Alice Salles
\nANTI MEDIA<\/p>\n
(<\/b>ANTIMEDIA<\/b><\/a>)<\/b> \u2014<\/i> Earlier this month, YouTube, the behemoth video-sharing website\u00a0was accused of censoring users<\/a>.<\/p>\n Claiming some of their videos had been barred from making money through the company\u2019s ad services, YouTube hosts like Philip DeFranco spoke out against the policy, claiming<\/a> over \u201ca dozen of his videos had been flagged as inappropriate for advertising, including one dinged for \u2018graphic content or excessive strong language.\u2019<\/i>\u201c<\/p>\n In a video entitled \u201cYouTube Is Shutting Down My Channel and I\u2019m Not Sure What To Do<\/a>,\u201d DeFranco called YouTube\u2019s policy \u201ccensorship with a different name<\/i>,\u201d since users touching on what the company considers to be controversial subjects end up losing money. \u201cIf you do this on the regular, and you have no advertising<\/i>,\u201d DeFranco added, \u201cit\u2019s not sustainable<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n While YouTube has already confirmed<\/a> its policy regarding what it considers unfit for monetization hasn\u2019t changed, the issue might lie elsewhere now that the company seems more efficient in enforcing its own rules. As a matter of fact, the content policy changed in 2012<\/a>, when YouTube first introduced<\/a> its \u201cad-friendly\u201d guidelines.<\/p>\n But while an algorithm is allegedly used to spot and \u201cde-monetize\u201d videos that break the company\u2019s rules, many continue to accuse the company<\/a>, currently owned by Google, of having \u201cvague\u201d descriptions of what its leadership considers ad-friendly.<\/p>\n YouTube rolled out<\/a> its monetization tool in 2006, when ads consisted of videos that would pop up at the bottom of the user\u2019s screen. If the user did not click on it, it would roll for about ten seconds before going away. But as ad executives pressured<\/a> YouTube to \u201cto do a better job at promoting its creators<\/i>,\u201d the relationship with its advertisers changed. As better and even more intrusive ads were added to YouTube videos, the company allegedly became more concerned with the content.<\/p>\n Those who are affected often complain about copyright claims, but some complain about another type of targeting \u2014 one that involves power players.<\/p>\n YouTube Content Creators Speak Out<\/b><\/p>\n Derrick J. Freeman, the host of FR33MANTV<\/a>, told Anti-Media<\/i> that he monetizes all of his videos, \u201cand every day some video \u2014 even much older ones \u2014 gets slapped with some kind of warning or another because of music playing in the background somewhere. Usually a public place<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n While Freeman\u2019s work is often political in nature<\/a>, he hasn\u2019t seen any of his videos being flagged for breaking YouTube\u2019s rules concerning subjects related to war or political conflicts.<\/p>\n Mat Bars<\/a>, another YouTube user, also complained about copyright claims.<\/p>\n Asked about the alleged censorship problem, Bars told Anti-Media<\/i> that \u201cwhat it really most likely comes down to is advertisers not wanting their ads to be associated with certain things<\/i>.\u201d To the YouTube host, the company is \u201cmostly blameless in this. The site isn\u2019t even profitable, so letting advertisers push them around like this suits their best interests<\/i>.\u201d Instead of complaining about censorship, Bars added that what affects him personally is \u201cthe copyright system<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n But to more radical political figures who gather a considerable number of followers on YouTube, things are slightly differently.<\/p>\n To Luke Rudkowski, the man behind the popular channel We Are Change<\/a>, YouTube\u2019s policy of nixing monetization on some of his most popular videos has been a problem for a long time.<\/p>\n \u201cFor years<\/i>,\u201d he told The Anti-Media<\/i>, \u201cI have monetized and still get f*cked from it<\/i>.\u201d Especially, he continued, \u201c[when I launch a video about] Hillary, or war and foreign policy.<\/i>\u201d When his videos touch on drugs or guns, however, he says ads remain in place.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen the videos only have \u2018Hillary Clinton\u2019 they do fine,<\/i>\u201d he added, \u201chowever, when we add \u2018FBI\u2019, that\u2019s when YouTube<\/i>\u201d springs into action.<\/p>\n Anti-Media<\/i> journalist and senior editor Carey Wedler got her start on Youtube and has had a similar experience with her channel<\/a>.<\/p>\n She explained the first time she realized the site had singled out her videos was \u201ca couple of weeks<\/i>\u201d after she \u201cposted a video about how America\u2019s culture of militarism is an underlying contributor to domestic mass shootings<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n She continued:<\/p>\n \u201cThe video was released shortly after the Orlando shooting, which occurred in June. By July 6, I had received an email saying the video was not \u2018advertiser friendly.\u2019 Two days later, I received another email about a video I released at the beginning of June \u2014 before I released the mass shooting video. This video, which pointed out inconsistencies in Bernie Sanders\u2019s record and questioned his \u2018revolutionary\u2019 status, was also stripped of monetization<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n While the mass shooting video\u2019s<\/a> monetization has been restored without her appealing the company\u2019s decision, her Sanders video<\/a> remains ineligible. The Sanders video focused largely on his record of supporting war and the military-industrial complex.<\/p>\n Her other videos affected by YouTube\u2019s policy include \u201cWhat Every American Needs to Know About Radical Islam<\/a>,\u201d a video \u201cthat challenged rampant Islamophobia and jingoism right after the Paris terror attacks last November,<\/i>\u201d and \u201cWhy I\u2019m \u201cReady for Hillary!<\/a>,\u201d which the creator claims to be an \u201cextremely sarcastic indictment of Hillary Clinton published before she announced her candidacy early last year<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n Other videos by Wedler that suffered the same fate include \u201cHow America \u2018wins\u2019 the wars in Syria & Iraq<\/a>\u201d and \u201cHow I became a \u201cself-hating Jew<\/a>.\u201d All of the de-monetized videos contain anti-war sentiments.<\/p>\n According to the prolific writer and vlogger, YouTube only bothered to email her notifications regarding the changes in monetization for the Sanders and the mass shooting videos:<\/p>\n \u201cI noticed the [other] videos had all been stripped of monetization when I logged into Youtube to check out the two that had been officially flagged. However, when I checked my settings following receipt of the two emails regarding mass shootings and Bernie, my overall monetization setting had been switched off \u2014 meaning none of my videos were monetized<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n She claims to have \u201cnever selected that option<\/i>\u201d prior to learning about the issues with the videos mentioned previously, yet when she turned the monetization option back on, \u201cthe monetization reactivated \u2014 but only for videos that hadn\u2019t been specifically flagged<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI also noticed that my videos before the self-hating Jew video hadn\u2019t been rejected for monetization at all,\u201d <\/i>\u00a0she said.<\/p>\n In cases involving YouTube\u2019s decision to flag her videos that included notifications, Wedler added, YouTube failed to give her \u201ca specific reason as to why the videos were stripped of monetization. I\u2019ve <\/i>seen some screenshots of those emails from other Youtubers<\/i><\/a> \u2026 and some contain reasons. Mine didn\u2019t, though it\u2019s pretty clear to me that in my case, it\u2019s because they are considered \u2018controversial.\u2019 Some discuss war and some contain images of war, and they are always questioning military violence<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n While Wedler agrees that this type of policy is \u201cnot direct censorship \u2026 it does amount to an implicit attempt to discourage me and others from saying controversial things<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n She added that while YouTube is a \u201cprivately owned company that can decide which content is appropriate for its advertisers, \u2026 if they are deciding [which of] my videos shouldn\u2019t be allowed to generate revenue, they are effectively removing much of my incentive to continue producing content on the platform<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n Despite the company\u2019s policy, Wedler vows to continue making these videos simply because the message is what matters.<\/p>\n Google and Its Addiction to Buying Influence<\/b><\/p>\n As Wedler stated, YouTube is a private company and it has the right to set its own policies. But it\u2019s undeniable that the site\u2019s owner, Google, has, on a number of occasions, shown its favoritism through lobbying<\/a>, prompting many to highlight the company\u2019s appearance of favorable bias toward Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton<\/a>.<\/p>\n Google went from spending<\/a> $80,000 on lobbying in 2003 to over $16 million in 2014. After 2014, Google, Inc. became<\/a> Alphabet, and in 2015, Alphabet\u00a0invested<\/a> over $16 million in lobbying. To date, the company has spent over $8 million on Washington politicians.<\/p>\n Alphabet\u2019s top recipient this election cycle is<\/a>, unsurprisingly, Hillary Clinton.<\/p>\n But despite its knack for influence buying, Google has, over the years, created relationships with think tanks that would have criticized the tech giant\u2019s crony capitalist ways under different circumstances.<\/p>\n According to the\u00a0Washington Post<\/i><\/a>, Google has embarked on a quest to woo free market organizations by populating \u201celite think-tanks such as the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the New America Foundation<\/i>\u201d with its fellows, including \u201cyoung lawyers, writers\u00a0and thinkers paid by the company<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n From the Post<\/i>:<\/p>\n \u201cTo critics, Google\u2019s investments have effectively shifted the national discussion away from Internet policy questions that could affect the company\u2019s business practices. Groups that might ordinarily challenge the policies and practices of a major corporation are holding their fire, those critics say<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n Claiming to be defenders of privacy<\/a>, Google successfully waged an aggressive lobbying campaign within Washington to defeat a congressional effort that could have put Google in the middle of a very nasty antitrust fight.<\/p>\n After supporting<\/a> the European Union\u2019s antitrust prosecution of Microsoft, Google found itself the target<\/a> of the same type of scrutiny, being accused of unfairly discriminating against users.<\/p>\n With the excuse of going after companies like Google for antitrust law violations, Congress came up with the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), a bill disguised as an anti-online piracy fix that would have allowed the federal government to target<\/a> \u201cillegal copies of films and other forms of media hosted on foreign servers<\/i>.\u201d The bill would have hurt Google the most because the search engine would have several results deleted from its database, requiring<\/a> \u201cISPs to remove URLs from the Web, which is also known as censorship last time I checked<\/i>,\u201d Google chairman Eric Schmidt<\/a> said.<\/p>\n Just one month before SOPA was unveiled by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Schmidt appeared before<\/a> Congress during a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) hearing where a Republican senator \u201caccused the company of skewing search results to benefit its own products and hurt competitors<\/i>.\u201d As this hearing took place and Google was grilled by lawmakers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Motion Picture Association of America lobbies pushed Congress to pass harsh anti-privacy legislation, accusing companies like Google of giving users access to pirated music and movies.<\/p>\n Afraid of the backlash caused by the hearing<\/a>, Google feared the Hollywood lobby would end up hurting many of its partners, as well as smaller organizations directly tied to Google. But the search engine giant had a way out \u2014 its aggressive lobbying and partnership building skills.<\/p>\n As SOPA appeared poised for passage, Google and several other tech firms\u00a0stood in opposition<\/a> and the bill finally failed.<\/p>\n While SOPA was, indeed, a farce<\/a> \u2014 and privacy advocates in Washington were happy the bill didn\u2019t see the light of day<\/a> \u2014 it\u2019s important to note how hard Google worked to keep it from becoming a reality, putting the Silicon Valley giant closer to powerful institutions that, in theory, are against crony capitalism<\/a>.<\/p>\n But after SOPA, the FTC went back to the drawing board, threatening to investigate Google\u2019s alleged antitrust violations further. At the time<\/a>, the \u201ccompany\u2019s rivals, including Microsoft and Yelp, were aggressively pressing arguments that Google was exploiting its dominance in the search business.<\/i>\u201d<\/p>\n Reaching out to another partner, George Mason University\u2019s Law & Economics Center, Google and the university put together<\/a> \u201cthe first of three academic conferences at the GMU law school\u2019s Arlington County campus<\/i>,\u201d which, according to the Washington Post<\/i>, helped to shape the FTC\u2019s approach to the Google probe from then on.<\/p>\n At the third academic conference held at GMU, Google remained present as a silent partner. As \u201c[a] strong contingent of FTC economists and lawyers were on hand for the May 16, 2012, session<\/i>,\u201d the Washington Post <\/i>reported<\/a>, research financially backed by Google was presented by GMU lawyers and economists. And \u201c[i]n January 2013, after an investigation that spanned more than a year and a half,<\/i> the FTC settled the case with Google<\/i><\/a>, which agreed to give its rivals more access to patents and make it easier for advertisers to use other ad platforms<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n From the publication:<\/p>\n \u201cBut when it came to the charges that Google biased its search results to promote its own products, the five FTC commissioners all voted to close the investigation, saying there was no evidence the company\u2019s practices were harming consumers.<\/i>\u201d<\/p>\n As Google became more involved with politics, other lobbying opportunities would arise.<\/p>\n More recently, Google got involved<\/a> in yet another powerful lobbying effort, which started when the company hired the former administrator of the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration<\/a> to serve as the company\u2019s Director of Safety for Self-Driving Cars, proving the revolving door that presidential candidate Barack Obama promised to nix is still alive and well<\/a>. The effort paid off<\/a>, and personal injury attorneys are now concerned<\/a> that Google may try to push still more regulations, forcing regulators to stick the human driver with the blame for crashes and getting Google\u2019s autonomous driving system off the hook.<\/p>\n Whether YouTube\u2019s ad policy has anything to do with its parent company\u2019s politics is impossible to determine. But as we analyze Google\u2019s influence in Washington, it\u2019s important to note that, whether you agree with the tech giant on none, some, or all issues, governments create the incentives for companies like Google to continue rent-seeking.<\/p>\n As the economist David R. Henderson puts it<\/a>, individuals \u201care said to seek rents when they try to obtain benefits for themselves through the political arena. \u2026 licensed electricians and doctors [for instance] often lobby to keep regulations in place that restrict competition from unlicensed electricians or doctors<\/i>.\u201d Companies like Google are champions<\/a> of this practice, which has helped to protect the brand\u2019s popularity by keeping competitors at bay<\/a>.<\/p>\n So it\u2019s not a surprise to see many claiming their content is being censored by Google\u2019s YouTube. After all, with the amount of power the company holds in Washington, it\u2019s as if Google \u2014 or Alphabet \u2014 is an actual wing of the government.<\/p>\n