Creators Call Out YouTube For Demonetizing Videos (dailydot.com)

It's about time... by beheaderaswp · 2016-09-02 08:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

YouTube knows what content it's sponsors appreciate and what they object to.

So this is a good thing. You've got all the freedom of speech you want... but being paid for what you say is not guaranteed. They are not pulling the videos- just making sure sponsors are happy.

This is the way it should be. The market at work.

--
Another consultant who stuck it out.

"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."

Re:It's about time... by PopeRatzo · 2016-09-02 08:57 · Score: 1

The Anonymous Cowards aren't going to like this, no sir. Not one little bit.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 08:59 · Score: 1

Pretty much what I came to say. It would be nice as an advertiser to be able to pick categories of videos I did not want my brand to be associated with.
Re:It's about time... by spire3661 · 2016-09-02 09:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

The people who make a living off of Youtube want to perpetuate the idea that Youtube is the only feasible way to disseminate video speech on the Internet. They want to keep the illusion that this is a 1st Amendment issue when really its a Free Speech issue between private entities. None of them talk about rolling their own video service. They expect everything to be provided and get upset when Google tugs on the reins the creators willingly put on.

--
Good-bye
Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 09:19 · Score: 0

Google has a history of being very bad at communicating about issues that affect revenue streams. From the early days of adwords and today with YouTube payouts, the payouts are not itemized, they are lump sums, and the amounts can fluctuate for the same ad or content even though traffic remains steady for that ad or content. Very few people complain or draw attention to this issue, because, well, don't bite the hand that feeds you, but there have been a lot of very shady things going on over the years at the Good Ship Google.
This story is important because now they are being more open about a process that was kept hidden from people, and those behind-the-scenes decisions have had some significant financial impacts for revenue partners. A lawsuit with a nice settlement is in their future.
Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 09:33 · Score: 0

Yep.. I say ahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha!
SUCK IT crybabies!
Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 09:38 · Score: 0

None of them talk about rolling their own video service.
No one can compete against google. Multibillion dollar efforts have gone against google and failed. What makes you think any person can compete when multinationals that dominate the market cant?
Re:It's about time... by alvinrod · 2016-09-02 09:39 · Score: 1

I think it would be better if Google just marked content according to category (or allowed the video makers to self-designate) and tell the advertisers exactly what kind of content their ad is going to be displayed over. If I'm an organization interested in soliciting donations for child victims of war, I might actually want to advertise on videos that were flagged for being violent due to depictions of war. There's no end of companies that wouldn't mind advertising their more adult products against videos of a similar theme either.

Content creators (at least the bigger ones) are probably better of finding their own sponsors. Who cares about losing a few hundred dollars from Google if you can get a company to pay you a few thousand to personally thank them for sponsoring your content at the start of your next several videos. I'll take a 10 second thank you message at the start of a video if it means I don't have to load some extra crappy ad before the video. The content author can just throw some tits and explosions in at the end to guarantee there's no pre-video ad now as well.
Re: It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 10:18 · Score: 0

You do have a point. But, it's false attribution. Why? Because advertisers don't actually care about naughty language or controversy. They didn't last year and they still don't. This is a money grab. The only way these demonetized videos can make money now is to be YouTube Red videos. That's what changed, not advertisers. Also YouTube is pushing people to Red in other ways starting yesterday. They are now much more aggressively pushing ads and defeating ad blocking.
Re:It's about time... by William+Baric · 2016-09-02 10:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

Either those "sponsors" are a bunch of complete idiots, or this is just a bullshit excuse. If I watch a video from a channel I'm subscribed to, it's almost always because I like the content and view that content in a positive way. And if I view the content in a positive way, even if it's "offensive" to someone else, I will also view the sponsor in a positive way. Maybe the sponsor will view the content in a negative way, but the goal of the advertisement is to make me buy a product, not to make the advertisers feel good about himself.
Re:It's about time... by snakeplissken · 2016-09-02 10:26 · Score: 1

ultimately i see the only (unlikely) solution being the federated approach to social media and content serving a la disapora et al.
with better upload bandwidth in home connections and perhaps ipv6 giving permanent addresses (isps willing) then content creators can negotiate themselves with advertisers, or perhaps form collectives to do so.
early on in the progression from the origins of the interwebs we went down the wrong trouser leg of time and allowed the concept of 'decentralisation' to be replaced with its opposite. imho :)
Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 10:28 · Score: 0

multinationals that dominate the market cant
cant: noun [mass noun] 1 Hypocritical and sanctimonious talk, typically of a moral, religious, or political nature: he had no time for the cant of the priests about sin

Yeah, that sounds about right in the context of your post. :-)
Re:It's about time... by jez9999 · 2016-09-02 10:37 · Score: 1

So all advertisers are hyper-sensitive about their ads theoretically being linked with some content that is theoretically controversial because it contains charged political rhetoric or something?
I find that hard to believe.
And do all advertisers want the same treatment? What if I WANT my company to be associated with edgy political incorrectness, but not fluffy kittens or make-up tutorials? I guess I'm SOL with Youtube, huh?

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Re:It's about time... by farble1670 · 2016-09-02 10:50 · Score: 1

YouTube knows what content it's sponsors appreciate and what they object to.
You need to go watch some of the protest videos. The problem is that people who disagree with the viewpoints expressed in some video or another are "flagging" those videos as hate speech, racism, harassment, etc. This is really Youtube demonetizing content because it gets one group (or one person in some cases) upset.
As a content creator, you could have years of content taken offline because one SJW decides they don't like your viewpoints.
Can you get fired for making an off color joke at work? Sure. Can you in turn sue your employer? Absolutely.
Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 10:53 · Score: 0

Google might run into some anticompetition laws if it turns out that they favor their own channels with selective enforcement. They got hit in the past over search results favoring Google products and apparently they also at least partly own some of the content providers on youtube.
Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 11:17 · Score: 0

No it's not a good thing. It makes an unbalanced relation between content creators and sponsors. YouTube still makes it difficult for content creators to find willful sponsors. It's a black box mostly. And these new rules seem to suggest that demonetization can be applied retro-actively. And it's not entirely clear if it has to the sponsor themselves to initiate the demonetization. This is not good. These cryptic rules give too much leeway for sponsors to abuse content creators.
Re: It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 11:36 · Score: 1

Notice how no advertisers brought up any of this. It is all YouTube. In order for Red to succeed it needs more than just "no ads." It needs more content than free YouTube. This is a push to make channels make more Red videos.
Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 11:47 · Score: 0

so all sponsors like and dislike the exact same things? what an amazing coincidence, ever single sponsor is the same.... that way you dont have to create a system that pairs some sponsors with some videos and some other sponsors with ANY video at all
amazing coincidence bruh, the market at werk indeed
its also amazing how that old saying "any publicity is good publicity" is so true some times, and some other times its not at all, kinda behaves like the wind blows
now, leaving all this irony behind, its pretty clear its a bullshit excuse. i guess this youtube creators will have to change their content to the point its useless, so i guess they will not be getting paid anyway, because obviously no one will want to watch their stuff if they make it lame, and if they dont they will be flagged (just the ones that attack certain people). In the end they WILL have to move to other platforms
If i were one of this so called content creators anti sjw dudes that make videos i would keep my presence in youtube and use it to send people to some other site, they have lost, the money, and if they insist on the money they will end up lost themselves. Get a real job and attack the sjw like the rest of us, for free, because they deserve it. You dont really need any other reason
they should mirror their own videos, bleep their own videos and auto censor themselves, and put a link below to liveleak or some other site, and forget about the money, they WILL NOT get that money. Facebook google and the rest are pro censoship, and this is the summer of (love of) censorship, so tighten your seatbelts, bumpy road ahead
Re:It's about time... by YukariHirai · 2016-09-02 11:53 · Score: 1

If I watch a video from a channel I'm subscribed to, it's almost always because I like the content and view that content in a positive way. And if I view the content in a positive way, even if it's "offensive" to someone else, I will also view the sponsor in a positive way.
And that would be fine, and the end of the discussion, if all of the advertising world was focused on selling to you and only you. But it's not, and if you view the content in a positive way but ten other people are offended by it and boycott whoever was sponsoring it, they lose more than they gain from you viewing the sponsor positively.
Naturally, it's all a bit more complex than that, but the point is that when the sponsor views something in a negative way, it's usually relating to how much of their target audience they're expecting to view it negatively enough to cost them.
Re:It's about time... by MBGMorden · 2016-09-02 11:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Actually if you would watch any of the video complaints like those by Phil Defranco, he went out of his way to assure people of the opposite. He specifically mentions that Youtube is a private company and that it's within their legal right to do this. HOWEVER, as users of the platform we are also free to voice our disapproval.
Personally, nearly half of the Youtube channels that I view regularly would be considered "non-advertiser" friendly - and most of them pull in very good viewership #'s. If Youtube pushes them off the platform, they'll push me off the platform too. Now naturally they don't care about *ME* as a single viewer, but given how popular most of these guys are as a group their viewers represent a very large number of people.
Too many people seem to be of the opinion "Well, it's not a legal violation of the 1st amendment, so you lot just need to shut up about the issue and accept whatever a private company does without question.".
I can personally say that until something gives I've personally already pulled my Youtube Red subscription.

--
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 12:07 · Score: 0

Blame adblock.
The Anti-SJW trolls like Philip, are the same kind of people who use adblock on everyting (just like slashdot)
So their videos produce little or no revenue to begin with, so they get flagged as being low-quality content. When someone at youtube decides to investigate they notice that the content is essentially hate material and use it to punish the video's entire channel.
But more to the point, the revenue people get from Youtube? Rubbish. I'm sure people may make a few hundred dollars, but they could make so much more by simply moving to Patreon and using Youtube as just the video host.
Re:It's about time... by William+Baric · 2016-09-02 12:08 · Score: 1

And how do these offended people know that an ad from a specific company is shown before a video they don't watch? YouTube is not a television where everyone watch the same thing. I am the only one who watch the ad when I watch a video. No one can be offended by something only I see.
Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 12:09 · Score: 0

You've got all the freedom of speech you want... but being paid for what you say is not guaranteed.
It's even a little better than that because it costs Youtube money to host the demonetized videos, yet they do it anyway. It's not entirely generosity: the status of the platform and community is what allows them to monetize at all, and they'd undermine it by applying the standard ad-driven prudery of commercial television. But, as Yoda says, from a certain point of view, it's true the monetized videos are subsidizing the unmonetized ones.
I don't think that makes it ok. It's important that Youtube's credibility be contingent on political neutrality. There are a lot of SJW inside Google who hold the Communist idea that it's fair game to promote your ideology by preventing others from speaking or being heard, and they are cagey and equivocal about this belief, not prepared to live or die by it like their opponents are. As long as traditional Americans hold social capital, ones who believe that the answer to reprehensible speech is more speech, we need to expose these people relentlessly to the sunlight of public accountability. That's the only way to get a fair outcome.
But you're right that it'd be unbalanced to say Youtube is being awful here. Even in the pessimal case they're making a significant contribution to the public sphere, and if they're running their business in a competent way that keeps it financially healthy, we should be happy about that.
Re:It's about time... by swillden · 2016-09-02 12:10 · Score: 1

None of them talk about rolling their own video service.
No one can compete against google. Multibillion dollar efforts have gone against google and failed. What makes you think any person can compete when multinationals that dominate the market cant?
Competing with the entrenched players is actually the least of their problems. The major challenge that would be face by video creators who want to monetize videos that don't comply with the new YouTube policy is funding. I don't mean startup funding, I mean ongoing revenue generation, to pay for operational costs and clear enough profit that they can eat. If they had a way to create the latter, they could find the former.
We have found basically two ways to generate revenue from content online: advertising and consumer subscriptions. The consumer subscription model is perfectly workable, but it requires large audiences willing to pay somewhat significant monthly fees. Netflix, HBO, et al have the resources to create the sort of high-quality content that convinces tens or hundreds of millions of people to shell out $10-15 per month to watch it. These people don't, not even collectively. Particularly since for a lot of them their primary demographic is fourteen year-old boys, who don't have any money.
That leaves advertising... but YouTube is not monetizing this content because advertisers don't want to be associated with it. So it seems unlikely that a competing service could attract enough advertising revenue to make a go of it. (Aside: It's worth noting that most of the Netflix and HBO original content is TV-MA... content that advertisers don't want to be associated with. People making TV-14 shows find it far more lucrative to aim for larger audiences and use the ad-supported model.)
The bottom line is that there's no revenue model for the content. If you're a content creator with no revenue model, you're an amateur making videos on weekends and working for The Man to fill your belly and pay for your broadband.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 12:12 · Score: 0

until something gives I've personally already pulled my Youtube Red subscription.
Fair enough. At least your Youtube Red dollars ought to be going to the videos you watch. In that case, you're the "advertiser," so the videos are by definition advertiser-friendly.
Re: It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 12:21 · Score: 0

Maybe learn from Google and partner with other search engines? If you just give up, you do not deserve any empathy.
Re: It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 12:23 · Score: 0

Lol, tell me how you really feel.
Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 12:24 · Score: 0

Are you one of those nutters that thinks Bing is competitive against google?
Re: It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 12:26 · Score: 0

Or the third option:someone realizes there is a demand for content and advertisers willing to pay for those eyeballs. I don't see anyone saying that the various PornHubs can't compete with YouTube because they don't directly even though their back end is probably very similar.
Someone just needs to set up a backend for stupid internet videos and then all these "offensive" content producers can move there and sell ads for "offensive" products.
Re:It's about time... by Mandrel · 2016-09-02 12:33 · Score: 1

I can personally say that until something gives I've personally already pulled my Youtube Red subscription.
Please don't cancel your Red subscription. It's the correct answer to this problem of advertising not being compatible with more-adult content. The problem is that, at least when Red was announced, you couldn't turn on monetisation in such a way to get Red revenue but not ad revenue — useful if you wanted to be rewarded for your work but didn't want to subject your (non-ad-blocker) viewers to ads, but now it's clear that it's essential to support non-family-friendly content.
Please YouTube, allow Red monetisation without ad monetisation.
Re: It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 12:34 · Score: 1

Nope nope nope.
This is just reinforcing the rules Adsense goes by, which among things, prohibits "bare breasts or buttocks, or 'censored' versions thereof"
Like advertisers have more leverage over Youtube than people would believe. Adsense is also the absolute worst source of revenue there is other than Project Wonderful.
This is my own data:
Pulsepoint (formerly known as contextweb or adsdaq): 10% fill rate, $2CPM+
Sovrn (formerly known as lijit): 30% fill rate $0.50CPM
OpenRTB SSP's (eg Pubmatic): Fill rate anywhere from 0 to 100%, $0.25CPM+
Google AdX (Formerly known as doubleclick) 0 to 100% fill rate 0.10 to 0.15CPM,
Google Adsense (CPC ads) 0 to 0.15 CPM equivalent.
The important thing to note here is that the Adsense devalues content. Advertisers only pay when you click on an ad, and with youtube that is rare. The only paying ads on youtube are those 15 second commercials in front of videos shorter than 15 minutes. The banners pay nothing (whoo I made 4 cents last month) because people generally ignore them.
Higher paying ads could be made available if the advertiser had finer control over what videos their ads appear on, and this control does exist in adsense, but google wants you to use it's AI and just magically figure out what to advertise on. You can't narrow things down to a single video or single page, just a site (eg domain) , so what needs to happen is Google needs to allow an advertiser to dynamically add or remove keywords and categories as a top level filter.
eg, let's say I wanted to market a plush toy dog, where would I advertise it, probably on channels that feature dogs in positive environments (eg playing ball or frisbee), dogs with emotional attachment (dogs being rescued/rescuing ) , cartoon dogs (eg Family Guy, Scooby Doo), and video game dogs ( Undertale, Silent Hill dog endings, various capcom games) but I would not want to market it on videos that aren't dog related, or where a dog is being abused, or news articles about dogs being eaten or dying.
However, what if I wanted to cash in on a meme? I'd probably want that ad in front of everyone quoting that meme, and that is something that requires visual and audio analysis of videos, unless the meme is in the description or transcribed in the subtitles.
Which is the issue at play here. Anti-SJW people are trolls, typically of the worst kind (alt-right, gamergate, libertarian, MRA/PUA, and so forth) and they shouldn't be profiting off the harassment of others. I can think of a few people who should not be monetized (The Amazing Atheist, Thunderf00t whom you will notice seem to be in a one-sided fight with Anita Sarkeesian) because they are nothing short of hate-speech. These people only make these hate videos because they know it puts fuel on a fire (much like Trump's hate speech) from the alt-right.
Re:It's about time... by Z80a · 2016-09-02 13:23 · Score: 1

The problem is not what youtube is doing exactly but how.
If this was indeed just a sponsor problem, the implementation would be of the sponsors themselves having the option to block their ads in videos that have x or y in them.
Basically youtube detects this list of contents that may be inappropriate, and offer the sponsor a list of checkboxes and informs the video owner that his video contains x or y, thus some ads may not display.
But as it stands, youtube can use the vague terms on their list to remove the monetization of any video they want.
Re:It's about time... by beheaderaswp · 2016-09-02 13:37 · Score: 1

Nope... they sure aren't liking it.

--
Another consultant who stuck it out.

"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
Re:It's about time... by rtb61 · 2016-09-02 14:37 · Score: 1

Easy solution, another advertising agent simply pays youtubers to be ads in front of their videos (want to change the add, edit the video and upload it again), many already do and google can either delete the entire video. A question though, are those demonetised video now ad free or does Google still push out an ad, which would make their action seem rather fraudulent.
Want to do something to reduce the number of questionable up loaders, then allow end users to block them, and list the number of blocks with all that up loaders content (blocked as in that end users no longer has that up loaders content ever appear, in searches or recommended channels). This is the smarter solution as it allows end users to fairly self manage the solution and advertisers in they want better content associated with their ads, need to pay others to create that better content, over time and continuously beyond that, this will more effectively manage the situation (crappy headlines, crappy thumbnails will wipe out the the revenue of the uploaders who create them, og and viewed should only count if people viewed at least half of the video and not just the first few minutes to find they were lied to in title and thumbnail and drop out, Google stop being dicks and allowing people to be tricked into jumping from shit video to shit video to get the good one they were after just because you get to serve an add each time).

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:It's about time... by drsquare · 2016-09-02 15:16 · Score: 1

The market at work.
I don't think you can really say this when they have such a monopolistic market share they can unilaterally dictate terms.
Re: It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 15:53 · Score: 0

It's not about 'being paid for what you say', but about how many people watch you.
Some advertisers would not like to have commercials with certain kind of content, but others won't care.
And it goes both ways.
But the producers of content are getting a rough deal here.
Disclaimer, I am not a producer, just consumer.
Re: It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 15:56 · Score: 0

You may still have to watch commercial, it's only the producer of the video who won't get paid.
Re:It's about time... by Bartles · 2016-09-02 16:34 · Score: 2

But YouTube is pulling all advertising, whether the advertisers ask for it or not. YouTube is making the decision, not the advertisers.
Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 19:45 · Score: 0

but on the other side of the self-conspiratorial Goliath, the other hand of GoogleFiber commands thee not to operate any kind of commercial server with their 'internet' access products.
Owning it all must be nice.
Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 23:51 · Score: 0

perpetuate the idea that Youtube is the only feasible way to disseminate video speech on the Internet.
It is.
Nothing else works. Nothing.
- Raw mp4/wmv/avi/ video. Browsers bork, complain, draw ugly empty boxes.
- webm? EXACTLY THE SAME!!
- Custom flash player. Slow, CPU hogging, unreliable, blocked, borkish or now banned from tablets
- Dailymotion, Vine, Vimeo, etc, etc, etc. All subpar and essentially refuse to work on Linux or older OSes.
- Gifs (lol)
- Realplayer. I'd rather go back to VCR.
Youtube though? Youtube works. Everywhere. It's uncanny really. And it's the only platform that comes anywhere near truely integrating video onto the web.
You want to put video content on the web you HAVE to use Youtube if you want it to be as reliable and reachable as a normal webpage. Until such time as the collective browser/player industry gets its head out of its ass, Youtube will remain the sole and only way for anyone to "get" video in their browsers.
Re: It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-03 01:54 · Score: 0

Cash is speech --- This is YouTube, do you hear us now? No cash for you.
Re:It's about time... by doccus · 2016-09-03 04:26 · Score: 1

I'd have to agree. Just how much is relaying ubderground news worth to you? If it really s that important (which it is) then you chouldn't be coopted by advertising anywauys.. Monetization can only dilute your mnessage by steering ou towards picking stories that wiol earn you money, instead of picking the truth, even if unpopular.
Re:It's about time... by swillden · 2016-09-03 06:27 · Score: 1

But YouTube is pulling all advertising, whether the advertisers ask for it or not. YouTube is making the decision, not the advertisers.
Did you notice that there hasn't been a change in YouTube's policy here? YouTube has long avoided showing ads on videos that don't comply with the guidelines (and even documented the guidelines), because advertisers have complained when YouTube wasn't careful enough about that. The only thing that has changed is that YouTube is now notifying YouTubers which videos don't get ads on them.
Advertisers absolutely have long asked not to have their ads on certain kinds of videos, and YouTube has complied.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re: It's about time... by zugmeister · 2016-09-03 08:12 · Score: 1

Anti-SJW people are trolls
Says the AC.
You were doing great until that last paragraph. You clearly have no clue what you're talking about and should probably educate yourself about the people / groups you are disparaging before you embarrass yourself by saying something like that in front of a rational person in real life. Just a friendly suggestion, I won't hold my breath.
Re:It's about time... by spire3661 · 2016-09-04 02:48 · Score: 1

Ah the old, 'other solutions are hard' defense. My browser plays .mp4 just fine... You are basically arguing the same thing people said when we only had 3 TV networks. 'Why would i want to advertise on this new upstart Fox?, the big networks are so convenient.'

--
Good-bye
Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-05 17:29 · Score: 0

Well, this is an opportunity for an anything goes Tube style format to pop up and allow users unfettered speech and see if monetizing advertisers to their content was viable after all. That would be the real market at work. What YouTube is really doing is trying to pick winners and losers who don't offend the perpetually offended, aka SJW's.
Re:It's about time... by BobSutan · 2016-09-07 05:06 · Score: 1

Exactly. If anything this might encourage content producers to embed 3rd party advertisements into their videos thereby doing an end-run around Google's policy. Granted this probably violates their Terms of Service, or maybe it doesn't. I don't know. But if it happens it'd just go to show that advertisers are willing to make it happen and Google would lose out two ways: costs from hosting and lost ad revenue they could have been getting by said advertiser.
Google going full-retard with this SJW nonsense means a 3rd party free-speech solution is ripe for the making.

--
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
Re:It's about time... by tihokibertron · 2016-09-08 03:00 · Score: 1

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskRe... I'm open to further ideas.
Re:It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 13:42 · Score: 0

Sure, and the market will work again when Youtube creators leave for other sites that allow them to monetize in a 'freer' way. Or of course advertisers realize they aren't reaching as many people.
Consider for instance that I heard a radio report a month or so ago about how the 'on-line porn' industry has seen a MASSIVE upheaval from 'paid service' to 'advertiser supported' and those advertisers are NOT the ones you might think would want to be associated with porn. The primary company 'owning' this change is swimming in money from what you'd call 'traditional advertisers'.

Tags by BringsApples · 2016-09-02 08:56 · Score: 1

This is totally about tags, and really nothing more. Learn what tags turn off advertisers, and tag accordingly.

--
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.

Headlines by JaredOfEuropa · 2016-09-02 08:57 · Score: 1

I swear I read that as "Creator calls out YouTube for demonising videos" the first time.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...

Re:Headlines by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 09:42 · Score: 0

You heard it here first, there is more than one Creator. We're still not sure if that means sexual or spontaneous creation though.
Re:Headlines by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 10:05 · Score: 0

Yeah they keep talking about "Youtube Creators" and I assume they mean Steve Chen, Chad Hurley, and Jawed Karim. But apparently "Creators" is what Youtube calls people who sit around bloviating about useless nonsense on their web cams.
Re:Headlines by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 10:40 · Score: 0

> bloviating about useless nonsense
The one thing I'll never get about Youtube is how reaction videos got to be a thing. "Hey guys, watch me react to the Gangnam Style music video!!" <-- WTF?
Re:Headlines by thunderclap · 2016-09-02 14:30 · Score: 1

You forget the real queen of Youtube Justine Erizak

Demonizing videos? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 08:57 · Score: 0

I misread "demonetizing" as demonizing. Hmm...

CAPTCHA: prosper (how fitting)

Another YouTube tempest in a pisspot... by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-09-02 08:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

All the pissing, moaning and groaning by a few YouTube content creators makes for nice click bait video to drive their revenue streams for their videos. Wait a few months... They will find something else to piss, moan and groan about for another click bait video. It's not censorship, it's opportunism.

Re:Another YouTube tempest in a pisspot... by William+Baric · 2016-09-02 10:30 · Score: 1

Click bait are for the ad revenues. If there's no ad revenue, click baits are useless. Think about it before trying to insult people.
Re:Another YouTube tempest in a pisspot... by Dogtanian · 2016-09-02 10:42 · Score: 5, Funny

All the pissing, moaning and groaning by a few YouTube content creators makes for nice click bait video to drive their revenue streams for their videos. Wait a few months... They will find something else to piss, moan and groan about for another click bait video. It's not censorship, it's opportunism.
Indeed, such attempts to play up issues purely for the sake of cash-ins are quite disgusting.

That's why it's essential that you watch this video, where I explain how such bottom-feeding cynicism will lead to the downfall of the narcissistic attention whoring community, the decline of YouTube and the end of Western civilisation itself.

--
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Re:Another YouTube tempest in a pisspot... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 11:00 · Score: 0

I see what you did there. I'm not falling for it.
Next time maybe include some ASCII tits or something.
CAPTCHA: enlarged
Re:Another YouTube tempest in a pisspot... by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-09-03 10:43 · Score: 1

Click bait are for the ad revenues. If there's no ad revenue, click baits are useless.
Boogie2988 had six out of 1,600+ videos demonetized from making money. That's less than one percent. For that, he cries CENSORSHIP!

Think about it before trying to insult people.
The only people who should be insulted are the viewers of these YouTube channels where the creator used false drama to juice up their numbers.

The cycle continues by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 08:59 · Score: 1

Step 1: Provide a free service that people like, funded by the occasional ad
Step 2: Get bought-out by someone with deep pockets
Step 3: Increase the amount of ads and start moderating content because now you have to worry about lawsuits
Step 4: People begin leaving the service in droves as they can no longer do what brought them there in the first place
Step 5: Go to Step 1

Re:The cycle continues by PopeRatzo · 2016-09-02 09:06 · Score: 3, Informative

Step 4: People begin leaving the service in droves as they can no longer do what brought them there in the first place
Really?
Youtube has 1.3 billion users. The handful of drama video posters and their fans aren't even a rounding error. And they can still do "what brought them there in the first place". They just won't get any advertisers.
http://fortunelords.com/27-min...
http://socialblade.com/youtube...

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:The cycle continues by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 09:10 · Score: 0

The problem is there is no Step 1 anymore. There are really no other free video hosting sites. And youtube would sometimes even give you a little pocket change.
Re:The cycle continues by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 09:48 · Score: 1, Insightful

Small percentage? The most lucrative personalities on Youtube are Markiplier and his friends that shriek at videogames for a living, and they fall deeply into the "profanity and vulgar language" category. So either they aren't going to enforce that rule, are going to enforce it unfairly, or they're going to be ousting some of their largest content creators.
Re:The cycle continues by amicusNYCL · 2016-09-02 10:30 · Score: 1

Or, if they want those sweet, sweet advertising dollars that they crave, maybe they can just stop saying motherfucker and cocksucker so much. They have a choice, of course, they can continue to produce the videos that they want to produce in their pure motherfucking art form, or they can eliminate the profanity and get that sweet, sweet advertising cash to rub all over themselves. No one is going to force them, it's really all about why they make the videos in the first place. Either they want to shout profanity online, or they want advertising cash. And, frankly, I don't care which choice they make, it doesn't affect me either way, but I understand if someone pushing a product doesn't want it associated with some vulgar motherfucking cocksucker.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:The cycle continues by gnupun · 2016-09-02 10:46 · Score: 1

Step 1: Provide a free service that people like, funded by the occasional ad
Step 3: Increase the amount of ads and start moderating content because now you have to worry about lawsuits
Do you have any idea how expensive bandwidth costs are? That's the reason there are very few video sites. How exactly is step 1 feasible without some sort of revenue in step 3? You don't just have to cover costs, you also have to make a profit.
Next time you want a free service, ask yourself if you would sign up for a 9-to-5 job with a $0 paycheck?

Obligatory by FunkSoulBrother · 2016-09-02 09:01 · Score: 0, Flamebait

There are ads on YouTube? Have never seen one unless you count a VEVO logo.

In all honesty though if you're one of the alt right assholes pissed off by this vote with your feed, or make your own damn video platform. YouTube doesn't own you a platform to literally make money off your filth, as I'm sure you understand with your libertarian ideals.

Re:Obligatory by FunkSoulBrother · 2016-09-02 09:09 · Score: 1

*feet
Never change, Slashdot.
Re:Obligatory by ArchieBunker · 2016-09-02 09:20 · Score: 1

I've yet to find a good ad blocker for the YouTube Android app. I was amazed that longer videos now have commercial breaks in the middle.

--
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Re:Obligatory by Tailhook · 2016-09-02 09:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

As long as your preferred group-think isn't threatened you're cool with it. Have to give you credit for honesty I guess.

--
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Re:Obligatory by jez9999 · 2016-09-02 10:44 · Score: 1

We did. It's minds.com, and everyone should switch to it. It is much more dedicated to protecting free speech.

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Re:Obligatory by FunkSoulBrother · 2016-09-03 04:58 · Score: 1

It's not government censorship, I would think it would be a very libertarian right-wing ideal to vote with your eyeballs and move the fuck on.

SJW by nwaack · 2016-09-02 09:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

"YouTube demonetized videos for reasons that appear to punish those who attack 'Social Justice Warriors.'" This bothers me because I have found most SJW types to be arrogant, offensive jackasses and I think the majority of the public would agree with me. If YouTube is supporting SJW over those who are critical of them then that is just one more example of political correctness run amok.

Re:SJW by PopeRatzo · 2016-09-02 09:21 · Score: 2, Flamebait

"YouTube demonetized videos for reasons that appear to punish those who attack 'Social Justice Warriors.'"
They'll be OK, They'll just have to go back to lifting a fiver out of their moms' pocketbook.
And just so everyone knows what's what, here's the guy who's claiming YouTube is targeting the brave men who lead the struggle against SJWs. He's threatening to move his videos to a different platform:
https://www.youtube.com/user/s...
YouTube's response:
https://66.media.tumblr.com/c2...

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:SJW by KozmoStevnNaut · 2016-09-02 10:20 · Score: 1

Good riddance, I say. What a reprehensible person.

--
Eat the rich.
Re:SJW by KozmoStevnNaut · 2016-09-02 10:22 · Score: 0, Troll

Nice twist of words there, broheim. Suddenly "attack" becomes "is critical of".
No, shit-for-brains, the demonetized videos are no merely "critical", they are outright smear pieces and attacks on named persons.

--
Eat the rich.
Re:SJW by Megol · 2016-09-02 11:03 · Score: 1

I have found that the majority of people using SJW are jackasses too. I have no problem with discussing and criticizing things that some use the SJW label for _however_ in most cases the use of SJW is an indication that they believe in some conspiracy theory that doesn't survive any evaluation.
The question is: are you one of the nuts?
Re:SJW by YukariHirai · 2016-09-02 12:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

This bothers me because I have found most SJW types to be arrogant, offensive jackasses
Some are, but in my experiences the people who complain about "SJW"s tend to be worse.

and I think the majority of the public would agree with me.
You can think that. I suspect the reality is closer to a small amount really agreeing, a small amount really disagreeing, and the majority not much caring one way or the other.
Re:SJW by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 14:07 · Score: 0

This looks like what they call on the chan forums a "samefag"
Re:SJW by PopeRatzo · 2016-09-02 14:50 · Score: 1

You're a giant fucking piece of shit who regularly annoys many. Can we ban you?
Yes, please. I suggest calling the Slashdot support 800- number and tell them I'm a piece of shit who's regularly annoying you and they should stop monetizing my comments. Be sure to reference my UID number.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:SJW by UnknownSoldier · 2016-09-03 06:48 · Score: 1

> "YouTube demonetized videos for reasons that appear to punish those who attack 'Stupid Juvenile Whiners' " This bothers me because I have found most SJW types to be arrogant, offensive jackasses and I think the majority of the public would agree with me. If YouTube is supporting SJW over those who are critical of them then that is just one more example of political correctness run amok.
Agreed 100%. I also FTFY with a more accurate accurate acronym.
--
"Hey SouthWest dipshits -- WTF is the point of having a schedule if you're just going to ignore it???"
Re:SJW by nwaack · 2016-09-06 05:38 · Score: 1

Oooh, "shit-for-brains," - amazing use of the English language. Sorry I offended your delicate sensibilities, you're acting just like most of the SJW's I've met.

ha ha ha by eyenot · 2016-09-02 09:03 · Score: 1

well i noticed some of the more productive types who have actually gotten demonitized like philip difranco don't mind at all.

phil questions the "why" of his being cited as "not friendly for advertising" but he doesn't care because he doesn't suckle the teats of this fucked up advertising driven economic nightmare. when it comes down to it, phil sells merchandise and his popularity increases by word of mouth. he's not concerned because youtube has become his storefront, not his customer.

on the other hand plenty of really stupid "gamer" culture cretins are crying over losing their pacifiers. wah, wah, go get a job you stupid slackers. get the hell off my lawn and by the way, on your way out, get your fucking advertisements off my lawn, too, and take your entire security-compromising shit for brains pyramid scheme with you. fucking losers!

meanwhile, what do i, personally, have to say about all this?

DEMONitization!

\m/,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVbV_Sis99o [youtube; HEENE BOYZ - "BALLOON BOY NO HOAX" (from Finger It Out)]

--
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee

Re:ha ha ha by PopeRatzo · 2016-09-02 09:24 · Score: 1

well i noticed some of the more productive types who have actually gotten demonitized like philip difranco don't mind at all.
So, you're saying DiFranco's not mad, he's actually laughing?

phil sells merchandise
Think about that. The forces opposed to the SJWs have merchandise.
It's a wonderful world, isn't it?

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:ha ha ha by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 09:44 · Score: 0

You never saw spaceballs did you.
Re:ha ha ha by eyenot · 2016-09-02 10:02 · Score: 2

yes, it is. and to help you, friend, and clarify one of the points you were on the fence of making:
the force that oppose the SJWs make merchandise.
just remember, it's not always 100% of the time "have v have-not"
quite often, it really boils down to "make v make-not"
#makersftw

--
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
Re:ha ha ha by PopeRatzo · 2016-09-02 10:09 · Score: 1

the force that oppose the SJWs make merchandise.
If by "make" you mean, "don't really make".
http://www.redbubble.com/shop/...

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:ha ha ha by KozmoStevnNaut · 2016-09-02 10:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

I wish the world could be rid of game streamers, who upload hours and hours of mind-numbingly boring gameplay with their ugly mugs superimposed in the corners. If everyone of those sad fuckers got ruined because of demonetization, I couldn't be happier.

--
Eat the rich.
Re: ha ha ha by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 10:27 · Score: 0

I put that dang flamethrower on my list to Santa every friggin' year! It must be back ordered from the high demand.
Re:ha ha ha by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 20:11 · Score: 0

You rage on about something you have little knowledge of which is kinda sad.
You just read "DiFranco" and "anti SJW" and you assume that what he does. I am not subscribed to his channel but I have seen a few of his videos and I haven't seen any "anti-sjw" material there.
Is it fun to be this mad all the time? You should try lighten up. It might improve your quality of life.
Re:ha ha ha by ultranova · 2016-09-03 05:36 · Score: 1

I wish the world could be rid of game streamers, who upload hours and hours of mind-numbingly boring gameplay with their ugly mugs superimposed in the corners.

If only you could watch some other video instead or go do something else, like shitpost on Slashdot about other people having hobbies you find boring.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:ha ha ha by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-03 07:41 · Score: 0

These are the same people hawking things like lootcrate or that "healthy" junkfood version of it. They're not exactly the demographic I think of when quality craftsmanship comes up. Beside that, 99% of the time they're just having a company toss their logo onto a piece of cheap chinese plastic.
Re:ha ha ha by KozmoStevnNaut · 2016-09-04 08:58 · Score: 1

Did your streaming videos featuring your hideous mug get demonetized?

--
Eat the rich.
Re:ha ha ha by eyenot · 2016-09-09 06:02 · Score: 1

let's play a game, 'who really made'.
here's our two contestants.
our first contestant plays video games and yells statements of questionable sanity.
our second contestant has a logo (ting), and puts it on merchandise (ting).
and we have a winner.

--
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee

As an anonymous coward by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 09:07 · Score: 1

and one not accustomed to supporting such a Libertarian viewpoint, I have to agree. I, myself, would not want to be forced to pay for something I don't want. The videos are still up, we have free speech, so why isn't everyone happy?

Isn't that all the videos that are worth watching? by Optic7 · 2016-09-02 09:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor; Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism; Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language; Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items; Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown."

Isn't that just about all that is worth watching on Youtube? What's going to be left if these creators move away or stop creating new stuff? Cat videos? Unboxing videos?
Sounds to me like another case of a corporation killing the goose that lays golden eggs.

An error in the write up. by LWATCDR · 2016-09-02 09:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

"this isn't censorship in the strictest sense"
This isn't censorship in any sense. You can still post to youtube for free but YouTube will not run ads on it for you or pay you for it.
It is still free as in beer, free as in freedom of speech so I do not see the problem.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

Re:An error in the write up. by Striek · 2016-09-02 10:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Respectfully, I disagree. (That was my writeup)
If I had been creating YouTube videos for years covering a vast array of topics, and had been earning my living doing that, and suddenly am told I can no longer cover subject X or Y if I am to be paid, I have been censored. Again, not in the strictest sense where my content is deleted or altered, but the spirit is the same. I am being told what I am allowed to say and what I am not allowed to say, and again, if I earn my living doing this, my hands are rather tied.
I suppose it depends on your definition of censorship (it's a loaded word). But either way, I think what YouTube is doing here is wrong.

--
"Government is like fire; a handy servant, but a dangerous master." -- George Washington
Re:An error in the write up. by jedidiah · 2016-09-02 10:20 · Score: 1

This would be more like editorial review where your an employer of someone like Reuters and they don't like it when you submit something that doesn't fit their narrative.
It's still censorship.
They sold themselves on one thing and now they've violated that.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Re:An error in the write up. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 10:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

If I had been creating YouTube videos for years covering a vast array of topics, and had been earning my living doing that, and suddenly am told I can no longer cover subject X or Y if I am to be paid, I have been censored.
Oh boo hoo! It's not like they ban you if you dare to touch those subjects.
If those topics are so important to you, you can make a few separate vids.
You won't get money for those, but you will still get ads and money for the others.
Re:An error in the write up. by KozmoStevnNaut · 2016-09-02 10:32 · Score: 1

Did you sign a contract for this video-producing job of yours, or did you just rely on the good graces of Youtube to keep feeding advertising dollars your way?
Did Youtube provide you with any sort of promise that you could continue to earn money by creating and uploading video?
So basically, you just latched on to a convenient source of revenue, which just happened to be freely available. That does not entitle you to keep earning money. I'm sorry, but you don't really have much of a say on this, you're operating under the good graces of Youtube. Sure, if enough content creators band together and make a fuss, Youtube will probably rethink some of their policies. But really, there are millions of other people who are just waiting for their chance, and they don't mind adhering a little more strictly to the rules than you currently do.
It really isn't a stable reliable way to make a living.

--
Eat the rich.
Re: An error in the write up. by cosm · 2016-09-02 10:55 · Score: 1

Nobody is forcing you to earn a living that way. Get the fuck over it. It's Google's platform. Like Uber stating that they want to automate their workforce, these sharing economy companies run the show. Don't forget that.

--
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
Re:An error in the write up. by amicusNYCL · 2016-09-02 10:57 · Score: 1

I don't buy it. There was a time when no one got paid to post videos on YouTube, and people still posted videos without thinking that they should be paid for it. If you make a living by posting videos on YouTube, great. If YouTube changes their policy so that they don't pay you any more and they take away your livelihood, then if you think that's an actionable offense then sue them. Otherwise, it sounds like there's a great niche market for a video site that will host violent, racist, etc videos that pays the people who upload. Advertisers are obviously going to need to want to advertise on that platform, but if what you're saying is true then it sounds like there's a market. YouTube is not internet video, it is not self publishing, it is none of those things. It is a single video distribution platform among many others, and if they change their policies and alienate a large portion of their user base then a competitor will naturally rise up.
But, if we don't see any competitors rise up to give these people the advertising-funded voice that they desire, then I think it's pretty clear that the market has spoken.
Remember, free speech (and the opposite, censorship) doesn't mean that you have the right to get paid for your videos on YouTube. In fact, the concepts of free speech and censorship are completely separate from YouTube. If you feel that they are censoring you, and you feel oppressed, then go find somewhere else that doesn't make you feel that way.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:An error in the write up. by Egdiroh · 2016-09-02 10:57 · Score: 1

If Youtube prohibited from your own monetization of your videos, then it would be censorship. But that is not the case. This is something that most publishers have to deal with, and that is that they risk advertisers (or brokers for those advertisers) pulling ads. This is the publishing business.

If you want to cover things that Youtube's advertisers don't want to run ads on then instead you can run your business yourself and line-up advertisers for yourself.

Youtube isn't pulling your content or prohibiting you from you advertising in your content. They are just ensuring advertiser happiness which should protect monetization on other videos. They aren't even doing this on a channel basis, they are doing it video by video. People complaining about this don't get just how in the content creator's corner youtube is.
Re:An error in the write up. by thegarbz · 2016-09-02 11:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

I am being told what I am allowed to say and what I am not allowed to say, and again, if I earn my living doing this, my hands are rather tied.
If you make a living by relying on another person's service then you're bound by the agreement of that service. That's not censorship, that's playing by the rules of the service you choose.
It's not censorship in the strictest, moral or even spiritual sense to complain about not being paid to post something. That's just straight up business supply chain management.
Re:An error in the write up. by DerekLyons · 2016-09-02 17:53 · Score: 1

Respectfully, I disagree.
Respectfully, that's like insisting the earth really is flat and was only created 10,000 years ago.

If I had been creating YouTube videos for years covering a vast array of topics, and had been earning my living doing that, and suddenly am told I can no longer cover subject X or Y if I am to be paid, I have been censored.
No, you are not being censored in any sense of the word - because your not being told you can no longer cover certain topics nor are your videos being removed.

I suppose it depends on your definition of censorship
The standard one, used and agreed upon by rational people for decades - not the self entitled, self indulgent, self centered one you've created of whole cloth. Whether you like it or not, words mean things. Freedom of speech does not mean you're entitled to a paycheck.
Re:An error in the write up. by AmiMoJo · 2016-09-02 17:56 · Score: 1

What you are suggesting is forcing people to pay you to speak on the topic of your choice, and then broadcast it for you.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:An error in the write up. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 18:31 · Score: 0

How did you get in your head that free speech means the right to be paid? Forcing advertisers to support any and all speech will be restricting theirs.
Re:An error in the write up. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 21:11 · Score: 0

You have no right to expect money for what you peddle. You are not an employee. You are free to continue to create your content, no one is stopping you; but to expect to be paid just to have your "free speech"? Screw you! See, it works both ways. Now how do I get paid.
Re:An error in the write up. by TrimTabTim · 2016-09-02 21:33 · Score: 1

Striek, so long as you deal with YouTube, you are dealing with a multi billion dollar system where essentially zero dollars come from your viewers. The money you seek for creating your videos comes from private business interests, so you should not be surprised when they get to make the decisions about who gets to have their money. To complain about this situation is Quixotic.

My advice is that you should be angry. But you should broadcast the message of how beholden YouTube is to corporate greed instead of the audience. The symptom is a real chilling of free speech, which is horrific I would agree. The sickness needing a cure however is advertiser greed and control.

Analogy time to ensure everyone is crystal clear about what YouTube is:
1. The public is the product.
2. Advertisers are the customer.
3. Google is the market owner taking their cut.
4. What about content creators you ask? They are only flavor additives, injected into the product to distinguish all the varieties so that customers (advertisers) may have options that maximize their gain.

Yes, the flavor additive costs a small amount of money as a routine matter of business, but this small overhead is a good deal for corporate interests. The copyright DMCA thugs of the world are nothing special, they are just very good at gathering and stealing the crumbs of others. So we sit around watching people squabble over content creator crumbs, while for every dollar tossed their way, hundreds in profit are silently passed higher up the pyramid. The public and the content creators are both suckers in this scheme.

In the end, we must seek out new and better ways of conducting our affairs rather than tilt at Google's windmill. This era cannot last forever, where we have allowed middle men with selfish motives to interfere with the creation and consumption of art. Micro-payments directly between the audience and the creators without middlemen (be it music, video, art, books, whatever) is the inevitable long term future. Evolutionary principles seem to dictate this, we just haven't yet developed the right tools.

So the question is if any of us will be alive to see this future when it arrives. And who of us will play a role in enabling it? I'm ready and patiently standing by.
Re:An error in the write up. by LWATCDR · 2016-09-04 01:06 · Score: 1

And you are incorrect.
1. YouTube is not preventing you from posting the content.
2. YouTube has decided that it doesn't want to pay you for your content and is not running ads on your content.
YouTube is still subsidizing your content they are paying the cost of hosting it and bandwidth.
Are you prevented from speaking? No. Then it is not censorship.
Do you have a right to get paid for your content? Yes you do so do not put it on YouTube if you do not want them give it away.
Do you have a right to force YouTube to run ads on your content? No.
What you are doing is trying to use the ideas of "freedom of speech" and "rights" when it is really just a matter of money. AKA wrapping yourself in the flag.
Go to Vimeo or host the content on your own website. You no more have a right to demand that YouTube run ads on your content then you have a right to force NBC to run your show.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

No problem by allo · 2016-09-02 09:12 · Score: 1

Nobody wants ads. Stop putting ads into your videos. Especially when you think your videos are important (hint: they aren't), you may want people to watch them. So do not scare people away from your important message, just to make a bit of money.

Re:No problem by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 09:26 · Score: 0

Nobody wants ads. Stop putting ads into your videos.
I hate ads as much as you do, but they exist for a reason. They make $$$$ for Youtube and $ for the video makers. Do you think some of these v-log channels would post 5 videos a week if they were not making a ton of money from 3 to 4 ads per video? I doubt it.
I think some of these vlogs make more money than some real-world high-paying jobs. For ex., pewdiepie made around $12 million (from ads) last year just by ranting and playing video games.
Re:No problem by tepples · 2016-09-02 10:21 · Score: 1

Nobody wants ads.
True; they tolerate ads in order to avoid things they don't want even more strongly, such as
To continue reading, Log In or Subscribe to Damian Yerrick's Comments (PayPal accepted)
Re:No problem by allo · 2016-09-02 19:41 · Score: 1

So what?
You make a business relying on some service, which isn't granted by any contract to you. You just use the standard ToS of youtube and hope everything will be okay. And subject to change without prior notification and so on.
Maybe you deserve whatever happens to you.
Next time: Search for some service, which makes a contract with you, make sure everything needed is in the contract and you reserved the needed rights for your content, marketing, etc. to you, they cannot arbitrary reject the ad money (what ads they choose is their problem) and so on. Then you have something, you can use to demand what's in the contract.
May be a bit more costly than using a free service and just clicking "ads" to get money. But on the other hand, if your vlog is not hobby but business, it doesn't hurt to invest some money to get a lot of money back.
Re:No problem by allo · 2016-09-02 19:43 · Score: 1

Hey, a paywall is only fair. You will definitely learn, what's the worth of your content. And that's not cynic, as you may learn, that people will pay money.
It's only cynic, because many people will learn, that their content is not worth any money, but replacable by other funny stuff as soon as they demand money (or even adblocker switched off).
Re:No problem by tepples · 2016-09-03 02:21 · Score: 1

Hey, a paywall is only fair. You will definitely learn, what's the worth of your content.
Do you mean a pay-per-page paywall or a pay-per-month paywall? Not knowing which you meant, I shall take the time to answer both:
If you meant pay-per-page That would require a micropayment processor, and I'm not aware of any. Apart from scholarly journals whose articles cost upwards of $10 each, a merchant can't charge, say, 5 cents per article because mainstream payment processors charge the merchant a prohibitive cost to process each payment, on the order of 30 cents per transaction, in addition to a percentage of the payment. Even Bitcoin has a similar fee per transaction thanks to the Chinese mining cartel keeping block sizes low and transaction fees high. If you meant pay-per-month Interesting articles found through a web search are spread out across too many different sites, but notable paywalls still in operation are specific to one site. Even if I subscribe to (say) The Wall Street Journal, that won't help me view pages on other paywalled sites such as Financial Times or WIRED or The New York Times or The Boston Globe. So if I read one article on each of twenty different websites in a month, I'd end up having to buy twenty different subscriptions. A decade and a half ago, a company attempted to set up a cross-site paywall called Adult Check, on the theory that grown-ups can pay for nice things, only to get successfully sued by the publisher of a magazine whose photographs several Adult Check member sites had plagiarized.

replacable by other funny stuff as soon as they demand money (or even adblocker switched off).
I don't run an adblocker. I use Flash Player click-to-play, which blocks only ads in SWF format, as well as Firefox Tracking Protection, which blocks only those ads that rely on third-party tracking scripts. Yet sites still treat users of tracking blockers and malware blockers the same as users of adblockers rather than selling ad space directly to advertisers and serving ads through their own servers.
Re:No problem by allo · 2016-09-04 00:20 · Score: 1

> Do you mean a pay-per-page paywall or a pay-per-month paywall? Not knowing which you meant, I shall take the time to answer both:
I do not care at this level. That's up to the site, how they build their paywall and around what.
I only said, they will learn, how much money and how much efford their users are willing to invest for their content and then they can draw conclusions like not publishing online anymore or that the paywall model works for them or anything else. At least it's a honest conclusion than and not stuff like forcing ads on unwilling customers, trying to lie to the advertisers on how effective the ads may or may not be and so on.
At the moment the situation has tension between everyone. The user is forced to view ads, he opted out not only by telling his opinion, but even with massive technical measures. The site doesn't really care about the ads the user sees, but wants the advertiser to believe the users sees a lot of ads. What the advertiser really wants is a lot of sales (not views or clicks), but he thinks that showing the ads is important for that (but possible showing a lot less ads at the right places would be more useful).
As the user doesn't care, the website owner is likely to want to inflate the number of ads while the advertiser has an incentive to claim that way less ads were shown, so he needs to pay less. That's a situation which isn't compfortable for advertiser or website owner and this mistrust leads to using ad networks, which promise to do some objective measuring and mediating the right ads to the right user. Which leads to a lot of ugly javascript which is served to the user, to avoid "click fraud" and a lot of tracking to try to serve the ads to the users, which make him buy stuff. And this leads to the user being annoyed about unresposible and tracking websites, so he installs an adblocker even for banners which would not be that annoying.
So the ad situation is fucked up for all participants.
But a paywall is a fair mechanism. You know what you pay for in a way you know it when buying a newspaper (you see headlines but do not read articles) and you decide if it's worth the price. The publisher needs to pay something in advance (writing articles isn't free, printing them isn't either, serving them may be a lot cheaper) and then sees how many people are paying for the work. And then they can optimize for good content, which is worth paying. Or maybe trash papers with a lot of gossip, which are bought as well. Build the model and time will show what's emerging from it.

Waaaah by 110010001000 · 2016-09-02 09:17 · Score: 1

More plebeians complaining about their walled garden. This is what you asked for: now live with it. Your corporate masters know what is best for you.

Re:Isn't that all the videos that are worth watchi by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-09-02 09:18 · Score: 1

Isn't that just about all that is worth watching on Youtube?

Uh, no. There are many niche channels. I personally watch technology, programming, woodworking and tropical fish videos. The few channels that do indulge in explicit language already beep out the words to keep their content advertiser friendly.

If you can't say something... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 09:22 · Score: 0

...our advertisers agree with, you don't have to be paid for it at all!

Captcha: barbaric

Hah by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 09:22 · Score: 0

"On August 31, 2016, YouTube demonetized videos for reasons that appear to punish those who attack "Social Justice Warriors" "

Good. Maybe the spoiled manchildren with so much time on their hands to hate can finally get a real job and gain some social skills on the way there and realize the error of their ways.

Ads are not magic money by physicsphairy · 2016-09-02 09:25 · Score: 1

You aren't being denied advertising dollars. There are no advertising dollars. What people pay for is to piggy back off the sense of interest and enjoyment your media creates to sell merchandise. Your documentary highlighting the horrors of dying of trenchfoot in WWI is not going to do that, and in fact an advertisement which doesn't fit the somber mood will probably piss people off. Your video might well be an exception, but it's probably not worth Youtube's time to watch it, interpret it, and decide whether it's actually going to help them sell toilet paper. You might as well complain that other videos are getting 10 million views while yours is only getting 10. If the advertising model doesn't work for the content you're creating you can still make money off of selling it directly. Or you could sell advertisements in your videos yourself, you just won't have the benefit of youtube's analytics to determine clicks.

--
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.

Criticisms valid: YouTube's right, but morally bad by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 09:26 · Score: 0

Libertarian stand point here. YouTube shouldn't discriminate or support the discrimination of content based on a user's / video's political beliefs. You can both be entitled to discriminate and still be in the wrong morally if you do. Government shouldn't dictate morals and neither should YouTube. That doesn't mean they should be prohibited from discriminating though. I don't agree with government, but sell to government occasionally. I don't discriminate. Because it's morally wrong.

I support the legalization of marijuana, but wouldn't smoke it myself. I support the right the people to drink. I don't drink. Support the right of people to drink unhealthy drinks. I drink lots of unhealthy sugary drinks. You don't have to do everything you support. It's not a hypocritical stand point. It's an issue of freedom.

Don't be Evil by Tulsa_Time · 2016-09-02 09:27 · Score: 1

Remember when Google had a soul ?

--
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy

Yes, it IS censorship... by Striek · 2016-09-02 09:45 · Score: 1

It's not the fact that they're choosing who can earn money from advertising and who can't - they've always done that.

What's wrong about this, I think (I am not not a YouTube creator), is the sudden policy shift, with no warning, no notification, and seemingly no recourse.

And yes, this is still a form of censorship. People have been making money making YouTube videos. Now YouTube will decide who is to get paid and who is not to get paid - IOW, only those people who agree with YouTube's political stance can be paid for their work. Sure, it's a private company, but with a marketplace position like theirs, they're quite nearly a common carrier. People get upset when FaceBook selectively pushes certain news articles over others, yet FaceBook is a private company and can do as they please. We get upset when Twitter deletes tweets that may be "triggers". This is no different, save that people making a living off of YouTube (and no, I DO NOT begrudge anyone who does, through advertising or not) suddenly find it much more difficult. Yes, your content can still live there, but if you need that content to pay your rent, you have been censored.

Like it or not, folks, YouTube has become the de facto video publication and distribution platform of choice. They now hold significant power in that marketplace of ideas (if you call it that). They should be held to a higher standard, much like every Slashdotter seems to think Twitter and FaceBook should be.

--
"Government is like fire; a handy servant, but a dangerous master." -- George Washington

Re:Yes, it IS censorship... by justthinkit · 2016-09-02 10:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is interesting to read through some 50 comments so far and see how the vast majority appear to be quite happy with this move, with most saying it is not censorship because you can still upload, just not get paid.
That is like "You can still protest, only you have to do it way over there where it doesn't disrupt business and no one will ever see you protest."
It is routine in this day and age to control the 99% with monetary means. For example, food. Only the richest can afford to buy non-GMO, certified organic food. The rest suffer in inverse relation to their bank account size.
Same with employment. Have an opinion, lose your job. Or don't get that choice job in the first place. Control through finance.
Anyway, just fascinating how so few on /. get this.

--
I come here for the love
Re:Yes, it IS censorship... by KozmoStevnNaut · 2016-09-02 10:35 · Score: 1

It's really no different than a large nationwide TV channel deciding to not run certain TV shows or show certain movies because of their content.

--
Eat the rich.
Re:Yes, it IS censorship... by farble1670 · 2016-09-02 11:24 · Score: 1

What's wrong about this, I think (I am not not a YouTube creator), is the sudden policy shift, with no warning, no notification, and seemingly no recourse.
It's amusing when people get confused between a democratic society and a corporation. Youtube doesn't need any reason to ban you. They don't have laws. Their policies aren't the result of democratic procedure. There's no court of appeals. Their constitution is their TOU, and it pretty much says they can do whatever they want at any time.
Re:Yes, it IS censorship... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 11:57 · Score: 0

It is interesting to read through some 50 comments so far and see how the vast majority appear to be quite happy with this move, with most saying it is not censorship because you can still upload, just not get paid.
That is like "You can still protest, only you have to do it way over there where it doesn't disrupt business and no one will ever see you protest."
It is routine in this day and age to control the 99% with monetary means. For example, food. Only the richest can afford to buy non-GMO, certified organic food. The rest suffer in inverse relation to their bank account size.
Same with employment. Have an opinion, lose your job. Or don't get that choice job in the first place. Control through finance.
Anyway, just fascinating how so few on /. get this.
This is because:
1) Youtube is a private entity (so it is not a governmental censorship)
2) They are still allowing posts (so it's not really censorship except in the most tenuous definition)
3) They are simply not running advertisements (so Youtube isn't "stealing" money rightfully due to the content creators)
4) The content creators can go elsewhere. They are smaller and more niche, but there are still several platforms available for people to host videos; if you are good enough people will still find you (especially as you can comment about the move on it on youtube).
If this is bad, then what is the alternative you propose? There be a law that Youtube pay people for videos they post? There be a law which says Youtube must accept and all types of videos? There be a government run video sharing website?
In my opinion, all of those seem substantially less free-will than letting Youtube not post advertisements.
Re:Yes, it IS censorship... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 12:03 · Score: 0

its obvious censorship design to fool people that dont use their brains and fall for the so called market ""explanation""
no one is going to ban the explosion or cleavage videos, this thing is to stop certain people, no one is going to fuck with pewdiepie, its other poeple they are targeting, its a movement that has started this summer and goes way beyond youtube, people at the chans and in other communities already noticed it months ago, they cant control the net so they will try to censor it and infest it with bots
its hilarious that so many posts in slashdot dont get it, but considering you are about a couple of steps above reddit it makes sense, dont worry tho because it doesnt matter, you will end up getting it
we will meet again at the chans
Re:Yes, it IS censorship... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 13:17 · Score: 0

Anyway, just fascinating how so few on /. get this.
Don't get this? You and your ilk don't get it. Altogther too many slashdotters and far right wingers seem to think that they are guaranteed to say whatever they want, and no objection is allowed. What you are really saying is "I have free speech, and you keep your fucking mouth shut unless you have a positive reaction to my free speech."
Go look at the second amendment, and tell me where it says that. To refresh your memory, here is the second amendment to the US Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Okay Is Youtube Congress? Has Congress made a law that says that YouTube can abridge your free speech? Is Youtube the Press?
It is neither. The Government can't make laws and arrest people for speaking their mind, with some noteable exemptions. Now can you come into my hose and scream about whatever is pissing you off? No you cannot. I could call the police, and if you wanted to try a first amendment defense, they'd laugh you out of court and into your cell.
When Youtube becomes a Government entity, or when they are given the force of law, you would have an argument.
But who owns the space on their servers?
This is like you saying that in order not to infringe on your free speech rights, I would be legally required to put your material on the hard drive in front of me.
The answer to my questions is Youtube/Google owns the servers, they are not government property, they are Google' s Property. You cannot dictate to them or to me that we are required to put anything on there we don't like. You don't like that? It's kinda tough for ya.
Re:Yes, it IS censorship... by justthinkit · 2016-09-02 15:39 · Score: 1

None of your four points address mine.

As to your fifth point/new paragraph:

If this is bad, then what is the alternative you propose?

How about giving advertisers choice about where they advertise? Give them a slider, all the way left and you only advertise on My Little Pony videos. All the way right equals you advertise anywhere.

Alternatively you could allow people to categorize their own videos -- "RAW: I don't care if I lose some advertisers" at one extreme, "The Gee Est of Gee: Grandma could watch without ever having to avert her gaze" at the other.

One size does not fit all. Stop being dictatorial.

--
I come here for the love
Re:Yes, it IS censorship... by AmiMoJo · 2016-09-02 17:35 · Score: 1

It's nothing like that. It's exactly like your employer saying that while you are free to do that stuff on your own time, they can't pay you for it.
Non-monetised videos are not promoted less or anything like that. It's nothing like forcing people to protest in some "free speech zone", it's just saying "we can't pay you to protest".
You can't reasonably expect your employer to fund your speech if there is nothing in it for them. You seem to think YouTube should be forced to pay anyone who simply demands paying.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Yes, it IS censorship... by KozmoStevnNaut · 2016-09-02 19:49 · Score: 1

Don't forget your fedora, Guy Fawkes mask and 8-bit tie on your way out.

--
Eat the rich.
Re:Yes, it IS censorship... by justthinkit · 2016-09-03 00:27 · Score: 1

Every single response has been a black and white one. Your's is as well. Here was my "shades of gray" one.

The employer/video choices are not the two black and white choices you list. They are/can include: (1) do whatever you want, (2) do it some of the time (20% if you work at Google), (3) do all you can at lunch time, (4) do none at work but here is some equipment to do it at home, (5) do any of it at work and we own your video, (6) anything you do at work, we share the profits on 50:50, (7) heh, you are so talented we want to open up a video division of the company, etc.

There are an infinite number of ways of doing this. Most don't involve your employer encouraging you one minute and treating you like you are nothing the next.

To put this in the terms most commenters apparently need to understand it: This is a bad idea for YouTube/Google.

The concept no one is using is win:win. Everyone is all outraged -- "we ordered all the kids playing at our house to do things our way and they don't like it and want to leave". Well, try not ordering them.

The Google pattern is becoming embarrassing -- do something one way for a long time, then stick your hand in the spokes.

Google, you should Google "kaizen".

By the way, AmiMoJo, you don't seem to even understand the "pay" (i.e. purpose) of protesting. You seem to think protesters were getting paid, then were not getting paid. The pay of protesting -- and it ain't much, believe me -- is to hamper regular business while trying to get the word out to the buying public. Forcing protesters into designated protest areas, often ridiculously far away from anything, deleted both of these benefits, and is a tactic more suited to a police state. Which makes it an interesting counter-example indeed...

--
I come here for the love
Re:Yes, it IS censorship... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-05 04:13 · Score: 1

It is routine in this day and age to control the 99% with monetary means. For example, food. Only the richest can afford to buy non-GMO, certified organic food. The rest suffer in inverse relation to their bank account size.
Same with employment. Have an opinion, lose your job. Or don't get that choice job in the first place. Control through finance.
LOL! Can you cite one accredited scientific study that shows non-rich people are suffering by eating GMO food? *crickets* Rich people are just stupid enough and rich enough to waste their money on them, nobody *suffers* eating GMO.
Re:Yes, it IS censorship... by LienRag · 2016-09-10 22:24 · Score: 1

Basically this move shows that using youtube is a very bad idea, something that everybody with a brain knew already...

paranoia will destroy ya! by Xtifr · 2016-09-02 09:45 · Score: 1

"...Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown." You read that right -- any YouTube video covering any war or natural disaster is considered inappropriate for advertising.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you didn't read that right. "Controversial subjects...related to X" is not the same as "any video covering X".

There are plenty of ways to criticize this decision without resorting to ridiculous hyperbole. Although, I suppose for some people, ridiculous hyperbole is how they make their bread-and-butter, and such people do seem like the most likely to be affected by all this, so I suppose I'm not surprised. :)

Re:Isn't that all the videos that are worth watchi by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 09:51 · Score: 0

What the fuck does that mean "Advertiser Friendly"? HBO is full of tits, ass, swearing and killing. So is AMC, so is CNN.

The argument that advertisers don't want their message on anything racy or controversial is proven nonsense by all the cable networks that are full of filth, right along side ads.

Free Speech is not about Money by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 09:52 · Score: 1

Free speech is not about getting paid, so stop your whining.

"natural disasters and tragedies" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 09:53 · Score: 0

Guess that means no more money for videos about climate change.

Money brings money-problems by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · 2016-09-02 10:02 · Score: 1

I don't like the whole idea of monetizing your "important messages to the public". If you have something truly intelligent and important to say, you'll find a way to say it without sucking the teats of ad companies trying to sell garbage to idiots. I agree that too much power is being consolidated under the Google umbrella, but that's a whole different story.

--
-SR

Re:Money brings money-problems by Striek · 2016-09-02 10:09 · Score: 2

So those with something "truly intelligent to say" do not deserve to be paid for their time?
There's nothing wrong with "monetizing" your work - original creative works should be fairly compensated for, not many people would object to that. Advertising is but one way to do that. Granted, advertising isn't their only source of revenue, but it is a major one.
Selling advertising is far from the best way to get paid for stuff like this, but it works. Until we come up with something better, it is, at least to me, an acceptable arrangement.

--
"Government is like fire; a handy servant, but a dangerous master." -- George Washington
Re:Money brings money-problems by AmiMoJo · 2016-09-02 17:38 · Score: 1

Most of these channels have a Patreon now too. I'm not sure it's better than advertising because it creates a nasty feedback loop (see Thunderf00t for a great example of this), but it's there.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Money brings money-problems by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · 2016-09-02 20:40 · Score: 1

So those with something "truly intelligent to say" do not deserve to be paid for their time?
They don't deserve anything. They can make their own success, however, by selling books, coffee mugs and whatnot. Or sell nothing, go to work and still do it.
I'm probably not the most objective voice around this topic because I have great negative feelings toward advertisers in general.

--
-SR

Re:Isn't that all the videos that are worth watchi by known_coward_69 · 2016-09-02 10:04 · Score: 1

HBO is $15 - $20 a month depending who you buy it from

Youtube is like broadcast TV via antenna

Vimeo or Dailymotion perhaps? by tepples · 2016-09-02 10:12 · Score: 1

There are really no other free video hosting sites.

If the uploader is one of the video's authors, and the video clearly isn't promoting something for sale, Vimeo is an option, though where allowed "showcas[ing] your creative work" ends and prohibited "commercial content" begins can be tricky to find. And is Dailymotion still around?

Finally, if you're willing to step up from free to cheap (assuming low traffic), you could just make an Amazon S3 bucket and toss a WebM file up there. The current price for U.S. buckets is $0.09 per GB of data transfer and $0.03 per month of storage. So if you encode a 12 minute video at 1 Mbps (typical SD bitrate), it'll be 90 MB. Keeping it in S3 for a year costs $0.03/(GB mo) * 0.09 GB * 12 mo = 3 cents, and a thousand views cost $0.09/GB * 0.09 GB/view * 1000 views = $8.10. It might pose a problem if it goes viral though.

Re:Vimeo or Dailymotion perhaps? by Dogtanian · 2016-09-02 10:44 · Score: 1

It might pose a problem if it goes viral though.
Don't worry, someone'll rip it off and post it to YouTube if that happens anyway. Then someone else'll rip that off and post it to Facebook.

--
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).

Re:Isn't that all the videos that are worth watchi by tepples · 2016-09-02 10:17 · Score: 1

What the fuck does that mean "Advertiser Friendly"? HBO is full of tits, ass, swearing and killing.

And no ads other than for other HBO shows. That's why it's so expensive. It's also why Time Warner has in the past tied the ability to subscribe to HBO to also having a subscription to the co-owned Turner channels (TBS, TNT, CNN, HLN, Cartoon Network) and in some countries still does.

So is AMC, so is CNN.

AMC maybe, but CNN at least tries to bleep profanity and pixelate the most graphic parts of "tits, ass, [...] and killing."

Re:Isn't that all the videos that are worth watchi by jedidiah · 2016-09-02 10:17 · Score: 1

Youtube is NOTHING like a broadcast TV antenna.

Yet there is still plenty of sex and violence that makes it's way onto TV. The the evening news alone would be scandalous to old school censors. Let's not even get into what more uptight types might find questionable.

Better matching advertisers to content and viewers is one thing.

"Curating" content is something else entirely.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

Re:Trump is winning by jedidiah · 2016-09-02 10:22 · Score: 1

Austin is too much like California. You will end up with the same restrictions.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

This is Not Right by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 10:25 · Score: 0

You can't just go around arbitrarily adding Demons to people's videos.

Re:This is Not Right by Megol · 2016-09-02 11:08 · Score: 1

Of course they can, have you read their terms of service?

Re:Isn't that all the videos that are worth watchi by KozmoStevnNaut · 2016-09-02 10:27 · Score: 1

+1 for AvE, EEVblog, LGR, bigclivedotcom, Techmoan, Fully Charged and all the countless others who upload high-quality and extremely informative videos, without having to resort to vulgarity or shock value to get their points across.

--
Eat the rich.

Commercialized censorship is only worse. by kaybohmont · 2016-09-02 10:30 · Score: 1

Google is another big brother drones!

Get out of Youtube try LBRY by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 10:58 · Score: 0

https://lbry.io

It's like youtube on the blockchain. Have fun.

What? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 11:04 · Score: 0

... YouTube video covering any war or natural disaster ...

Not even boner pills or penis-enlargement treatments? Surely bad-news videos is the best place to speak about topics like suicide, abortion, anorexia, cancer, condoms and even under-age sex? Or, is no-one paying to be heard on those topics?

Good by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 11:14 · Score: 0

The sooner that useless site closes down, the better.

rofl by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 11:30 · Score: 0

get a real job?

Coerced to censor yourself is still censorship by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 11:31 · Score: 1

Being coerced to censor yourself is still censorship.

Hey there friend, it looks like you are societally and politically aware. But you don't need to concern yourself.
And it looks like your opinions and choice of words aren't in alignment with groupthink and newspeak. Don't you like facts and compassion?
And it looks like a large audience of like-minded people has formed and you've helped to make their voices heard. That really isn't necessary.
And it looks like their viewership has allowed you to focus on oration for a living and strengthened your message. It'd ... be a shame ... if something were to happen to your livelihood and your collective voices.
Won't you get on the bandwagon of political and corporate ambivalence? You know they have your best interests in mind.
And how about letting that social pendulum swing to the other side for a while? Other people should have the upper hand at life right now since you let your ancestors have it for so long.

CAPTCHA: inaction

Fascinating by jpatters · 2016-09-02 11:53 · Score: 1

It is fascinating to me that people seem to be advocating that YouTube should force its customers, which are the advertisers; to pay to have their ads placed on videos which the advertisers perceive as a bad juxtaposition with their ads. Do you really think that Pepsi wants to have their product associated with a video titled "Leaked Video of SJW LOSING IT Blows Up In Her Face"?

Look, it's simple. YouTube content creators are not entitled to monetization through YouTube's advertising system. They can still post their videos for free and YouTube will pay for all the bandwidth for serving their video. They are also free to monetize their videos in other ways. Patreon is probably a good fit for video creators with large fan bases and controversial content. They can also still find their own sponsors, but I object to the idea that sponsors should be forced to be associated with any and all videos on YouTube regardless of content.

Here are a couple of videos on the topic that give some context:
Eli the Computer Guy
The Young Turks

Eli points out one problem, though, which is that YouTube makes it hard for people to find out what the rules actually are. It would be nice if they could be make things more transparent.

--
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."

Re:Fascinating by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 13:53 · Score: 0

Patreon is a very bad fit for creators with large fanbases and controversial content. A system like Patreon, but not Patreon would be great. But relying on Patreon financially would be idiotic if you have controversial opinions and enough popularity to become a drama target.
Re:Fascinating by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 16:20 · Score: 1

Apparently, the ads are still there; the uploader just stops getting a share of the ad revenue. If that's true, this isn't about advertisers choosing not to associate, this is purely political dickery.

Creators? by jmhysong · 2016-09-02 11:57 · Score: 1

Most of these guys just comment on the creations of others.

Re:Creators? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 21:13 · Score: 0

So it's no different to magazines that pretend to cover $SUBJECT, but they're really selling eyeballs to advertisers.

Re:Obligatory indie bookstore by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 12:04 · Score: 0

Can you explain what "alt right" means for the people out of the loop?

Yeah, they still run ads on these videos by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 12:55 · Score: 2, Informative

They're demonetizing videos which are "unfriendly" and still running ads on them anyway. This is a filthy corporate cash grab, plain and simple. Proof

Re:Isn't that all the videos that are worth watchi by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 13:44 · Score: 0

bigclivedotcom [...] without having to resort to vulgarity or shock value to get their points across.

Does he have to? No. Does he anyway? Hell yes. I don't know how you're under the impression that bigclive isn't the trashiest electronic channel on Youtube.

Oh well by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 13:46 · Score: 0

It's not like YouTube (Google) is a bastion of free speech and unbridled creative expression. Some people might like to pretend it's like that, but it's not.

Now the people who use YouTube as their primary income (an option that had only existed for half a decade or so) are feeling a more direct grip, but that grip had always been there. The bottom line is you're using a private company to deliver your content (inane clickbait) and you're beholden to their rules.

If you don't like it, use another platform, or start your own. This is the internet age, and yes, this kind of thing still happens *all the time* The disruptive economy is real.

Just don't forget that if you become successful and someone like Alphabet/MS/FB/Apple and the like show up with a dump truck full of money wanting to buy your service, that escaping the tyranny of their rule over you was the reason your service came into existence in the first place.

Time to make different channels by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 14:31 · Score: 0

For different contents

Re:Isn't that all the videos that are worth watchi by DerekLyons · 2016-09-02 17:41 · Score: 1

Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor; Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism; Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language; Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items; Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown."
Isn't that just about all that is worth watching on Youtube?

No. Not even remotely.

What's going to be left if these creators move away or stop creating new stuff?

Everything that isn't what's listed above. Music videos, science videos. Game replays. AMV's. Etc... etc... etc... Probably 95% of what's there now.

Re:Isn't that all the videos that are worth watchi by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 18:25 · Score: 0

Isn't that just about all that is worth watching on Youtube?

No. You didn't stop to think that maybe your viewing preferences are atypical before sharing them with us?

Re:Isn't that all the videos that are worth watchi by KozmoStevnNaut · 2016-09-02 19:48 · Score: 1

He's not really that vulgar, in my opinion. But he does speak his mind on crap designs. Maybe my professional life has hardened me ;-)

--
Eat the rich.

Free Speech, not Paid speech by GNUALMAFUERTE · 2016-09-02 20:01 · Score: 1

You have a right to Free Speech, not a right to get paid for it. Youtube could pay a million dollars to each video that literally said that Hitler did nothing wrong, and that would not change Free Speech in the platform. Now, if they started removing comments that didn't say that, then maybe google did forget about do no evil and it went full Nazi, but as long as they are not removing content for its political commentary, or because it upsets its advertisers, there is still Free Speech on the platform.

Have people really become so self entitled that they think they have the right to get paid to say shit on the internet?

--
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?

It's not like the videos are being yanked by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 20:17 · Score: 0

There are already site like LiveLeak that advertisers can go to if they want to be associated with controversial content. Those are not the people Google is going after; they're going after main stream businesses. Those folks will not want to be associated with controversial content. A war report on CNN is fine; CNN will usually not present the issue in a controversial manner. A war report by that "Average Joe" plumber dude from a few years ago might be controversial, it might not, but it will not be worth Google's time to check every single video, so they'll (rightly) just demonetize them all. Google is a business and not a charity.

Yet YouTube is hosting and serving "Average Joe's" videos for free. This is an incredible opportunity for creators to get off their lazy asses and find alternative funding streams. Off the top of my head, I can think of quite a few controversial channels that make a nice living off of patreon: Armored Skeptic, Amazing Atheist, Thunderf00t, Sargon of Akkad... the list goes on.

So yeah, these folks need to STFU

"FREE TO VOICE OUR DISAPPROVAL" - banned by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 22:11 · Score: 0

Sure, unless hypothetically they said STFU with the complaining about our policies ON our platform - else you and your account + channel are cancelled. This would also be well within their right as the private platform owner?

Re:Obligatory indie bookstore by FunkSoulBrother · 2016-09-03 05:03 · Score: 1

It's the the Breitbart, /pol, MRA sort of assholes, as compared to the Cheney/Bush/Buckley sort of assholes.

I think the 'alt-right' guys are more honest because they are at least up front about their horrible views, where as the old school guys draped themselves in a veneer of respectability and authority that made them much more dangerous.

Re:Obligatory indie bookstore by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-03 15:28 · Score: 0

It's like 'bleeding-heart liberal,' but some idiots are still taking it seriously.

Newspaper paywall analogy by tepples · 2016-09-05 01:06 · Score: 1

You know what you pay for in a way you know it when buying a newspaper (you see headlines but do not read articles) and you decide if it's worth the price.

There are two problems with a too-literal application of the newspaper model to websites. First, it can become very expensive to buy five whole newspapers in a day for one article in each newspaper. Second, electronic payment has per-transaction payment processing costs that cash sale of locally printed physical newspapers lacks.

Re:Newspaper paywall analogy by allo · 2016-09-07 09:29 · Score: 1

Maybe it's part of the problem, that we want to combine that many news sources. With paper you choose one and maybe another if somebody tells you there's a really interesting article. On the web you switch between 10.

Patreon by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-06 03:00 · Score: 0

I am happy to see Youtube taking a stance and stopping monetary support of lowest common denominator vlogs. If any person is affected by this they can simply launch a Patreon to receive direct funding from their "fanbase". Creators make not only greater profit but a more reliable income from Patreon than they do from advertising. Youtube ad revenue has historically been very uneven month-to-month and not a reliable way for most content creators to earn a living.

Not demonetizing VEVO channels, I bet by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-10 07:34 · Score: 0

Kanye's FADE and "adult" songs are fine I see.

I hope you fucking die slow by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 12:33 · Score: 0

you are garbage. human waste. SOOO stupid you think like a child right out of school.

and they just changed the rules by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-13 12:38 · Score: 0

get it? dick.

Slashdot Mirror

Creators Call Out YouTube For Demonetizing Videos (dailydot.com)

193 comments