The Current YouTube Debacle

YouTube is kind of a big thing for me. I'm a cord-cutter, and have been for a long time now: when I got my first solo apartment, I looked into cable prices and realized that a basic package was just far too much more than I was willing to spend for what I'd get and what I'd get out of it. It was at that point that I started looking into alternatives, and began the arduous task of downloading episodes of television shows over a dial-up connection.

To you millenials, this may sound shocking. You think the internet is your ally. I was born in dial-up. I didn't see high-speed, always-on connections until I was a man. (Obligatory Bane reference complete.)

I like YouTube because it provides a platform for a lot of voices, and a way for those voices to monetize their content so that they can continue to provide content as long as people keep patronizing, keep clicking, and keep viewing. It allows me to watch music, entertainment, and news from sources that are not approved by one of the few major satellite or cable content providers. Without it, I'd be stuck with Syfy or CNN, The Home Shopping Network or FOX News. Instead, I can listen to arguments from all sides of an issue, from rational to emotional to paranoid.

Recently, several prominent and many more obscure content creators have been hit with automated notices that their content has been demonetized. In other words, they haven't been silenced; they haven't been removed; they're just not making money anymore when people watch their content. Ostensibly, this is due to YouTube's concern over advertisers, as the pre-scripted message provided to the video producers indicates.

The Rules. So, really, nothing is monetizable anymore. 

The first major case was 10+ year veteran vlogger Philip DeFranco, whose video regarding the woman who claimed she was harassed by a Lyft driver revealed that she was being abusive and harassing because he had a bobble-headed hula doll (the kind they practically issue you when you step off the plane in "the continent of Hawaii", to use her wording) on his dashboard. 

There was a knee-jerk reaction, as his video did include the acronym "SJW" in the title and Google has publicly invited some of the more notorious "anti-harassment" advocates to their headquarters before, but the tide quickly shifted when a producer for The Young Turks (basically the FOX News of the Left and arch-rivals with Alex Jones) tweeted that they were hit by a massive demonetization wave that affected over 500 of their videos. 

That tweet, coincidentally, is now unavailable. I suspect it's because a progressive was referring to it as censorship when there was no government intervention and no one was silenced... just de-funded. Fortunately, the internet never forgets. 

Then came the smaller channels. One lost revenue on a video about depression, another over a video on how to conceal acne. Even videos about suicide prevention by Boogie2988, the Internet's nicest guy, weren't safe.

My theory here, as one of YouTube's support Twitter accounts will not shut up about, is that they're doing it to push YouTube Red. YTR is a subscription-based service that feeds money to participating content creators, based on their view-counts, from the subscription money instead of advertising revenue. By de-monetizing regular YouTube videos, Google hopes to force content creators to switch to using YouTube Red instead. 

Let me give you an idea of the impact this would have on someone who isn't a content creator, but merely a subscriber. I don't have a webcam, and I don't particularly like being on camera, so I watch, listen, and learn. I take in a great number of various voices and viewpoints by listening to scientific lectures, entertainment podcasts, and political rants from all around the spectrum while I play video games. One of my favourite things to do after work is to put my feet up, boot up something like Assassin's Creed or Fallout, and wander around the map picking up collectibles and climbing towers while learning new and different things. So while this doesn't affect me directly, it does upset me that YouTube is doing this because YouTube is probably the Google product that I use the most. 

My fear is that this demonetization push is going to reduce YouTube to cat videos and make-up tutorials, with content creators that want to discuss serious topics fleeing to smaller, less reliable platforms for fear of their livelihoods. After all, if regular YouTube did this to them, who's to say that youTube Red won't do exactly the same later on?

Google:  Please don't do this. If this was a bot, turn it off. If this was a conscious decision, reverse it. You don't realize how important YouTube is to some people's day-to-day lives. It's a more powerful information and entertainment platform than any network or cable television channel, and you're neutering it.

The Thor Question

A few months ago, I spoke at some length about how I wasn't terribly pleased with the news that Marvel had decided to 'make Thor a woman' and my reasons for feeling this way. I think I was rather rational about it, and it turns out that some of my concerns may have been alleviated, but some may still remain.

I encourage the reader to look back on that article, as it's relevant today when we take a look at the major factor that I could not, at the time, cover: Will it be any good?

Three months or so have passed since the book launched, and three issues have been released that I've been able to obtain and read. To summarize what's happened, during a battle on the moon, Nick Fury (who'd recently stolen the secrets of Uatu the Watcher) whispered something in Thor's ear that stopped him in his tracks and made him drop his hammer. Thor had been on the moon , basically sulking and trying to lift Mjolnir unsuccessfully. Becoming broody and unresponsive, his mother Frigga (filling in for Odin) is naturally concerned for him, and Odin himself returns and attempts to lift the hammer, failing in this as well.

The Asgardians finally leave the moon at the end of the first issue, and an unidentified woman approaches the hammer, says to herself that there must always be a Thor, and lifts it easily, empowering her with Thor's abilities and covering her in Thor-esque armour. About this time, Malekith (disappointingly looking nothing like Christopher Eccleston) launches an attack on an undersea research base owned by Marvel corporation Roxxon with a legion of Frost Giants after beating up a Mjolnir-less Thor, chopping his arm off, and wearing it as a scarf for the next few issues. The woman now wielding the hammer returns to Earth and attacks the Frost Giants as they make their way up from the ocean floor to a floating Roxxon base. 

Sir Not Appearing In This Book

 So the questions are: Have my concerns been laid to rest and, more importantly, is it any good?

To the first: Not completely. I will say that in three issues so far, she has not once referred to herself as Thor, and no one has positively identified her AS Thor. As I explained previously, I'm perfectly OK with Thor being somehow deemed not worthy to hold the hammer, and if anyone could convince him that he's not it's Nick Fury (with or without Watcher knowledge). I'm still not sure why Odin of all people can't lift it, and that had better be explained as well, as he's the one that enchanted Mjolnir to begin with. What I wouldn't be ok with is literally calling this woman Thor, as she's clearly not. Thor is the man's (god's?) name. It's not a title or an office like “Captain America” or “Iron Man.” You don't put James Rhodes in an Iron Man suit and call him Tony Stark, you call him War Machine. You don't give Bucky Barnes the Red/White/Blue and call him Steve Rogers, you call him Captain America. I'm perfectly ok with either a) turning Thor into a woman or b) giving the status of God(dess) of Thunder to another person, but you don't just give someone's name away. It's a bit disrespectful, and so far that hasn't happened, but I hear in a future issue it might. As an addendum to the points I've made previously, I'm perfectly fine with a woman taking over a traditionally male character, if it's done right. Renee Montoya's been one of my favorite supporting Batman characters, and when she took over the role of The Question, I was thrilled. DC did not disappoint there. But we didn't start calling her Vic Sage. She was still Renee Montoya, just in The Question's mask/suit. 

Seriously, go read Crime Bible: Five Lessons In Blood. DC can do diversity well.

As for the Goddess of Thunder's identity.. that's still not been revealed. I can tell, through dialogue, that it's not one of my top three picks for female replacements for Thor, though. There's an internal monologue portrayed through thought bubbles that this woman is clearly not used to having superpowers, which rules out Valkyrie, Carol Danvers (Ms/Captain Marvel), and Angela, and a scene in which she's isolated from the hammer briefly and starts to lose her powers confirms this. And as for that dialogue.. it's very cringey. It honestly feels like they're half-assing Spider-man's insecure internal monologueing for whoever this is, and it makes the character feel a little unlikeable.

In short, the book's a bit dull, and it feels like it's riding off the mystery and controversy of a female Thor without actually bringing a good story, and that's kind of disappointing. As much as I was dead-set against what Marvel seemed to be doing, I was still holding out hope they'd surprise me. So far, I haven't been. So far I've been kinda bored, but I'm going to stick around and see how it turns out. Avengers: Age of Ultron is only a few months out now, and I'm going to be very cross if they dump this and go back to Thor Thor after such a lackluster performance.

Besides, we've already had a proper female Thor. And she was a goddess to begin with.

I think it's telling that, for a review of this book, I've spent so little time actually talking about what happens in this book. I'm hoping it picks up soon, because it's got a lot of ground to cover before AoU comes out.

OH LAWDY THOR'S A WOMAN

Have a new Salem

*Here, and I was worried a topic would not present itself for me to write upon this week..*

     So the other day it was announced the Marvel's Thor was now going to be a woman. Well, that was the announcement, but as you'll see in the linked press release, it's actually a bit more of a complicated situation than that.

     Thor is being judged unworthy (which has happened before) and the hammer is going to be wielded by someone else (which has also happened before). For a while, a horse alien held Mjolnir. Captain America, Storm, a few artificial life forms, and others have held the hammer in regular continuity. Outside of regular continuity, Superman, Rogue, Wonder Woman, and one of the various Spider-men have held it. Magneto even used it for a while (relying on his magnetic powers rather than being worthy of it). So I want to make it perfectly clear that I'm OK with someone else holding the hammer. I'm even OK with someone else headlining the Thor books. Some of the best stories were told when Hercules was headlining Hulk while he was off-planet being a gladiatorial emperor, and I can't think of something that would be more awesome than Valkyrie carrying around Mjolnir and headlining Thor for a while.

     Marvel's made a lot of (gasp) progressive changes that have resulted in some interesting outcomes. Hispanic Spider-Man over in the Ultimate U. The Fearless Defenders book. Ms Marvel being promoted to Captain Marvel, along with the flightsuit/mohawk look. Countless other little changes and seeds that show they've been playing a long game to make their worlds more diverse and interesting, and I applaud them for it. They've managed to make a lot of little changes that don't feel like “tokens,” telling good stories and making changes in the world that feel natural, all the while DC Comics has been trying to play catch-up and falling flat on their faces. Just like the real world, change is slow, painful, and gradual, but it feels natural when done that way. You can't change a world overnight without the entire thing collapsing.

     So with all of this in mind, I do actually have a problem with Thor being a woman, the way they've framed it. As I understand it, and these are from the words of the creative team, Thor is not turning into a woman. If Thor were turning into a woman, I'd be more OK with this, as he's a demigod. The rules are, always have been, and always should be, unclear on what limitations that can be placed on a demigod's physiology. No, this is a character that is in Thor's life, idolizes him, looks up to him, and when Thor is judged unworthy, he is stripped of his power, his hammer, and his name, and it is given to her instead. In my eyes, this is a total disrespect to both characters. You're taking a character's very birth name from him, the name given him by his mother and father (coincidentally, demigods themselves), and you're giving it to someone else. Not even Loki, who slept with a horse, gave birth to a baby horse, and brought about Ragnarok, ever had his own name taken from him. You're literally taking his identity away.

     And here's the part where I don't understand why more people concerned with diversity are upset. Why Joss Whedon and TheMarySue and all the other female-centric-viewpoint-friendly outlets aren't rioting. You're taking a woman, erasing her previous identity, and giving her a new one, based on an existing character. There was speculation for a bit that a previously existing female character, likely one of Marvel's super-powered blondes, would take over. Honestly, being a fan of both Valkyrie and Ms/Captain Marvel (likely candidates to stand in for Thor, based on appearance and power levels), I am certainly hoping that is not the case. Both of these characters have a pretty rich history and stand on their own merits, and to have all of that taken away from them and just have “THOR” pasted over it would be pretty insulting. There's a lot of really awesome pre-existing female characters in the Marvel U that I'm now worried about, because I want them to keep existing as who they are, and not having the identity of Thor pasted over theirs.

     Of course, this is all speculation. It could be a cynical publicity stunt. It could all be reset to status quo inside of 2 years. It could turn out to be a fantastic story that all makes sense once its taken in context with the events surrounding it. But from the information they've given so far, it's just.. kinda worrying. From some of my previous posts, I've made it clear that I enjoy stories with female protagonists. I've been reading some of Marvel's female characters for close to 20 years now. I want to see more and better things done with them, but one thing I don't want to see is a characterized game of matroyska dolls where someone like Carol Danvers or Emma Frost is swallowed up by another character.

    

Also, why was this announced on The View? Since when was The View considered a source of comic book news?