- YouTube will begin only showing abbreviated subscriber counts on its platform starting in August.
- The change is expected to impact third-party sites like Social Blade, that track real-time subscribers losses and gains.
- Though it’s unclear why YouTube has decided to make the change, many note that it comes during a time when subscriber changes have been heavily focused on in several recent online feuds.
Abbreviated Sub Counts Announced
Youtube announced a major change to the way it displays channel subscriber counts on Tuesday, which could stop third-party analytic sites like Social Blade from displaying real-time subscriber losses and gains.
In a blog post on YouTube’s support page, the company said it will soon display only abbreviated public subscriber counts across the platform, instead of full counts.
“To create more consistency everywhere that we publicly display subscriber counts, starting in August 2019, we’ll begin showing the abbreviated subscriber number across all public YouTube surfaces,” the post reads.
“For channels with fewer than 1,000 subscribers, the exact (non-abbreviated) subscriber count will still be shown. Once your channel passes the 1000 subscriber milestone, we will begin to abbreviate your public subscriber numbers on a sliding scale.”
The company laid out a few examples of what the changes will look like. For example, if a channel has 7,237,932 subscribers, then YouTube will display the count as simply 7.2M.
Impact on Social Blade
This might not seem like a huge deal, but it could potentially change the current culture on YouTube.
Whenever social media influencers are involved in any online controversies, viewers first jump to third-party sites like Social Blade to see if the drama is negatively or positively impacting the creators involved.
In the announcement, YouTube specifically states: “Third parties that use YouTube’s API Services will also access the same public facing counts you see on YouTube. Creators will still be able to see their exact number of subscribers in YouTube Studio.”
When asked by users if this update will affect its numbers, Social Blade didn’t appear to be too concerned, tweeting that it should still be able to present accurate data on the site.
But minutes later, Social Blade followed up with another post, writing, “Upon closer look, it might affect our data display, but only time will tell.”
Social Blade later tweeted that it had reached out to YouTube for clarification and is waiting to hear back.
In a statement to the Verge, the CEO of Social Blade Jason Urgo confirmed that he was still waiting on a response, but added, “it appears like it will hit any third party which would include us as well.”
Subscriber Counts & YouTube Drama
Though YouTube has not directly given a reason for the change, many have noted that it comes at a time when YouTube sub counts have been closely monitored by viewers. Unsubscribing from a YouTuber after any scandal is one of the easiest ways viewers can pull back their support and it’s become a bigger and bigger focus in recent months.
The focus on real-time subscriber changes were seen all throughout PewDiePie’s battle with T-Series, during all of the drama that unfolded in the beauty community between James Charles, Tati Westbrook, and Jeffree Star, and even more recently after popular gamer Turner “Tfue” Tenny sued the gaming collective FaZe Clan.
During all of these massively followed feuds, sub counts have even been live streamed on channels dedicated to tracking the changes, often using data from Social Blade.
The public’s growing interest in taunting creators over subscriber losses has helped sites like Social Blade rise in popularity. Earlier this week, the site thanked its visitors for the increase in traffic that has poured in during the last few weeks alone.
What's even more impressive then that though, I was looking through the list of sites in the top 500 in the US and they list "Daily Time on Site" (basically "watch time" for websites, and guess what… We are NUMBER ONE! WOW!!!! (and #2 in the global list!!)— Social Blade (@SocialBlade) May 21, 2019
It’s unclear if any of the community’s drama or the rise in online cancel culture playing any role in YouTube’s decision. Regardless, it could change the way users follow subscriber changes in future online controversies.
See what others are saying: (The Verge) (Tubefilter) (9to5Google)
U.K. Report Faces Backlash for Saying the Country Is Not “Structurally Racist”
- A government report looking at racism in the U.K. claims the country isn’t “structurally racist.”
- The report, published Wednesday, said other factors play a much larger role in the outcome of someone’s life, especially their economic status.
- It also highlighted some successes the U.K. has experienced regarding race, particularly with narrowing pay gaps and increasing employment rates.
- Many criticized the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities and Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government for releasing the document, saying that it failed to account for underlying racial factors in many of its findings.
The U.K. government and Prime Minister Boris Johnson are facing backlash after releasing a report on Wednesday that claims the country isn’t “structurally racist.”
The report, by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, didn’t say racism didn’t exist in the country or that it was a post-racial society yet, but it did say that system wasn’t rigged against minorities.
The 258-page report comes after a series of protests in the U.K. involving race, including demonstrations following the police killing of George Floyd in the U.S. It covered a wind range of topics, ultimately stating, “Most of the disparities we examined, which some attribute to racial discrimination, often do not have their origins in racism.”
For example, it claimed that the increased rate of COVID-19 deaths among Black and South Asian groups wasn’t due to racism, but “mainly due to an increased risk of exposure to infection,” by living in high-density urban areas and working higher risk jobs such as healthcare or transport. It also found that family structure and social class had a much bigger impact than race on how someone’s life turned out. It also highlighted that children from minority groups performed as well as, or better than, white pupils in schools. Additionally, it said pay disparities overall between minorities and the white majority shrunk down to 2.3%.
It did note that many communities are still “haunted” by “historic cases” of racism that create “deep mistrust” in British society, which could be a barrier to success. It added that “overt and outright racism persists” throughout the nation and particularly online. The Commission’s report additionally pushed for changes within the government itself, such as abandoning the term BAME (meaning Black and Minority Ethnic), saying it’s unhelpful in understanding disparities for specific ethnic groups by lumping them all together.
On top of this, it called for several measures, including a drive to keep users of Class B drugs (amphetamines, marijuana, codeine, and ketamine) away from the criminal justice system. It also proposed a plan to make online anonymous abuse harder to post, to stop the amplification of racists and their views.
Despite these findings and recommendations, the report faced backlash from the opposition Labour Party, which felt that the government was “slamming the door” on people calling for action to tackle the issue. Other critics went on to point out that it also failed to answer some glaring racial disparities, like why Black and Bangladeshi people are disproportionately targeted by police in England and Wales. According to 2019-2020 data from the Home Office, for every 1,000 people, 54 Black people would be stopped and searched by police compared to six white.
The Runnymede Trust, a major race equality think tank, said it was “let down” by the report. Its Chief Executive, Dr. Halim Bergum, went on to heavily criticize it and claimed the idea of the U.K. not being institutionally racist is absurd. “Tell that to the black young mother who is four times more likely to die in childbirth than her young white neighbor.”
“You can’t tell them that, because they are dead,” he continued.
Even some of the commission’s statistical findings were criticized for lacking context. For instance, the report indicated that minorities were more likely to be front-line workers and said that increased exposure led them to contract COVID-19 more often.
Critics point out that they are in those roles because they’re usually insecure and low-paying jobs, and are often the only jobs available to poor minority groups which in turn keeps them trapped in poverty.
See what others are saying: (BBC) (The Guardian) (Financial Times)
What The Zack Snyder Justice League Controversy Really Exposes & Review, ACE Family, Utah Ban, &
Japanese Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Restrictions Unconstitutional
- On Wednesday, a Japanese district court in Sapporo, on the northern island of Hokkaido, ruled for the first time that restrictions against same-sex couples are unconstitutional.
- The court found that while some provisions of the Japanese constitution enshrine marriage as a union between a male and female, they don’t preclude the possibility of same-sex marriages. It also argued that other provisions ensure equal rights under the law for all citizens.
- Other current cases in Japan deal with the same issue regarding same-sex marriage as well as the need to pass legislation on the matter.
- LGBTQ+ people don’t face widespread repression in Japan, but also don’t have the same rights hetero couples enjoy, such as medical visitation rights, the ability to adopt, and spousal income tax deductions.
Editor’s Note: The Japanese government has asked Western outlets to adhere to Japanese naming conventions. To that end, Japanese names will be written as Family Name followed by Given Name.
Legal Victory for Same-Sex Japanese Couples
For the first time in Japanese history, a major court ruled on Tuesday that the government’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.
This case is the first to be decided on out of multiple similar ones brought by 13 couples who coordinated to sue the government on Valentine’s Day 2019 in Sapporo, Tokyo, Osaka, and Nagoya. During proceedings, the government relied on language from Article 24 of the constitution, which states that “Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation with the equal rights of husband and wife as a basis.”
The court agreed with the argument; however, it also agreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that while Article 24 might apply to hetero couples, it doesn’t preclude the right for same-sex couples to marry. Ultimately, the court found the couples’ argument that the government violated Article 14, which guarantees equality under the law, the most compelling.
Following the decision, supporters and the plaintiffs held celebrations outside the courthouse. “My tears didn’t stop flowing. The court took us seriously,” said a plaintiff in his 40s, who uses Kunimi Ryosuke as his pseudonym.
According to a government official, the Justice Ministry will now study the details of the decision and pending lawsuits around the country, although it should be noted that the ruling doesn’t make same-sex marriage legal across all of Japan. Despite lacking widespread authority to change the law, the ruling does hold weight among the other district courts that could lead to changes in the law itself.
Unfortunately for same-sex couples, that process may take some time, as the political will to officially write this into law is “lukewarm at best,” according to the Japan Times. Currently, Japan is the only G7 member state that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage.
Growing Recognition in Japan
Currently, LGTBQ+ rights in Japan are varied. While LGTBQ+ people aren’t specifically targeted and repressed under the law, such as in Saudi Arabia, they aren’t given the same privileges and rights as hetero couples. Prominent examples include the struggle same-sex couples face to be granted medical visitation rights, the ability to make medical decisions for unconscious partners, co-parenting rights, and spousal income tax deductions.
All of this was brought up by Judge Takebe Tomoko Wednesday morning, who admonished the government for not offering “even a degree” of marital benefits to same-sex couples. Local municipalities have tried to rectify the situation by issuing “partnership certificates” to same-sex couples, which grant some of these rights. However, without a national policy, the rights are limited and can often be ignored by institutions.
Despite the drawbacks and ultimately limited nature of the win, activists have still hailed it as a massive victory for LGBTQ+ people in the nation not only because it backs up their right to marry and maintain the same rights as heterosexual individuals, but also because it draws more awareness and gives momentum to a movement that has slowly been gaining ground in the traditionally conservative country.