I would say the “angry mob” is one of the biggest threats to free speech in our generation. If you can’t get the government to silence those you don’t like, try and get them deplatformed everywhere.

Counterpoint - it didn't cost you anything, it's just lost opportunity. Imagine you work hard editing for a day / days and literally no ones watches the videos you produce. You have no cost, but also no revenue.

I understand why people want to criticize YT, but if you are using a service that will gladly pay the costs for your distribution with no upfront obligation and no on-going payment, then what do you expect?

I mean this is why unions exist. Not suggesting that unions are the right answer here. In fact, I really don't know what the solution is, but I don't think either side of the table has a solution that will solve everyone's problems unilaterally.

Sorry I guess I should have provided the context - the context was you are a YouTube user with a subscriber base of regular viewers. I figured that came across when I quoted the viewership numbers. Monetization is only offered to users who meet some thresholds.

That risk should feed into how sensitive their automated system is at automatically demonitizing things.

The only way Google cares enough to change this is if their demonetization practices cost them money when they get it wrong.

Does it tho?

Google has the problem of too much advertising space vs too few advertising clients. Being able to significantly cut down the advertising space means they get better prices across the board.

Demonetizing any singular video (especially if suspect or borderline) is one time loss, long time profit.

This has existed for some time. You can upload your video as "unlisted" and then later make it "public."

(N.B. "unlisted" != "private")

Perhaps a coincidence sure, but when accusations keep getting made about underhanded tactics, maybe there is somethig there

<takes_off_hat_made_of_tinfoil>

At least in Quora's case, almost everyone making thousands and getting banned right before a payout are gaming/scamming the system to make those thousands, and just play the "right before I got paid!" card whenever they get caught because, well, there _was_ another payday coming... even though they should have been demonetized a long time prior.

This whole conspiracy falls flat when Google doesn't generate revenue off of demonetized video ads.

Whether it's intentional or accidental, it's readily apparent that their incentive structure doesn't motivate them a bit to correct the situation. Also, this mechanism makes it very easy for lower level employees with a political axe to grind, to punish viewpoints they don't like.

It takes leadership that most companies no longer possess to avoid situations like this, and Wall Street enforces this behavior (see also, B Corporations).

If I spend $10,000 on an ad, is there a way to prove that I got $10,000 worth of advertising and not $8,000?

If I am a content creator and my content generated $500 in total revenue of which I have a share, is there a way to prove that it generated $500 and not $1,000?

Upper Management will never say that directly but when they keep saying we need higher revenue and lowers costs, the people working under them find ways to achieve the targets and get their bonus.

Check Wells Fargo fake accounts story.

Partially demonetized videos may show ads, but from a reduced set of advertisers - those videos will make money but possibly not as much due to less desire for the ad space on that content.

De-monetized videos do not show ads or earn revenue, so that actually hurts Google as well (of course it has indirect effects that are beneficial for Google overall).