> I'm a little confused by what people mean when they say "monetized".

> 1. Are you saying that Youtube showed more ads with one group over the other?

> 2. Are you saying that because Youtube puts more ads on CNN videos that CNN is getting paid more?

Basically yes.

Google (YouTube), CNN, and their advertisers financially benefited from news coverage of mass shootings. Which doesn't bother me, because that's also what cable tv does.

Also, with coverage of things like disasters, CNN can elect to increase the number of ads to maximize the money they make. So, for example, during the Las Vegas shooting, they. Someone made a conscious decision to inject extra ads.

What is a problem, is that YouTube is very strict about not letting videos that contain anything controversial have any ads. Their justification for this is that advertisers don't want to be associated with it. But that is demonstrably untrue. YouTube also says that they don't want to monetize tragedy, but that is also not true.

So, YouTube is lying about their policies, and picking winners on what is presented as a neutral platform. YouTube is misrepresenting their policies and selectively enforcing their rules, while saying that it is not their fault because algorithms.

Another example of this is when reality tv show stars engage in harassing or grossly offensive behavior. Like Logan Paul posting a video of a bloated corpse. This video was trending, which means that it was reviewed by someone at YouTube, and was closely monitored by advertisers. And yet it remained up for almost 24 hours. But people criticizing this were demonetized or had their videos outright deleted.

> Finally, unrelated to my questions, I am genuinely curious: Why do people think Google owes content creators anything? I am asking more in the down-to-earth legal sense, not in the nebulous realm of ethics. Did Google ever promise:

> 1. That you will get money if they show ads on your video?

I'm not a lawyer, but I think that they "promised" as much as any ad network promises to approve your content to show ads.

I think the problem though, is that their own rules that they lay out are obviously not enforced with any consistency. There is probably a case that could be made that it is unlawful, but I'm not a lawyer.

> 2. That they will decide who gets ads/money based on a well defined criterion?

Absolutely not, and that is the problem. Some content creators (well connected people) will always get monetized, while the rest of us have totally arbitrary and secret rules that are very difficult to follow. Some content producers are just completely locked out.

> Essentially, I'm wondering why people think Google owes them anything. What if Google says "We run ads on videos to help pay the bills, and to make a profit. You, in turn, get a nice service. We do not need to pay content creators anything." Has Google ever deviated from that stance? As in are they paying content producers as part of a strategy, or because they are obligated to by their terms of service?

Honestly if Google was just transparent about what their policies ACTUALLY are, that would be fine with me. That's essentially what YouTube did for the first 7 or so years of operation. Then they opened up monetization to all, which spurred a flurry of independent content creators, and it was really cool. Then they decided that they wanted to compete with cable TV, and that they didn't need us anymore, so they decided to drive us away in an underhanded way. Not just that, but they are retroactively demonetizing videos that were fine for many years. It is part of a very clear pattern to pick winners in what they present as an open and neutral platform.

Google should just disclose that there are two tiers to YouTube, and only people that they like will get a guarantee of monetization. But, by not disclosing this fact, they are misleading content creators for their financial benefit.

YouTube's behavior is unquestionably immoral, dishonest, and hypocritical. And probably illegal.