" makes his channel not only unsuitable for advertisers,"
I would think that would be self-solving as advertisers would pull out on their own and the ones left tell smart people what not to buy.
Or do the advertisers not get to choose where their nonsense is shown? I don’t watch ads and don 't pay a lot of attention to ad-supported Youtube channels.
Thrilled that you joined and posted a well nuanced view.
Concerned that it seems to be a subtle advertisement for your website.
Apalled that said website apparently has no content!
Egads man, are you trying to confuse us? 
I believe that is the issue. I haven’t looked into it personally, but from what I’ve seen advertisers can choose to just advertise “on youtube” and maybe they can choose what sorts of videos to sponsor, but they cannot choose to sponsor specific channels. Thus a channel has to be advertiser friendly or not.
(I’m SURE it’s more nuanced than that, but that’s what I gather.)
“We will temporarily suspend his advertising until such time as he learns his lesson, is contrite, and/or 48 hours, when everyone forgets about it.”
None is fine, but the point is that YouTube says it cares, so a mangled, minced apology reveals interesting things about its priorities. Also, a good apology for giving this guy money would help establish standards, and it would be nice if YouTube had better standards for what it publishes.
Social media adheres to its subjects, targets and general audience in a way that can’t be avoided simply by saying “turn off the screen.” – surely the lesson of the last few years online. And YouTube is unique among them in that it is paying people to be racist, sexist, harassing and otherwise awful to one another online! So while I’d be OK with YouTube telling the world to go fuck itself and war being declared on it in other respects, the idea of good apologies and better policies seems more appealing.
I’m not YouTube, so I won’t claim to set or understand their policies. However I do think they could care both about the people that watch and the advertisers who, um, advertise. If some content offends one group and not the other it is appropriate to apologize to the offended group, but not the non-offended group.
It is unlikely they care about both groups equally, but everyone does that in life. I care about my wife, and I care about my dogs. I don’t care about them equally. I also wouldn’t apologize to my wife if I step on a dog’s paw, nor would I apologize to the dogs if my wife’s birthday present doesn’t arrive on time (unless it was toys/food for her to give to them, I guess).
I won’t claim that this is or isn’t the case here. I’m not exactly a model YouTube user (I watch the occasional YouTube video, but I don’t sit around watching it’s automagic suggestions, or really follow anything on it, and Logan definitely seems like not my kind of entertainment), and I’m definitely not a YouTube advertiser. So I don’t really have a dog in this here race, I just don’t think apologizing to advertisers and not users in this case establishes that YouTube only cares about advertisers.
(or to play devil’s advocate, maybe in some small way it does. The thing that would show they care equally would be an apology to the advertisers, and an apology to people that like the videos because without advertising funding they are less likely to get a whole lot more of that particular kind of video…even if the 2nd apology is “we are looking for advertisers who want to be associated with Logan, hey, any Taser companies want to step up?”)
I’m not sure I agree that you can’t just turn it off if you don’t like it. Maybe I’ve just been lucky but I’ve managed to avoid seeing the worst offenders on YouTube and Twitter for many years now. I learn OF them from other people’s reactions and sites like this, but I’ve never seen something I haven’t wanted to. Not on the scale of Logan Paul or someone suddenly spewing hate out of nowhere.
That said, I think my main problem was semantics. Logan Paul’s viewers mostly may not need an apology, but myself as a YouTube viewer would like one for allowing him to go so far in the first place. The appeal to advertisers is NOT enough.
The rest, absolutely they need better, explicit policies and actual predictable enforcement.
You’re lucky. I hadn’t heard of this Paul Logan guy before seeing it on BB, but there are plenty of terrible folk out there who appear easy to run into.
Odds are, the chances they’ll find you increase if:
you’re a woman
you’re not white
I can continue to have never watched any of his videos. Is there a homeland for people like himself that he could return to, say, Lower Kardashia?
Logan Paul’s viewers definitely do not need an apology. His viewerbase were not offended at what he did; they saw it as just part of the journey.
Logan Paul is all about these kind of antics. He has some kind of symbiosis with his viewers that demand and need stuff like this. It’s why this happened again with the rat, it’s why it will continue in some form.
He has no real incentive to change his behavior, because it’s part of his whole milieu; his fans absolutely revere him and see him as being persecuted by “the outside” for simply being himself. They would follow him off a cliff.
The real culprit here in many ways is YouTube. They enable him. Only temporarily suspending his ad revenue? That was a pretty clear message.
You apologize to your customers. Not your product.
Isn’t it self-evident that YouTube is a commercial venture?
Why would they have any priority other than to protect their revenue stream?
YouTube is apologizing to its advertisers for giving Logan Paul a YT sponsorship, the promotion that comes with it, and giving him an institutional permanent advantage in the ability to be seen at all. In order to do this, the YT algorithms push out other channels from search results and from appearing on individual user’s main pages because YT actually uses a tiered system for channels. The justification of this is that YT is promoting what it considers the highest quality content, both for advertisers and for viewers - since the revenue stream for advertising is directly tied to keeping billions of people watching YT around the world.
They should be apologizing to their advertisers, but also the content creators and the viewers that are also the heart of their revenue stream. But considering that the response to PewDiePie was to remove revenue from everyone else’s channel (especially LGBT channels), their response to Logan Paul will most likely not impact Logan Paul much and just temporarily appease their advertisers (again) while their curation of channels continues to favor toxic channels at the expense of smaller channels that still get regular viewing that would never, say, film a dead man in a forest.
YT is just going to continue acting like they have no part in this, and that Logan Paul has nothing to do with YT as a company when they made him the face of it.
“that boy needs therapy”
I think it’s fair to remind people who prefer degradation that they prefer degradation. I suppose saying so about their preferred content, out loud could be derogatory, but I hear they prefer that. They don’t seem like the ‘brown paper wrapper’ crowd. Here’s to the privacy of your own home!!
Want to get rid of this guy and his ilk? Quietly just remove him and similar, and move on. Put a clear report out of what you did and why, then forget it.
People like this get followers because the media panders to scandal for ratings, then someone has to top it because 15 minutes of fame! Just don’t look, and they lose their power.
That is fair, yes, and a valid choice. I don’t think it is the only valid choice though.
It seems more Apple’s style then Google’s though (to make a choice for the users, as opposed to letting the users make a choice; sometimes that is good, sometimes not)
…the sort of creature an evil wizard would make out of shit…
Poor Tycho has apparently had to think about this more than a person should have to.
