Subscribe: - index.rdf
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
facebook  https youtube  media  new  news  people  problem  publishers  rel frameborder  video https  video  youtube embed  youtube 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: - index.rdf

Baekdal Plus

Strategic insight and analysis for people in the media industry


We are Missing the Point about Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, etc.

Fri, 23 Mar 2018 13:38:56 GMT

There are many important issues to discuss in relation to the story about Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. But there is also a problem with how we are focusing on this story in the media. And this is particularly noticeable within 'media Twitter', where we as 'media people' discuss our opinions.We have a tendency to lose our objective focus, and get so caught up in wanting to be anti-tech, that we start to twist the stories in our favor (i.e., let's damage Facebook, get politicians to regulate it, and get our market share back), rather than actually have a serious discussion.I'm not saying this in order to point any fingers, because I have been a part of this media frenzy as well.For instance, when one of my followers sent the video below to me, I thought this was a perfect analogy for how Mark Zuckerberg said that he was going to do something about this problem that he wasn't aware of. class="video" title="video" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="">I found this video to be hilarious. So I retweeted it as part of my contribution to speaking out against what has happened.But this 'media focus' is not necessarily a good thing.One simple example is the way we have covered Facebook's response versus what we could get from the 'whistleblower'. It has been a very one-sided coverage.One of the big problems with whistleblowers is that they often get drunk on their own fame, and they start to tell journalists what you want them to tell you.We have seen this many times with people like Edward Snowden, even to the point where he, with the FB CA story, tweeted this:This is not a true statement. Facebook is not 'selling intimate details', and Edward Snowden knows this. But he has become so 'high' on his fame that his objectiveness is starting to slip (and this has been the case for a long time).The same thing seems to be happening with the whistleblower who revealed the scandal about Cambridge Analytica. There are very clear signs that he too is currently 'high on fame'.I'm not trying to discredit him or even say that he is lying. I have no basis for saying either. What I am saying is that I'm not seeing the objective care that I would expect from journalists when dealing with him as a source.From what I have seen, most stories have taken everything this whistleblower has said at face value, without questioning it in any way, while anything said by Facebook is scrutinized or even disregarded. And there is a tendency in the media to focus more on punishing Facebook, rather than taking a step back and talking about the real issues.Mind you, I'm not trying to defend Facebook. My role as a media analyst is not to analyze the news, my job is to analyze the media, how we are working, the quality of our journalism, and figure out what is a problem and needs to be fixed and what can be changed to make things better. And this whole discussion about Facebook and Cambridge Analytica is kind of missing the point, because the problem is somewhere else.Specifically, it's about three other things:What politicians should be allowed to do.How data can be shared.The overall trend around privacy.Why are politicians allowed to micro-target voters?The first big problem is around companies like Cambridge Analytica and how they have provided politicians the tools to micro-target and optimize their messages to get more votes.This is obviously a massive problem, because the idea that a politician can tell one group of voters one thing and another group of voters another in order to win more votes is just pure political corruption. It's incredibly damaging to the principles of a fair election and the democratic process.Obviously this should not be allowed. It's insane that it's even a thing.But how do you stop this? Do you regulate Facebook?Imagine if Facebook were to disappear tomorrow, would that solve this problem? No, because then the politicians would just use some other data and find some other tools ... and keep on telling different voters different things.The only way to actually solve this is to[...]

Metered, Hybrid, Closed, Donated? What Paywall Works the Best?

Tue, 13 Mar 2018 04:54:28 GMT

One question that many of my clients have asked me is "what type of paywall is the best one?" And the answer is always "it depends..." There are many different factors to consider.

Fundamentally, the best paywall is the one that fits your editorial focus in combination with your audience behavior. But even this definition is too simple, because usually the paywall and the actual decision to pay aren't the problem. The problem is to get people to the point of paying.

In fact, in many cases, the paywall itself doesn't work. For instance, here on this site, my paywall (which is actually a paygate, but more about that later) doesn't work by itself. Almost every person that subscribed to this site either did so because of sharing or because of the free trial system.

Those are the two elements that makes it work, not the paywall itself.

So, in this 40 page Plus report, we are going to take a very detailed look at this. We are going to talk about paywalls (or what some call 'hard paywalls'), paygates, metered paywalls, hybrid paywalls, product walls, single-copy sales, donation based 'walls', premium paywalls, the access model, and the importance of upselling.


With each one we are also going to talk about the before and after, like the importance of free trials (before) and the importance of sharing (after), as well as how much marketing and selling is required to make each one work.

So let's dive into this very exciting, but also very complicated world of paywalls.

Momentum or moments

The first thing we need to talk about is the difference between whether a paywall is designed around an ongoing flow of content or whether you just get a single item.

Ongoing paywalls are those where, once you subscribe, you are provided with full access to everything until you choose to cancel. In other words, it's about building up and sustaining the momentum of your readers over time.

But this is not the only model, just as important is the one-time access model, where you pay to access a specific thing. And if we look at the different paywalls, we can divide these up like this:

→ Read the rest of this article on Baekdal Plus.

A Deep Dive into the Future of Subscriber Analytics

Wed, 28 Feb 2018 04:36:44 GMT

The most significant shift in digital media is how everyone has realized that subscriptions are essential to their future revenue. The days when advertising was the driving force behind publishers are long gone.

Lots of things need to change for publishers to be successful with online subscriptions, and I have talked about many of these changes in my other Plus reports. One thing that is dramatically different is how we talk about analytics.

The difference between measuring your performance for an unknown audience compared to a known audience is amazing. Because as soon as people subscribe, you also have the ability to track them as individuals. And this changes everything.

Not only do you realize that your existing metrics are very poor, (because those metrics don't work with subscribers) but you also realize that the way you measure things isn't designed to give you the answers that you need.

So, in this 32 page Plus report, we are going to take a deep dive into the amazing world of subscriber analytics. You will learn why they're so important, what metrics you should be looking at, and how to get insights from looking at each person rather than at your traffic as a whole.

Before we start: A word about GDPR

As you already know, a new privacy regulation will come into effect in Europe called GDPR, and it makes a number of important changes in what you can do.

In short, the changes are simple. The data that you use has to be transparent and available for people to see. You can only use data that people have given consent to, which basically means that you can only use data that you have collected directly. Going out and buying audience profile data from data brokers is a big no. And finally, you are only allowed to collect data that is relevant and limited to what people are using your business for.

→ Read the rest of this article on Baekdal Plus.

The Refreshed Edition of Baekdal Plus

Sun, 25 Feb 2018 19:51:39 GMT

Welcome to the new Baekdal Plus. You might have noticed that everything suddenly looks different. And yes, Baekdal Plus has been redesigned, reengineered, and updated in every way possible.There are still a few things that haven't been launched yet (but will be over the next couple of weeks), but let me very quickly tell you about what has changed, both for you as a reader, but also for me as a publisher. And also talk a little bit about preparing for the future.First of all, what has changed?The answer to this is everything and nothing.Technically, everything has changed. Every line of code has been rewritten from scratch. The server is now hosted in a different place, the database is different, the CMS system is different, the member system has changed, the payment system is different ... everything is new.But, at the same time, the business model around Baekdal Plus has not changed. The overall product that you get when you subscribe to Plus, being 25 Plus reports about the future of media, is still the main focus. And obviously, all the existing articles and reports (more than 220) are still available for you to read.What has changed for you, as a subscriber, is a sharper editorial focus.Baekdal Plus has always been focused on helping media executives understand the future of media trends and how to convert that into a useful strategy. But, the definition around this was always a bit vague.My main categories were 'insights' and 'analysis', which isn't really that defined.With this new site, however, I have optimized my editorial strategy to give you something far more focused. Now Baekdal Plus will focus on four key areas.Trends: What is the future of media? What are the overall patterns and shifts in consumption?Strategy: This is all about converting the long-term media trends into a real strategy.Monetization: This section will focus on the best ways to think about monetization. I will also add reports which show you how to change your existing model into something better.Analytics: This section is all about the incredibly important shift that we see in relation to analytics and data for publishers. It's not just about what to measure, but also about the future of data journalism, and machine learning.I have already started writing for this new focus. For instance, not long ago I published 'A Guide to Pricing Strategies for a Sport Site', where I illustrated how Eurosport could change their monetization model. And in 'How Editorial Analytics can Help you Define your Editorial Strategy', I wrote about how you could use analytics in a much smarter way.Each of these articles was written with this new focus in mind. One being specifically about monetization, and the other about analytics.So, Baekdal Plus is not really changing. But it is getting sharper and more valuable.What else has changed?Beyond the focus that has changed for you, I have also updated quite a lot of things about the site.One example is the payment system.Before, I was using PayPal, because it was simple and cheap (and reliable, unlike most payment startups in 2010). But I have never really been happy with PayPal. The problem with PayPal is that, when you subscribed, you were redirected to PayPal's site, where you were asked to create a PayPal account.This is not an optimal experience, especially for business minded readers.What was worse was that PayPal never got around to optimizing for mobile. If you just buy a product, PayPal's checkout experience works fine, but when you ask to subscribe to something, PayPal only works on the desktop.This is what PayPal presented to people when you tried subscribing to Baekdal Plus from your phone.I don't even want to think about how many potential subscribers I have lost because of this terrible experience.So, the new Baekdal Plus is using Stripe, and what a difference that makes.Now when you want to subscribe, you are presented with a payment screen directly on Baekdal Plus, and you are not asked to create an account with Stripe.[...]

Fascinating Traffic Experiments by Publishers

Tue, 06 Feb 2018 18:20:00 GMT

Last week, I came across two very interesting traffic experiments, which are worth talking about. One was about how a publisher tried to increase the volume of posts on YouTube, and the other was about a publisher who decided to see what happened if they stopped using Facebook.Both are very interesting, so let's look at what happened with each and what the result was.We will start with this:Fstoppers tried going for volume on YouTubeFstoppers is a site for photographers that I have admired for many years, and that I have used as an example of a brilliant editorial strategy.In 2015, I wrote "Drop The Content Strategy, Create A Care Strategy Instead", where Fstoppers was mentioned as a site that did this really well. In June 2017, I mentioned them in "What is the Best Monetization / Subscription Model?" and, last August, they were also mentioned in "Can Your Readers Trust You With Their Time?"You can probably spot a trend here. Fstoppers is a publisher who is really good at creating very high-value paid-for content that is worth people's time. And the way they earn most of their money is through very high-end tutorial series that you have to buy.Like this one (price: $299): class="video" title="video" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="">The problem with high-value sites like this, however, is that the high-value doesn't necessarily create a lot of traffic, and, as a publisher, you start to get antsy about growth.This happened to Fstoppers as well. They already have a successful business, but they started wondering if they could just post more to grow more.The result was that, a month ago, Fstoppers posted a video called "The Future of Fstoppers" where they announced this new publishing strategy.For the next 30 days we are going to be releasing a new video every single day. If this month is a success, we will be focusing on producing more free content in 2018. class="video" title="video" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="">In other words, they would try to replace high-value with frequency. The videos would still be very good (they were not posting viral content), but it wouldn't be as in-depth, or as planned as their usual content.So... what happened? Did this work?Well, the month of January is now over and they have published another video where they go into what happened. class="video" title="video" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="">This video is worth watching by itself, but let me summarize it.The first thing they discovered was that the higher frequency boosted the engagement throughout their site and on YouTube. had the highest level of traffic, the highest time on site and the most engagement ... ever!This is great, but when they looked into their analytics, they found that most of this boost wasn't actually coming from these new, extra videos per day, but from other content posted by their community.So, these extra videos seemed to have boosted the activity of the site, but they didn't actually contribute to it by themselves.This is fascinating because it gives us an 'unknown'. We don't really know if this actually worked or not, because the measurable impact was almost non-existent, while the total effect was the best ever. But it also hints to the 'trend of presence'.I have talked about this before. Presence is often a very big part of the effect that you can have, in that, if you can be present in people's minds, you often experience a kind of spillover effect on your business as a whole.This is not just true for content, but also everything else ... like advertising. We know that creating an ad campaign where you show up in front of people continually over time is far more effective than just having one good ad.So, was what we saw here part of the 'trend of presence'?As a media analyst, I don't know from the data that I have. It ma[...]

A Guide to Pricing Strategies for a Sport Site

Wed, 24 Jan 2018 16:48:01 GMT

The digital world has opened up many new ways of defining your publishing model and one of the clearest examples of this is when we look at sports sites.

Sport is a special type of publishing in that everything is seasonal, so designing a pricing model to match is one of the key ways that sports publishers can get a lot smarter about offering people exactly what they want.

In this 36 page guide, we are going to take a look at how you would create a pricing strategy for a sport site. We are going to talk about the power of upselling, how to use niches, and how to network them together to get a better result than if you were just targeting everyone as a mass-market.

In this guide, we are going to use Eurosport as a case study, not by what they are doing today, but by how we could redefine their pricing model for something much better.

Obviously, while the focus of this article is sports related, the insights that you will get can apply to many other forms of publishing. In fact, it applies to any publisher with a seasonal element, as well as most publishers who are tapping into the trend of niche publishing.

So, let's get started ... and we are going to start with the very end, by taking a problem that we often come across when publishers don't design their subscription and renewal process.

People only subscribe to watch something before the game

One of the most obvious things about sport is that timing has a very big influence on when people are considering subscribing to a sports site.

For instance, if you are a fan of tennis, you might be very interested in watching the Australian Open 2018 Tennis Tournament, which is taking place between January 15 and January 28.


If you are a publisher who is planning to offer people a way to follow this live, when would people be most likely to buy a subscription for this?

→ Read the rest of this article on Baekdal Plus.

Facebook may not be the Right Market for Publishers, but it is for Facebook

Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:34:40 GMT

It has been almost a week since Facebook told publishers that they were no longer a key element of its future strategy, and the outburst of articles about this has been ... eh... interesting to read.There have been some good observations, like when Wolfgang Blau, President of Condé Nast International, wrote about the importance of China for Facebook. That was a great observation.There was also the very important observation made by Joshua Benton (and others) that people, generally, don't actually use Facebook for news ... and when they do, it's mostly accidental.About 75 percent of users reporting seeing either just 1 news story in their top 10 News Feed posts or none at all.But, we have also seen quite a large number of very frustrated people in the media industry, which is understandable. This has led to some very strange articles where the journalists don't seem to be actually looking at any of the trends.For instance, The Verge wrote that 'Facebook's startling new ambition is to shrink' ... uh... nope. There is absolutely nothing about Facebook's new plans that are about shrinking. It's quite the opposite.A number of journalists are claiming that Facebook's new plan to favor friends' interactions will increase the problem with fake news. But while this might have been true in the past, this new change is different.And there have also been journalists/editors saying that Facebook should be required to include news because of their position in the market ... which doesn't really make any sense once you realize what Facebook is about.So let me offer three different aspects to this story that will encourage you to think about what's happening on Facebook in a different way.And we will start with this:The problem is not Facebook, it's consumptionOne of the biggest frustrations I have as a media analyst, about how publishers talk about Facebook, is that we focus on the traffic but not the audience.I'm reminded here of a tweet that Casey Newton posted last week saying this:He is exactly right about this. Facebook has been pretty big in terms of driving traffic, but it's not very good at driving an audience.But the problem here isn't really about Facebook, it's about the market that Facebook is in.Facebook is a channel that people turn to when they have a quick break and just want to see something random. In other words (as I have talked about for about five years), Facebook is in the market for low-intent micro-moments.We see this very clearly when we compare how people use YouTube with how they use Facebook. On YouTube, you go to your 'subscription page' where you look at what the people you follow have posted ... and then you pick the specific videos that you want to see, which you then watch for maybe 20 minutes at a time.That's a deep relationship.On Facebook, because they have filled our NewsFeed with so much extra content, you are forced into a consumption model where you have no way to pick anything... so you just stop doing it.And because of this, Facebook is extremely 'niche' when it comes to what works and what doesn't work on Facebook.For instance, business publications learned a long time ago that Facebook is not the platform for them. Because low-intent is the opposite of what a business reader is looking for.Facebook is also terrible for building up valuable momentum. For instance, you can't use Facebook to teach people anything.You can do that on YouTube with no problem, in fact, many young people define YouTube as a 'learning channel'. According to Ofcom's 'Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes Report', about 40% of all young people use YouTube for watching tutorials, DIYs, walkthroughs and other 'learning' content.Nobody talks about Facebook that way.And this is where we come to news, because think about what type of impact this has on news coverage. What type of news consumption do you get when you mix a low-intent micro-moment, with an[...]

Redefining how we Talk About and Categorize the Media

Tue, 16 Jan 2018 14:09:08 GMT

We are moving into a new era of media where the old definition of 'the media' no longer makes any sense, both in terms of who is what and in terms of how we define the editorial strategies and monetization models.We see this in a number of ways. For instance, if you do a study asking the public to define 'the media', they tend to only thinking about the small part of the media that represents national newspapers.So the New York Times is 'the media', but people forget that there are so many other forms of media, like magazines, YouTubers, media services, and many others.We also see the problem when we look at how journalists are now discussing 'the media'. For instance, throughout the past year, many journalists have talked about 'fake news' as being one of the biggest problems facing 'the media' today.But think about that for a moment. While fake news is indeed a problem for our society and our democracies, it's only really affecting a very tiny part of the 'the media'.If you are a political journalist working for CNN, 'fake news' is a very big problem that impacts every moment of every day. But if you are a financial journalist working for CNN Money, suddenly fake news isn't really an issue (unless you start to talk about politics).When you write a story about Amazon buying Whole Foods, you are not faced with an angry mob of people, bots and fake accounts that try to undermine everything you write.It's the same thing if you work for a magazine. A yoga site isn't influenced by fake news, and the editorial goals or future monetization strategies wouldn't even touch the subject of 'Russian bots'.So, journalists are making the same mistake as the public in that, when we discuss 'the media', we are really only talking about a very tiny part of it.But this is not just about fake news. It's about how we talk about a lot of things. For instance, Facebook is something everyone talks about, and often publishers talk about it as if it is the platform for everything (at least they used to).It's not.Facebook is instead a platform for low-intent micro-moments, and within this space they are optimizing for what people want to engage with. But think about how many forms of media that aren't for low-intent micro-moments.It's the same story when people talk about 'pivoting to video'. This is often talked about as something 'the media' is doing as a whole, but again, think about how how specific that market really is.While it made perfect sense for BuzzFeed Tasty to 'pivot to video' to create snackable videos for people to engage with, it makes no sense for many other publishers.The problem is the same as before. We talk about it as 'the media', but the things that we look at really only apply to a very specific and tiny part of it.This creates a number of problems for the industry as a whole.As a media analyst I spend more and more of my time explaining to publishers that what they hear about 'the media' doesn't actually apply to them, because they are not the same type of media.I'm constantly seeing traditional media companies struggle to change and transform both their editorial strategies and internal cultures because everyone still defines their role as 'the media', and thus tries to mimic what everyone else is doing ... even if it doesn't fit that specific publication.The reality is that there is no longer such a thing as 'the media'. Instead, we moving into new world of multiple media industries where there are many entirely different markets that have almost nothing common.So, in this article, let's recategorize what the media is. Let's explore all these different markets and look at why they have so little in common.The world has been flipped on its side and defined by opposites The fascinating thing about the new world of media is that the format no longer defines it, and in many cases actually works against you. For instance, if you are c[...]

There is so Much Positivity in the Digital World of Media

Tue, 09 Jan 2018 09:53:09 GMT

If you have been reading Baekdal Plus for couple of years, you might have noticed an increasing level of frustration about traditional publishers compared to digital native publishers.This frustration is not based on dislike. I love traditional media companies, and there is nothing I want more than to see them become massively successful in the future.My frustration, however, is that, within many traditional companies, there is a kind of media bubble that is preventing meaningful change from happening, along with a growing sense of despair that is leading to an ever more negative editorial focus.At the same time, I'm working with the digital native publishers, and here everything is different. The focus is generally much more optimistic, it's entrepreneurial, and forward looking.Let me give you an example:In traditional media, I constantly come across negative articles like this one.The problem here isn't that the news isn't important (it is). What Logan Paul did was extremely idiotic. Instead, the problem is with the framing and overall negativity.Try reading this article, and you are left feeling like the world is shit and we should all just be depressed about it.This is the kind of content that I see every single day from traditional media. It's like watching a wall of negative stories.But then I turn to digital native channels, like YouTube, and here I am presented with videos like those below.Please do me a favor. Please watch all of them in full. And just notice the level of excitement and positivity that you feel from them. class="video" title="video" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""> class="video" title="video" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""> class="video" title="video" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""> class="video" title="video" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""> class="video" title="video" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""> class="video" title="video" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="">This is just a small sample, but isn't this amazing?The difference between the old traditional world and the new YouTuber world is incredible. The traditional world makes me sad and depressed, while the YouTuber world lifts me back up again.We also see this difference in the way things are being talked about and reported, and it makes traditional journalists appear reactive, while digital natives appear proactive.Many traditional journalists only write about things that have already happened, like when a YouTuber has done something wrong or when a politician is saying something idiotic. In other words, they are 'reacting' to the world.Many YouTubers, however, have a proactive editorial profile. They are not talking about things that have already happened, but are instead inviting people to join them in exploring what will happen.A simple example is to compare this article from The Washington Post:To the video I showed you earlier from Fully Charged reporting about the progress and the future of renewable energy.The former is reactive and negative while the latter is proactive and positive.At this point, you might be thinking that I'm being ridiculous, and that I am cherry picking examples so as to make old media look worse than it really is.And you are kind of right. I am doing exactly that, but this is also not the point. Because let me show you something.My frustration around traditional media's editorial focus about is how it has grown increasingly negative over the years. In the 1990s, when I would read my morning newspaper, I didn't consider it to be either positive or negative. Th[...]

Why do YouTubers Hate Journalists, and Should Publishers Pay Their Sources?

Tue, 02 Jan 2018 18:57:54 GMT

There was an interesting discussion on Twitter the other day about whether publishers should pay their sources. And when I say 'interesting', I mean a lot of antagonized mudslinging.But, from the perspective of media trends, the topic illustrated a number of fascinating things about how the world of media has changed.It all started with this tweet from tech/culture reporter Taylor Lorenz from The Daily Beast.This initial tweet then sparked a very emotional discussion with journalists basically telling YouTubers that they were idiots.And it got really bad when Taylor, later that day, tweeted an example. She wrote this:As you can see, at this point it's no longer about getting paid or not. Now it's suddenly about a journalist attacking someone who is an extremist, and the result was that the alt-right community got in on it, and from this point it all went down the drain.By the end of the day, Taylor had received both rape and death threats, and basically had become a target of an alt-right campaign.This, of course, is completely unacceptable. Nobody should be facing harassment like this regardless of what they tweeted, but it also distorted the discussion in ways that make this whole thing rather pointless.So let's take a step back and talk about this as a concept instead. Let's ignore these specific tweets and just talk about the role of media in relation to YouTubers.First, let's talk about the negative press.The fight between the old and the newOne of the really big problems that exists today between journalists and YouTubers is that the former is often only looking at the bad side of things.For instance, throughout 2017, many major newspaper focused their attention on finding obscure examples of extremism on YouTube, trying to turn this into a much bigger scandal than what it really is.Let me give an example of this. Here is a quote from one of many articles about YouTube and Facebook from 2017:Facebook has admitted that it found about $100,000 in ad spending from June 2015 to May 2017 on the platform connected to inauthentic accounts that likely operated out of Russia. Google too faced loads of backlash after brands realized their advertising was appearing alongside racist and extremist videos on YouTube and other sites, thereby marking them as supporters of hate.The problem here is twofold.First, this narrative does not in any way represent reality. While the story is technically true, when you report that someone spent $100,000 on fake news ads on Facebook, this accounts for 0.000015% of Facebook's total revenue.Basically, this is like going into a big supermarket in a very big mall and then you discover one package of pasta that is past its sell-by date. Is that acceptable? No, of course not. But it also doesn't represent what the supermarket is about.It's the same thing on YouTube. YouTubers are incredibly angry at the traditional journalism industry because of how we have misrepresented what is really going on with YouTube.If you read the stories in the traditional press, you are led to assume that YouTube is a site similar to 4Chan, with its massive alt-right community and hate speech. But YouTube is nothing like this.Sure, you can always find examples of hate speech or racism on YouTube, but you really have to look for it. Normal people almost never see it.The result of this is that the media has been damaging the perception of ordinary YouTubers, through no fault of most YouTubers. And YouTube has then in turn made some serious errors in the way it tried to fix the problem, which has resulted in blocking content that should never have been blocked.One example of this is EnterElysium. He is a Let's Player who produces very family-friendly and brand-safe videos. Like this one: class="video" title="video" src="" frameborder=[...]