Youtube CEO says Logan Paul doesn't deserve to be kicked off the website - Sensationalist Headlines

Surprise surprise that they say Logan Paul, someone that makes them so much money, doesn't deserves to be kicked off of youtube... Truly surprising. Let's see if he's still a thing once all his advertisers turn away and leave. That is... If they don't come back now that the CEO saidit will all be fine...

I think the issue around him is less his content and more what age range his audience is, FF can eat hair cake & make rat dinner; because we know its a character whos content is supposed to be vile but the audience for that is teenagers - young adults where-as the Paul brothers have blurred the line between character and reality while also being targeted towards children - pre-teens arguably having the potential to confuse kids as to what's socially acceptable or not.

[QUOTE=KingofBeast;53128387]Logan Paul definitely has serious issues, but I don't understand why everyone is so up in arms about getting him kicked off of YouTube. As distasteful as his videos get, how much are you guys really personally affected by them? ...[/QUOTE] For me at least, it's not that I really care about Logan Paul's Youtube channel. I don't watch it, if I'd have kids I'd make sure the videos are ok for them to watch and so on, like you said. It just feels unfair that he mostly seems to be getting away with doing the things he does. I guess it could have been any big Youtube channel, just happened to be Logan Paul. Meanwhile smaller channels are getting shit on for all kinds of random minor things. From the outside looking in it looks so obvious that bigger channels bring in more money and so they get to bend the rules. It's probably more complicated than that but that's how it looks and it's feels wrong. I suppose people want him kicked off Youtube because that's what happens to smaller channels. It'd be better if we could just make the rules equal to everyone in the other direction though, so that smaller channels don't get punished so easily. Seems like a pipe dream though.

I'm pretty sure Logan Paul is a compulsive liar based on his reaction to the suicide forest criticisms followed by zero change after all I've seen of him saying he's sorry and that he's had a lot of time to think about what he's done. It is a shame he won't be getting the complete shafting he deserves for being what he is.

[QUOTE=Gvazdas;53128436]It is a shame he won't be getting the complete shafting he deserves for being what he is.[/QUOTE] You can't just ban people based on sentimentality, though. The same way the justice system can't arrest people just because they're not liked. Of course the bigger issue is that YouTube needs to treat everyone equally, so the three-strike rule should apply to everyone

Did you just compare a judiciary system that works based on objective truth and has the power to literally lock someone away for life to... well, this? YouTube has the right to kick anyone out that they don't want to support, which would send a clear message about people that the company, as well the platform itself, encourages. In this case it's 'if you make us enough money, we'll forget what our own rules are'.

The real reason is that she only cares if she can prove youtube is profitable to her google overlords, and logan brings in hordes of views. She is spineless, go watch her own "channel" and the youtube rewinds. She could give two shits about demonitizing creators, because all that matters to her is getting advertisers back.

[QUOTE=djjkxbox;53128514]You can't just ban people based on sentimentality, though. The same way the justice system can't arrest people just because they're not liked. Of course the bigger issue is that YouTube needs to treat everyone equally, so the three-strike rule should apply to everyone[/QUOTE] Are you actually Logan Paul?

[QUOTE=djjkxbox;53128514]You can't just ban people based on sentimentality, though. The same way the justice system can't arrest people just because they're not liked.[/QUOTE] The stupid and baseless comparison to the justice system aside, you can and should absolutely ban people from sites for community-wide backlash in instances like this. Now, YouTube and their CEO have a well-established reputation of being lazy and complacent in context the bad behavior of the YouTube content creators with the biggest revenue streams for the company (and for straight up deleting smaller channels for much less severe infractions). Yikes, I wouldn't want to be working for YouTube PR!

Youtube CEO confirmed Loganger

Of course she's saying that. Youtube makes less money since he was removed from google preferred.

[QUOTE=KingofBeast;53128387]Logan Paul definitely has serious issues, but I don't understand why everyone is so up in arms about getting him kicked off of YouTube. As distasteful as his videos get, how much are you guys really personally affected by them? And if there are concerns about children seeing his videos, then I feel like that should be a problem limited to how parents are monitoring what their kids watch. There's a kid's only subset of YT that Logan's videos can't be accessed from, and if parents don't make use of that then as a parent I sort of have to fault [I]them[/I] for that, not Logan. I guess I could just be desensitized to it, but if I saw my son watching Logan's video tasing rats and messing with a hanging body, from my perspective I should be worrying about keeping track of what my kid's looking up, not about preventing anybody else from watching that "content". And he's been demonetized finally, so I guess the "profiting from egregious content" angle is sorted now as well. Note that this is no defense for YT's questionable AI blocking actually innocent videos and channels. That's an issue all in its own.[/QUOTE] I care because creators like Cody's Lab get removed while creating genuinely interesting, educational content yet people like Logan Paul get away scott free because of their status as a cash cow. [editline]13th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=djjkxbox;53128514]You can't just ban people based on sentimentality, though. The same way the justice system can't arrest people just because they're not liked. Of course the bigger issue is that YouTube needs to treat everyone equally, so the three-strike rule should apply to everyone[/QUOTE] Actually, they totally can. Just like how if you get perma'd from Facepunch, you have no legal grounds to insist you be let back into the private community. That's what the word "private" means in contrast to "public"

[QUOTE=KingofBeast;53128387]Logan Paul definitely has serious issues, but I don't understand why everyone is so up in arms about getting him kicked off of YouTube. As distasteful as his videos get, how much are you guys really personally affected by them? And if there are concerns about children seeing his videos, then I feel like that should be a problem limited to how parents are monitoring what their kids watch. There's a kid's only subset of YT that Logan's videos can't be accessed from, and if parents don't make use of that then as a parent I sort of have to fault [I]them[/I] for that, not Logan. I guess I could just be desensitized to it, but if I saw my son watching Logan's video tasing rats and messing with a hanging body, from my perspective I should be worrying about keeping track of what my kid's looking up, not about preventing anybody else from watching that "content". And he's been demonetized finally, so I guess the "profiting from egregious content" angle is sorted now as well. Note that this is no defense for YT's questionable AI blocking actually innocent videos and channels. That's an issue all in its own.[/QUOTE] Repeated offense is the key here, both for Youtube and Paul. Youtube simply doesn't give a shit and has done the same mistake on so many occasions. They're hypocritical, they're mismanaged, and they constantly ignore their own internal logic when enough money's involved. Their latest quip about how there's a "fine line between censorship and freedom of speech" is infuriating considering the fact they seemingly have had no fucking worries about crossing that line way deep into the censorship part when they blanket-shat on thousands of smaller, and thus less lucrative, channels. Their attempts to sanitize the platform for advertisers are met with a complete misunderstanding of the content uploaded on their own fucking website. Paul is just an example of this, albeit a really good one. He breaks rules all the time, yet is never legitimately punished for it. The demonetization he got is temporary and you can bet your ass it'll be brought back as soon as people stop being outraged by it because youtube doesn't want to lose one of its most prevalent money printers. Youtube's a fucking rotten shithole but it's one I have to deal with if I want to watch the content I like, because they practically have a monopoly on video uploads.

I do want to mention that frank did worse shit without controversy, I hate paul but I will admit that frank fucked with the dead rat it and I found it hilarious

I don't understand how so many people are bitching saying they broke the rules but turn around and say the company that is in charge of making those rules and implementing and enforcing them isn't allowed to do that how they wish, not to mention the point is he hasn't done anything to actually break a rule. If he somehow did then obviously the youtube legal department/rule department can interpret their rules how they wish and if they did then thats up to them as a private company. Too many people whining like babies at people actually managing to make a good living in life doing what they want and not caring that its unfair to others. Of course its unfair, thats the whole point of life and business and making money and being successfull, why the fuck should a private company give a shit that somethings unfair if they aren't legally obligated? The idea of something being punished for being morally or ethically wrong depends on who you are. [editline]13th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;53128676]Repeated offense is the key here, both for Youtube and Paul. Youtube simply doesn't give a shit and has done the same mistake on so many occasions. They're hypocritical, they're mismanaged, and they constantly ignore their own internal logic when enough money's involved. Their latest quip about how there's a "fine line between censorship and freedom of speech" is infuriating considering the fact they seemingly have had no fucking worries about crossing that line way deep into the censorship part when they blanket-shat on thousands of smaller, and thus less lucrative, channels. [/QUOTE] Its almost as if they don't have any obligation to worry about crossing that line and being called hypocritical is almost like being told you like money. Of course, when logan paul and the youtube CEO go out to eat you think they care that their food is cooked by someone who makes 10 times less then them? No, thats the point of getting where you want to be. [QUOTE] Youtube's a fucking rotten shithole but it's one I have to deal with if I want to watch the content I like, because they practically have a monopoly on video uploads [/QUOTE] Ta-daa you figured out how youtube works!

So what would happen to some not so famous youtuber if they did a shot for shot recreation of the suicide forest video, would they be fine or would they be banned :thinking:

[QUOTE=AkujiTheSniper;53128887]So what would happen to some not so famous youtuber if they did a shot for shot recreation of the suicide forest video, would they be fine or would they be banned :thinking:[/QUOTE] Anyone is free to find out.

For those who are saying stuff like "Yeah but IHE gets his channel deleted" you guys remember that IHE got his channel back up, right? So obviously Youtube doesn't think his channel deserves to be deleted either. Also Youtube removed ads from Logan Paul's videos which means they aren't making any money off of them either, so it's not an issue of Youtube being greedy for ad revenue.

[QUOTE=Gvazdas;53128334]That's obvious, but how long until YouTube goes even further downhill until no new content creators pop up? Looking at how YouTube handles rewarding content creators, climbing upwards as a start-up YouTuber seems unlikely. These people would go somewhere else. Has anyone ever done the math on how much funding you need to keep up a site like YouTube with sufficient technology to uphold at least a few hundred channels? Why are you guys so pessimistic about the fact that you don't need to be an instant YouTube to actually be decent competition? For YouTube to get a kick in their monopolized ass and get their shit together, they need competition. It doesn't have to be Google #2. It sucks that YouTube seems to be so set in stone as the platform for online videos.[/QUOTE] what people don't realize is that the technology aspect is one part of it the logistics of rights management are an entirely different ballgame and i would say more difficult than the technical problem of hosting videos

Why don't we farm out storage and video server access to users and individuals and make a community managed video "site"?

[QUOTE=Gvazdas;53128334]That's obvious, but how long until YouTube goes even further downhill until no new content creators pop up? Looking at how YouTube handles rewarding content creators, climbing upwards as a start-up YouTuber seems unlikely. These people would go somewhere else. Has anyone ever done the math on how much funding you need to keep up a site like YouTube with sufficient technology to uphold at least a few hundred channels? Why are you guys so pessimistic about the fact that you don't need to be an instant YouTube to actually be decent competition? For YouTube to get a kick in their monopolized ass and get their shit together, they need competition. It doesn't have to be Google #2. It sucks that YouTube seems to be so set in stone as the platform for online videos.[/QUOTE] New channels still spring up and grow all the time tho, so it's really nowhere near that stage. Also lots of small websites like that exist. They lack the promotion aspect YouTube offers and are all failures aside from niches.

[QUOTE=Firetornado;53128705]I do want to mention that frank did worse shit without controversy, I hate paul but I will admit that frank fucked with the dead rat it and I found it hilarious[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ThePanther;53128976]Why don't we farm out storage and video server access to users and individuals and make a community managed video "site"?[/QUOTE] are you prepared to handle the legal clusterfuck that would be? whether or not you agree with the current state of digital intellectual property, you do have to abide by it or risk getting your pants sued off

[QUOTE=CommanderPT;53128316]The problem from my understanding is the immense amount of storage required in order to build a viable competitor. Something most companies can not afford.[/QUOTE] To compete with Youtube you need; * Fucking LOADS of storage. They get petabytes of shit uploaded a day or something absurd if I recall * Compute power out the anus. You need to be able to rapidly (and I mean rapidly) transcode a video to various sizes, formats, form factors, containers and more within an incredibly small amount of time * Big old Internet tubes. Duh. * Even MORE compute power. You need to power the discovery capabilities of the site somehow after all. Connecting users to content they may enjoy is a core part of the service * A semi-competent web and mobile app team to keep the frontend chugging along * Either a shitload of people, or a machine learning algorithm to handle copyright issues. If you don't do this, you're liable for a bad time in court. All while offering that for free. There aren't going to be many actually competent competitors that can also attract enough advertisers to keep things running. Youtube shouldn't be killed off for mismanagement. People should be requesting and inspiring the platform to change to deal with that instead.

It ain't even just raw storage or bandwidth. You need to build a good cdn too if you want to be performant. Even twitch, backed by Amazon of all people, fucks this up at times.

the CEO should have just shut up about this, in all honesty

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53128659]Actually, they totally can. Just like how if you get perma'd from Facepunch, you have no legal grounds to insist you be let back into the private community. That's what the word "private" means in contrast to "public"[/QUOTE] Thankfully the difference in this case, is that YouTube has a sensible three-strike system (supposedly that applies to everyone), whereas Facepunch mods can ban you if they simply don't like you or don't agree with your opinion. I know which one I prefer.

[QUOTE=djjkxbox;53129204]Thankfully the difference in this case, is that YouTube has a sensible three-strike system, whereas Facepunch mods can ban you if they simply don't like you or don't agree with your opinion. I know which one I prefer.[/QUOTE] But there's so many examples of the three strikes being [B]just[/B] as arbitrary as a mod not liking you.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53129208]But there's so many examples of the three strikes being [B]just[/B] as arbitrary as a mod not liking you.[/QUOTE] You act like Logan Paul posted a video of rape or child porn. He posted a video showing someone who had committed suicide, which don't get me wrong it's very shocking and disrespectful, but it's not something YouTube is going to ban over, not as a first offence at least. More people want him banned because he's just generally an ass, not because he posted the suicide video, and that's why you have rules to ensure people don't ban over sentimentality.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53129208]But there's so many examples of the three strikes being [B]just[/B] as arbitrary as a mod not liking you.[/QUOTE] At least with the mod problem you can actually talk to human beings. How can you not djjkxbox?