This is just a quick-and-dirty thought I had while browsing the roundup thread tonight, and I figured I'd just dash it out here since I want to post something else in the big thread and not clutter it up.
Part of what spurred this was a recent video by Rimmy Downunder, who you might recognize as the Australian guy who uploads a lot of edited videos about Arma 3 and other kinds of simulationist-type games. It's an hour-long video, so to quickly summarize: if you are a big creator on YouTube, you should never ask Team YouTube for help on Twitter whenever one of your videos gets demonetized or age-restricted, because in the name of consistency, they will just go through your channel and do the same thing to all of your videos, making your algorithm performance and monetization drop even further. Contained within this video is discussion of new rules for advertiser-friendliness--specifically, the guidelines around profanity and the severity, frequency, and latency with which it is uttered in a video--changes that weren't exactly announced by YouTube, along with new policies for how YouTube reviews creators' appeals against the dings they get.
This post isn't about recent drama on a social media platform so big that it should really be regulated as a common carrier, or even about the constant frustration with inconsistent enforcement of rules, but instead, it's about the degree to which our modern society seems to be drilling down on making things all sanitized and offense-free.
Just to talk about YouTube a little more, I've been aware for a while that the entire design of YouTube--what is allowed, what is punished, and what is incentivized, whether that be through the algorithm or the automated content-policing systems they almost certainly have deployed--is set up to push creators into making the absolute safest content possible. I don't feel like digging up all the videos that talk about this phenomenon, but as an example: if you want to maximize your potential ad revenue on YouTube as a gaming channel, you need to play kid-friendly games (like Minecraft and Fortnite), say absolutely no swear words (at most, you might get away with TV-friendly minced oaths), and basically treat any copyrighted material (or even anything that could plausibly get claimed by some anonymous third party) like the plague. Add on sponsorships and upsells of patronage sites, and it makes for content you or I might consider...banal.
But again, this is about the direction we're all being pushed in. I could ramble here about how excellence and hard work aren't rewarded on a particular website, but this goes beyond YouTube and all social media platforms. Why is it that we've moved from a culture that was permissive with expression (to put it a certain way) to one where something even slightly outre is left to wither on the vine? (Okay, sure, you can find weird and shocking modern art, but probably a lot of said modern art is made to help sell people on the idea of Marxism or whatever, as opposed to something like Dilbert 3 [NSFW] which presumably isn't trying to push any message and just exists, well, because.)
Likely, you're already aware of how the modern Culture War has had its effects on pop culture and media, where any work that gets advertised on TV or pushed to the front shelves of your local bookstore or recommended online often has to fit in with modern sensibilities, so I won't rehash the history of that here. Creators often subscribe to various versions and formulations of progressive ideals, people will judge past works through the lens of today, and what was perfectly acceptable within the tits-n'-beer liberalism milieu of old is often scrutinized today.
There's also the other cultural aspects of this coddling/infantilization/whatever-you-want-to-call-it memeplex. Many Americans are becoming more and more like the hikikomori of Japan, one of the less-inflammatory ways of describing the current state of the battle of the sexes is that the male gender role has been razed and not rebuilt (this was the post that spurred this one, but this topic has come up before), and we may have accidentally re-invented segregation because it's easier to not interact with those outside our specific demographics rather than trying to interact with them and risk reputational homicide.
So, the question I have is: where did all this come from, and why? Is it what some call "safetyism," the impulse to prevent harm at all costs and take no risks whatsoever? Relatedly, is it because legal liability is treated as a mortal risk, because lawsuits can be a punishment in themselves? Is it because of the unkillable zombie Boomers who, even in their old age, and with all of the pains they've suffered in their long lives, keenly remember the trauma of troubled childhoods the most, and have used their power as the current generation of power-holders to make sure that no child ever grows up feeling hardship?* Is it some combination of all three things, where nobody really complains about the effect it has on the broader culture so long as some politician's (grand)kids are doing okay?
I'm not necessarily advocating for edginess for edginess' sake (though I think that could have value), but I think American society has somehow forgotten how to masterfully blend novelty, maturity, and creativity, and right now, it seems like the only people who take risks are the same people who can't handle them (or, at least, they tend to make a poor showing once they start doing whatever it is they do).
*Granted, some of the people responsible might be Gen Xers instead, such as YT's current CEO and possibly their content moderation team, too.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It can't only be laid at the feet of some exec imposing norms on the masses below them. Advertisers cater to their customer base, and their customers are us: people, weak humans with stone-age psychology insufficient to the demands of liberal modernity.
It should be possible to separate the content from the advertisers, the art from the artist. We should understand that when le_edgy_tuber6969 drops N-bombs, says "fuck" every two words, and giggles "Kanye was right", scoring hundreds of thousands of views, this does not reflect on the politics of the company that pops up in the ad box for two seconds before the average person hits 'skip'.
In practice, people either can't do it, or disagree that they even should; that, yes, the company in the ad box is to blame for platforming/supporting le_edgy_tuber_6969.
No, they don't, and this is mostly an excuse to allow those who are tightening the screws to diffuse blame. Nobody was punishing companies for advertising on Twitter when Musk took over; activists at ad agencies did that and used this sort of risk as an excuse.
More options
Context Copy link
Even if their customer mostly made the distinction, it would only take one incident for an advertiser to try and insist the people they work with not act in ways that might lead to controversy. All else equal, they'd prefer fewer controversies to more of them.
True, but what if a high profile demonetization or removal caused a greater controversy than the objectionable content?
I genuinely cannot think of a case where this happened. While new sponsors may come about, this is almost never immediately when a controversy is still in public discussion.
Hell, the biggest outcry against this kind of behavior was when Matt Wattson went nuclear on YouTube by contacting their advertisers and telling them that YouTube was hosting monetized paid content that was jailbait and pedophilic in nature. Wattson was and probably still is a fool who can and should be routinely shamed for being so eager to escalate this issue, but it saw many, many channels affected and YouTube had to scramble to address this and regain their income stream. They seem to have recovered, but only by continuously ratcheting up the requirements to get monetized. This is not the only reason that there has been a trend towards sanitizing the monetized content, but it is a big one.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't mean to attack you specifically but I find this viewpoint so degrading. I think that most people out there really can and would understand the nuances of the issue, but that it's just a very tiny minority of people who feel helpless and are seeking power who would bother to make a fuss about the advertisers associating with problematic youtubers. Indeed, to me it seems like a propensity of the executive class to protect their own interests against a vocal minority by belittling and downplaying the sophistication of the rest of the audience, at the expense of the audience.
I don't disagree, and maybe phrased my objection poorly.
I think it comes down to a tacit acceptance of the vocal minority's complaints as legitimate. Rather than pushing back against the advertisers saying "hey! what the hell? Give us back our obscene/offensive content!", they/we nod along and say "well that sucks, but I understand why they would pull that".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That gets into the discussion of platforming, and whether a social media platform is simply a place where things can be put, or if they indeed have editorial oversight. I agree with you in that something over the line shouldn't be taken as a reflection on the platform itself, but that ship has long since sailed, and as I mentioned in the OP, where the line is drawn can change quite a bit.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link