I think this might have to do with the fact that one of the panelists is claiming she's being bullied by me and I have to assume anyone who is commenting negatively. Coincidentally, the same one who said I'm a privileged white woman who lives in a bubble.
In case you're looking for tl;dw summary, this YT comment sums it up pretty well:
Lady in the front row, on the right: Accuses Pearl of disempowering women.
Same lady, a few minutes later: Disempowers women by saying, in the conversation on transgender women participating in sports, women's "opinions don't f*cking matter." Mind-boggling, just mind-boggling.
It doesn't seem to be a habit of theirs. They only disable comments on certain videos, and I'm not sure what the qualifier is. I haven't checked enough videos to determine a pattern.
I'm guessing comments exceeded their acceptable Based Threshold. Check the archive, everyone was on the anti-feminism side for the most part. Despite them pushing the narrative so hard, people weren't buying it, so they silenced the people.
I don't know anything about YouTube other than watching an occasional video, so help me understand this.
If I post a video and someone says they own the copyright to something in it, YouTube just redirects my money to them without any sort of appeal process? What happens if they don't actually own the copyright or it's legally fair use, does YouTube pull that money back out of their account and return it to me?
On another note, what kind of releases are typical for things like panel discussions? I would assume the panel participants give the host the right to reproduce and televise the panel, but I would also assume that they retain the rights to their own image and statements from the panel.
If I post a video and someone says they own the copyright to something in it, YouTube just redirects my money to them without any sort of appeal process?
Often times yes. It's been a huge thorn in creators sides, ever since the Adpocalypse. There IS an appeal process, but your monetization isn't restored until it's resolved.
I'm not sure what happens after but I don't think YT ever returns back money to anyone.
The biggest issue is that they remove monetization from the video while it's in dispute. Since most of the money made on a video is made in the first few days, a early copyright claim on videos means that no one gets any money.
what kind of releases are typical for things like panel discussions?
Almost certainly that will depend on any agreements/contracts made with the participants, hosts, or potentially sponsors, so it would be a case by case basis.
Wow, that Vice video was insufferable, yet fascinating. I love how the leftists all shared such similar traits; smugness and vocal fry chief among them. And their absolute refusal to stay on topic was a sight to behold.
She seems to be the only one getting copyrighted.
Also: https://twitter.com/SydneyLWatson/status/1611099323663777792
Syd's video - "I was on Vice's insane feminism panel": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHgpHfrULHc
VICE video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEIvWNhuL8U
VICE's thumbnail starring Sydney: https://archive.is/pAmGo
In case you're looking for tl;dw summary, this YT comment sums it up pretty well:
Comments are turned off.
Hahahahaha.
It doesn't seem to be a habit of theirs. They only disable comments on certain videos, and I'm not sure what the qualifier is. I haven't checked enough videos to determine a pattern.
I'm guessing comments exceeded their acceptable Based Threshold. Check the archive, everyone was on the anti-feminism side for the most part. Despite them pushing the narrative so hard, people weren't buying it, so they silenced the people.
Vice already edited in favor of the radfems and they were still losing in the comments.
For example, Vice didn't air Sydney calling old the biological man on the panel who illegally distributes drugs to children.
That seems like a very plausible explanation.
I don't know anything about YouTube other than watching an occasional video, so help me understand this.
If I post a video and someone says they own the copyright to something in it, YouTube just redirects my money to them without any sort of appeal process? What happens if they don't actually own the copyright or it's legally fair use, does YouTube pull that money back out of their account and return it to me?
On another note, what kind of releases are typical for things like panel discussions? I would assume the panel participants give the host the right to reproduce and televise the panel, but I would also assume that they retain the rights to their own image and statements from the panel.
Often times yes. It's been a huge thorn in creators sides, ever since the Adpocalypse. There IS an appeal process, but your monetization isn't restored until it's resolved.
I'm not sure what happens after but I don't think YT ever returns back money to anyone.
If I remember right the money goes into escrow until the appeals process is completed then whoever wins gets the money and the earnings after.
The biggest issue is that they remove monetization from the video while it's in dispute. Since most of the money made on a video is made in the first few days, a early copyright claim on videos means that no one gets any money.
Almost certainly that will depend on any agreements/contracts made with the participants, hosts, or potentially sponsors, so it would be a case by case basis.
Wow, that Vice video was insufferable, yet fascinating. I love how the leftists all shared such similar traits; smugness and vocal fry chief among them. And their absolute refusal to stay on topic was a sight to behold.