Skip to main content

YouTube Advertising Policy


                Chapter 8 discusses commercial speech. I was particularly interested in the section that discussed charitable solicitation. The chapter states “Charitable organizations conduct campaigns to raise money and educate the public about their causes and activities. The courts have shown considerably more sympathy for charitable solicitation than for commercial advertisers” (236, Tedford and Herbeck). This reminded me of a story I heard about YouTube advertising.

                In the story I was thinking about YouTuber Casey Neistat posted a video about the tragedy in Las Vegas. He wanted to raise money to donate to the victims of the tragedy. In the video Neistat states that he will donate the money from ads on the video to the GoFundMe he set up. Shortly after, YouTube demonetized the video. Meaning there were not ads on it. Neistat and other YouTubers reached out to YouTube. YouTube responded by saying that their policy is not to run ads on videos about tragedies. However, other videos of the tragedy were being monetized. For example, Jimmy Kimmel’s response to the Vegas attack. I attached an article with the full story here.

                I am curious what you guys think of YouTube’s policy? Should they be more lenient since this video was intended to help raise money for charity or do you agree with YouTube's policy? I personally believe that YouTube should have monetized the video because it was for the purpose of raising money for Charity related to the video. It wasn’t just gaining money off the tragedy. Especially since YouTube is not taking a firm stance on their policy because they Monetized Jimmy Kimmel’s video.

 

Mix. “YouTube demonetizes Casey Neistat's fundraiser clip for Las Vegas victims.” The Next Web, 6 Oct. 2017, thenextweb.com/google/2017/10/06/youtube-casey-neistat-las-vegas/.

 

Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States. 8th ed. N.p.: STRATA, 2017. Print.

Comments

  1. AnonymousOctober 16, 2017 at 9:33 PM

    I agree with you that they should have allowed this particular video to have ads because of it's purpose, but this seems like somewhat of a grey area. He plainly states that his intent is to have the video generate money, the money is going to charity, but still, it's goal is to make money. The video about Jimmy Kimmel makes no monetary claims so it is less likely to raise concern about policy issues. I think this comes back to what we've talked about in class that it is extremely hard for companies to monitor all content posted to their sites. The charitable video was doing more good with the ads than Jimmy Kimmel's video was, but it technically went against YouTube's policy very obviously. I think Jimmy Kimmel's video should have had the ads removed and the charitable video should have had them allowed, but at the end of the day it is YouTube's decision.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousOctober 17, 2017 at 3:00 PM

    To me, the larger issue with YouTube's monetization policies isn't so much the definitions by which they're enforced (i.e. with regard to tragedies); instead, it's the consistency to which they're applied to different content creators. If YouTube is unwilling to allow its users to profit off reports of mass shootings, terror attacks, and the like, this is a respectable point of view and it's fully within their right to enact policies that prevent this. However, as you pointed out in your post, there certainly appears to be a discrepancy when it comes to the actual enforcement of their rules, and this is something they've struggled with as a company in the past.

    I remember another key example of their inconsistency when it came to enforcing their terms of service had to do with monetization rules regarding "controversial issues or sensitive events." Virtually every content creator whose channels were based off of political commentary or news reporting saw their ad revenue fall to almost nonexistent levels when this policy was enacted. Due to the language of this rule being so vague, there was also an inconsistency of enforcement when it came to demonetizing political commentators, regardless of their ideological bent. In my opinion, it's clear YouTube currently lacks the necessary resources to enforce these policies consistently and effectively.

    Sources:

    “Advertiser-Friendly Content Guidelines - YouTube Help.” Google, Google, 2017, support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousOctober 19, 2017 at 6:36 PM

    So being a Youtuber myself, I have gone through the terms of use and their ad/monetize policies very meticulously. If a person were to mention out loud to a second or third party that they were explicitly looking to make money off the video through ad clicks, the video could be taken down or demonetized. Since Jimmy Kimmel did not take the same approach as Casey Neistat, the lines might seem a little blurred, but the latter actually claimed the monetary funds. YouTube is a huge platform and how they enforce their rules are their own. And with extensive policies, slight misinterpretations can arise.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gamifying Citizenship

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...
1 comment
Read more

Wedding Cake Court Case (make-up post)

Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...
4 comments
Read more