What would it be like if Adolf Hitler came back to life? This film approaches that question.

"Er is wieder da" (English: "Look Who's Back" or "He is Back Again") is a popular 2015 German political comedy film about what would happen if Adolf Hitler were to come alive again in modern day Germany. This is a very popular film in Germany, even being up for selection for a Best Foreign Film nomination at our Academy Awards. But this was one of Germany's first ever comedic portrayals of Adolf Hitler, and it did not come without criticism. 

Watch the trailer here, and note your feelings while watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q_oh9wrJv0

Did you find this scene funny? Did it feel strange, seeing such a serious portrayal of Hitler in a comedic form? (Don't feel guilty if you do - I found it hilarious the first time around.)

The film begins as purely a comedy - making light of Hitler in situations he is not familiar with. However, as the film continues, things gradually take a turn for worse. Real, non-actor Germans are interviewed and asked questions about whether they would support this "fake" Hitler, some of them agreeing with his actions, others laughing off his actions because he isn't "real."

This continues until a scene around the midpoint of the film, where there is a particularly troubling scene occurs when Hitler is seen interacting with a small, playful dog. (NOTE/Trigger warning: This scene doesn't include gore, but it can easily be disturbing. Though it is, of course, fake, Hitler's character is seen "shooting" a dog and there is a gun shown and a gunshot heard. Many people find this moment comedic, and it is portrayed as such, but if you're sensitive or simply do not like violence like this, please be warned or do not watch.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I8wjg6EYfo

From this point on, the comedy takes a dark turn, up until the climax at the end, which makes a political statement: history can very easily repeat itself. I would highly, highly recommend this film (watch if you're bored during the quarantine!), though it is quite heavy at the end (thought-provoking), but I believe it is very relevant to our world today. 

For the second half of my blog post, I want to try something different. Think about what would happen if something like this was made in the United States, and this was a big production. Possibly an actor you know of is in the lead role, and there is decent publicity about this movie. But this movie is about what would happen in Cristopher Columbus came back to life in the modern-day United States and began turning people against Native Americans and possibly even other minorities, as well. This film is viewed as a comedy, and though there is a good amount of political commentary throughout the film, there is a distinct comedic tone and there are interviews included from real people who are speaking publicly about their possibly racist views. What do you think the reception would be like? Would it cause protests? Or would people push it under the rug, dismissing it as art, or simply a dark comedy piece?

In addition to comments about this scenario, how did you feel watching the trailer scene from "Er is wieder da?" Did you find this comedic? How do you think this film was received in Germany? If you viewed it, what about the dog scene? Did you find this scene comedic in comparison, or did something feel wrong to you about it? Why?

Lastly, do you think this film would be received differently without the political twist to it?

The Establishment Clause in the 21st Century

This week for class, we read the Snyder v. Phelps case of 2011, concerning the picketing of military funerals done conducted by members of the Westboro Baptist Church. Specifically protesting the military's tolerance of homosexuality, members of the church held signs that read sentiments such as "Thank God for Dead Soldiers".  The Supreme Court ruled that their speech was protected under the First Amendment because their statements "were on matters of public concern, were not provably false, and were expressed solely through hyperbolic rhetoric," (2011).  As I did more research on this case, I found that both conservative and liberal Americans were angered by the result, especially in regard to Snyder's monetary gain, or rather, loss.  While the Supreme Court first decided to award Snyder with 10.9 million dollars, the judge decided to reduce it down to 5 million.  Later on, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that judgment, citing protection under the First Amendment.  I will be the first to say that I am not an expert on how court cases get decided, but I find this puzzling.  The Westboro Baptist Church had been protesting funerals for 20 years at the time of this case.  Nine years ago, America was fairly polarized political climate.  While it could be argued that the political climate is even more polarized today, it is difficult to find an issue that both the right and the left find problematic in 2011, keeping in mind the political climate under Obama's presidency.  However, this court ruling was one that ideologists across the political spectrum disagreed with, which is something that stands out to me.  I am left to wonder, why do church's have so much power in America?  Part of the First Amendment is the Establishment Clause, ultimately outlining America's belief in the separation between church and state.  Ultimately, this clause was included in the Bill of Rights to promote freedom of religion in the United States.  On this, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison said that "compelling citizens to support through taxation a faith they did not follow violated their natural right to religious liberty."  This sounds good on paper, but has this clause actually given churches more power within the political system?  For instance, churches in the United States are tax exempt, meaning that the government provides financial benefit to religious institutions.  In the 1970 case, Walz v. Tax Commission of City of New York, William Douglas concluded that the tax exemption of churches was unconstitutional.  With these laws in place, cases like Snyder v. Phelps are complicated.  Does the United States give too much power to churches?  Do we truly value the separation between church and state?  How can we hold churches accountable for the actions of the church members?

Offensive-ness

Just a few notes/thoughts/questions on "Giving and Taking Offense."

First, Warburton quotes Oliver Kamm:

“The notion that free speech, while important, needs to be held in balance with the avoidance of offence is question-begging, because it assumes that offence is something to be avoided. Free speech does indeed cause hurt—but there is nothing wrong in this. Knowledge advances through the destruction of bad ideas. Mockery and derision are among the most powerful tools in the process.”

???

Warburton later writes:

“In the United States, the First Amendment free speech protection has in some renowned cases led to judgments that, disgusting as such hate speech may be, it should still in many cases be permitted. It is protected from prosecution because it is potentially part of a political debate” (56).

Again, ???

In 2015, at the National Prayer Breakfast, then President Barack Obama said:

“lest we get on our high horse and think this [terrorism in the name of religion] is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

He was soundly criticized by some people, including former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore:

“The president’s comments this morning at the prayer breakfast are the most offensive I’ve ever heard a president make in my lifetime. He has offended every believing Christian in the United States. This goes further to the point that Mr. Obama does not believe in America or the values we all share.”

Um, what?

Giving and Taking Offense

Tuesday's reading details arguments for and against "blasphemy laws" and the protection of hate speech. The conversation about blasphemy laws was relatively in depth, and many examples were given. A lot of questions were raised, such as, does intent matter when a work or action offends a religious group? If blasphemy laws are acceptable, who should be protected by them? The conversation centered on hate speech is less in-depth, and in my opinion, many questions still remain. I did appreciate the inclusion of the court case ("Skokie and toleration"), because I think understanding the legal context around an issue can be helpful when trying to improve it. 

I think my practical (and by this I mean something I can apply to my thought processes in day to day life) takeaway was that sometimes you will be offended, and that is not an inherently bad thing. Further, bad things happen, and laws cannot change this. I think it is good for laws and cultural norms to make an effort to limit bad things—especially in issues which are systematic and affect certain populations more than others—but we cannot altogether stop many of the bad things we encounter in everyday life. People will have disputes and disagreements; that is okay. In fact, conflict can be good; people can grow because of disagreements.

For example, when I was very young, I was deeply religious. However, I'd argue that I was brain washed into religion; I had not chosen it out of conviction, but because it was all I had ever known. Seeing people treat the religion in a humorous way, and especially seeing people question the validity of the religion, allowed me to come to a place where I could recognize my displeasure with my reality. I was able to walk away from it with no regrets, and I am a much happier person and more skilled in critical thinking because of my decision. Thus, I really believe that opposition to, and to an extent the blasphemous treatment of, that religion legitimately improved my life and well-being. I am glad I was exposed to thoughts which were fundamentally opposed to my own.

That is not to say everyone needs to have their convictions shaken such that they break; rather, it is healthy for one to come to a place of questioning whether or not they really believe what they have been taught. This dissonance is important in and outside of religion as a step towards the development of the self. 

Something else I want to note is that I don’t think any of the conflict I came across was hate speech; had I been exposed to speech which actively sought to bring me down as a member of that religion—rather than speech which criticized the religion itself—I think I would have simply doubled-down on my beliefs. So yes, conflict can cause growth, but hate speech and targeted harassment does not really help people reflect inwardly, at least from my experience.

That being said, this is a complicated issue, and I know I don’t have all the answers. So, what do you think? Do you have any examples of times someone’s opposing opinion made you rethink, and perhaps improve, your own stance?

Also, what did you make of the reading? I only touched on a small part of it, so what other parts of the text were significant to you?

The Future Is Subversive

The movie Max is a fictional story.  Certain elements of the story are historically accurate: Hitler did serve in the army in World War I, was wounded several times, and received the Iron Cross.  He was also, at one time, an aspiring artist.  (See Adolf Hitler for more details.)  Max Rothman, however, and his relationship with Hitler, are fictional.  

The movie interests me in a variety of ways. I think the "what if" question (What if Hitler had succeeded as an artist?) is the wrong question to ask. The real question the movie poses is What is the relationship between Art and Politics.  As I've mentioned previously, the "tagline" for the movie in trailers was "Art + Politics = Power."  

A French philosopher named Jacques Ranciere has written about something he calls "the Distribution of the Sensible."  Art, he claims, is not necessarily revolutionary, but neither is it (ever) apolitical. Some art is explicitly and intentionally political; much is not.  Some artists claim that real art is not political-- that it is always somehow above or beyond politics; it is "pure."  Ranciere believes that art is always already political-- not necessarily in the explicit sense, but in the sense that it makes possible what we can see/not see, say/not say, understand/not understand.  That is, it distributes what is "sensible":  both what we can sense (see/hear/feel), and what makes sense (what is comprehensible). Abstract art, for example, stretches our imagination so that we can see what we have not been able to see before; likewise, "great" literature expands our experience, helps us to experience as other people, and therefore enables us to "see" the world differently.

Thus the "Distribution of the Sensible" depends to a large degree on who can speak, who can say what is seen (or not seen, or not spoken).  

It's worth noting that the movie (Max) was criticized for "humanizing" Hitler.  But as one reviewer wrote, 

"The movie has stirred some concerns that humanizing Hitler may desensitize us to his historic evil. But it's important to understand that evil springs from recognizable human sources, that it's closer than we realize: common, even (as Hannah Arendt says) banal." (Michael Wilmington)

And Roger Ebert wrote:

"The film . . . has been attacked because it attempts to 'humanize' a monster. But of course Hitler was human, and we must understand that before we can understand anything else about him."

Hitler did not emerge full-blown (as it were) out of nowhere. He became.  

He also rose to power over a period of time, enabled and supported by a variety of other people.  His ideas were monstrous.  But without power, those ideas would have remained just ideas.  This is why I find the argument for the expression of ideas (any ideas), problematic.  One must ask, at what point does the speaker or writer of those ideas gained sufficient power to become a danger to others? In the movie, the expression of "ideas" was certainly harmful to Max Rothman. (As it is so often harmful to marginalized peoples of all kinds, both in the U.S. and around the world.)  And because increasing numbers of people were persuaded to agree with those ideas, Hitler was able to gain increasing power.  And we know how harmful that was, to how many people.  (Actually, in some sense, the death toll continues to rise, with increasing Nazi activity in the U.S. and abroad.)

Possibly it is also worth noting that such ideas don't always come with a Nazi label.  There's an awful lot of racism and xenophobia in the U.S. today.  In fact, much of the U.S. activity around the Mexican border is a clear violation of the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide  (e.g., forcibly separating children from their parents).

The point is, People can and are harmed by "ideas."  

Max and Architecture's Political Impact 

Art is powerful in all its forms; music, performance art, visuals, and architecture all carry with them the power to influence our emotions and perceptions of reality. Art can suspend our perception of realistic expectations for the world around us, which helps us expand our thinking so that when we exit the moment, we may have new ideas of reality. Thus, when executed well, an art piece can convince the viewer of a thesis, make the viewer look at an issue from a new angle, or inspire the viewer to believe in something new. This means being an artist carries with it a great deal of power, and it is no surprise that those already in places of other forms of power (or those who seek to gain power), may aim to use art to expand their own reign. 

The fictionalized version of the character of Hitler in the movie Max argues that true power is gained through more than the speeches and the policies of politics. At one point in the movie he says "politics is the new art," suggesting that true power seems to be in the combination of politics and art. This is reinforced by his interest in architecture and his explanation of his designs; he tells the character called Rothman that as he crafts his ideas of fashion and architecture, his goal is to inspire belief in what he wants the world to become--which is of course the world the real Hitler pursued as the leader of the Nazi party. 

According to the article "Trump’s Bizarre Plan to Make Architecture Classical Again" written by Amanda Kolson Hurley, "good architecture is important because it can lift our mood, inspire us to creativity or spiritual reflection, and ease our anxieties." In other words, architecture can influence our realties. This is echoed in Max, as Hitler's character argues that architecture can also act as political messaging by pushing a culture into a new reality. What is startling about these arguments are their implications when considering the plans of the Trump administration. 

According to the aforementioned article, the Trump administration may sign an order to make "Classical and traditional styles" the only forms of architecture appropriate for government buildings costing more than 50 million dollars. The author argues that this is a dangerous precedent to set, writing, "[this] would... suggest that what’s most valuable in our built environment is what was codified by a white male elite before women could vote and black Americans had full legal rights." The author argues, then, that a reality without the influences outside of classical styles in public art suggests a reality that devalues and alienates those who do not identify with it--usually those who are not white, rich, and male. This suggests that the mandate of "Classical" styles exists only to encourage and support those who have never been at a disadvantage within society. 

This issue closely aligns with the rest of Trump's platform of "making America great again." By making America great again, America would be returning to something. What is that something? The history of America is filled with racism, imperialism, misogyny, homophobia, war, and every other form of marginalization and oppression known to civilization. Thus, making America "great" again means, at least in some capacity, making America increasingly unsafe and inequitable for most of the people who live within its borders. The author of the article goes on to write that, "a classicism mandate would signal to architects that innovation and progress are subversive, and to the public that a retread of the past is safer than the wide-open future." Thus, by regressing what is appropriate in architecture, the Trump administration is cementing the cultural push for conservatism and fully realizing it into society. In other words, by making the US look more like their version of "great" America, America is more likely to culturally return to its conservative roots. Effectively, these architectural guidelines put a pause on cultural growth, as people feel less challenged by their surroundings, and more likely to simply feel comfortable with what they've always known. 

What are your thoughts? What other arguments does Max make about art and power? How can we apply these arguments to today's world?

FEED. A terrifying glimpse at the present and future of free speech.

One, if not the most terrifying read of the 21st century, Feed explores what happens when technology becomes not a part of our lives, but a part of our bodies. In this book, a device that is called a Feed is implanted into people's brains at birth and gives them complete and total access to the internet. It allows them to download applications and surf the web, and chat with others without carrying a device around. It's all in the head, and anyone anywhere can talk.

There's a scene in this book that is the most cryptic and terrifying warnings about the corporate takeover of our lives, not just monetarily, but with rights. There's a scene where everyone gets advertisements for coca-cola. The ads say that if someone says Coca-Cola 1000 times without saying any of the competitors names, they get a free 6 pack of coke. If someone says a name of their competitors, the counter resets to zero. So all of the characters start saying Coke over and over again. One person says that Coke almost tastes as good as Pepsi and the entire group reacts extremely hostile to that person because the counter reset to zero.

Another example of this is in the book that the Feed listens in on everyone's conversations. So if someone were to say something, they start getting notifications and emails for products and services based off of their conversations. Seem familiar? Keep in mind, this book came out pre-google and pre-amazon. Basically, corporations can put influence and some sort of control of the words that people say in this book.

I guess the main point of the book is that we have been warned over and over again by our history of what happens when governments limit our free speech in the name of a political ideology, but what happens when the same feat is done with corporations? Are corporations limiting free speech like Facebook and Twitter and YouTube etc. when they deplatform people? What about the ethical argument of corporations listening in our conversations and trying to compel people to say certain things in the name of money?

I read this book and wanted to throw up the first time I read it.

Banned Book Week

Every year, towards the end of September and beginning of October there is a certain event that schools across the country take part in. It's called Banned Book Week! This event spotlights current and historical attempts to censor books in libraries and schools. Bringing together librarians, publishers, journalists, teachers, and readers of all types who are involved in the "book community."

So, why is this week so special?


Well Banned Books Week features books from every author and background that have been removed or restricted in any libraries or schools. The purpose of this week is really to draw national attention to the problem of censorship that causes the removal and restriction to books. 


Background

Back in the 1980s there was a lot of book challenges, organized protests, and Supreme Court cases that covered the American news. The most memorable case was Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982) Supreme Court case, which ruled that school officials can not ban books from libraries (in schools or not) because of their content. 

Judith Krug

The first ever "Banned Book Week" was held in 1982 American Booksellers Association (ABA) trade show in Anaheim, California. The convention center had metal cages filled with nearly 500 challenged books stacked inside with padlocks and a sign reading that the books were dangerous for the public. This event proved to have major success in getting the general populations attention.

After proving how successful this exhibit was, the ABA invited Judith Krug and the National Association of College Stores to join what they had favorably named "Banned Books Week." They quickly put together showcases by September with the serious intention of continuing the conversation about banned books.


This tradition is still continued today, and the topic of banned books will forever be held so long as the event is held on its annual days. Banned Books Week now covers mainstream media and reaches at least 2.8 billion readers, and has 90,000 supporters online. 

Considering Mein Kampf (the Play) and its Implications

As we have just watched Max, I decided that it would be useful to structure my post around similar subject material. As such, I'll be writing about a play which debuted in 1987 and the potential implications of its existence.

In 2018 a production of the satirical play "Mein Kampf" was performed in Constance, Germany. Before the play could debut, however, it became involved in controversy, as its host theatre offered anyone willing to wear a swastika free admission to the play (which I originally learned about here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43821564). Most of the controversy around this showing of the play seems more concerned with this method of gaining free entry into the play than the play's actual contents. While the play's director claims that way of gaining free entry is meant to make a statement about human corruptibility, some found the gimmick insensitive or even dangerous. Although I know little about German law, the BBC article I referenced earlier explained the legality of the "Mein Kampf" play when it stated that" German law bans the use of symbols of unconstitutional organisations. But that does not apply where art is concerned and because the spectators are considered part of an artistic production they are not breaking German law either." Please keep that definition in mind.

From what I could tell, Nazi imagery can be used in art as long as its use isn't anti-constitutional (which we might interpret as pro-Nazi or Holocaust denying). However, anti-constitutional expression is illegal in Germany when separate from art. Even if one considers the banning of all non-artistic Nazi imagery to be a reasonable and effective measure, I've noticed an issue with enacting such a policy: that people have different standards for art. I'm curious to see what others think about Germany's laws around art, as I find it difficult to imagine that officials can consistently distinguish art from anti-constitutional behavior.

The Power of Students' Voices - Weiße Rose

In class, we've definitely seen many instances in which students have worked to speak their minds and protest against injustices. One of these instances, for example, includes the painting of the iconic Cannon replica at Tufts University - students at Tufts have painted their campus's cannon replica with words, colors, symbols, and messages in order to influence change in their university and speak their minds about current events. As university students, it is important to realize the power of our voice and the right we have to fight for what we think should be changed about our schools and our societies.

When looking at past instances of students rising up against injustice, one group has always stood out to me: Weiße Rose (English: White Rose). The White Rose was a group of students and young people in Munich, Germany during the Nazi regime who actively distributed pamphlets calling for citizens to oppose the Nazi regime. Between 1942 and 1943, the White Rose distributed a series of six pamphlets with essays discussing their ideas and calling for action. This, of course, was a very illegal practice at the time and could have resulted in very serious consequences to anyone who took part in these actions.

(Photo: One of the White Rose's leaflets. Source: padresteve.com)

On February 18th, 1943, two founders of the group, students and siblings Hans and Sophie Scholl, brought a suitcase full of White Rose pamphlets and threw them into the common atrium of the University of Munich. Though the pamphlets were anonymously written, university staff spotted the siblings, and they were brought into custody. Hans and Sophie confessed in order to protect the other members of the White Rose from being condemned, and both were executed on February 22nd, 1943, the same day of their trial where they were found guilty.

When I first heard this story at the German Resistance Memorial Center, a museum in Berlin which is dedicated to illuminating those who rebelled against the Nazi regime, I was moved by the extent to which these students were willing to fight for freedom and their freedom of speech and expression. Knowing that Hans and Sophie Scholl were only 24 and 21, respectively, at the time of their trials, it really made me think about the power we have as young students to fight for a change. And although the White Rose isn't talked about in many introductory history courses, they are a popular resistance group from this time of suppression, and the fight they fought for freedom was definitely not in vain.

(Photo: Hans and Sophie Scholl with Cristoph Probst in 1942. Source: holocaustresearchproject.org)

I wanted to share this story because even almost a year after finding out about the White Rose, the story very much sticks with me. Feel free to leave your initial feelings about the White Rose below, and if you would like, comment about how you feel we have power as students and how we can be inspired by the determination of the students of the White Rose.



Sources: German Resistance Memorial Center; "White Rose" on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose)
I would highly recommend looking into their history further if you're at all interested!

A Rollercoaster on YouTube

YouTube has seen many changes and grown profoundly since it was first founded in 2005. Within the last few years, issues of demonetization have been a rollercoaster for YouTubers and viewers to ride.

Note: I am not a YouTuber, just a person who often uses YouTube for watching YouTubers and listening to music. I have noticed what videos get ads and which don’t and how that has changed within the last few years.

YouTubers have always made a portion of their money off of ads. I still remember years ago seeing videos that had multiple little yellow vertical lines in the progress bar that indicated where all the ads were. They have since taken those yellow lines away and now just announce with a countdown of when an ad(s) will start. In the days of the yellow lined ad indicators, YouTube was the place to upload whatever you wanted without concern for Copyright Infringement. You could use a song you like and just have various pictures playing on the screen and that was acceptable. In recent years, YouTube has cracked down on Copyright Infringement, but more than that has changed.

In 2017, ad companies started taking a closer look at the videos their ads were being played on and noticed they were being played on videos with violent/hateful content. Some companies then refused to have their ads on YouTube because of it. This caused YouTube to enter what was referred to as the “Adpocalypse” where YouTube videos were getting demonetized left and right. This was hurting many YouTuber’s profits. While some of the demonetizing was hitting videos and channels that did have hateful/violent content, there were a lot of videos that were getting wrongfully demonetized. YouTube demonetized videos through an algorithm and sometimes it was hitting videos that didn’t have any cursing or violence or sexual references. The algorithms wrongful demonetization of videos were keeping YouTubers from making as much money as they could have to pay their bills. Of course, if a YouTuber got their video demonetized and believed it shouldn’t have been, they could file an appeal and possibly the demonetization would be lifted, but not every time would it be lifted. YouTube insisted that the algorithm was still learning and that given time it would learn how to recognize acceptable content from bad content.

Also in 2017, people found out that there were highly inappropriate videos that were beating the algorithm. And these videos targeted kids. These videos would use characters to tell stories that included violence or sexual content and they would not get demonetized, because cartoons and children’s characters did not seem like they were dangerous. Additionally, there were videos with children where the comment sections were not moderated and had many people posting inappropriate comments. When YouTube found out about this and as more companies were pulling their ads, they worked to take down those videos and channels. They also worked to deactivate the comment sections on videos with minors in them.

In 2019, YouTube was found to be harvesting information from children without their parents’ consent. Channels that were for kids to watch were being used to get children’s information so YouTube would know what ads to attach to the videos. For this YouTube was fined $170 million for violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by the Federal Trade Commision (FTC). This time YouTube decided that if a video or channel’s targeted audience were kids, they would get demonetized and would not receive ads. YouTube channels that only had the goal of educating children and not harvesting their data were punished for aiming their content at children and having ads on them chosen by an algorithm the YouTube channels themselves did not choose. Again it meant they would make less than what they usually would with ads. It is entirely understandable how using children’s data to have ads targeted at them is bad, but ads are how YouTube channels make money. YouTube also decided to shift the responsibility of content onto the YouTubers. Videos that had subject matter appealing to children and were not declared for children would receive a fine of $42,000 per video by the FTC. This subject matter included cartoons, gaming videos, playful music, bright thumbnails, catchy phrases, and other things. This caused some YouTubers to fear for their channels, because these broad terms could be applied to many different things. Some felt they had to walk a fine line between making sure their content did not include adult material and making sure it did not include subject matter that appealed to kids. Many had to fear getting demonetized without knowing why even though they believed themselves to be within that thin line.

In late 2019, YouTube realized more adult content, like cursing and some sexual references, could be monetized. There were YouTubers who could create content that was for people over 13 or 18 and could just have ads that were more adult, like for Rated-R movies or underwear ads. I especially thought the 2020 Valentine AdoreMe ad was a great more-adult ad to have on videos and was honestly one of the few ads I would willingly watch all the way through because it had a good message. This change has allowed more YouTubers with more adult audiences to feel comfortable cursing in their videos.

YouTube has gone on a rollercoaster with their policies and what is allowed/not allowed. Much of it was in hopes to make YouTube safer for children, which was the right thing to do, but their algorithm has had its blind spots and sometimes demonetized videos that did not violate policy. They even demonetize content that references touchy topics, like the Coronavirus and other topics. All these changes over the years has had an impact on what people feel they can and cannot say in their videos with fear of how it will affect their income. Some YouTubers say they feel as though YouTube is only choosing to do something when companies decide to pull away from allowing their ads from playing on videos. It sometimes seemed as though other companies realized what was going bad before YouTube did. Of course, there is only so much a platform like YouTube can do since there is a great number of videos posted daily and they are using an algorithm that does not have the same judgement as a person. However, only doing things when they start to lose money kinda makes it seem though YouTube chooses profits over employees and viewers. Ideally though, no one would ever post inappropriate content that included children or targeted children and no one would ever make inappropriate comments on videos with children and parents would make sure their children do not watch videos that are for older audiences. Ideally, YouTube would not have to step in as much as they do, but with so many bad things happening, it seems like that’s the only way to solve things.


Sources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypNhbm141Gg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPjX5hDuPo&t=6s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mnTCYsbKfw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_K-shDq-kM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK2t9V3XvmU&t=21s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHuMZ2hbjz8&t=915s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUzBrxQ_47s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCm_p7R9Gvo&t=4s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4v7hkS-ktk&t=38s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExPUNAtbNNs

https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/4/21164553/youtube-coronavirus-demonetization-sensitive-subjects-advertising-guidelines-revenue
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/12/20/21025139/youtube-kids-coppa-law-ftc-2020
https://youtube.fandom.com/wiki/YouTube_Adpocalypse