Do you have a right to be seen on YouTube? Nasim Aghdam seems to have thought so. For now, that’s the most likely explanation for her shooting spree at YouTube headquarters Tuesday.
According to news accounts, Aghdam believed YouTube was unfairly limiting access to videos she’d posted on the site, costing her online popularity and money from advertisers.
But neither she nor the other people who complain about YouTube’s mercurial censorship and advertising policies should be able to dictate the company’s editorial policies, much as they try.
One prominent conservative tried to sue YouTube to get restrictions lifted off his videos, and others have denounced them as unfair and incoherent.
And former Donald Trump adviser Steve Bannon even suggested that Alphabet Inc., parent company of YouTube and search giant Google, should operate like a public utility, under constant government oversight. If you don’t want California billionaires deciding what we can see on YouTube, imagine giving the job to Washington bureaucrats.
YouTube has several censorship tools at its disposal. It can and often does delete videos that feature violence or sexually explicit content. That’s the easy part. What about the millions of videos that are crude or shocking, but not quite bad enough to ban?
For these, YouTube often attaches a “restricted’’ flag. Most users can still see them. But those who have their YouTube settings filter out distasteful materials will be blocked from restricted videos. Many parents do this to keep their children from seeing things they don’t want them to; lots of schools and libraries use it as well.
In her video, Aghdam griped that YouTube had restricted access to some of her yoga training videos, in which she’s rather skimpily dressed. She correctly points out YouTube transmits far more salacious videos by major pop stars, with no restrictions at all.
You don’t have to show any skin to draw a restricted flag. The same fate has befallen dozens of videos published by conservative talk show host Dennis Prager, videos devoid of nudity, violence, or bad language. Last October, Prager filed a federal lawsuit against YouTube, arguing it has become as vital to democracy as the old-fashioned town square. Therefore, this private company should be bound by the First Amendment and should provide unrestricted access to his political videos.
Nice try, but a federal judge tossed the lawsuit in March, and rightly so. I agree with Prager that YouTube’s restrictions make no sense, but the company has the right to be wrong.
According to an interview with Aghdam’s father reported in the San Jose Mercury News, Aghdam was furious her YouTube videos weren’t bringing in as much money as they once had. YouTube hasn’t responded to my inquiries, but this sounds like a case of “demonetization.’’
When a YouTuber attracts a large following, the company cashes in by showing a commercial before the main video. The video maker gets a cut, too. The biggest YouTubers can earn thousands of dollars a month. But in 2016, major advertisers were outraged to see their products attached to YouTube videos promoting hatred and violence. The advertisers demanded and got a crackdown, with YouTube removing the ads from some channels — and the revenues that went with them.
Some of these demonetized videos are devoid of overtly hateful language but still feature plenty of “fighting words.’’ And lots of companies don’t want their products promoted alongside, say, hardcore political videos of the right or the left. So YouTube is just doing what it’s got to do. If you don’t like demonetization, take it up with the advertisers.
I’m inclined to sympathize with those who believe YouTube has too much power in setting the global media agenda. But there are other places to watch videos online, and any company or organization with reasonably deep pockets can start up more of them. If a creator feels unwelcome on YouTube, and the audience is big enough, there will always be alternatives.
Look at what happened when YouTube announced it was dropping many popular gun-related videos in the aftermath of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting. A company called Full30, which already hosts gun videos, said it would expand its offerings. A company called Utah Gun Exchange, a sort of eBay for firearms shoppers, also said it will host gun videos. And another website for gun buffs, InRangeTV, said it will offer its videos on, of all places, the pornography site Pornhub. That’s a slimy step down from YouTube, but not too big a step.
While YouTube is America’s second-most-popular website according to the Alexa tracking service, Pornhub ranks 18th. It’s decisive proof that you don’t have to be on YouTube to attract a lot of eyeballs.
YouTube’s parent company, the dominant Internet search service Google, is owned by Alphabet. That’s a lot of power for one corporation, and you can make a good case for a federal antitrust action, maybe even a move to spin off YouTube as a separate entity. But when it comes to which videos should run on YouTube, only the company gets to decide.
Hiawatha Bray can be reached at hiawatha.bray@globe.com.
