Today, YouTube announced that it has temporarily dangling all ads on 22-year-old prankster Logan Paul’s channel, slicing off what is estimated to be scarcely $1 million in monthly revenue. The crackdown came after Paul pulled a live fish from the water to give it mistake CPR as it squirmed, then shot a passed rodent with a taser in one of the first videos after his return.
Paul had taken a interregnum from YouTube after he was rightly and widely criticized for uploading a video with a passed physique he found in a timberland in Japan famous for its suicides. Initially, he returned with an apologetic video and a guarantee to change his ways and concentration efforts on self-murder prevention. Very quickly, though, he was back to his old antics.
YouTube supposing the following statement to The Washington Post when it announced the suspension:
This is not a decision we finished lightly. We trust he has exhibited a settlement of function in his videos that creates his channel not only unsuited for advertisers, but also potentially deleterious to the broader creator community.
When Paul’s self-murder timberland video was published, YouTube did not act until vicious voices coalesced on social media and in the press. It eventually private him from its reward ad market, Google Preferred. Now Paul has finished it transparent clear that he has not schooled his lesson, despite the apologetic tinge he quickly struck.
Content coercion Whack-a-Mole
Logan Paul is still doing what he has always done, and despite this new action, YouTube doesn’t seem to have schooled much from past controversies, either. It has been regularly criticized by YouTubers and outsiders comparison for being unsuitable in its coercion of village and calm policies.
Why has YouTube infirm ads totally on Paul’s channel now, after a video in which he mocks a rat’s remains (tamer than some of his other videos) and not when he finished a fun out of a human physique in December? For that matter, since did YouTube mislay Paul’s elite standing over the human physique video but not first over those videos immediately preceding it in which Paul tormented and disrespected Tokyo residents with culturally unresponsive pranks—especially after YouTube had rescinded elite standing from associate YouTuber PewDiePie for similar behavior? Why is the company enormous down on Paul but not on countless other YouTubers producing likewise cryptic content?
YouTube has fortify for calm on its platform, but it seems to only make them when the volume of open outrage has reached a certain decibel level—and even then, it does so in ambiguous and unsound ways.
Maybe YouTube took this movement since its prior fortify didn’t really harm Paul at all. Despite a lot of speak from YouTube about better vetting of videos in the Google Preferred program, slicing the biggest stars off from that program won’t obviate their success. Paul has asked his supporters to make up the disproportion by shopping merch from his store, which is not hosted on YouTube. Further, he bragged that he actually gained one million subscribers during his month-long interregnum and after YouTube’s first disciplinary action.
He may have gained subscribers since the teens who watch his channel do so since his themes of rebellion against norms and management ring with them, so the some-more management total moment down, the some-more renouned he becomes with his audience. The problems YouTube faces can’t be rubbed with slaps on the wrist to name targets the company is compelled to make an instance of.
While YouTube’s new, harsher movement against Paul is welcome, the craziness of its responses gives the clarity that its actions branch from a fear of alienated advertisers, not from a clarity of shortcoming to the community.
Paul and YouTube are both sealed in battles of self-preservation, but conjunction seems to know the loyal range of their problems. Maybe they merit one another.