Loved this piece. Not sure that the answer to this set of issues is to erect walls around the content creation / distribution process.
Perhaps this is a very American perspective, but people do stupid shit all the time and face the consequences of that stupid shit, and I think they should be allowed to. That’s part of being human.
Protecting people from online harm is one thing, but forcing a small sketch comedy troupe based out of Iowa to insure, license and bond before hitting upload seems a bit maniacal to me.
After all, the playing field was never really even. If you actually wanted to achieve something close to fairness, you’d start by eliminating nepotism in traditional media, which - as I’m sure you know - is basically an impossibility.
I think there’s probably a middle road between an online free-for-all and crushing creators under mountains of legal paperwork.
Thanks for the reply Jon - much appreciated. I agree, that small troupe from Iowa shouldnt have to insure its content because under the system I advocated, it would be captured under a blanket E&O insurance provided by the platform. And like you, I agree that people should be allowed to do stupid shit all the time, but that doesn't mean that my kids have to watch it and then potentially copy it because they find it funny or cool. I can watch and laugh at it - but my kids should have to wait until they are 16 to do so...LOL
Great points made! I’m embarrassed to say I had not thought about the issues you bring up here. Thank you for sharing these observations. It IS bullshit for YT to claim there’s nothing that can be done.
Great piece that gets into the regulatory double standard undermining traditional TV.
YouTube's algorithm functions as an invisible gatekeeper despite all the talk of the platform's "democratization." While traditional broadcasters face transparent regulatory oversight, YouTube's recommendation system operates as a black box that can effectively bury content creators who don't conform to its engagement-driven priorities—or, if you want to be conspiratorial, political priorities.
Your point about Content ID nails it. If they can fingerprint every Beyoncé track instantly, the "scale" excuse for safety lapses falls flat.
All they care about is watch time and engagement metrics. I doubt they, like other social media platforms, care how they get there. They will hum and haw if something blows up and is a problem they have to pull, but that just draws more attention—and the vast amount of problematic content that sticks around without causing mass criticism helps them too. They've absolutely decided it's worth the gamble.
Also, larger creators end up self-censoring not for legal compliance, but for algorithmic favor, which can be just as restrictive without any of the transparency or accountability you'd get with traditional broadcast standards. I've even seen people in real life self sensor because of words banned on YouTube...
But what bothers me most is that YouTube extracts value from creators' labor while offloading both risk and production costs onto them. Traditional TV at least operates under clear rules where everyone knows the compliance costs upfront, and they're betting on creators by financing their work. Everyone involved takes the risk together on whether a project will work, and the layers of notes ensure things meet S&P guidelines.
I've explored similar themes around YouTube's gatekeeping function versus its democratization claims on my Substack. Looking into how platform capitalism systematically undermines creative labor.
Hey John - great points. I've written before about the need for all algorithms to be made transparent as they lead to unexpected consequences, such as you note, self censorship.
I think one of the real problems is that the people at the top of the TV food tree really just don't understand this new world, and seem to be struck by some kind of ennui. Everything you and I talk about is eminently fixable, but for some reason the "rule makers" just can't seem to introduce legislation around it.
Hi Erik - thanks for joining the conversation. The reason that regulations exist is to try and protect people and make people think of risks before they do something. It's also there to stop exploitation and erroneous mis-information. Regulation never has or never will stop unfortunate deaths - but it provides a due process to determine who is at fault if the worse case happens - which is very important in a world governed by laws. To make an analogy of your argument it appears that we should all be allowed to drive a car without having to take out annoying insurance or taking tests otherwise we cant make money from it. With regards to your viewers, yes, your channel might skew old - but the whole platform skews younger. Those are the facts. And for the record you can make shows about murder that can be monetised on YT - there are plenty of channels that talk about true crime. Content just needs to be made safely for all concerned - and that means insurance and process to demonstrate that you understand risks and are not exploiting anyone. If there was regulation, ultimately you would be fairly recompensed for your efforts - without it you are also allowing YT to take advantage of your content and that is why it's so hard to seek out a living on YouTube. The fact of the matter is without regulation you end up with exploitation and misinformation. I'm not saying your content or your behaviour is contributing to that - I'm sure as an ex-professional TV maker your content is very good and safely produced - but you have learnt your craft over a couple of decades. Do you think younger people creating content on YouTube first take insurance out and complete risk assessments?
Loved this piece. Not sure that the answer to this set of issues is to erect walls around the content creation / distribution process.
Perhaps this is a very American perspective, but people do stupid shit all the time and face the consequences of that stupid shit, and I think they should be allowed to. That’s part of being human.
Protecting people from online harm is one thing, but forcing a small sketch comedy troupe based out of Iowa to insure, license and bond before hitting upload seems a bit maniacal to me.
After all, the playing field was never really even. If you actually wanted to achieve something close to fairness, you’d start by eliminating nepotism in traditional media, which - as I’m sure you know - is basically an impossibility.
I think there’s probably a middle road between an online free-for-all and crushing creators under mountains of legal paperwork.
Thanks for the reply Jon - much appreciated. I agree, that small troupe from Iowa shouldnt have to insure its content because under the system I advocated, it would be captured under a blanket E&O insurance provided by the platform. And like you, I agree that people should be allowed to do stupid shit all the time, but that doesn't mean that my kids have to watch it and then potentially copy it because they find it funny or cool. I can watch and laugh at it - but my kids should have to wait until they are 16 to do so...LOL
🤣🤣 “My dad wouldn’t even let me livestream my free-climb of the London Eye, SO unfair.”
Great points made! I’m embarrassed to say I had not thought about the issues you bring up here. Thank you for sharing these observations. It IS bullshit for YT to claim there’s nothing that can be done.
Great piece that gets into the regulatory double standard undermining traditional TV.
YouTube's algorithm functions as an invisible gatekeeper despite all the talk of the platform's "democratization." While traditional broadcasters face transparent regulatory oversight, YouTube's recommendation system operates as a black box that can effectively bury content creators who don't conform to its engagement-driven priorities—or, if you want to be conspiratorial, political priorities.
Your point about Content ID nails it. If they can fingerprint every Beyoncé track instantly, the "scale" excuse for safety lapses falls flat.
All they care about is watch time and engagement metrics. I doubt they, like other social media platforms, care how they get there. They will hum and haw if something blows up and is a problem they have to pull, but that just draws more attention—and the vast amount of problematic content that sticks around without causing mass criticism helps them too. They've absolutely decided it's worth the gamble.
Also, larger creators end up self-censoring not for legal compliance, but for algorithmic favor, which can be just as restrictive without any of the transparency or accountability you'd get with traditional broadcast standards. I've even seen people in real life self sensor because of words banned on YouTube...
But what bothers me most is that YouTube extracts value from creators' labor while offloading both risk and production costs onto them. Traditional TV at least operates under clear rules where everyone knows the compliance costs upfront, and they're betting on creators by financing their work. Everyone involved takes the risk together on whether a project will work, and the layers of notes ensure things meet S&P guidelines.
I've explored similar themes around YouTube's gatekeeping function versus its democratization claims on my Substack. Looking into how platform capitalism systematically undermines creative labor.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-160409470
Hey John - great points. I've written before about the need for all algorithms to be made transparent as they lead to unexpected consequences, such as you note, self censorship.
I think one of the real problems is that the people at the top of the TV food tree really just don't understand this new world, and seem to be struck by some kind of ennui. Everything you and I talk about is eminently fixable, but for some reason the "rule makers" just can't seem to introduce legislation around it.
Hi Erik - thanks for joining the conversation. The reason that regulations exist is to try and protect people and make people think of risks before they do something. It's also there to stop exploitation and erroneous mis-information. Regulation never has or never will stop unfortunate deaths - but it provides a due process to determine who is at fault if the worse case happens - which is very important in a world governed by laws. To make an analogy of your argument it appears that we should all be allowed to drive a car without having to take out annoying insurance or taking tests otherwise we cant make money from it. With regards to your viewers, yes, your channel might skew old - but the whole platform skews younger. Those are the facts. And for the record you can make shows about murder that can be monetised on YT - there are plenty of channels that talk about true crime. Content just needs to be made safely for all concerned - and that means insurance and process to demonstrate that you understand risks and are not exploiting anyone. If there was regulation, ultimately you would be fairly recompensed for your efforts - without it you are also allowing YT to take advantage of your content and that is why it's so hard to seek out a living on YouTube. The fact of the matter is without regulation you end up with exploitation and misinformation. I'm not saying your content or your behaviour is contributing to that - I'm sure as an ex-professional TV maker your content is very good and safely produced - but you have learnt your craft over a couple of decades. Do you think younger people creating content on YouTube first take insurance out and complete risk assessments?