YouTube, every YouTubers favourite thing to
hate, and the current cheese of the month is #YouTubeIsOverParty flavoured. It’s got the literally rich zest of large
YouTubers complaining… The first thing today is that I don’t think
I can call you beautiful bastards anymore because apparently that and several other
things I do are not, quote, “Advertiser friendly”. And the easily spreadable connotations of
censorship. But this Swiss might have someholes because
all YouTube is really doing is using a widespread net to demonetize videos like prescription
drugs and war. It’s not ideal but they aren’t actually
removing the videos. So, let’s cut the cheese and ask: Is it
really censorship? Hello, welcome to NerdyAndQuirky, here’s
some cool history. To answer this question, i think we have to
look at another video industry. Moving pictures, shadows and light. Turn the clock back to the 1920s and you’ll
find that Hollywood is a lot more Lindsay Lohan than it is Helen Mirren. Stars were caught up in off-screen scandals
like rape and murder. And the content of the films weren’t doing
much better because in 1921, there were almost 100 movie censorship bills in the United States
alone. So, the biggest movie studios collectively
decided the industry needed a face-lift, and in order to do that, they brought in Will
H. Hays. So in an act of self-censorship, he spearheaded
the Motion Picture Production Code, nicknamed the Hays Code. They were basically a list of Dos and Donts
like don’t show a man and woman in bed, and especially don’t show an interracial
man and woman in bed. But they were like TOTALLY suggestions…
unless you ignored them. If you did that, your film might not get distributed
or even produced at all. But if you’ve seen a movie recently, you’d
know those Dos and Don’ts have been did and done. Because in 1966, Jack Valenti and a bunch
of other filmmakers decided that they had had enough. They realized that by stopping a film’s
production, release, or distribution just because it may be controversial, they were
actually suffering under a form of censorship known as prior restraint, which is when censorship
is imposed before any expression is actually made So filmmakers wanted to retain their right
to create but they didn’t want to deny audiences the right to know what they themselves or
their families were getting into. Thus, the Motion Picture Association of America’s
rating system was born. The actual ratings and names changed over
the time but since the 1990s it’s been general audience, parental guidance suggested, parental
guidance but probably avoid letting kids younger than 13 in, any kids under 17 have to have
a parent, and no children under 17. These ratings were put in place to warn of
the presence or lack thereof of violence, strong language, substance abuse, nudity,
sexual content, or rape. Which seems pretty fair. Filmmakers get to make what they want to make,
they just need to clarify what’s in it. Censorship problem solved, right? Except not really. Although it’s less obvious, there is still
a form of censorship here, it’s just not prior restraint. But it’s not because of the audience’s restricted
access to NC-17 films because that goes into social laws and norms and also, it’s not
that hard to get into one… Rather, it’s the economic repercussion on
an NC-17 rating. Because those films are notoriously less profitable. Advertising is limited due to content, restricted
access means less ticket sales, and some cinema chains just don’t show these films. It’s hard because it really limits, it really
limits us. We can’t. There’s so many theatres we cant play in. So many people who can’t see the film. And this leaves the industry with a dilemma,
avoid controversy or risk a loss. And this is known as the Chilling Effect. It basically refers to when rights are threatened
by the possible negative outcomes of exercising those rights. And that is the problem. In an attempt to make the platform more friendly
to advertisers, Youtube is putting its partners in a pretty awkward position. Avoid talking about things like sex, violence,
drugs, or war and politics or risk not getting ads on the video, which is a very big deal
if you don’t have things like merch, consistent sponsorships, or donors to rely on. So yes, YouTube is actually censoring its
creators. It sucks but it’s not illegal. In fact, they have every right to do so, they’re
a business. Think of YouTube as the Tipton Hotel. All YouTubers are Zack and Cody, while monetization
is management. Back in YouTube’s hayday, we were living
the suite life because Mr. Moseby was the manager, and all we got was a slap on the
wrist for running in the lobby. But now, we’re in that one episode with the
German lady. She runs a tight ship, takes no shenanigans,
even if mislabeled. So that was just some cool history on censorship
and the suite life of zack and cody. But what about you guys? How do you define censorship? Is YouTube doing it? Tell me down below. If you want to support the show and/or spread
the discussion, liking and sharing this video would do so much. But either way, have a lovely day. I’m sorry if this video seems a bit like AHHHHH. And I’m sorry if I sound AHHH. I’m currently going through university orientation
and I’m just trying to find time to make these videos. Uhhh…. so please be kind.

Author Since: Mar 11, 2019

  1. YouTube is under no obligation to host anything on their private servers nor monetize anything they don't think will be profitable. Remember, this is free. And if you aren't paying for something, you are the product.

  2. Great and informative video. I like how you based this current issue in the history of cinema, censorship, and movie ratings. Good luck at university.

  3. Sabrina you are actually a wizard, that is the only explanation for the whole researched case study type video that most people are reacting to purely emotionally.

    The fact that demonetisation has been going on without notifying the content creators is more of a problem in my opinion than YouTube wanting to promote advertiser friendly content. That said I have a real issue with the fact that reporting facts or talking about mental health issues are included as things that are not advertiser friendly. We have ads around news shows on television for a reason, people can't help but look at the things that are going up in flames around the world. The mental health discussion one is more terrifying because it perpetuated the stigmatisation of having mental health problems and that's something that I personally find particularly abhorrent. In both cases if the video is promoting either violence or bad coping mechanisms or choices then I get why they should be demonetised but talking about the fact that a war is going on or that the person making the video has a mental health condition should not deem those videos non-monetisable, people gotta eat.

  4. The fact you're making this much content while moving into a new place and starting university is amazing. It's even more amazing when you've had to research all this stuff and get all the extra graphics/add ins. I hope you're proud of this, because you deserve to be.

  5. This video is awesome. Seriously, one of my favorites among all that I've seen from you. Good luck with university orientation!

  6. I can always count of you to do research I don't have time to do.
    And you're like a solid 6 years younger than me.
    Wow.
    You go, girl.

  7. Yes U tube censoring a very calm polite man named Colin Flaherty who wrote the book "Don"t make the black kids angry" and he only shows videos sent to him exposing the increasing black on white crime …its all real local news ..that the main stream media wont show …its real news and its being censored

  8. I loved this, great and relevant topic and you make it as interesting as possible (as usual). Also, Suite Life reference was so great 🙂

  9. Youtube isn't censoring anything. The advertisers just don't want their ads on certain videos. All youtube did was make it easier to see which videos advertisers didn't want to be a part of, and made appeals easier to do. You can blame the advertisers for "censoring" videos because youtube did nothing wrong.

  10. THANK YOU. This is exactly what I keep saying. It's been incredibly irritating to me to see big youtubers pretending like sponsorships and Patreon are viable for every creator. They aren't. Smaller channels can't use Patreon, get sponorships, or sell merch because they don't yet have the audience for that to be profitable. So they have to make the choice to either be silent on things that matter to them, or risk going broke trying to sustain their channel. It's ridiculous.

  11. You are the greatest. Thanks so much for the history lesson, as always it was really fascinating and relevant to current events. Also, thank you so much for the fitting Suite Life references, it made my night!

  12. America realizes practically anyone between the age of 13 and 17, it doesn't even matter people these days don't care about age restrictions, I've seen so many elementary and middle school kids throw out the F-bomb if you know what I'm saying and i remember when I was in middle school a few years back and man every day "condom condom condom" you mostly see then during lunch period

  13. This is interesting considering the firm guidelines for movie ratings vs lax yt demonetization stuff. Also theres oth things to address in terms of censorship in movies, like the bias in the rating board giving r ratings to non r rated films like gbf for legit being too gay.

  14. it seems to me that advertisers don't realize just how little we pay attention to or care about the kinds of ads that are next to videos or play before them. it doesn't influence what we think of the content/product, it doesn't make us more or less likely to buy it, and the worst that can happen is emotional whiplash from seeing a hilarious/chipper ad before watching a really serious video. but even then, we mute or stop watching, or people have adblock, etc.
    alternately the worst thing that could happen (and frequently does) is a video about say, body positivity, getting a weight loss ad slapped on it. that already happens. and that's shitty and terrible, and probably not totally effective marketing.
    what's more is that they don't differentiate between positive, educational videos or news videos on these topics, and hate-filled videos and shit like that, perpetuating certain ideas or attitudes. if there was a way to differentiate those, that would certainly be helpful.
    so i guess i'd just like to know which advertisers are opposed to what kind of content. because that would probably give them more direct financial repercussions, tbh. either more money or less, depending on what they didn't want to be advertised next to. also, just personally, i want to know so i can stop supporting shitty companies that don't want to be associated with lgbt education videos, however little that would actually accomplish. lol

    as to whether or not creators deserve money– youtube is fully aware that people create careers off of this platform, they encourage it, they facilitate it. so by half-censoring, in a way, a lot of the content that many popular creators make, they're hindering their ability to make money in this career, which can hinder or change their content, etc. it's not /technically/ censoring, in the Big Way we think of it, but it does influence what gets made and in what ways.
    certainly adsense isn't the most profitable thing when it comes to making money off of youtube, but absolutely, youtubers that are just starting out or want supplementary income because they're in between jobs, would need that kind of revenue, and restricting what they can do and say in videos just to get that kind of revenue is i mean. shitty. it's shitty, but as you say, definitely not illegal. it sucks, though, for sure. partly because controversial videos and challenge videos probably get some of the most traffic. that's what clickbait is centered around. and so to eliminate the possibility of adsense revenue on videos that are most likely to get traffic, really sucks and hinders creators' abilities to rely on this as a form of supplementary income, and to build it into something bigger.

  15. I can understand the motivation behind it but the way it's being implemented is seriously broken.
    I did a cover of Hank Green's Ulcerative Colitis for World IBD day to talk about those diseases and they people who suffer them but it was flagged as being non advertiser friendly. There's no curse words, there's no graphic content, it's literally me in front of my camera talking about a horrible condition that people have to live with.
    Other people have had their videos flagged for talking about depression or sexual education.
    It feels like they've picked a very wide reaching reason and now they're just pepper spraying content and flagging anything that gets randomly hit.

  16. Also, until you made that comment at the end, I thought this video felt really professional and it had me in mind of Mental Floss and Crash Course, videos like that.
    Don't sell yourself short, cos you're a great creator.

  17. Living in the North-West of Washington State, I listen to radio stations from both Seattle and Victoria, BC. It's interesting to hear what gets censored in one country, but not the other.

  18. Damn Sabrina, what a great video. Luckily you've found a vlog niche that doesn't rely on anything that's not advertiser-friendly, so that's awesome. Keep doing you, you're a freaking top tier vlogger. You make history lessons fun, and your scripts are always smart and crisp, oh so crisp 🙂

  19. For the record, as someone in their second year of University, I am constantly in the state of "AHHH" and I don't find time to make well researched and scripted videos like you do, so no apologies are required!

  20. You're such a great creator Sabrina! These videos are just as good and informational as mental floss vids and you do them by yourself!! You're my YouTube inspiration

  21. I'm really not educated on these things so feel completely free to correct me if/when I'm wrong here. I think that one solution could be to rank different video content and place ads based on that ranking. So like how there's age limits at the cinema and the ads and trailers are all suited to that age limit, do the same thing with youtube videos. not necessarily an age limit but perhaps just something pointing out that the video contains swear words, possibly sexual content or talk or war/politics. that way companies paying youtube for their ads can decide what content they definitely do not want their ads to be placed on, but those youtubes still can profit off of their videos because other companies still pay to advertise on there.

    it still would cause some problems and creators still wouldn't be happy with it, but at least they're not being completely unmonetised. another option could be to add a disclaimer pointing out that the views presented in the video do not represent the views of the company advertising, and that the content is completely unrelated.

  22. In principle I agree with the guidelines but I feel they are too strict. They include videos being demonetized for talking about sex, sexuality, natural disasters, LITERALLY THE DAILY NEWS, and so much more. These topics are not even that controversial but have he potential to be. Some great small time youtubers have their videos about being gay demonetized (despite the amount of good those videos do for people who go through the same issues) but videos of straight people being in a relationship won't be under the same guideline. News channels like cnn, Washington post will be demonetized because they dared to give you a report on what's going on in the world. Think about it, videos for relief efforts will be demonetized if they fall under the guidelines I mentioned above. Smaller youtubers who are already at a disadvantage from YouTube because YouTube doesn't promote their videos are going to be stifled of their creativity. To me it just seems like a way to scare people into creating the content YouTube wants and promoting people who are already rich and famous. The latter is not a bad thing, but it screws over a lot of the smaller youtubers. This policy in itself is not inherently bad, but it is so strict it's definitely going to drive some youtubers to drastically change their content or leave YouTube all together when they can no longer afford to spend their days creating content.

  23. Yeah the Hayes thing started the whole bury your gays things because the only way to have a same sex couple unless it ended in tragedy, at the time people were more excited about seeing them being represented than the context of it but now of course people don't want the only way for them to be represented is via death or tragedy but it's still happening I mean only 30 of the past 300+ lgbt+ characters in mainstream media in the past like 40 years have lived and/or have had happy endings

  24. I love that you still make such interesting and well-written videos while being in the midst of such a crazy stressful time in your life (I feel ya there)! I appreciate seeing your face and hearing your words 🙂 keep it up! Love you!

  25. I'm loving the format and content, but this one in particular misses how the issue first came at hand. Phil came across this and decided to investigate on it. From what I see, you followed the strong currents and didn't investigate on his follow ups, because he explicitly says that YouTube has EVERY right to do so, and that is NOT the problem, the problem is the miscommunication between YouTubers and the creators who have been missing on revenue they relay on, and weren't even notified. His discovery has led to similar discoveries by big and small YouTube channels that have videos that have been found to be demonetized without their knowledge and who knows for how long they have been. Phil also highlights how he has built his channel by it not being his only source of income, so that if something like this happens he will still be making his living; he's doing it for the little guys that are trying to rise up and for others to also look into building a safety net.

  26. "Censorship" in this case being that you are not free from the consequences of your actions, meaning that every act in life is censored.

    that's the real problem with the censorship debate.

  27. Your "ahhhh" is great ;D Hope you're settling into uni smoothly! It's a big shift to get used to, but you do get used to it <3
    Excellent video, thanks for taking the time to break it all down!

  28. I see lots of people saying Youtube can do whatever they want because this is a free platform, so they can choose what they think advertisers will be happy with. But what I heard most creators frustrated about was the algorithm messing up and demonetizing videos that advertisers would generally be fine with, and then Youtube not notifying anyone that this was happening, thus not giving creators a chance to have a given video reviewed. So I just wanted to say that.

  29. It's about time YouTube should clean the dirt off.
    There are so many useless youtubers, fake pranksters and stupid political Nerds…YouTube has become more like Discovery Channel for Kids.
    One good example is "Stomedy"

  30. This is really interesting! Good to talk about censorship and how to deal with it rather than heralding it as the end of days (y)

  31. This has been done to push out the little guy and promote big stars and commercial interests.
    YouTube is turning into communist China with its censorship.

  32. 1:14 why does it say Heroes (2006-2010), that's clearly Stranger Things (2016), and I'm not sure what the second clip is but I'm fairly sure it's also not Heroes?

  33. Your argument is solid. It is still not censorship with the chilling effect. But first I wanna say the youtube creators have overrated, almost to the point where they get to much freedom and forget that hey the real world exists. Although a lot problems that come through bot automation with human impact and these can be counter claimed. Although the biggest issue who have to be youtuber creators making most of the money is the first 24 hours.
    Youtube Creators should be upset but in a reasonable way. Also the reason why to demonetize are a little sketchy themselves should be a worry.

  34. I did not see a Patreon link in the dubly doo. It's hard to provide support without that. You have done an excellent job of explaining what is going on. I think, eventually, creators will find away around, over or through this very real censorship You Tube is putting on you. Eventually. More likely another venue will crop up to allow sponsors and advertisers to connect with creators whose work will not fit into the box that you tube is forcing everyone into at the moment. People that take wafers on every Sunday morning are not going to get their Wheaties from lunch counters with topless servers and the liquid lunch imbibers will not be visiting temples to look for sustenance wrapped in Wonder Bread even if it does help bodies grow in 12 ways. The Wild West days of You Tube are in the past but bringing law and order out of the confusion of the past is not going to be painless. Stay with it. You are setting the example for others as you tough it out. Thank you for that.

  35. This is very helpful and cool! I didn't know that's how everything was. And the YouTube sensor ship thing was a great explanation!

  36. Lol I wrote out a long comment and then YouTube automatically went to another video. Gotta love our internet overlords.

    This is the best and most informative video I've seen on the subject. (Getting a lil tired of big YouTubers whining about this from a place self-interest rather than looking at the history of other media forms or giving any real analysis.) I think the history of censorship in film is SUPER fascinating so it was cool to see you go into that. I also thought the way you combined jokes and info was great and really effective/engaging. Good stuff, friend!

  37. Ummm, only 38 seconds in so I'll delete my comment if you correct me as I'm watching this but Philip DeFranco's video wasn't complaining about "censorship" it was bemoaning the situation in general.
    Phil says multiple times that "YouTube has the full right to do this as a business" but he also just thinks that a. it was shitty of them not to say anything until now about demonetizing videos and b. that the reasons for demonetization were vague and stupid and might hit his channel really hard if enforced to the fullest extent

    Just for clarification, love 🙂

  38. it seems to me the biggest beef that I have heard regarding YouTube's practice isn't that they can't or shouldn't do it but rather its randomness and lack of communication.

  39. Hank Green directed me yonder, hence my appearance some… four… plus? Weeks? After this came out? Whatever.

    From my perspective, I don't like that YouTube is doing this, but I also… don't really fault them. Partially because, yes, it's a business, but also because, at the end of the day, this is more a rule from the advertisers saying 'we won't support any content if you don't make them follow rules'. Kinda the same with TV. YouTube is basically facing a decision where they can either choose to try and keep funding the wider majority of their platform users with more advertisers by running a tighter ship, OR, they can keep the rules loose, and some quantum of advertisers will be like, welp screw this, and be gone, so YouTube will have less funds to pay a potentially wider pool of partners.

    Basically, More rules = More advertisers = More Money, and that money spreads to YouTube AND the partners who adhere to those rules. Where as, less rules, less advertisers, less money, but more people who get a pay check, meaning smaller pay checks for… everybody, both in house and end user.

    So, it's… Mm. It's not ideal, at all. But at the same time, they've got not only themselves to consider, since we all know that YouTube as a platform doesn't actually make much money at all, but also the people who are building careers and networks through said platform.

    Which is all really kind of a bummer, but I think it's a bummer that stems, more than anything, from the fault of advertisers. We are, generally speaking, living in less conservative times. Perhaps not socially, I dunno if anyone has noticed but a rotten pumpkin is running for president on a fascist klansman ticket, but, in terms of general speech and thought? People are fairly desensitized and open to sexuality, both in terms of orientation and just the general presence of sex as a thing. Most people don't particularly mind 'coarse' language. This sorta stuff isn't… REALLY, going to alienate people much any more. Certainly not to the degree that just existing as an entity might already alienate people.

    And sure, some people are gonna opt out of consuming stuff that goes against their ideology, but that is… largely vocal, with very little actual practice to back it. Look at Oreos or Target supporting queer folks, and everyone being like, rah rah we're gonna stop eating cookies, but… that doesn't seem to be the case. And the people who do… I mean, just as many are going to more actively consume products that DO align with their views. So whatever culpable losses, say, Oreos, might have lost for supporting gay people, they'd gain from people who want to politically support groups that politically support them. So. Mm. Yeah.

    And politics… I mean, I don't get that at all. I really don't. Because major news sources have advertisement backing. They always have. The extreme right has Fox News, which owns everything, and the left has… well they've got cnn and msnbc, for what they're worth. Certainly not as far left as Fox is right but whatever. These things get advertisers. People want to know about politics and world events. So refusing to advertise on that material is… honestly, kinda baffling to me in general.

    So… tl;dr, I guess, I agree it sucks that YouTube is doing it, but I really think it falls on advertisers for the archaic rules to begin with.

  40. I think alot of the issue is how the censorship is being applied. They have robots just scanning over video tags and assuming any video with "naughty things" in them are something questionable, instead of actually taking any time to determine things.

  41. I think censorship is best defined when limited to governments and laws. So for instance, consider the fact that you can't (in theory) post nude selfies on Facebook, on pain of getting banned: that's not censorship. Facebook has terms of service that limits what it is willing to publish. People who want to post nude selfies are still legally free to do so (well, in most countries, anyway)–they just have to seek out a site that's willing to host them.

    But even if we don't want to limit censorship to actual laws, I'd think that at least it must be limited to describing what happens when you clamp down and punish offenders–keeping in mind that "punishment" is not the same as "not rewarding".

    So within the framework of its own website, you could say that Facebook censors nude selfies. It deletes the images and disciplines the user. YouTube, on the other hand, is not punishing its creators for making non-advertiser friendly content. They will continue to host it. They're not even hiding it from the search results. People's freedom of expression is in no way cramped by the broader policy enforcement.

    YouTube rewards (pays) creators for generating content that they can make ad revenue off of. They've essentially just incentivized content that a) brings a big audience, and b) keeps advertisers happy.

    If creators want to make things that don't fit those two criteria, they are free to do so. The fact that they are allowed to host it on YouTube anyway is a pretty big boon to free expression–I mean seriously, free video hosting is a pretty huge deal. The fact that the creators then can't passively make money off of their work is a problem that they have to solve for themselves, and it's a problem that artists in every other medium have to figure out anyway.

    Non-ad-friendly videos are not incentivized, but they are also not punished. I don't think that qualifies as censorship.

  42. Sabrina, I've always wondered how you make time to find all these facts and organize it into a video, and now you're going to university. I wonder if you'll take a history course as an elective just for the heck of it.

  43. MRAs complain that SJWs are at fault when in reality, they've been experiencing demonetization long before Phil but they didn't cry like a big baby so they whole world wouldn't have known. If anything, people like Keemstar and Amazing Atheist were probably the better reason for demonetization since they profited off mass replies and bullying. "SJWs" actually get demonetized all the time but they make a living writing and giving talks.

  44. I feel like it also gets a little dicey when you throw the Constitution and FCC into play, since Youtube is an American based company but is open to people all over the world while the Constitution and FCC only cover the US.

  45. In Australia:
    G = General
    PG = Parental Guidance
    M = Mature Audiences
    MA15+ = Restricted to 15+
    R18+ = Restricted to 18+
    X = eXtreme
    AV = Adult violence
    NTBSB10 = Not To Be Shown Before 10:00pm
    Yeah we're weird in Australia

  46. This was awesome. Love the history of film and…The Suite Life of Zack and Cody 😉 you're hilarious! This channel is great!

  47. Now we're getting demonetized and can't even tell what the YouTube algorithm thinks is unsuitable. Most videos get marked for a time and then eventually are restored to advertisers…after peak viewership has passed.

  48. Cover the Mutiny on the Bounty. Captain Bligh was given a bad rap. Almost everything we have learned fromThe Mutiny on the Bounty movies is wrong. I used to sail on the Marlon Brando film version replica (which was lost at sea during Hurricane Sandy).

  49. Your videos are so informative and educational, yet interesting, engaging, and funny. I’m glad I found you! 😀

  50. What are your thoughts/research on film schools teaching students to make content that doesn’t pass the bechdel test? Or your thoughts/research on the bechdel test?

  51. Uh this video is old but still shouts out to the main topic CENSORSHIP from YOUTUBE. Too many videos are being taken off, democracy is falling

Related Post