Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

YouTube Now Requires Channels To Have More Than 10K Views To Make Money Off Ads (cnet.com)

Posted by msmash on from the taking-a-stand dept.

YouTube is getting a little pickier about who can make money there. From a report on CNET: Google's massive video site said Thursday that channels must reach 10,000 total views before they qualify to run ads, the most direct way to make money there. The logic, essentially, is to remove one of the main incentives that spur bad actors to set up bogus accounts with somebody else's content -- the easy money. It also comes two weeks after YouTube suffered big advertiser pull-outs after a rash of news reports about brands' commercials running next to objectionable videos, like those with racist language.

76 comments

  1. Potentially a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe this will cut down a little on spam and clickbait?

    1. Re:Potentially a good thing by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe this will cut down a little on spam and clickbait?

      Or maybe it will ramp it up, since now they have to get 10,000 views... and the best way to do that is with spam, clickbait, and maybe even some outright clickfraud.

    2. Re:Potentially a good thing by edx93 · · Score: 2

      Hopefully. Call me cynical, but question: of all the $$ they dish out for ad revenue, what fraction goes to small-time videos? Could be a good way to cut down on costs. Any google-ites care to chime in?

    3. Re:Potentially a good thing by sodul · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hopefully. Call me cynical, but question: of all the $$ they dish out for ad revenue, what fraction goes to small-time videos? Could be a good way to cut down on costs. Any google-ites care to chime in?

      The way I read it is that it would cut down on incoming revenue to YouTube: ads are entirely disabled until 10k views on a given video. It is not 'no revenue sharing until 10k', it is 'no ads until 10k'. Quite different. This count is on the channel's view not per video so this should have limited impact for the content producers that have lot of videos with niche viewership. Unfortunately it will probably have the side effect of forcing small channels to split their videos in a 2, 3 4 part video to help bump the views count to 10k faster.

    4. Re:Potentially a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, it'll just make google a bit richer, and the content-producers a bit poorer.

    5. Re:Potentially a good thing by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      The 10k views threshhold is for the CHANNEL - not individual videos. Realistically this won't affect anyone who has made more than $20 off of Youtube before.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    6. Re:Potentially a good thing by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "The way I read it is that it would cut down on incoming revenue to YouTube: "

      It also cuts down the overhead of accounting for the money streams on small channels, so they're probably doing it because it's a net win.

    7. Re:Potentially a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yup, just create a little bigger bot market. won't solve a damn thing.

    8. Re:Potentially a good thing by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      It's more than likely just push it to other sites.

      In the past few weeks, I have noticed that more meme pages on social media are posting videos that play on weird, ad laden domains.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    9. Re:Potentially a good thing by swillden · · Score: 1

      "The way I read it is that it would cut down on incoming revenue to YouTube: "

      It also cuts down the overhead of accounting for the money streams on small channels, so they're probably doing it because it's a net win.

      I don't see how it's more difficult to account for money streams on small channels anyway, but that's clearly not what's going on here because small channels (less than 10K views) will have no revenue to account, not for the channel owner or for YouTube, because ads will simply be disabled.

      I suspect this may also be part of a larger plan to make it easier for YouTube to tag channels with content labels, so they can allow advertisers to pick what kinds of videos they want their ads shown next to. That's a dramatically tougher problem if they have to try to categorize the long tail. By simply not showing ads on the long tail, I'd guess they reduce the number of channels they have to tag correctly by 99% or so. It also means that YouTube doesn't need to tag channels when they first get created.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:Potentially a good thing by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "I don't see how it's more difficult to account for money streams on small channels anyway"

      I will thank you to note that I didn't say that it was.

      My point was that the overhead is probably fixed but the revenue stream is not, so there need to be a minimum view rate for YouTube to cover their own costs. Less than that, it's cheaper just to show the video with no ad at all.

    11. Re:Potentially a good thing by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Several years ago my wife made a series of DIY crafty things involving cute animals. Probably 30-50 videos, 5-15 minutes each, and i'm guessing it was 2012-2014 or so. I don't know that she topped 1k subscribers, and she hasn't added a thing since.
       
      She made $1k last year on ad revenue. That blows my mind.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    12. Re:Potentially a good thing by swillden · · Score: 1

      "I don't see how it's more difficult to account for money streams on small channels anyway"

      I will thank you to note that I didn't say that it was.

      My point was that the overhead is probably fixed but the revenue stream is not, so there need to be a minimum view rate for YouTube to cover their own costs. Less than that, it's cheaper just to show the video with no ad at all.

      Meh. And I say that as a Google engineer who used to work on the accounting and payment-distribution systems, though I think I'd come to the same conclusion even without inside knowledge. You have to store a bunch of data about each account anyway, and you have to have regular map/reduce jobs over accounts to gather data and send it to the payment systems. It would be more work to distinguish channels based on viewer volume and decide whether to include them.

      Come to think of it, part of the reason for this decision may have been analysis of engineering effort, precisely because you don't have to bother with those distinctions in the payment process. The ad-choosing software has to make a bunch of channel-specific (and user-specific) decisions anyway, so it's likely trivial to ad "if (total_views < 10000) return NO_AD;". That done, the accounting and payment systems can continue to operate completely unaffected; they'll still scan over all YouTube channels looking for ad views to revenue-share, but the little channels just won't have any. Easy peasy.

      Google engineers typically don't think too much about the server-side cost of scanning a few million (or billion) extra records. Given the infrastructure, the cost of doing so is trivial. It would be easy to insert a little logic in the scanning process to check view counts, assuming that data is easily available at that point, but you've already done all of the I/O at that point, so it would gain nothing. To actually gain, you'd have to somehow identify beforehand which records to avoid scanning. I suppose you could create an additional table, populated by a pre-processing map/reduce, that tells you which ones to scan, but that (a) still wouldn't save any overall I/O or CPU and (b) could be error-prone in various ways. You could also update that table as views occur, but that would add latency and complexity to the up-front processes.

      No... from both a user fairness perspective and an engineering effort perspective, it's much better to simply not show ads on those channels. Plus all of the other reasons I mentioned in my previous comment.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    13. Re:Potentially a good thing by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "it's much better to simply not show ads on those channels"

      This is what they are doing.

    14. Re:Potentially a good thing by swillden · · Score: 1

      "it's much better to simply not show ads on those channels"

      This is what they are doing.

      Yes, that's what I said. You said "It also cuts down the overhead of accounting for the money streams on small channels", and I said (at perhaps excessive length) that that doesn't make sense.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  2. Original Content? by HockeyPuck · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The logic, essentially, is to remove one of the main incentives that spur bad actors to set up bogus accounts with somebody else's content -- the easy money.

    How are they going to determine who the original content owner is? There's so many compilation videos on the site that rehash the same smartphone/dash cam content over and over. Is it "first to upload" especially when the original upload might be on some other site (vimeo/liveleak etc...).

    1. Re:Original Content? by viperidaenz · · Score: 3

      They're not. They never said they would. As the text you quoted says, they're removing an incentive for someone to re-post someone else's content.
      RTFTYQ - Read the Fucking Text You Quoted

    2. Re:Original Content? by sexconker · · Score: 2

      They don't need to.

      The original owner can file a takedown claim once they see it copied to other channels.
      The copiers need to see the video, know that it's going viral, upload it to an account they have monetized (10,000 views or more), and wait for the money to come in.

      In the time it takes the copiers (and there will be multiple competing with each other), the original video is still "going viral". By the time the copier channels get 10,000 views they'll be buried in the search results or have their shit taken down.

      I suggested a similar approach when this shit was blowing up, but I suggested it on a per-video basis. Unless Google adds additional policing of accounts, this move won't help much. They'll have prepped 10,000 view accounts ready to go, or they'll farm up 10,000 views on new accounts with bots.

    3. Re:Original Content? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It takes time to hit 10K views. The more time and the more views the more opportunity there is for infringing videos to get caught and locked before ad revenue kicks in. In theory, this reduces the incentive to try to upload multiple infringing videos and make a quick buck from the collective ad revenue from before they get locked.

    4. Re:Original Content? by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 1

      YT has no real incentive to take down re-uploaded videos that have been monetized by someone else in a timely fashion -- in fact it's very much in their favor not to take them down quickly.

      Why?

      Well think about what happens to the ad-revenues generated by these re-uploaded videos before they're removed?

      Where does it go?

      I don't think it goes to the actual original video owner and they're sure as hell not going to refund the advertisers -- so it's a nice little earner for YT because I'd bet the money goes straight into their own vaults.

      I've lost track of how many hundreds of copyright claims I've filed against folk who have re-uploaded many of my more popular vids and it's a hugely time-consuming task -- time that I'd rather spend making new vids. I suggested to YT some time ago that they really ought to do something like this, especially when new channels pop up and have hundreds of videos added overnight. In such cases you can be almost 100% certain that they're running a script that downloads and re-uploads other people's vids.

    5. Re:Original Content? by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      So what you are saying limiting by number of views does not really do anything other than reduce accounting costs. So 1,000 views should be a more reasonable limit and to kerb cheats, payments should be delayed to allow the content to be contested prior to payment, say between 30 and 90 days. If youtube was serious about better control of up loaders they should allow end users to block you tubers they do not want to see or bother to try to remember not to see and keep statistics of the blocked youtubers ie make it worth while to register. There is a whole bunch of crappy up loaders I want to block, fake thumbnails, bullshit titles, scraped content, photos as videos, machine voices, crap reviewers, propagandists, government agents, corporate junk, ads masquerading as content, VEVO (heh heh, although I can quite readily remember to avoid that one). Allow blocking of uploaders you bloody fucknuckles, grrr!

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:Original Content? by LesFerg · · Score: 1

      I would also like them to cull out the poor quality rips of movies, the movies with changed speed and a comment to replay at half speed, and those mirrored backward movie rips which are supposedly hidden from search engines.
      You still can't report a video for being an illegal copy of somebody elses property.

      --
      If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
    7. Re:Original Content? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Youtube is required to automatically respond to DMCA notices from small kids just like the do for the big boy MAFIAA types. Of course they don't, because Joe Schmoe can't inject his content into the audio/video matching bots which are the main anevue of blocking shit on Youtube now.

      And when corps block videos the unpaid ad revenue can get redirected to them. I don't know if it always happens or if you have to be a large enough fish to get such a result in your favor, but it does happen. Youtube doesn't pay out ad revenue immediately.

    8. Re:Original Content? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are they going to determine who the original content owner is?

      They aren't, they don't care.

      That is what gives us situations like when Sony used music written by Bjorn Lynne under a CC license as background music and then used their usage of his music as a reason to block his channel.

  3. Msmash now require boner for gay sex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    haha

    1. Re:Msmash now require boner for gay sex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      No she doesn't.

  4. Attention Google you piece of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    How come you have cut off a patriot in Alex Jones yet you were caught ad money sponsoring violent jihadist videos, you lying dirty motherfuckers?

    * "Don't be evil", remember THAT you pieces of shit? You were always evil assholes & pieces of HEROIN JUNKIE shit motherfuckers!

    APK

    P.S.=> Makes me PROUD to CUT YOUR ASSES OFF money-wise fuckers, via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ ... apk

    1. Re:Attention Google you piece of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JFK angry much? Keep taking the blood pressure meds dude

    2. Re:Attention Google you piece of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The downmods are for shilling his malware.

    3. Re:Attention Google you piece of shit by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If we're talking about this Alex Jones: Are you really asking or just trolling?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Attention Google you piece of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bottom of his post proves it's no malware from virustotal with 60 antiviruses saying it's safe. You're a lying troll. A jealous one that can't do as well or you're a malware maker yourself projecting it, or an advertiser whose ads get blocked by his ware.

  5. Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm a piano and guitar player trying to improve. There are some incredibly talented professional jazz, folk, blues (and other non-pop) musicians who create teaching videos to supplement their income. Many only have a few thousand viewers.

    With streaming music services paying a fraction of a cent per song to the artist, well folks, if this keeps up we will only have Bubble gum pop and classic rock to listen to.

    We need a co-op video/music streaming service where the profits go to the artists.

    1. Re:Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sigh. there are a ton of those already.

      nobody is on them, everybody is on youtube.

      it's called critical mass, unfortunately. :(

    2. Re:Great. by Rukia · · Score: 1
      They say the threshold is "lifetime views," what you're probably referring to is called "subscribers."

      https://youtube-creators.googl...

      For example here is a specific video on a channel with around 52K subscribers, but the video itself only has a few thousand "views" explicitly.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      There are many other videos with "views" on that channel though and it should be possible for a smaller channel with very few subscribers to have a much higher view total across all videos on that channel.

    3. Re:Great. by Gavagai80 · · Score: 4, Informative

      If their entire channel has less than 10K views, they're probably losing $10 or less from this. I doubt the loss of $10 is going to kill entire genres of music.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  6. Unintended consequences? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does this mean that ContentID won't scan videos on channels with under 10K views? Considering YouTube only care about copyright for purposes of advertising (who gets to monetize, etc.), these channels are no longer 'taking away money' from the Cartel, and so can be ignored.

    1. Re:Unintended consequences? by PhantomHarlock · · Score: 1

      Currently you have to sign up for ContentID manually anyway. They don't give it to everyone by default. You have to show that you're hosting all original content.

      I'm for this change as I spend a lot of time filing takedowns for people who re-up my videos, and it's only thanks to alert viewers who take the time to send me messages that I find out about them. I don't have time to do routine searches. I will likely be signing up for contentID fairly soon.

  7. Reaction videos by thesjaakspoiler · · Score: 2

    are probably the worst case of preying other people honest efforts to publish something.

  8. RIAA is going to throw a fit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Pop-up channels with music will make no money off of ads, and thus, no royalties.

    1. Re:RIAA is going to throw a fit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google will still run ads. The channel owner just won't get a cut.

  9. The 15-minute limit by tepples · · Score: 1

    I thought small channels already had to split a video into several parts under the 15-minute limit in order to earn enough views to qualify for lifting the 15-minute limit.

    1. Re:The 15-minute limit by sodul · · Score: 1

      I would guess that this one is to force youtubers to learn basic video editing before posting raw footage of 'My bedroom remodeling, look at the paint dry'.

      Why did I look? Of course it is a thing!

    2. Re: The 15-minute limit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this changed, max is 12 hours, and all you need to do is verify your account with a phone number.

    3. Re:The 15-minute limit by ninthbit · · Score: 1

      Videos should only be 8-15 minutes long anyways :) ... after that, my ass starts to get sore from sitting on the crapper. The longer 20+ minute videos just seem to sit in my Watch Later queue and never get watched. If I have that much time, then I'll fire up Netflix/Hulu and catchup on my actual TV shows.

  10. Kill two birds with one stone? by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 2

    I blogged about a similar proposal earlier in the week but I suggest that they go even further.

    They should also come up with two content pools -- one (the premium pool) containing YouTube channel partners who meet a much tighter criteria -- such as 10 million views and 100K subs -- and another that contains all the others. These "premium" content creators would be vetted for the nature of their content (ie: ad-friendly) and offered to the J&J, Verizon, UK Government advertisers who are presently not advertising because of the hate/racist/extremist vids their ads were appearing against.

    If they properly vetted these premium channels then they could offer big-dollar advertisers placements which they know would not be on offensive content -- and attract a premium ad-rate at the same time.

    I recall back when the YT Channel Partner program kicked off, earnings were good for content creators because the entire ad-revenue pie was divided amongst a much smaller number of content creators. Viewers also got a much better experience because we didn't have every man and his dog monetizing 30 second "cute cat" videos with a 30 second unskippable preroll. Advertisers also got a good deal because their ads were only being placed on channels that had proven their worth and the quality of their content by having been chosen for the program.

    Once they opened the doors so that everyone could monentize, the existing channel partners saw a huge drop in earnings. Now, with the big-dollar advertisers fleeing in droves, they're probably going to see yet another drop. This is further aggravated by the bugs in YT's new system for automatically detecting and demonetizing potentially "unfriendly" vids. Lots of YT's biggest channels have had significant numbers of their vids automatically demonetized by this lame system -- so are seeing an even greater drop in revenue as a result.

    Unfortunately it's YT's greed that has created the current situation so I doubt they'll wind the clock back enough to solve it.

    1. Re:Kill two birds with one stone? by clonehappy · · Score: 1

      I'd say your system would be a start.

      But there should also be a "second tier". Where content that doesn't meet the mommy-government-happy-shiny standard of acceptability, and your second-tier advertisers, the ones who can't afford to advertise on the sanitized channels, can still get their advertising out there (albeit at a lower cost).

      Considering all of these systems are automated anyway, Google doesn't have anything to lose and it can be a win for free speech as well as small business, as people with a message the government or Verizon or whoever doesn't like can still monetize their content and the little guy still gets his ads out.

      But I'm sure that will never happen. In 2017, opinions different from yours are "hate/racist/extremist" and don't deserve to be seen by anyone, let alone monetized, and that's what all this hubbub is really about: Google and Big Tech quashing free speech as usual. Same shit, different day.

    2. Re:Kill two birds with one stone? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Why do you not want to advertise on a channel that I very obviously like to watch, or I would not watch it?

      That's the question I'd have to ask. I don't know about you, but I don't watch stuff I don't want to watch. Why? Because I fucking can, duh. It's not like I have to sit through the stupid sitcom because my favorite show comes right after and the channel is notorious for not heeding its schedule enough that I could rely on the times being accurate. I, and only I, decide what I see and what I don't.

      And yes, some of the content I watch is "controversial". As in "could get some religious weenie's panties in a knot when he hears that his imaginary buddy gets insulted". By the way, YouTube, do you think it's "topical" to show me ads for Muslim dating pages when I watch a video of a guy who shows that the koran holds at least as much bullshit as the bible in even less content?

      But yes, I'd actually watch an ad before that. I'd want to know what company is actually rooted enough in reality to support someone speaking out against the bullshit religion is. Hell, I'd even buy something from a company like that, provided I can actually use their goods, because I think they're supporting someone who I like.

      In a nutshell, people watch videos they enjoy. You, advertisers, DO want to be associated with that. You DO want to be associated with something the watcher enjoys, considers pleasurable and maybe even wholesome. That's what you DO want to be associated with!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Kill two birds with one stone? by Kkloe · · Score: 1

      They are not quashing free speech as the content creators have others sites to get whatever they want that allow their content, quashing free speech would be if youtube was the only place to put up content and then forbid "haters that gona hate"

    4. Re:Kill two birds with one stone? by matbury6017 · · Score: 1

      Nice idea in principle, but isn't the problem with hate speech and fake news that it's so very very popular? In fact, anything that's sensational, extreme, and provocative, which in turn is caused by Google's business model of rewarding links that get the biggest reactions. Google are simply reaping what they've sown.

  11. AdSense by Ozaark · · Score: 0

    If AdSense did this it would ruin the business model for every single new page featuring it.

  12. Youtube Spambots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Youtube is already overrun with spambots. Guess who's driving up the views? Robots! I can't post a single comment without having some spambot reply to it with some nonsense ad bullshit.

  13. Better Proposal by n329619 · · Score: 1

    Videos can only get Ads after it received 100 ratings with at least 50% likes.

    It's not a lot of ratings, but if the video clearly has terrible content, the youtube community will vote it out quickly. It will also encourage the uploader to submit quality videos instead of bad/ fake contents.

    1. Re:Better Proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be "weaponizing" 'likes', allowing any group to 'dislike-bomb' every video a content producer makes. Thereby cutting their ad revenue.

      you do NOT want to give 'weapons' to trolls... *speaking as someone who makes online (both YouTube and other platforms) educational videos and posting as AC b/c I can't speak on behalf of my employer*

    2. Re:Better Proposal by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Political, cults, communist parties, monarchies, theocracies and faith based groups would just list links in their forums and sites to urge votes on content.
      Freedom of speech and after speech would be lost.
      Is blasphemy in a nation with freedom of speech bad content?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  14. So use an ad blocker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your favorite channels losing their income because of this and the ban on ad revenue for political content, but you're still seeing ads? You know what to do.

  15. Attention Google you piece of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How come you have cut off a patriot in Alex Jones yet you were caught ad money sponsoring violent jihadist videos, you lying dirty motherfuckers?

    * "Don't be evil", remember THAT you pieces of shit? You were always evil assholes & pieces of HEROIN JUNKIE shit motherfuckers!

    APK

    P.S.=> Makes me PROUD to CUT YOUR ASSES OFF money-wise fuckers, via (playing YOUR GAME better than YOU do losers, lol (750 million in 1 DAY loss for you due to the above, lol & adblockers like mine CUT YOU TO SHREDS, 62++% & climbing adclick loss for you, JUNKIES) APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/ ... apk

  16. Best most efficient NATIVE adblocker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

    Ads/script & malware rob speed/security/privacy

    Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

    Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

    Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirects (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + lightens DNS load & resolves faster from local system RAM!

    * Via what u NATIVELY have in the IP stack in FASTER kernelmode!

    APK

    P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

  17. Best most efficient NATIVE adblocker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

    Ads/script & malware rob speed/security/privacy

    Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

    Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

    Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirects (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + lightens DNS load & resolves faster from local system RAM!

    * Via what u NATIVELY have in the IP stack in FASTER kernelmode!

    APK

    P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/

  18. No, that's not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is about stopping ads appearing next to objectionable content. So no, popup ads won't appear, even if the revenue goes to the music copyright holder. But then again these are low volume accounts so its not a great loss.

  19. Not going to help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this will do is force smaller channels to sell the rights to their content to larger video collectors who can make money off the ads themselves. These services exist and already pay way less for the rights than they intend to make in ad profits. Now with this rule change they will pay even less for content knowing small channels have no other option if they want to make money. I saw nothing wrong with some random mom with 4 followers making a few thousand off ads because the video of her kid went viral. I'm not sure google's logic is sound here.

  20. I just post videos by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    I just post videos because I want to share something, I have never signed up for ad revenue. And I suspect that there are quite a number of people around that do the same thing.

    I probably could have made some money on this video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ) but I don't really see it as worth the effort.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  21. Won't stop demonetization for other "reasons". by Chas · · Score: 1, Insightful

    With their regressive attitudes and their willingness to demonetize ANYTHING at the drop of a hat...I don't think this will make any real difference to people already being butt-fucked by YouTube, simply for not conforming to the YouTube censors' own political ideals.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Won't stop demonetization for other "reasons". by Chas · · Score: 1

      Holy shit, my personal little "nothing" channel is like 700 views short of being able to monetize!

      How the fuck did THAT happen?

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    2. Re:Won't stop demonetization for other "reasons". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With their regressive attitudes and their willingness to demonetize ANYTHING at the drop of a hat...I don't think this will make any real difference to people already being butt-fucked by YouTube, simply for not conforming to the YouTube censors' own political ideals.

      With their regressive attitudes and their willingness to obsolete ANYTHING at the drop of a hat...I don't think this will make any real difference to people already being butt-fucked by Apple, simply for not conforming to Tim Cook's own political ideals.

      There, FTFY.

  22. I have 481,000 views but disabled all ads by bobjr94 · · Score: 1

    I have nearly a half million views on my channel but have not monetized any of the videos. Sure I could make a few dollars but I don't like watching ads but Im sure most other people don't like them either.

    1. Re:I have 481,000 views but disabled all ads by Wulf2k · · Score: 1

      Everybody should be using adblock anyway.

      And if they're not using adblock, why should you be the only one not getting a few bucks out of their browsing?

  23. Can't be so bad by ReneR · · Score: 1

    if even my small channel is apparently not affected: https://www.youtube.com/renere...

  24. LOL by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    Well, google has to make it's money somehow. If some are making a quick buck, google will tweak it until they make more than someone else. It's called business.

  25. Embedded tags by Tvingo · · Score: 1

    Can Youtube embed tags in the videos, so that if someone downloads it off one channel then tries to upload it elsewhere that this information is automatically detected as a fraudulent video? Either that or have watermarks on every video with the channel name, so the same issue would apply, youtube could detect any existing watermark in the video being uploaded and know to automatically nix the upload? There has to be a technical solution that would prevent duplication by bots or spammers.

    --
    Nothing i have to say is worth saying.
  26. CNN/arstechnica ban from whitehouse anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google's cut InfoWars' ad sponsorship but not violent wahabi (sp?) islam ones & infowars has more viewership than CNN by far for example!

    On "FAKE NEWS"? Hey - CNN/Arstechnica was PRESIDENTALLY "BITCHSLAPPED & BANNED" from the whitehouse as "THE VERY FAKE NEWS" BY Good President Trump himself!

    My source = FAR more reputable & better than your bs chump (you're probably a HEROIN JUNKIE FLUNKIE of Google's is my guess (their execs love their HEROIN, lol)).

    APK

    P.S.=> Lastly/by the way: I didn't even BOTHER read your link as it's probably horseshit based on what I said about wikipedia entries (which I've myself personally found mistakes in before by the way (regarding quotes from StarTrek TOS of all things but it happened), which is why it's not considered a valid reputable source for say, term papers in academia in my day @ least) - anyone can put anything on wikipedia, even lies & only MAYBE will it be caught/corrected (maybe, most likely not) - SO did you THINK (assuming thought is possible for your "FAKE NAME ONLINE FOR YOUR FAKE LIFE" kind hiding behind DELUSIONAL NAMES, lol) you are fooling anyone here other than yourself?... apk

    1. Re: CNN/arstechnica ban from whitehouse anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a national treasure APK. I have used notepad to manually add you to my list of trusted 16bit hosts on Android.

  27. No More Ads on YouTube! by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

    My forays into Youtube have been facilitated by my PS4 and Xbone. I end up posting bugs like this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?... or cool moments like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    My friends get to take a look and I think that it is great that now they don't have to put up with ads when checking out my latest video.

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like