The Demonetization of YouTube is Fast Underway; Dissidents Will Be Silenced

The_Real_Fly's picture

It's pretty obvious what Google is trying to do here. After the Wall Street Journal began routing out Nazis on YouTube, in an effort to get ads scrubbed from their videos, a massive overhaul of YouTube's advertising policies began, shortly thereafter. It was incredible, really, as if Google was simply waiting for an excuse.

A number of major advertisers suspended their ad campaigns on YouTube, waiting for Google to get rid of its Nazis. Unlike other social media venues, YouTube is largely dominated by right of center, logic based, thinkers.

Obviously, this was a problem. Ergo, an effort to demonetize free thinkers is underway.

A manager for YouTube posted this kind note last week, warning creators that ad revenues will be fucked until they find the Nazis.

“If you’re seeing fluctuations in your revenue over the next few weeks, it may be because we’re fine tuning our ads systems to address these concerns,”

Nomura believes $GOOGL could lose $750m in revenue this year due to the new witch hunt.

Famous conservative personality, Paul Joseph Watson, posted a picture of his YouTube revenues, after the crackdown, and they're virtually zero.

On iBankCoin's channel, which only has around 3,000 subs, our revenues have flatlined as well.

YouTube said they've begun to hire 3rd party 'brand safety' organizations, who will help eliminate 'bad actors' from the platform. How nice.

I expect similar efforts will be made on the web that will take aim at independent media, taking away their financing and the incentive to create content.

Content originally published at

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Buddha 71's picture

zuck, larry, and sergei are total cunts.

Raul44's picture

Problem with youtube creators is that they keep being there. Even though some already migrated into, they did not do it completely and keep updating on youtube vids as well - usually updating same vids on both sites. What they should do is to make one last video pointing to new location and cease their activity completely. Then, users and followers will have no reason(choice) to bother with "tube" as well and will start visiting minds for new content. If they communicate with each other and do it en mass much better.

If I see same vid in both places and much more of everything is on youtube of course, there is no reason to bother. But and especially if they move all at once as a group move and start creating content on new place thats something else. From user standpoint, there is no reason and no problem to check minds site, but whats the point if its lacking content and all of it can be found on tube as well anyway. 

LOL123's picture

So if a so called private entity which has great influence in politics and depriving other private entities from carrying on business then the march toward one centralized government has already won. Google/alphebt is a monpoly and definately was embedded with the obama administration for clintons presidency which the alternative media altered for her win.

So obviously cutting off the funding is the solution. The Fcc and local law enforcement has to crack down on these realtime videos on youtube which somehow are palitable to facebook( commiting crimes and promoting filth in society).. 

The government needs to get out of the United Nations pronto and start by cutting off funding for all these funds and ngos.

There still are actions the conservatives who voted for decency in america can do and need to be just as active as the left without soros or rothchild funding before we are silenced permanently like Germany... The colony of america.

Le_Zabroso's picture

An additional problem for advertisers is the

Filthy Franks and Idddubs types that fester YouTube,

censorship of alternative media -is- a factor,

but not the -only- factor. The model has changed, for good. 

Laughing.Man's picture

It may be infuriating to lose your voice and or livelihood on YouTube but people forget that Alphabet / Google / YouTube is a private organization.  They are no different from the traditional landlord where most shop owners deal with.  Invoking the First Amendment is also irrelevant.  I suppose one can nationalize YouTube but we all know how well run government organizations are, don't we?


A lot of these Content Creators also don't realize YouTube have bills such as payroll, maintenance, utilities and taxes that needs to be paid.  Since there isn't enough paying customers, they have to do whatever is necessary to appease their benefactors.  Terms & conditions can be changed whenever they want.  If YouTube wants to survive, they need to come up with a new Ad Revenue generating model that is accepted by both Big Money and Content Creators.  However, I can't see how this is possible.  People behind Big Money will always have an opinion and some do not like to be associated with certain Content Creators.

lie_to_me's picture

Then there won't be a need for You Tube .

chondram's picture

Two things:

Content creators are what made Youtube, not the advertisers. YT is crapping on their bread and butter.

Second, if a Christian baker turns down business (money) becuase they don't want to partisipate in a certain lifestyle, they can be sued and will lose. The baker is also a private business, so what is the difference...? There isn't one. Content creators need to sue Google.

Laughing.Man's picture

Content Creators made YouTube but YouTube helped these Content Creators by providing them a platform free of charge.  So, many of these Content Creators like PewDiePuke is a free loader.  YouTube is a business and businesses are not charities.

The Christian baker's rights was violated and any law to prevent them to run their own business as they see fit is anti-freedom.  They, or anyone, have the right to select who they do business with.  There are plenty of other bakers to chose from.  Strictly speaking of business, that Christian baker would eventually go out of business if the community s/he lives in are against that baker's viewpoint.  Smart and successful businessmen are apolitical.  This is one reason why China is successful.


Sue Google?  On what grounds?  The first amendment?  Not possible.  The Constitution is an agreement between the government and the people.  As of now, corporations are people so no joy.  EDIT: Also, YouTube is not restricting anyone's ability to post their garbage.  It's the distribution of Ad Revenue that is being affected.

aliens is here's picture

Can I still do cat videos or is it racist against cats?

chondram's picture

Seems that's all YT wants; mindless entertainment for the masses. That IS something content creators should do on a seperate channel. Upload a ton of mindless garbage and monetize it. 

Le_Zabroso's picture

Yes, you can, you just won't get paid for it.

Kprime's picture

you have to pump 30 rounds into your black cat, because they scare me.  I saw one of them raise his tail against me and I wet my pants so shoot them, shoot them now.

Goldennutz's picture

Just don't use black cats.


It's okay to use white cats and make them look stupid.

darkstar7646's picture

YouTube, for any of about 5 or 10 different reasons, is a goner.


biker's picture
biker (not verified) Apr 5, 2017 1:26 PM



Ivanka Trump democrat
recently donated to:
Hilliary Clinton
Raul Ryan

Jared Kushner is a fucking neocon democrat
recently donated to:
Hiliary Clinton







Ivanka contributed $16,500 to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2006 midterms when then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was fighting Republicans. She contributed $7,500 to Harry Reid’s Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee that same midterm election year. Ivanka also gave $8,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2008 during a presidential election year.

She has also contributed $4,000 to California’s far-left Attorney General Kamala Harris; $17,500 New York’s Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo; the Democrats’ National Leadership PAC in 2006 and 2008 – an organization associated with the “Act Blue” 527 organization during years that Democrats were fighting against Republicans; and $7,700 to far-left Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, a pro-abortion feminist who supports protecting LGBT community members from illegal immigration deportations.

Other Democrats that Ivanka Trump contributed to are: Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand ($2,000); Hillary Clinton for U.S. Senate and president ($3,400); the Democrats’ scandalous Eliot Spitzer for governor ($3,000); liberal Congressman Charlie Rangel; California’s liberal Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom ($500); democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer ($4,500) in 2014; and Democrat Sen. Cory Booker as recently as 2014 ($20,400).

It appears that out of more than 30 campaign contributions, Ivanka only contributed to three Republican campaigns – John McCain, Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan for president ($75,000) and Carly Fiorina. Her contributions to Republicans represents less than 10 percent of her contributions – the rest have been to Democrats.

Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who is married to Ivanka, is also primarily (no pun intended) a Democrat giver.

In recent weeks, Trump has highlighted Kushner at campaign rallies suggesting that Kushner enjoys the campaign trail even more than his career as a businessman in New York City.

The problem for Republican primary voters is that Kushner has donated nearly 100 percent of his life’s political contributions to Democrats, to the tune of approximately $100,000. The only Republican that Kushner has ever given to is former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani for U.S. Senate run in 2000, which was 16 years ago.

Kushner is a committed Democrat who has contributed to hard-line partisan organizations including the Democratic National Committee PAC ($18,000); the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee‘s Building Fund ($26,250); and the New Jersey Democratic Party ($17,000).

Kushner has also donated to HillPac to elect Hillary Clinton for president ($5,000); Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer ($2,000); Democrat Sen. Cory Booker ($10,400); and the Democrats’ Committee for Working Families ($10,000).

Kushner also gave to the shamed former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey ($4,700); the Democrats’ New Millennium PAC ($10,000); Hillary Rodham Clinton ($4,000); democrat Jon Corzine ($4,000); and former Sen. Robert Torricelli ($12,000).

Kushner is not the only person to contribute politically in his family, either. His father, Charles Kushner, was arrested in New Jersey in 2004 for illegal campaign contributions and witness tampering and was later convicted of the charges.

Come On Puu See's picture


mavenson's picture

Content creators may be relying too heavily on these large advertising agencies and google ads to handle their profit stream. According to the companies it's inefficient and overblown. What's the traditional solution? Cut out the middle man, approach companies that are congruent with your philosophy and work out deals. You only need 3 or 4 sponsors, can build a good relationship and be mutually comfortable with one antoher, they can drop you if you lose congruency and you can find another if that happens; Rather than it all being conglomerized and if you get dropped you are boned. Cut the middlemen, cut the stranglehold consolidation.

Peg C.'s picture

A number of the content creators I subscribe to are moving (or also posting) to other venues, such as,, and  Styxhexenhammer666 and others he has talked about in recent videos are doing this.  I hope Molyneux, Sargon and Cernovich do it.  Twitter is sagging under the weight of idiot leftist dominance and YouTube to some extent will do the same.  In addition, another factor driving the demonitization is corporate media, which is already losing readers and viewers very rapidly and is moving onto YouTube (look at all of Fox's garbage there) and working to kick conservatives and libertarians - or anyone who gets tons of views - kicked off.

I never watch TV, though I do occasionally watch some TV clips on YouTube.  Mostly I read online and watch good content creators.  No Fake News Inc., that is for sure.  Corporate Fake News (and corporate JUNK like Disney) are fighting back bigtime.

chondram's picture

YT creators also need to take a serious look at ROKU. They can create their own channel, upload content and generate advertisers who support their work. 

I think you can create a channel free.

Start building NOW!


Youtube is Theirtube, we just supply all the content.

Gallumhrasha's picture

youtube has become too powerful, just like google. cant be trusted anymore

VWAndy's picture

 As more people started looking for truth the msm lost its monopoly as soon as another choice came along.

  Here is a thing we should keep in mind. Good people dont do everything they do for money. I dont get paid to post and I hope it shows well. We should all know by now that lies always did paid better.

Grouchy Marx's picture

There are plenty of good alternatives to Google's search engine; unfortunately, there is only one decent alternative that I know of for YouTube: Vimeo.

Unfortunately, though, Vimeo requires content creators to pay (zero to start, increases with amount of content uploaded) and has no ads, so although the video quality tends to be good, the quantity cannot compare with YouTube. I hope Vimeo changes their business model and leaves YT in the dust.

Peg C.'s picture

I won't go to Vimeo. (or just vidme) is where a lot of content creators are moving to.  Also and

biker's picture
biker (not verified) Apr 5, 2017 12:48 PM

Pennygon fallsd0wn pictures 3.30

91one_Ne0 CONdrice in ovaloffice 3.31

Bridge collapses in on itself 3.31

day susan rice named, g/yutube top queries page placement had condirice as #1,2,3,5 as teh top story instead of srice #4,#6 you had to really search even though data is optimized on many other videos related to srice.

U4 eee aaa's picture

So is this class actionable? Is it time for a massive discrimination lawsuit against these bigots?

YHWH is greater's picture

There are so many click bait "news" channels with BREAKING in caps in every title, that just re-post clips of mainstream TV fake news channel just for the monetizing it is sickening.
All those unemployed basement dwellers who are ugly and stupid, some with reading difficulties, lack of general culture, and speech impediments, and make useless comments on what they discover on the fly at the time they "stream it live" (usually in low res), it takes a lot of time to find a decent report on events.
I stick with the White House channel & Trump 's twitter accounts.
Occasional Hannity & Tucker + Judge Piro.
Why should folks who steal copyrighted program under the "fair use" crap make any money is beyond me.
Why would any one want to advertise on internet with all the ad blockers and fake views by bots is also an enigma.
Yet, I support FREE speech, but not monetized "free" whatever.

chondram's picture

You are missing many good news/information channels than the ones you listed. 

VWAndy's picture

 I think its a clue as to just how effective free speech actually is.  Google and youtube are making the same mistake the msm is.

  We need more places like fight club where open debate can happen. The truth is a big draw that people that cant or wont answer a question are going to find it harder and harder to compete with. This is a clue that media wonks know they are out of ammo. They are stuck with a product thats fallen out of favor and they know it.  Its not like they can prove they are right.


brushhog's picture

As Ghandi once said "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". So take heart, we're making progress.

milo_hoffman's picture



All the islamic hate you want to spew will be just fine.

inosent's picture

One of the things I noticed is pretty much all my posts on YT are gone, shadow banned, or what have you. I have written a lotta code for many things, so I want to build a plug in for, let's say, firefox, that backs up your post to another site (I create, of course) called savemypost, or dontbanmypost, archivedposts. The receiving site grabs the post, posters handle, time and date, the link of the article where the post was originally posted, and the headline of the article/vid/blog, whatever it was. Something like that.

For ppl sick and tired of having their posts banned, but want to reach a wider audience, they can know that their post will never be banned, deleted, etc.

After a while, because the receiving site is being fed from sources all over the internet, it could become a key site for ppl to go to check headlines, as well as to be able to read what ppl have to say that would normally be prevented from saying it - usually the best and most informative posts, often with useful links and other bibliographical citations.

I think the receiving site would be popular, because ppl would get a chance to read what is not allowed to be spoken. If millions of ppl are looking for a non-filtered source to get the raw word, not controlled by the propaganda masters, this is the place to go.

I've never written code for a firefox plug in, so I am not sure how to grab the users post while it is being sent to the primary server (like the Washington Post, or YouTube, or Facebook, Twitter) to be 'copied' somehow in transit, so it can then be uploaded to the archive server.

If anybody has some thoughts on this, let me know. I'll be camped out at sites like stackexchange and other coding forums until I figure it out.

mavenson's picture

You'll be dealing with anti-spam algorithms most likely, but maybe can build a crawler that doesn't rely on direct fed disqus data, rather something that crawls the text on the page and reads the comments a certain amount of time prior to your posting. Maybe an alert in the corner that refeshes every 30 minutes or so, 'your post has been removed, repost?' Then takes you to article page and 'your post has been copied to clipboard.' Not sure how automated they will let you get, but that could be viable if you run into anti spam protection.

inosent's picture

Thanks for the input.

brushhog's picture

That is the best idea I have heard in a very long time.

tedstr's picture

I spent 30+ years in the media biz including TV and digital I can you whats going on.  Most of the money to date in the INternet has been play money, found money VC money, and some dumb money.  TV is where the big boys play.  Real money.  And the real money has arrived in digital now that it is tapping real TV ad budgets.  There is going to be a big cleanup of crap in content and ad buying systems that are loaded with billions in fraud.  Some of that means hate speech, porn etc is going to get wiped out.  Dont read too much more into it.  Real brands that spend billions dont want their ads running inside crap and getting defrauded

SurfinUSA's picture

Define crap.  Define hate speech.

cougar_w's picture

^^^ This.

It was always about the real money finally showing up. Real money runs the world, nothing else comes close, not even politics.

lie_to_me's picture

Are people interested in viewing the garbage "real money" funds? I don't think so.

ebear's picture

That may still be true in some aspects, but you can't deny that, thanks to advances in technology, media entry costs have dropped through the floor.

My first recording studio cost about $5000 to set up, which at the time (1982) was already a fraction of the cost of a commercial studio thanks to breakthrough companies like Fostex who captured large swaths of the independent recording market.  That same technology today resides on the average PC and has 1000 times the speed and versatility of the previous analog tech. Likewise for synths, which were expensive and tedious to program - now your computer is your synth, or if you want a stand-alone system, again, fraction of the cost, 1000 times the power.

The same thing happened to marketing channels - indie studios and labels took a large number of artists pubic who could then sink or swim on their own merits rather than on the whim of some executive producer and his marketing team.  Lower production costs, and with the introduction of the Internet, major advantages in marketing and distribution.

Same thing has happened to TV and Film.  Independent film makers and TV producers benefitted from the same lower entry costs as the music industry, while the public gained a much wider choice of diverse and interesting material.

The big media outlets fought this trend every step of the way, and while they managed to slow it down a bit, they were in a losing battle. More and more of their market was lost to alternative media to the point that, like the auto and oil industries before them, they were forced to consolidate in order to survive.

Apart from a few big budget productions, what you get today on TV is cost-driven, lowbrow "reality shows" that, by sheer banality, drive even more people away from their set.  Just another losing hand from an industry that's run out of new ideas and the talent to execute them.

A personal example of where this is going.  I used to DJ back the 80's which meant running around from one record store to another buying expensive vinyl, which, if I was lucky, had one good track I could use.  I hung that up years ago but I still host an annual New Year's party where I do a 6 hour set.  In the last ten years I haven't played a single mainstream artist, nor have I bought a single CD.  My sets have artists from all over the world now, instead of just the UK and USA, and it all came together for just the cost of my internet connection.

Clearly, the same barriers that previously limited the audio and visual arts have fallen where political speech is concerned.  They can try to shut us down, but there's simply too many alternatives available, and the media giants themselves are as dependent on the technology as the independents, so I really can't see how they'll succeed.  The cat's out of the bag now, and like the generals, they are fighting yesterday's war.


Common_Cents22's picture

its time for conservative alternatives to various platforms such as youtube, bookface, etc....there are plenty of clone programs already.     Someone like Trump could get critical mass going in a hurry.

U4 eee aaa's picture

This is probably a great opportunity for Breitbart. They have the audience to feed the platform

VWAndy's picture

 Power abores a vacume. A new flavor of the month will show up out of the blue and just like AOL poof.

buzzsaw99's picture

imo advertisers pay google way more than it is worth.

if i were making videos for the ad revenue and the ad revenue stopped i would pull my videos. i'm guessing most won't do that so now they are working for free. it sucks to be them but they are working for a pack of assholes, i.e. google, so boo frikkedy hoo.

cashtoash's picture

cannot allow freedom of expression. all negative views opposed to zionists, bankers, politicians must be suppressed and those with negative opinion of these groups sent to guantanamo

ebear's picture

In which case I'll just move to Russia and operate from 

I'm working for them anyway, right?   So I may as well live there.

Global Douche's picture

Just yesterday, SGTReport is seeking donations for their first time, they say. They also show a similar chart to Paul's of near-zilch revenues as of recent times.

Yes We Can. But Lets Not.'s picture

Time to cut the google snake, which includes youtube, into pieces - split it up.