Tiered Governance and Demonetization: The Shifting Terms of Labor and Compensation in the Platform Economy
Open accessAbstract
Social media platforms have profoundly transformed cultural production, in part by restructuring the terms by which culture is distributed and paid for. In this article, we examine the YouTube Partner Program and the controversies around the “demonetization” of videos, to understand these arrangements and what happens when they shift beneath creators’ feet. We use the testimony of YouTubers, provided in their own videos, to understand how creators square the contradiction between YouTube’s increasingly cautious rules regarding “advertiser-friendly” content, its shifting financial and algorithmic incentive structure, and its stated values as an open platform of expression. We examine YouTube’s tiered governance strategy, in which different users are offered different sets of rules, different material resources, and different procedural protections when content is demonetized. And we examine how, especially when the details of that tiered governance are ambiguous or poorly conveyed, creators develop their own theories for why their content has been demonetized—which can provide some creators a tactical opportunity to advance politically motivated accusations of bias against the platform.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
YouTube uses different levels of compensation, ranging from demonetised to advertiser friendly.
“YouTube uses different levels of compensation, ranging from ‘demonetised’ to ‘advertiser friendly’.”
From Content Creators Between Platform Control and User Autonomy: The Role of Algorithms and Revenue Sharing (2023) · cites this paper as Caplan and Gillespie 2020
Advertiser-friendly content complies with YouTube's content policies and is approved for advertising revenue.
“The content complies with YouTube’s content policies and is approved for advertising revenue”
From Content Creators Between Platform Control and User Autonomy: The Role of Algorithms and Revenue Sharing (2023) · cites this paper as Caplan and Gillespie 2020
Content is rewarded or punished by incentivisation, which may limit content creators' autonomy.
“content is certainly rewarded or punished by incentivisation (Caplan and Gillespie 2020), which may limit content creators’ autonomy”
From Content Creators Between Platform Control and User Autonomy: The Role of Algorithms and Revenue Sharing (2023) · cites this paper as Caplan and Gillespie 2020
Many content creators paid attention to being classified as 'advertiser friendly'.
“Many content creators also told us that they paid attention to being classified as ‘advertiser friendly’ (Caplan and Gillespie 2020, p. 4).”
From Content Creators Between Platform Control and User Autonomy: The Role of Algorithms and Revenue Sharing (2023) · cites this paper as Caplan and Gillespie 2020
Punishments continue to be effective and content creators deliberately try to be classified as advertiser friendly.
“We also reinforce Lin et al.’s (2022) study that punishments continue to be effective and content creators deliberately try to be classified as advertiser friendly (Caplan and Gillespie 2020, p. 4).”
From Content Creators Between Platform Control and User Autonomy: The Role of Algorithms and Revenue Sharing (2023) · cites this paper as Caplan and Gillespie 2020
Incentivisation still certainly promotes or punishes content.
“However, incentivisation still certainly promotes or punishes content (Caplan and Gillespie 2020; Lin et al. 2022).”
From Content Creators Between Platform Control and User Autonomy: The Role of Algorithms and Revenue Sharing (2023) · cites this paper as Caplan and Gillespie 2020
Cites
A Ladder Of Citizen Participation
Arnstein, S. R. (1969) · Journal of the American Institute of Planners · doi:10.1080/01944366908977225 · Cited by 17,064 · see citing works
Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets
Rochet, J.-C., & Tirole, J. (2003) · Journal of the European Economic Association · doi:10.1162/154247603322493212 · Cited by 5,642 · see citing works
Terranova, T. (2000) · Social Text · doi:10.1215/01642472-18-2_63-33 · Cited by 1,749 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sociotechnical Harms of Algorithmic Systems: Scoping a Taxonomy for Harm Reduction
Shelby, R., Rismani, S., Henne, K., Moon, A., Rostamzadeh, N., Nicholas, P., Yilla-Akbari, N., Gallegos, J., Smart, A., Garcia, E., et al. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3600211.3604673 · Cited by 279 · see citing works
Cotter, K. (2023) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2021.1994624 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
The Disagreement Deconvolution: Bringing Machine Learning Performance Metrics In Line With Reality
Gordon, M. L., Zhou, K., Patel, K., Hashimoto, T., & Bernstein, M. S. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445423 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
To Live in Their Utopia: Why Algorithmic Systems Create Absurd Outcomes
Alkhatib, A. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445740 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
SoK: Content Moderation in Social Media, from Guidelines to Enforcement, and Research to Practice
Singhal, M., Ling, C., Paudel, P., Thota, P., Kumarswamy, N., Stringhini, G., & Nilizadeh, S. (2023) · 2023 IEEE 8th European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P) · doi:10.1109/eurosp57164.2023.00056 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Hödl, T., & Myrach, T. (2023) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-023-00808-9 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Safe from “harm”: The governance of violence by platforms
DeCook, J. R., Cotter, K., Kanthawala, S., & Foyle, K. (2022) · Policy & Internet · doi:10.1002/poi3.290 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
“I know it's sensitive”: Internet censorship, recoding, and the sensitive word culture in China
Ye, W., & Zhao, L. (2023) · Discourse, Context & Media · doi:10.1016/j.dcm.2022.100666 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Huang, Y., & Ye, W. (2024) · Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies · doi:10.1177/13548565231211117 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Mapping the transnational imaginary of social media genres
Hallinan, B., Kim, B., Scharlach, R., Trillò, T., Mizoroki, S., & Shifman, L. (2023) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448211012372 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Seeing the Politics of Decentralized Social Media Protocols
Oshinowo, T., Hwang, S., Zhang, A. X., & Monroy-Hernández, A. (2026) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3816995 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Prior work has shown how such platforms embed particular distributions of power through design choices around moderation, algorithmic feeds, and visibility [e.g., 20, 30, 37, 50].”
Platform super user: Examining Google Arts & Culture’s cultural production
Berard, B., & Smith, S. E. K. (2026) · Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies · doi:10.1177/13548565251413321
“…frame, platforms have also been assessed in relation to their dynamics of moderation (Gillespie, 2018; Roberts, 2019); governance structure (Caplan and Gillespie, 2020; Duffy and Meisner, 2023; Gorwa, 2019); algorithms (Duffy, 2020; Pasquale, 2015); and in terms of platform content with…”
“Creator burnout is real”: Risk, responsibility, and un/speakability in the creator economy
Nguyen, R., & Duffy, B. E. (2026) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448261459667 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Caplan, R., & Gillespie, T.
- Affiliations
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Cornell University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gillespie, Tarleton
- Venue
- Social Media + Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-04
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 2056-3051 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3036998917
- Cited by
- 283
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 50 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 51.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Social Media + Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Economy and Work Transformation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Media and Digital Communication
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Keywords
- demonetization, YouTubers, platform work, social networking sites, platform governance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
