Let’s talk about Casey Neistat being demonetized by YouTube

In the wake of the tragedy in Las Vegas, Casey Neistat took to YouTube to use his platform to raise over $300,000 for the victims. He also said any and all adsense earned would go to the charity as well. However, YouTube’s position on not allowing tragedies to be monetized kicked in, and has sparked an interesting discussion of which I’m on both sides of.



► AMAZON: https://www.amazon.com/shop/mundanematt

► PATREON – http://patreon.com/MundaneMatt

► PAYPAL: paypal.me/mundanematt


► PO Box No. 13064

► Subscribe here:

► 3 Buck Theater:

► MundaneChats

►Reddit: http://reddit.com/r/mundanematt

Website: http://mundanematt.com
Email: themundanematt@gmail.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mundanematt
Facebook: http://facebook.com/mundanematt
Google+: http://plus.google.com/+mundanematt

All footage taken falls under ”fair use” of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (1998). Therefore, no breach of privacy or copyright has been committed. Freedom of speech is the ability to speak without censorship.


32 thoughts on “Let’s talk about Casey Neistat being demonetized by YouTube”

  1. odd, they seem to put their ads on msnbs type uploads about this shit..just not anybody whos not one of their big advertisers perhaps? or could it be the pushing of the "trust the msm everything else is fake news" ?

    both? probably both…

  2. Why can't there be one or two of these options: 1. If you choose to monetize your videos, you should be allowed to choose who you, the youtuber, want to advertise on your videos. 2. When you choose to monetize your videos, you should be allowed to select an option that says what your video contains. Not the tag system, but like one of those dumb multiple choice options that you can click telling what is/isn't in your videos. Like a survey.

  3. But they broke their own policy and their media team has the audacity to say, "but we treat everyone the same" when it is shown they are not based on the premier ads. That is the bigger problem I see with youtube where they give some people a pass if they have some connections. If a business wants to show they treat everyone the same, they cannot be caught or shown to be lying out of their butts each time they try to say they are working on it.
    This argument was done long ago when it first began before when youtube was still new and advertisers were beginning to question what happens if their ads were shown in a controversial video and the public might misconstrue them to support the video. The consensus of the time was that this was computer generated and that it was not an endorsement of the video shown. The best thing the companies can do is saying this is computer generated and by no means an endorsement of the video….
    But now, everyone needs to be PC and since everything is related to Kevin Bacon, we should just stop advertising on youtube.

  4. And people still believe that YouTube will eventually turn itself around, lol, believe it people, YouTube has made enough money off of you, and is now kicking you away, just because Susan Wojcicki SAID she'll change things around, doesn't mean she WILL

  5. Their argument holds no water, MSM news channels have ads on all of their Vegas videos, and beyond that you can't even make the argument that advertisers would have a problem with an ad playing in front of one of the Vegas videos because they run ads on television networks that will talk about Vegas and cut straight to commercial for Applebees or Lowe's or any other giant corporation they claim has an issue with YouTube video content.

  6. Yes Matt advertisers do have that right except youtube is denying that right by restricting some content. Hell if I sold guns , I would not want to be unable to place my ads on gun channels or gaming channels that show mil sims. Yet those channels have been hit hard because youtube demonetized them.

  7. This only shows that YouTube no longer has the creators' interests in mind. Advertisers have their hands around it, with a tight grip. They are the ones in charge and they're the ones who say how YouTube should run its business.

    I guess that even if someone made a competitor to YouTube, it would end in the exact same situation. There's no running from it.

  8. Also if you say I will be donating the adsense to charity, this is tantamount to incentivising viewers to click the ads which is against the adsense TOS. It causes low conversion rates for advertisers as viewers only click to increase the donation size and not to buy the product or service.

  9. Matt, The Adpocalpse was just an excuse to crack down on us plebs that started getting too uppity for the higher ups liking. They will gleefully post adds on tragedies themselves.

    YouTube's rules are for controlling us filthy peasants from getting to powerful, corporate can do what ever they damn well please, including buying there way to the top of the mass consciousness of this site (trending).

    You know this is true.

  10. At this point I can't help but wonder if the advertisers are even aware of what's being flagged as friendly or unfriendly on their behalf, surely any company would leap at the chance to have its product slapped onto a charity effort that contributes more money the more people look at their ad?

  11. Im just waiting for a content creator to create a new platform. I could only assume it would be casey honestly. Even though he is a leftest. i would support him and his site hoping he does not apply his political beliefs to his platform like he has his channel.

  12. Thirty seconds?
    About an hour ago there was a four and a half minute ad before a video.
    I hit the skip button so hard my finger went through my phone, through the crust, mantle, and core of the Earth and ended up poking some guy in Australia in the eye.

Leave a Reply