September 6, 2006
YouTube says the demonetization is the result of changes to its notification system, and not a reflection of changes in its policies, it’s unclear why DeFranco and other vloggers are just getting flagged on content now even though many of them have been posting similar videos to YouTube for years. DeFranco and his supporters worry the move could have implications for all YouTube creators. -Vox
Some prominent YouTubers seem to be changing their minds about YouTube’s “new” policy to demonetize various videos.
We’ve viewed some of the material posted over the weekend or Monday and Tuesday and we are reminded of prisoners who contract Stockholm Syndrome – a condition that impels them to justify even the most unreasonable abuses of their captors.
On the other hand, we detect a level of shock from YouTube execs as well. After emphasizing this past week that videos containing obscenities, have sexual references or are “controversial” are subject to demonization, it seems they were not quite prepared for the backlash.
And now, perhaps, has come the response. Notably, various prominent YouTubers seem suddenly to be making videos that minimize the impact of the current YouTube policy and claim that people can appeal demonization with considerable success. It’s not clear if they are speaking on behalf of YouTube or extemporaneously – perhaps a combination of both.
We learn, for instance, that YouTube’s recent moves at censorship are purely business motivated. Advertisers don’t want to be placed near obscene, violent or controversial material.
This latter point doesn’t make much sense however since YouTube has been accepting advertising for years without seeming conflict or complaints.
It seems obvious to us that the recent YouTube moves are intended to damp “controversial” commentary.
We certainly can understand alternative explanations but none of them seem especially logical to us, nor do the explain the timing of the announcement.
As we suggested yesterday (here) in our article “YouTube Is Not Private and Its Censorship Is Government Policy,” the sudden concern with content may have more to do with priorities such as Hillary’s reelection campaign than advertisers.
Apparently, Hillary had a significant meeting with top YouTube execs not long ago and YouTube’s sudden proclamations may have as their goal a considerable diminution of “alternative media” commentaries about the election – as well as Hillary’s health, polls and policies.
As we have covered dominant social themes on a regular basis for some 15-plus years now, we believe we can recognize thematic elements when we see them.
What are other evidences of concerted propaganda? Hillary has spoken out recently about the excesses of the alternative media and Trump has begun railing – oddly enough – about the Internet as well.
For Trump, especially, his stance regarding ‘Net censorship seems odd as much of the reputable alt.media remains at least quasi-libertarian and apt to view Donald more sympathetically than Hillary.
And there is this: YouTube’s moves come less than a month before Barack Obama intends to hand control of the Internet over to an international body such as the UN’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU).
This further confirms our perspective that we are faced not with disparate, censoring events but with a cohesive program of propaganda – an organized, thematic surge.
These are huge programs to put together and the elites running them often seem to trigger political, media, economic and even military elements, so they “fire” all at once.
Prominent vloggers on the ‘Net may feel more optimistic about their captors’ intentions today but we are inclined to believe – as stated at the beginning of the article – this is a kind of Stockholm Syndrome.
It seems to us that a cohesive new attack has been launched against the alternative media.
Certain profound truths have emerged as millions of “citizen journalists” comment on websites and in feedbacks about the serial untruths of the status quo – and increasingly elite controllers find such commentaries impossible to combat and equally impossible to ignore.
We don’t anticipate that the Internet commentary will simply be shut down – certainly not in the US for Constitutional reasons – but increasingly, a series manipulative justifications will be launched to damp alternative commentary.
Conclusion: If Obama is successful at handing over the Internet to the UN, it is likely that international third-party elements – dictators and the like – will create considerable pressure to lower the ‘Net’s decibel level and not-so-coincidentally a portion of its of its truth-telling. We wish we could agree with the more optimistic “day-after” pronouncements of prominent Vloggers, but it could be they are putting the best light on a bad situation.