Gun Control, Controversy, so keep it clean.

A few things to know about the shooter:

Her name is Nasim Aghdam.

She lives in the area but was born and raised in Iran.

She has a relatively large number of videos on Youtube.

She was upset because she claims that Youtube was filtering her content and because of that, her view count was down. It is unclear, or at least unreported what the topic of her videos were, but it is believed many were critical of Youtube and others were vegan activism videos .

She is a vegan and says her car was vandalized because of the "Meat is Murder" bumper sticker on it. (like shooting people isn't)

Sounds to me like your typical California loony.

Part of You-Tubes change of policy is the act of asking the host about the advertising.
If I ran a say Transport site that was for fan-boys of "V8 mo-power", would I be agreeable to advertising on my "channel" that advocated ditching all forms of infernal combustion for say a Push-Bike?.
Maybe not.
But sticking on topic, there were a lot of complaints from for instance Vegan food sites that had maybe something like Macky-D's Burger Joint advertising on them.

Yeah, you can see how that may be annoying?.

But on to the 10,000 views before advertising is allowed.

"Part" of that is due to extremist vids, part of that is down to the advertisers themselves not wanting to be connected to those extremist vids, and part of that is the rise of sooooo much phake news and the like generated as cash cows for advertising revenue.

I am not on either side of the argument for or against, because I just hate having to wait for an advert to play on a video I aint quite sure I want to watch, and then finding that the video was indeed "Clickbait"....
As in, it promises to tackle a subject I would want to view, but is just a load of collected clips from other channels rolled into one re-packaged and released just to attract you to this "New" content, which isnt new at all... and has been posted JUST for the reason of gaining advertising revenue.

And then you get the parts of you-n00b that I really detest..
In one vid my niece showed me, because she was really annoyed, some 12yrold?. Girl was giving tips on fashion makeup and life choices that were just beyond weird, and my Niece was asking a sensible question, how do we know that "that poster" is any form of authority on this?. Surely the law states that certain things you need qualifications, such as Medical advice, so howcome some pre-teen [-we were never able to identify their actual age] but how come someone who obviously had NO qualifications at all was allowed to stand in front of camera and broadcast such nonsense, and indeed, get PAID to do that by advertising revenue, and then again, being that child was pushing products in a way that was obviously certain brands were paying her to advertise their product, the question was "Is this even legal?.."

I have a problem.

In that I simply do not know.

Because there are so few "Globally agreed" laws in place on the internet, I have no idea what is and isnt legal.
If its illegal in country A, but legal in Country B, if country B broadcasts to country A, what laws have been broken?.
And indeed if an avert for Scotch Whisky is seen by people in county "Q", which is a "dry" country, do they have the right there to impose their non alcohol laws on the whole of the internet?.

Bloody hell, we just poked a hornets nest.?.
Yeah, we had long discussion with her Dad and Brother on that score, none of us left any wiser on the actual question, but definitely more educated in the subject in general.

Which links back to the first point I raised...
There is a World Cup football event scheduled in a dry country.
"Some teams" are sponsored or part sponsored by Drinks companies...Does the host nation get to decide who can and cant be advertised?
If the coverage is sent out worldwide, and there is an Add break, does the host nation decide who is allowed to advertise?.

And then, IF I am a host of a you-n00b channel in that country, it would be ethically wrong to allow a whisky product to advertise on my channel, yeah?.
So shouldnt the host of the channel be asked who they will/wont allow to advertise over their video?.

I dont have all the answers, yet again, but I do have some questions....... many questions....

And perhaps Google is a little late in making rules over who gets advertising revenue, but, I agree there should be some, and I also agree that there should be censorship on who gets to advertise what product on which channel and if that channel is nowt but clickbait or extremist stuff, should they be allowed to get any revenue at all?
Maybe this is the start of Google and you-noob "Cleaning house"...
But I suggest, if what you do, all you do, is sit there spouting fake truth and lies in front of a camera, and get Paid for that, who is at fault for allowing that?.

Vetted channels.

adage.com/article/digital/pewdiepie-declares-adpocalypse-youtube-makes-rules/308591/
Phew-that-pie or whatever his name is pronounced may be controversial, but the article explains some of the changes.



As in, someone at Google has to agree your channel is "worth watching", isnt attached to the daesh, isnt offensive and racist etc, before you can get advertising funding?.
This for me is a step in the right direction?.



Some BIG brands stopped all funding because they were being shown over objectionable content.
And I dont blame them.



The irony is strong in this one?..

In these overly sensitive times, people still think that if they see an ad on an objectionable video, someone must be deliberately supporting the views in that video.

This can kick off a boycott, and thus scare off customers, thus making the ad worth less than nothing to the advertiser.

People don't realize that a computer is making the ad selections at Google (or whatever ad service is paying) based on their algorithms.

We, as a society, are still coming to terms with the reality of targeted marketing. Until we do (and either reject it altogether, or accept that you'll see ads on objectionable matter), this will still be an issue.

In short, we're only part way through the process.

I think of it how telephone calls are handled.

When I was younger, you had to always answer the phone, because phone calls were IMPORTANT and if you missed one, you could miss IMPORTANT information. We didn't have voicemail or caller id.

Now, I only answer calls from people whose caller id I know and recognize. All others I let go to voicemail. The ones I don't answer are usually telemarketers, who are the exact opposite of IMPORTANT.

It took awhile for me to shift to this approach, though.

Likewise, how we respond to ads is changing...and no one can say definitively what's next.

and that still leaves the question of whether a person is entitled to put whatever they want to put on youtube without youtube having any say in what gets hosted and then demand a cut of any ad revenue youtube gets for sticking ads on the videos.

it would be kind of like me writing letters to the editor at the copperas cove newspaper, and then demanding that whatever I write gets printed, and I get paid for them.

Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, et. al. are all private companies. You agree to their terms when you sign on. They pay for the servers and bandwidth.

Their house, their rules.

They can ban anyone for anything, if they are willing to deal with the publicity for doing so.

These services (and Google) have been accused of "shadow banning" content. This means they supposedly change their search engines to remove links to content the company finds objectionable (such as criticism of the company).

If they are doing this, again, their house, their rules. But publicity about it can be damaging.

This is true up to a point. But what happens when one or more of these companies become a monopoly in the arena of public speech and then use their editorial powers to limit that speech? nope admits that without Twitter, he would probably not be President today. What if Twitter had decided that nopes tweets were inflammatory and had not allowed him on Twitter? The results of that would have completely changed the political power structure in this country. Should any company be allowed to do that? Can a TV station reject political ads from a candidate just because they don't like that candidate? There are laws on the books that prevent that under the licensing of TV stations because they are granted rights to use the public's airwaves, but what about private companies like Twitter, Facebook and Youtube. We don't have answers nor regulations to address that right now, but it would appear that all is about to change. Let's just hope that change is for the better and doesn't just shift that power to the government. This is something we need to watch very closely.

As someone who uses YouTube?

Used to be that once you registered enough activity and posted enough videos for YouTube to decide that you were a living human being, they'd invite you to join the revenue-sharing system. (And to answer the question above, Ad-Block Plus has guaranteed I haven't seen a YouTube ad in years.)

After Adpocalypse 1.0, this was changed. You were no longer eligible for revenue-sharing unless your channel received a minimum number of cumulative views. Harsh, but potentially doable.

Thing is, a few months ago we had Adpocalypse 2.0 thanks to the Logan Paul suicide forest incident (among others). Now, you need a minimum number of subscribers and a minimum number of cumulative hours watched within the course of a single year... and even then, you'll only get it if they decide they like your content, as a number of channels are being denied revenue-sharing simply because they talk about subjects YouTube's uneasy about, like firearm ownership.

Since then, it's been all but impossible for small channels to make any sort of money. You either need a gimmick, an instant following, or friends among YouTube's peeps.

It's a *big* part of why there's now a YouTuber's Union movement forming, and yes I've signed on.