Fringe YouTubers are profiting off-platform

Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge

In order to discourage controversial or offensive content without banning it, YouTube has stripped ads from problematic channels. The creators of those channels can still use their videos to promote other sources of income. A new study shows that the options have allowed problematic channels to continue but may also be encouraging them to create more videos on YouTube.

A new peer-reviewed study by researchers at Cornell Tech and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne found that fringe creators of alt-right and anti-feminist videos use their channels to promote their other income streams. A large-scale look at how creators make money across platforms and how fringe creators could continue to make money even if they were demonetized will be presented in November.

The study looked at over 71 million English language videos from 136,00 YouTube channels. Researchers looked for four different ways to monetize below videos, including soliciting cash donations, asking for cryptocurrencies, selling products, and affiliate marketing. Content channels that produce alt-right, alt-lite, and misogynist content were more likely to use alternative monetization methods than their counterparts.

The researchers argue that moderation through demonetization is not likely to be an effective tool in disincentivizing the production of problematic content, and may even result in a shift of content produced towards committed audiences.

Getting videos demonetized on YouTube doesn't mean the content is bad. Mentions of the coronaviruses have been cut from the revenue sharing that YouTube gives to advertisers. Small creators who aren't eligible for the program often ask fans to support them in other ways off- platform, and alternative monetization isn't inherently a bad thing.

Sixty-one percent of channels did it at least once, and 18 percent of videos contained an appeal. It is likely that more creators use alternative monetization now than in the past, as subscription-based platforms continue to grow.

A channel's output increased 43 percent in the first year after linking alternative monetization methods in a video description, according to the paper. Researchers were unable to make a connection between the two, but they say their findings show the importance of outside monetization in what kind of content is created.

As platforms draft their moderation policies and execute their moderation decisions, they usually just think about their own platform.

Content creators use a variety of alternatives to get financial support, with more than half of channels using at least one. To compare fringe channels and their counterparts, researchers controlled for content category, like politics, music, or blogs, as well as video output and viewership. 48 percent of fringe channels link to platforms like Patreon, compared to only 28 percent of their counterparts.

The fringe creators in the study made thousands of dollars off of off-platform monetization. The median income of the 150 channels that plugged a Patreon link or an ethics or digital currency address was $5,540 and $1,155, respectively. A number of them have earned over $100,000.

According to Taylor, creators must meet a high bar to monetize on the site and are subject to an external links policy that prohibits spam or otherwise violates community guidelines.

We review and remove channels that don't comply with our policies.

Major YouTubers like James Charles and political pundit Steven Crowder have been punished for bad behavior on and off the platform, with YouTube cutting advertising from their videos. The study raises questions about how effective demonetization is in disincentivizing the creation of fringe content.

Researchers hope platforms will take findings into account when crafting policies for creators. It is important for researchers to understand who is making money from what sources.

We don't know who gets demonetized, who doesn't, and why.