in the rampant divisiveness and radicalisation taking place online and came up with "not our problem ?" https://t.co/VF2b79M7Hp
— Liam Dryden (@LiamDrydenEtc) June 5, 2019
Not a ban.
— The transtastically bisexual Revan Athame (@RevanAthame) June 5, 2019
No removal of any videos.
No apology.
Just the emptiest of empty gestures to fool people into believing they are taking action.
Meanwhile, everyone else facing harassment and death threats still can't monetize their videos because YouTube won't let us. https://t.co/GBbj3uYWpV
Two days later:
— David Ruddock (@RDRv3) June 5, 2019
Update on our update: We have reinstated this channel's monetization.
This is better than nothing but it's already so half-assed it feels almost inevitable YouTube will backtrack on it. https://t.co/vl8nx6RhRS
I love that @YouTube, one of the biggest purveyors of right-wing hate on earth, has a rainbow avatar for Pride Month. They ignored serial and blatant homophobic harassment @gaywonk got from a guy with millions of subscribers, but look at the pretty colors. https://t.co/CTa75dA63w
— Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) June 5, 2019
YouTube pissed off everyone and satisfied nobody today https://t.co/y6Op51lcwZ
— Justin Miller (@justinjm1) June 5, 2019
One theory is that demonetization will end up being YouTube's enforcement middle ground for people who are too big/loud/good at line-toeing to ban completely, but are making the platform miserable for other people.
— Kevin Roose (@kevinroose) June 5, 2019
Today has generated a lot of questions and confusion. We know it hasn't been easy for everyone. Going forward, we'll be taking a closer look at our own harassment policies, with the aim to update them.
— TeamYouTube (@TeamYouTube) June 6, 2019
Our thoughts and plans: https://t.co/sYJYK44djO
Oh my god, who is tweeting from the YouTube account: https://t.co/gswt83NrTW
— Kelly Weill (@KELLYWEILL) June 5, 2019
Youtube is providing cover for the very people they claim to be combatting when they cast a wide net that removes every kind of content creator.
— Ford Fischer (@FordFischer) June 5, 2019
When Youtube demonetizes @scrowder and I in the same purge, they create a false equivalence. https://t.co/dPkmKhCDKC
Good lord. @YouTube says it didn't punish Crowder because he was "focused primarily on debating" when he repeatedly called me a "lispy queer."
— Carlos Maza (@gaywonk) June 5, 2019
You can harass queer people as much as you want as long as its sandwiched between "debating."
Unreal. https://t.co/YpDXjeGAQm
the problem with this is that carlos wasn't harassed by ad revenue https://t.co/zfs4jwDHfW
— Adam Freelander (@adamplease) June 5, 2019
Facebook is working on an independent review board that will give non-Facebook employees some limited oversight over its content decisions. I bet we'll eventually see something like this at YouTube and Twitter. Maybe this week's events push the timeframe up.
— Alex Kantrowitz (@Kantrowitz) June 5, 2019
Google employees, you’ve (rightly) walked out when management did you wrong, now do it for your users. https://t.co/b9d47uYr7w
— Mike Monteiro (@monteiro) June 6, 2019
I feel like it should be uncontroversial that calling someone a "lispy queer" is homophobic harassment but apparently @youtube disagrees! Extremely good stuff https://t.co/hjP0vyxZsP
— Dylan Matthews (@dylanmatt) June 5, 2019
.@YouTube drives millions of new customers towards Crowder's high-engagement content, which he then uses to sell "Socialism Is For Fags" shirts for profit. It's a business, and YouTube's technology provides bullies and bigots with an endless supply of news customers.
— Carlos Maza (@gaywonk) June 5, 2019
(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.
— TeamYouTube (@TeamYouTube) June 4, 2019
More YouTube policy-creation-and-communication by anonymous tweet. Who is responsible for these decisions? Who is accountable for them?https://t.co/ifWWfDaF1N
— nilay patel (@reckless) June 5, 2019
Explainer: YouTube is going to let @gaywonk get harassed by homophobes so they don’t get harassed by conservatives.
— Brianna Wu (@BriannaWu) June 5, 2019
If Steven Crowder's online harrassment of @gaywonk doesn't violate @YouTube's community standards, the company has no standards. Gay kids attempt suicide every week because of language like this. It's not speech or "debate"; it's a weapon. https://t.co/8gJVJLcf4i
— Steve Silberman (@stevesilberman) June 5, 2019
So glad the journalists are standing up against censorship https://t.co/vLKrnWEcGp
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) June 5, 2019
YouTube found an interesting medium between deleting videos / banning the whole channel and hitting where it really hurts - ?.
— Artem Russakovskii (@ArtemR) June 5, 2019
The semi-turnaround came 19 hours after YouTube's first response. Public pressure gets things done. https://t.co/gLZH2xvKOA
YouTube’s latest nonsense stance: Hate speech rules are only enforced if hatred is the sole purpose of a video ???♂️ https://t.co/S2CX2cXeZL pic.twitter.com/oYVZgS5l2T
— Josh Constine (@JoshConstine) June 6, 2019
Wtf happened with YouTube yesterday? Here's my analysis for @WiredUK including previously unreported historical info, explaining why this was inevitable, and input from @beccalew and @ashkan https://t.co/x4iB9keAaF
— Chris Stokel-Walker (@stokel) June 6, 2019
YouTube Finally Punishes Right-Wing Personality Steven Crowder For Anti-Gay Attack On Vox Writer https://t.co/QF5lw0KVFI pic.twitter.com/bXfuFaR28s
— Deadline Hollywood (@DEADLINE) June 5, 2019
reading @yoda on the youtube sitch https://t.co/Uj8MWr95ZA
— alex (SF) (@alex) June 5, 2019
YouTube told me that it won't remove videos of Steven Crowder taunting @gaywonk with racist, anti-gay harassment because Crowder was "focused primarily on debating". that's right. debating https://t.co/BW2sPoOyh9
— LVL 45 CHAOS POTUS (@thetomzone) June 5, 2019
Login to comment
YouTube is removing thousands of accounts to take on hate speech https://t.co/qWeJBjOUmd
— WIRED UK (@WiredUK) June 6, 2019
"In the first quarter of 2019 we removed 47,443 videos and 10,623 accounts for violation of our policies on cyberbullying and harassment.”
— Daniel Newman (@CreativeNewman) June 6, 2019
…I think these numbers are meant to impress, but for a platform as huge as YouTube, they actually seem quite tiny. https://t.co/GUvwfd5cDG
Login to comment