Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last decade, most of you as a readership are likely aware of the tremendous success that has become YouTube, the video and content creation community that now stands as the single most trafficked website for things like clips from and episodes of popular television shows, as well as the latest music videos, and the spread of significant information such as important news or political events.
Yet, beneath all of that, there is a solid infrastructure consisting of a community of dedicated independent filmmakers and content creators, who thanks to the compensation that becomes possible with the monetization of the ad space surrounding their videos and through a number of sponsorships they are given from third party investors as a result of the exposure that a website like YouTube offers them, these individuals are allowed to pursue their passions and make developing content to be featured on the website their full-time job.
However, the site may have perhaps grown too large, as it has become clear in the last few months that the previous amount of attention and involvement from the staff has become more and more automated and distant, leaving many content creators feeling undervalued and unappreciated. Especially considering that the company appears to have made a shift away from lending voice to independent and small channels and focusing all of their attention towards corporate sponsorship of major television and film studios, in addition to supporting those channels earning the site as well as their creators, more than six figures a year.
You heard me right—six figures.
In the beginning, the more subscribers and views you had as a channel, the more your video was potentially worth. If people frequently wanted to see your content and kept watching a video or revisiting a page, that translated to website traffic that advertisers wanted to tap into. So naturally these companies would pay the YouTube site developers to place or feature their ads in the space surrounding a popular video or perhaps have sponsored video clips featured on some of the most trafficked pages on the site, say for example the website’s homepage or on the “trending videos” tab. In exchange for attracting this stream of revenue from the site's advertisers, YouTube would then split a portion of the profit made from ad sales with the respective content creators.
While it might sound like a somewhat sketchy system, for the time it was developed, the implementation of user partnership policies were actually pretty revolutionary. The site gave a stable platform for the uploading and distribution of content that would come to shape everything from fundraising to much of the last decade's tastes in popular culture. However, perhaps the most extraordinary result of YouTube's rise, were the lucky few content creators who managed to attract a large enough following during this time in the site’s history who not only succeeded in pioneering a new way of earning a living, but were able to gain some celebrity and notoriety for themselves as well.
In the fall of 2006, the site was purchased by Google for a staggering $1.65 billion in stock following their agreement with three major media production companies to develop a system that would help police acts of piracy and copyright infringement by its users in accordance with legislation such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). According to a CNN article published in October of that year, Google had agreed to allow YouTube to continue to operate independently under the charge of its three co-founders as well as continue to use their existing staff of 67 employees who would become employees of Google. In 2011, the site was reported to have increased their staff by over 30 percent in response to greater demands for site presence and better user interface with site staff.
This effort would prove to be insufficient however, as the site was beginning to grow at an almost exponential rate. In addition to gaining a tremendous amount of popularity and influence, to date the site boasts over a billion registered users and claims that its content reaches a greater percentage of the 18-34 and 18-49 demographic than any cable television network in the United States. In order to accommodate such tremendous growth, as well as to help make good on the site’s promise to combat cases of copyright infringement and maintain a set of community guidelines and standards, certain changes had to be made. Starting in 2007, a series of analytical and community tools were introduced onto the site such as “like” and “subscribe” buttons as well as a number of reporting and “flagging” features that viewers and other community members could use to either show their disapproval for particular types of content, as well as bring certain users or videos to the attention of site staff. In addition to these changes to the site, a content identification and copyright claim system was also introduced to allow potential content creators and copyright holders to prevent other users from publishing and profiting from unoriginal content. However, somewhere along the line, something went wrong.
The system as it stands is painfully broken. The content identification and flagging systems are either routinely abused by other users for personal gain, or are exploited by the major production companies to issue take-down notices for clips that they feel are in violation of their copyright. Rumor has it that some of these companies are so strict that what they consider a violation of copyright is the use of as little as ten seconds of audio or footage of a film to which they hold the rights. When this isn’t going on, then the automated algorithms designed to accommodate the overwhelming user base that is present on the site, are falsely identifying and flagging content as copyright infringement when in some cases, the individuals using said content have been given expressed and formal permission to use the content they are featuring in their videos. For others, they seek the shelter of the fair use act which allows for the use of content for the purpose of parody, critique, criticism or review as doing any of the aforementioned things indicates a contribution to the source material that allows it to be considered original content from the user. However, for those who are not particularly fond of criticism, the system currently in place can easily be used to silence their critics. Because YouTube virtually lacks any form of system for engaging in personal dialogue with its users, there are content creators who face allegations of copyright infringement against their channels and videos with no way to challenge or defend themselves against their accusers.
To make matters worse, each channel and content creator is subject to a three strike system which upon accusation, subjects the user to harsh penalties and repercussions for violating copyright. This includes taking away their ability to publish and monetize their own content and videos, communicate with other users or even access their own accounts. Considering that for many of these individuals, producing for this site has become a full time job, the loss of your income, your ability to network with potential business partners and associates, as well as the potential loss of your entire portfolio of work at the drop of a hat, has left many content creators feeling vulnerable and angry. Especially given that recent events have made it clear that the system is being exploited in such a way as to deliberately censor or silence those users who use their channels as a platform for voicing their own personal concerns or criticism.
A YouTube user by the name of Alex who runs a channel known as “I Hate Everything” was recently the victim of what many community users consider a malicious attack on free speech. He had previously received two copyright claims on his channel, both believed to have been as equally frivolous as the last. However, at least one of the two strikes was known to have been the work of an individual by the name of Derek Savage, who fueled by a wounded sense of pride, simply didn’t respond well to Alex’s criticism of one of his independently produced films and took every measure he could to have the user’s page shut down. On receiving his third strike, there was no appeal process, no explanation as to who or why a claim was filed against him, just a patronizing message informing him that his channel was now banned and that he was permanently barred from creating any additional accounts to try and reestablish the channel.
Thankfully, after combining efforts with his sponsor as well as being able to garner enough support and outrage from the majority of the YouTube community that the moderators for the site had no choice but to listen, within 24 hours or so the IHE YouTube page was restored. Unfortunately, according to Alex the one thing that has yet to be restored following this whole incident is his faith in the system, which has been so thoroughly shattered that he has never felt more discouraged when it comes to finding the motivation to continue creating content for the site, given that it has been made clear to him just how easily everything he has worked for can be taken away. What makes this situation so troubling however, is the number of other users who have reached out to Alex and his supporters with testimonials of how the same thing happened to their channels, but because they lacked the resources to strong arm the website into giving them their channels back, all of their hard work was destined to simply fade into oblivion.
The unwarranted or malicious deletion of smaller or less well known YouTube channels is apparently a common problem which is only just now starting to gain some degree of widespread attention. However, for channels such as I Hate Everything and countless others who post videos that criticize controversial internet personalities or the causes they stand for, seem to be the most common targets of this trend. It’s not hard to imagine that some community members would go so far as to flag and have a video banned because of a personal distaste or vendetta against a particular user. Sadly, it appears that all it takes is one person to find something offensive or upsetting about a video to cause a tremendous amount of trouble for the content creator, and it has been proven time and time again that these individuals will say or do almost anything to accomplish their goals if their motivations run deep enough.
In the correspondence sent to Alex following the deletion of his channel, it was implied that his content was in direct abuse of YouTube community guidelines and that his videos were in the same ballpark as spammed, unsolicited or unwanted content that served some purpose akin to luring users off of and away from the YouTube website. Keep in mind, this user has over 370,000 subscribers who regularly view his channel, myself included, and actively engages with his audience to determine that his content remains relevant and of a quality nature. There’s nothing unsolicited or unwanted about it. Sure, his dry cynicism can be a bit abrasive at times, but there has yet to be a video I’ve seen where Alex attempts to argue for an opinion without presenting a reasonable amount of evidence as to why he feels that way. It creates a debate, a dialogue. It fosters the art of conversation the way it was intended to function, instead of catering to a demographic of people who want to put all of their opinions and beliefs on the Internet and never face any form of criticism or critique for their thoughts or behaviors.
As for these community guidelines that YouTube seems to be so adamant on upholding? Alex as well as a number of other users point out the existence of users such as Jinx the reactionist and a number of channels aimed at producing content surrounding public pranks and stunts which directly violate the community guidelines but face little to no repercussions and are allowed to not only continue operating, but in fact thrive as well. Jinx for example, records himself watching other creator’s content in an unedited and unpolished format and then publishes that video as his own content. Because doing so takes little to no work to produce or edit, Jinx cranks out as many as thirty videos a day. Most of which are apparently uploaded within minutes of each other. However, nothing is done about this particular abuse of the system because these channels gain views and subscribers, which earns YouTube ad revenue and also because there’s usually nothing controversial about these kinds of videos. Therefore, content like the kissing pranks or reaction videos are less likely to be flagged by other members of the community because there’s nothing for them to get butt hurt over.
It goes without saying that YouTube is not the accommodating place it once was to up and coming content creators. Greed has either blinded them, or allowed the company to grow into a monster that has shaken free of whatever reigns the current staff may have once held to control it. Television is beginning to die as our lives become more and more transient, forcing us to rely on mobile and online sources for entertainment and information. In a last ditch effort to roll with the tides of change, mainstream media is taking over the site while the users who made YouTube the company it has become are beginning to be neglected and treated as less of a priority to the functioning of the overall body of the site unless they are among the privileged few who serve as the public face for the company. While the reasons for this neglect and downturn in user relations is as debatable as it is unclear, one thing is certain. YouTube has become a monopoly that bears no rival to challenge it to refine and police its own policies and behaviors, which means that unless something drastic is done by the user community at large, one day there may be no “You” in YouTube.
