Safety measures left users enraged and out of pocket

NASIM AGHDAM was a vocal critic of the video sharing site’s policies, many of which it has implemented in recent months in an attempt to crack down on disturbing, illegal or adult videos.

Youtube has often drawn criticism from politicians and users, as well as the threat of advertisers pulling their money, for allowing unsavoury material on the site.

In recent months it has made a series of attempts to placate its critics, applying stricter rules over who can see its videos, developing algorithms that can spot and remove terrorist material, and restricting which users can earn money by running adverts before their videos.

But while these actions have helped it win back trust, they have sparked anger from a section of video bloggers and artists who host videos on the site.

Last year, Youtube said any video that had been viewed fewer than 10,000 times would not be able to earn money by carrying adverts, an attempt to stop illegal or abusive videos only watched by a handful of users from making money. Youtube takes a 45 per cent cut of all video advertising revenue, and has been keen to avoid the perception it is “profiting from hate”. It made the policy stricter in January, requiring users to have 1,000 subscribers and for viewers to have watched a collective 40,000 hours of video on their channel before it can host adverts. The move was believed to have cut off revenues for tens of thousands of “creators”. Aghdam repeatedly criticised the Google-owned company for not paying her enough for her videos.

Youtube announced last year that it would hire thousands of new moderators to police the site, but it has since been accused of applying its censorship policies inconsistently.

It was engulfed in new controversy this year when Logan Paul, one of its most famous personalities, filmed and posted a video of a dead body in a Japanese forest. The video was only taken offline by Paul himself after it was seen six million times. It took more than a week for Youtube to remove him from a “preferred advertiser” programme that lets channels host more lucrative adverts. Many users complained that Paul’s fame meant he got off lightly.