This could be the beginning of the ‘real’ censorship on YouTube of Amazon Firestick based app reviews and tutorials. Are things getting worse?
Over the past 12-24 months, we have seen a fair share of YouTubers removed from the platform for offering reviews and tutorials based around apps and services on the Amazon Firestick. Since the end of 2021, things seem to be getting worse from the YouTubers, and their audiences perspectives.
Are things really getting worse? Is this the subtle beginning of the ‘real censorship‘ of content relating to streaming reviews and apps? or is it that there is a huge flaw in YouTube’s platform? That’s what we will discuss in this post.
Could this be a strategic move by YouTube to censor and block the marketing of competitors on their platform? We ask this because it seems most video reviews of the numerous ‘free’ apps on Amazon Firestick are being removed from the platform and being deemed ‘harmful and dangerous‘ content – yes, you read that right, harmful and dangerous content.
Understanding YouTubes ‘Harmful and Dangerous’ policy
At first glance, you would expect this violation to be a serious or sinister breach of policy, and in some cases, it is.
However, when it comes to streaming, the policy violation relates to a specific part of the policy, and that is the following two statements:
Hacking: Demonstrating how to use computers or information technology with the intent to steal credentials, compromise personal data or cause serious harm to others such as (but not limited to) hacking into social media accounts.
and
Bypassing payment for digital content or services: Showing viewers how to use apps, websites or other information technology to gain unauthorised free access to audio content, audiovisual content, full video games, software or streaming services that normally require payment.
The majority of violations in the streaming community and the reason we see most channels removed, or striked, is for the latter….. bypassing payment for digital content or services.
When it comes to videos that show how to bypass payments, for example, showing how to get Netflix for free, it becomes completely understandable that them types of videos should be removed. The problem that streaming YouTuber’s face, is that this is not the case.
YouTube are using the above policy to prevent and remove videos that DO NOT showcase how to bypass payment, and are removing videos on services or apps that are promoted on the Amazon Firestick softwares homescreen and are included in the Amazon app store as OFFICIAL and LEGITIMATE apps who own the right to broadcast their content for free. This is where it begins to become very sus!
Some YouTubers genuinely believe that this is an attempt to monopolize by preventing the promotion or marketing of competitor apps and services on the YouTube platform.
If you think we are exaggerating, here are some examples of video’s that were removed for violating YouTube’s ‘harmful and dangerous’ policies:
FreeTechs Review Video
FreeTech offers Amazon Firestick videos covering news, product reviews and the review of ‘legitimate’ and free apps, which are available to download on the Google and Amazon Appstore.
The apps he reviews have no copyrighted or pirated content, they are official services with their own broadcasting licenses.
In the case above, YouTube removed his video and striked his channel for violating the ‘harmful and dangerous’ policy. Not is it only frustrating that the video was removed for NOT violating the policy, the worrying part for Free Tech is that additional strikes can result in the termination of his channel, especially when the video does not warrant a strike in the first place!
TechDoctorUKs Review Video
TechDoctorUK is another trusted YouTuber when it comes to Amazon Firestick, or streaming reviews and tutorials.
He also faced a ‘harmful and dangerous’ strike for reviewing Sports.TV app. An app that is FREE and legitimately available for download via the Amazon and Google app stores.
Another example of YouTube removing a video and damaging a YouTube channels views and earnings on an app that is licensed to broadcast and does not bypass any payments for any online services.
Legitimate Live TV video removals
Another example of YouTube removing competitors videos from their platform is Airy TV content.
It seems any YouTubers promoting or marketing Airy TV on their platform is removed. Is this an attempt to shutdown potential competition? We have no clue why! What we do know however, is Airy TV is another FREE app to that is licensed to broadcast content and in no way violates any possibility to ‘bypass payment’ or anything of that nature.
Xumo TV is another popular streaming app for the Amazon Firestick. A FREE live TV app that is licenced to broadcast and is available to download FREE on the Amazon and Google app stores. YouTube are also targeting videos that showcase or review Xumo TV too!
Is this YouTubes new and strategic approach to target any marketing videos for their competition? We all know YouTube TV is something they want to expand, is this why they are removing videos of any other service that offers a Live TV platform for free?
If this is the case, it is the creators that are suffering, and it will get to a stage where legal action is required to stop YouTube from doing this, especially when its the creators businesses and incomes that suffer.
We get the message
After reading this post, I hope it has helped to shine some light on why we, as creators, are becoming extremely frustrated with the way we are being treated by YouTube.
Following strikes and video removals, on videos that do NOT violate policies, it is our channels that suffer, from views to revenue, and the risk of losing our channels, which we spend 5-10 years building, over false strikes that hold no valid references.
The support we receive from our followers is outstanding, we just wish the support, understanding and context was the same with YouTube support, but it isnt.
What will it take for YouTube to stop this ridiculous and unfair treatment of its creators instead of using its broad power to prevent marketing of its competition.
What do you think?
Thanks for reading. Please help us out by sharing the post π
