The Great Youtube Demonetization Apocalypse


Oh, man. This guy has been a thing for a long time (in the internet world) and he’s fairly famous. CNN even did a piece on him once. He’s basically exactly what he appears to be. Just some sweet goofball that takes junk food reviews way seriously. What’s great about him is that he’s so nice, even when he dislikes something, he can’t really bring himself to be mean about it.

He’s the polar opposite of every “angry” or “in your face” YouTuber.


Never saw him till today , I get a weird young Christopher Walken vibe from him. I can’t imagine why he’d be demonetized.

I enjoyed his Cheesy Tots Review


Me too but needs more cowbell I think. :)

Seriously though, thanks Telefrog for pointing this out. Quite enjoyable.


Man I love that weird little dude. I really hope his videos can get fixed, cuz Youtube needs waaaay more people like him and way fewer like that PDP shitheel.


From this video:

Best comment award goes to:

Moment of interest starts at 4:26. It’s hardly worth writing about, but that comment is gold.


Looks like Patreon is cracking down too.

New rules for Adult Content have been added. They mostly affect the outright porn creators, but some of the… Um… More “graphic” YouTubers and cosplayers have been notified.


I consistently glance at this thread title and misread as the “great YouTube demonization” and then click to get the details. Sometimes real life sucks.


In Patreon’s case, rather than specifically wanting to crack down on porn (which would be rather strange, as Patreon has a long history of having its most successful creators be porn artists and developers of porn games, much like how gaming content accounts for a significant portion of monetized YouTube videos), it’s probably because they accept PayPal, which doesn’t allow you to use it to pay for porn, combined with a general crackdown on content of questionable-at-best legality (like depictions of underage characters).


You can’t use PayPal for porn? Good grief, what the hell is it good for except paying for stuff you’d rather not use your credit card for?


This is true on so, so many crowdfunding / support things though. It is a bit unfair to single out Patreon here… porn makes the dollars, everywhere.


Reading the article, it appears to have more to do with the team splitting up than Patreon’s policy.


Yeah, Breeding Season is a terrible example of Patreon cracking down on stuff and an amazing example of how this sort of content flourished on the service.


It sounds like Patreon is okay with you making pornographic art etc but not with you using it to fund the creation of actual live action porn or as a way to collect prostitution money.


My point is that porn makes the dolla dolla bills ya’ll. People will pay for exactly their kink, and people are fucked up.

Not me though I am totes 100% normal.


The old YouTube and Web 2.0 in general worked fine for everyone, until the Alt-Right and Russians got their hands on it I guess.


Are these numbers actually confirmed, though? Is this true, based on the facts?


One thing that seems to get missed here is that these changes are happening because the advertisers, the ones who are actually paying for the ads on YT, DON’T WANT TO SPEND THEIR MONEY ON MOST OF THE YT content out there.

They basically stuck through it for the past few years because moving their spend on-line sounded sexy, but after a number of well publicized hate speech videos etc, they’re pushing YT to clean up their categorization so that they are better protected.


Yep. This is really on the people who made YouTube a wild west of racism. You wouldn’t want your ad associated with that either.


Perhaps, but it is more likely they just aren’t getting the return on their money. If it was driving revenue they’d still be doing it.

Ex and Dave are going for the righteous indignation dollar, very big market, very smart of them a lot of money in the righteous indignation market.


The concept of ‘return’ for a video ad is a bit of nebulous thing given that most video advertising on YT would be considered “brand advertising”, which does not have a clear conversion metric (i.e. a click) that traditional CPC advertising has. For brand advertising the most important thing is that there is some positive linkage (or at the very least non-negative) between the video content and the ad - and if the video is controversial, then advertisers raise hell.

I’ve seen some folks complain that big name acts like Jimmy Kimmel seem to be immune to the new rules that YT is rolling out but this is pretty easily explained as well - advertisers like being associated with Jimmy Kimmel regardless of the content because of his brand, not so much for PewDiePie.