I'm a little concerned by the tone of this article. It keeps talking about "punishment" by a massive corporation, which gives me dystopian chills.
I agree with the argument that Youtube does not want to monetize his content (which I've admittedly never seen). But their power should not extend beyond their website.
The author sounds upset that they can't destroy this person's own business outside of Youtube. The most that Youtube can do should be demonetizing or banning in extreme cases. Google (or any other entity) should not be the police of the entire internet.
That seems to be the coming status quo, if things don't change. When society feels the need to "punish" someone, they will end up trying to deplatform them and remove their ability to speak to an audience.
Mark my words - within the next ten years (if not sooner), there will be a large-scale push for sharing of ban lists - get banned from YouTube for certain things, and you also get banned from Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, all major social media. It's all about control. That's what the entirety of civilized human existence has been about, control.
I agree with your observation, but I digress on the historical narrative.
The Roman citizenry willingly gave up their empire to 'barbarian hordes'. The following periods of relative decentralization (middle ages) gave way to greater advancement.
The open west gave way to the gilded age. Likewise, many a webmaster has lamented the era of walled gardens in the same vein as the obsolete cowboy: "Don't fence me in"
Centralized control is a recurring theme, but decentralization is the opposing position of the pendulum. Just as relevant, but not widely celebrated by institutional gatekeepers.
I suggest that the decentralized phase is where value and innovation is created.
this is the thing about youtube videos, I Hate ADS!
so when i see a choice between video with ads or a video that has no ads, im goings for no ads flavour.
if i want to see a chemistry video for example, there are many different channels covering the same topic.
I will go for the ad free one every time.
sooo, when you tube demonetizes a video, that makes me more likely to view it, full length, multiple times, if its a good subject.
Im wondering how many others might be in the same boat, and im wondering if YT actually ends up increasing number of views when they demonetize a video
I agree with the argument that Youtube does not want to monetize his content (which I've admittedly never seen). But their power should not extend beyond their website.
The author sounds upset that they can't destroy this person's own business outside of Youtube. The most that Youtube can do should be demonetizing or banning in extreme cases. Google (or any other entity) should not be the police of the entire internet.
Mark my words - within the next ten years (if not sooner), there will be a large-scale push for sharing of ban lists - get banned from YouTube for certain things, and you also get banned from Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, all major social media. It's all about control. That's what the entirety of civilized human existence has been about, control.
The Roman citizenry willingly gave up their empire to 'barbarian hordes'. The following periods of relative decentralization (middle ages) gave way to greater advancement.
The open west gave way to the gilded age. Likewise, many a webmaster has lamented the era of walled gardens in the same vein as the obsolete cowboy: "Don't fence me in"
Centralized control is a recurring theme, but decentralization is the opposing position of the pendulum. Just as relevant, but not widely celebrated by institutional gatekeepers.
I suggest that the decentralized phase is where value and innovation is created.
I will go for the ad free one every time.
sooo, when you tube demonetizes a video, that makes me more likely to view it, full length, multiple times, if its a good subject. Im wondering how many others might be in the same boat, and im wondering if YT actually ends up increasing number of views when they demonetize a video