How do you solve a problem like Youtube? Over a decade (2005-2015), the channel has become a household name, the accepted way to watch video online. It gave us the most level playing field imaginable, but an as-yet under-reported scandal has rocked the site over the last month or so.
This may not be the first controversy in YouTube history, but it is the most significant and lasting, a turning-point after 10 years of one of the world’s most egalitarian platforms.
I’ll explain exactly what this scandal is and what it means going into 2016, but in upcoming blog posts on this subject I’ll be discussing ideas and questions about how YouTube should be re-democratised.
That sounds very official and formal, but it just means YouTube should be fair.
Who are the ‘FineBros’ and what have they done?
To sum it up, the ‘Fine Bros’ are two YouTubers who have made it big using the ‘Reaction video’ format: cheap, spammy content where elderly people react to Miley Cyrus / Millenial teens react to Kurt Cobain etc. with predictable shock, misunderstanding or disgust.
This isn’t a problem in itself (avoiding an online video is as easy as not looking for it) but the ‘FineBros’ kicked off this scandal by trying to trademark the term ‘react‘, a diktat which would have hamstrung half of YouTube.
No movie critiques, no game reviews, no watching live streams – these could all have been classed as ‘reaction’ under this trademark. Fine Bros planned to allow other channels to keep using these formats by ‘franchising’ the idea for a share of profits and control, but this kind of McDonalds-esque mass production is hardly befitting of the weird and wonderful variety of YouTube.
Most YouTubers couldn’t afford to fight legal battles with the Fine Bros, forcing them to give in without a fight, like an innocent person forced to take a guilty plea.
This would be fairly understandable if the FineBros were undisputed masters of creative, innovative content who were merely looking for control/trademark rights over their own small niche. Instead, their videos are (by definition) reactions to other content, and their efforts to control other sections of YouTube extended past individual videos.
Result?
Prominent backlash came from those whose own reaction-type videos were left intact whilst their channels and other videos were taken down or stripped back by YouTube management under an increasingly unclear set of rules. For example, take a look at successful movie reviewer, ‘Nostalgia Critic’ Doug Walker:
‘Hang on a minute, Doug doesn’t even mention the FineBros!’
This is where it becomes apparent that the FineBros are not the problem.
They are only a symptom of the problem.
The Actual Problem
This was the first attempt to monopolise a section of YouTube. Thankfully, it failed following a massive backlash. In fact, it’s backfired so horribly that 500,000 subscribers have vacated the FineBros’ channel since this scandal began.
Nostalgia Critic’s real problem is that YouTube has (in 2016) started to wildly sling copyright accusations anywhere and everywhere. Powerful music channels and small copycats have been ignored whilst a random slew of small-medium sized channels (Channel Awesome probably qualifies as ‘big’, actually) have had copyright claims thrown at them from all sorts of bizarre angles.
FineBros is a symptom of this increasing corporate aggression on YouTube, which the site now seems complicit in. As was the case for ‘I Hate Everything‘ (below), many didn’t even have a reason given for their channels and therefore livelihoods being disrupted.
Why This Matters
The problem is that a new medium like YouTube needs a new way to be regulated. Who exactly should enforce copyright on YouTube has always been skirted over, but the issue can be avoided no longer. Growing money has brought corporations sniffing, looking to squeeze royalties (and subsequently the life) out of YouTube.
Likely some new management is taking over behind the scenes, perhaps the business cliché of an arrogant new boss arriving, a know-it-all from a different field. Someone like this would have no concept of (or care for) the democratic value of YouTube, which was actually recognised in the 2008 Peabody Award which promotes level democratic platforms.
Yes, YouTube may not give everyone the same resources to make videos, but the equal levels of access and promotion are far more important: A simple SLR or webcam can make a hit with the right idea. Any room can play host to a movie critic or music tutor, a peer educator or an amateur cook.
I’ll be continuing this post in 2 more parts, where I go more into the commercialisation of YouTube and what could be done about it. Until then, let me know your thoughts – hope this was educational! 🙂
Harry Brennan - Seeing where it all takes me 
One thought on “Is A Democratic YouTube Practical? Part 1: FineBros”