It appears that Youtube removed all ads from any gun related channel

Jump to latest Follow Reply
The Daily Mail in the UK ran an article about Joerg Sprave's Slingshot channel in which he showed that a product that billed itself as a 'Stab Resistant' vest was in fact a worthless product. He demonstrated that he was able to defeat the vest with minimal effort. They went on to slander him and his channel saying that it was a training tool used by terrorists in the attacks on the Thames river a few weeks ago. YouTube issued a strike against his channel (3 strikes and you're out). People on YouTube made a stink about it and thousands of people petitioned YoTube and showed that the Daily Mail's own newspaper and website showed far more damming and graphic content than the entertaining content of the Slingshot Channel. The Daily Mail was just trying to stir the pot and get page views for their own site. YouTube reversed course and removed the strike. However, they've applied the 'Restricted' label to most of content on YouTube if it has a gun, talks about guns, or even belongs to a channel that frequently involves guns, even if the individual video doesn't even contain any guns or mention of guns.

Matt Carriker (sp?) from Demolition Ranch talks about this a bit in his blog channel, Off the Ranch here:

Matt is a veterinarian. He has a 3rd channel called Vet Ranch that does charity work for homeless dogs. It sometimes features video of surgical procedures that are graphic. Those videos generate quite a bit of money and allow him to pay for the care and treatment of more animals that need care they wouldn't otherwise get. Those also got restricted, presumably because of the graphic content, but there's been no communication from YouTube about it.
 
Upvote 0
As for the ads, this is truly the definition of mixed emotions. I feel badly for guys like AEAC and Ted who make some kind of revenue from producing excellent content, The selfish subnote to that is, who ever feels bad for seeing less ads?

As for content being restricted/flagged as dangerous suddenly, that is a horse of a different color altogether, more specifically it is an editorial overreach. 

If I knew cr@p about starting a website I would start "Airtube" right now....
 
Upvote 0
And once again public perception plays a key role in individual rights

It is the advertisers themselves that has forced Youtube into the action, Everyone is monetizing their videos (This is one of the reasons Teds Videos keep getting copied and stolen) and there are advertisers that are complaining that their adds are being shown with video content they do not want to be associated with. Due to the fact that there are millions of videos that youtube has no way of personally censoring they have used broad spectrum filters to place these type of videos in a restricted classification. It would almost be impossible to create a narrower spectrum filters without dramatically increasing processing ability's as video filtering requires much more processing power than that of written text. In fact I would say that much of the filtering being done is by that very thing. The Title, The Description, and the Discussions not the videos themselves. Perhaps an added filter in speech recognition as youtube now offers cc for videos. So any KEYWORD Like Gun, Blood, Dissection, Or Hunting, Or whatever Keyword that the Advertisers have complained about has been flagged.


Michael flip the switch, If a sponsor called you and told you someone has posted a video showing there product being used doing something that they do not agree with and posted a thread about it, and threatened to pull their sponsorship if not removed you would have to make some hard and perhaps controversial decisions.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Resources
Menu