YouTube Is Fighting the 'Adpocalypse' With a Less Trigger-Happy Flagging System (theverge.com)

YouTube has rolled out a new algorithm that the company says will more accurately reflect YouTube's guidelines for ad-friendly material and result in fewer videos being flagged as advertiser-friendly. "It will supposedly reduce the number of demonetized listings by 30 percent, so 'millions more videos' will be able to make money off the full range of advertisements," reports The Verge. From the report: A YouTube manager writes that the new algorithm was trained by nearly three months' worth of human reviews, starting after YouTube added a manual appeals process for creators in August. Theoretically, this should narrow the range of false positives -- videos that were incorrectly flagged for promoting drug use, using excessive profanity, highlighting gratuitous violence, or otherwise featuring content that advertisers might find objectionable. It's being applied retroactively, so creators who didn't appeal could still get some old videos remonetized. Google also encourages people to keep appealing potentially incorrect flags, because "this updated system is an improvement, but it's not perfect."

Comments

Advertising

[110010001000]

It is 2017 people. Who is still viewing Youtube without an adblocker???

Re:Advertising

[0123456]

Which adblocker blocks Youtube ads?

Mostly I just try to avoid the site these days because the ads are so annoying.

Re:Advertising

[Presence Eternal]

Mobile users mostly. I'm sure disneycartoys is happy.

Re:Advertising

[110010001000]

All of them? I don't get it. I personally use a HOSTS file blocker produced from a genius called APK. Ever heard of him?

Re:Advertising

[zennyboy]

I just see "cleaned by Adblock for Youtube", so I guess this one does...

Re:Advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

Adblock Plus and UBlock Origin do.

But they're only the two most-popular Adblocking browser add-ons, so maybe you haven't heard of them.

Re:Advertising

[CaptainDork]

Cryptocurrency mining?

Re: Advertising

[afidel]

Or you could be an adult, realize that creative people need to be paid too and pay for your content directly if you don't want ads. I pay for YouTube Red, Hulu's no ads tier, and Amazon Prime for that very reason.

Re:Advertising

[Darinbob]

Basic ad-block plus on Firefox, and I have never seen a youtube ad there. I hadn't even realized youtube had advertisements at the start of videos until I started trying to use youtube on my TV instead of computer.

For the TV, I have a basic adblock running on my router. It does not block all ads though, but I think it is blocking some. I need to rework the blacklist some more though. When I do see an ad on youtube I will often skip it, and sometimes I'll skip the stupid video altogether.

I don't care one bit that the video creator gets no money. Most of them are just uploading other people's content. If you're a person trying to make a living off of uploaded videos and you don't approve of my stance, then complain to the advertising industry and get them to clean up their act.

Re: Advertising

[Darinbob]

People do NOT need to be paid for half of the crap on youtube. They're uploading clips from a TV show, it's not their content, why pay them? Why should I have to sit through an ad to watch a movie preview - the movie preview already is an ad, so why watch an ad before I can watch an ad??

The advertising industry is evil. It is one of the primary sources of malware, it is constantly in your face with annoying or harmful ads. If someone makes their money from this industry then I don't have to support you. This is a war between advertising and consumers, and you're siding with the enemy.

And yes, I do skip watching videos if the ads pop up anyway. I never really saw much youtube in the past until I could see it on tv, I can easily cut the advertising cord there as well.

Re:Advertising

[thereitis]

I have 1 browser with an ad-blocker and 1 without. I use the no-blocker browser when I want to be signed in to Google and rate or comment on YouTube videos. I don't mind getting a 5 second YT ad or one I can skip after 5 seconds with that browser, but when it gets too long I switch back to my other browser (with blocking). I don't have the time or inclination to put up with 30 second ads, sorry Google. That's why I don't listen to radio or subscribe to cable. Even commercial skipping pisses me off. So the long and the short of it is: keep the ads very short or I will just block all of them.

Re: Advertising

[Opportunist]

If more people had to pay for content, we'd certainly see less of those "top 10" videos that "blow your mind".

Seriously, if I had to pay what they're worth, I'd get money back.

Re:Advertising

[F.Ultra]

Yeah I'v heard that every time some one install an adblocker, a anonymous donation in the millions is made to Youtube in order to sustain their infrastructure.

Re:Advertising

[FormOfActionBanana]

Just in case you are serious... I actually prefer to see the videos uploaded by people who are not trying to make a profit. They generally don't make an irritating intro sequence to announce their stupid video. Let's see an example:

I just searched for barbecue, we know there are barbecue aficionados out there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

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

What is the difference between these two videos? Well, one of them is insulting, irritating and I wouldn't mind if the entire production crew lost their jobs and turned to petty crime to get by. The other: interesting to see how people do their barbecues!

Re:Advertising

[sproketboy]

I have an ad blocker but I turn it off for my subscribed channels so the creators can get a few shekels at least.

Re: Advertising

[110010001000]

I don't get it. Why would you NOT block ads? They frequently maintain malware. Business models are not my problem.

Re:Advertising

[Applehu Akbar]

It is 2017 people. Who is still viewing Youtube without an adblocker???

In 2017, when was the last time you were able to go to a Web page that did not require you to turn off your adblocker?

Re: Advertising

[Khyber]

Yea, guess what? Same shit was advertised with Cable TV - NO ADS!

I'm going to very pointedly put my finger in your face and laugh when history repeats itself with your precious online streaming services.

Re:Advertising

[Greyfox]

My GF refused to install one until I stealthily put Ublock Origin on the living room gaming/vr rig I set up. After a couple of weeks of browsing on that, she was actually angry about how shitty the internet is without an ad blocker.

Re:Advertising

[FormOfActionBanana]

Oh, I guess that's the problem with adblockers... I have to guess which videos have ads.

Wait a minute, I've had shitty videos up there for like ten years. Is there an ad before this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: Advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of the really good YouTube creators have patreon pages and apparently are making good living off of that.

I really like this age we're living in, where someone can make a video channel of a video games, or philosophy, or economics, or any topic Under the Sun, and as long as there are people who are interested they can make their living doing that thing.

Re:Advertising

[wonkey_monkey]

uBlock Origin does. AdBlock Plus does.

Safe to say any ad blocker worth its salt does.

Re:Advertising

[antdude]

Sure, what about on smart TVs, AppleTV, etc.? :P

Re: Advertising

[Cinnamon Beige]

I honestly would be quite happy to whitelist any ad group that makes a point--openly, publicly, and in both words and actions--of making sure that they don't serve as a malware vector.

If they really wanted my love? Let me also flag offensive ads, ads which are betting that the viewer will forget that they hate them but remember the brand, and say flat-out that I don't & won't for the foreseeable future use that product so stop showing me ads for it.

Re:Advertising

[Cinnamon Beige]

It is 2017 people. Who is still viewing Youtube without an adblocker???

In 2017, when was the last time you were able to go to a Web page that did not require you to turn off your adblocker?

I think I've only run across a couple, it was 2016 when I saw a lot and that tended to mark the last time I visited that site. I still get to a lot of places, and a few attempts to hold content hostage for my turning off my adblocker may have gone unnoticed because I also require scripts get whitelisted, and none of the places I dropped are particularly missed.

I prefer not having to deal with prying malware off my systems. As long as they don't show awareness and respect for the fact that I don't want to get malware and am actively avoiding vectors? I will be as sympathetic to whining about my use of an adblocker as I would be for a mugger's complaints about 'lost earnings' because I did not have cash on me.

"...three months' worth of human reviews..."

[turkeydance]

there it is. right there. see?

The problem I see

[rsilvergun]

is folks flagging stuff as 'controversial' because they disagree with it. Lots of the left wing channels got flagged. But even some science channels got flagged by the anti-climate change folks and the 'intelligent design' crowd.

Re:The problem I see

[TheMeuge]

I actually see it rather prominently done on the other side. Pretty much every video of every channel that's dedicated to firearms sports is immediately demonetized... no matter how tame, apolitical, or polite it is.

Re:The problem I see

[taiwanjohn]

It's done on both sides of the political spectrum, as well as a lot of content that isn't political at all. The only difference I've noticed is that a slightly higher proportion of right-wing YouTubers seem to think it's only happening to them, and blame it on "left wing media bias," whereas the lefties call it "corporate media bias."

Re:The problem I see

[cold fjord]

The problem I see . . . is folks flagging stuff as 'controversial' because they disagree with it. Lots of the left wing channels got flagged. But even some science channels got flagged by the anti-climate change folks and the 'intelligent design' crowd.

On one hand I would say it generally isn't right to do that. On the other, my heart bleeds for them. I mean, it's not like the left wing goes out of its way to abuse, ... well ...

PragerU sues YouTube, Google for blacklisting its conservative educational videos

College melts down over plan for white people-free day on campus

Justice Department settles IRS lawsuits from 400 conservative groups claiming discrimination

Court Documents Show The IRS Focused Scrutiny On Conservative Groups

Now, thanks to filings in a federal lawsuit in Ohio, there is such a list, with 426 names on it. And yes, it's top-heavy with conservative groups:

— 62 had Tea Party or Tea Party Patriots in the name

— a additional 14 had Patriots in the name

— 30 groups had 9/12 or Liberty in the name (9/12 refers to groups inspired by conservative television personality Glenn Beck)

In all, 282 conservative groups were on the IRS list, about two-thirds of the total number of groups that got additional scrutiny.

The list also has 67 progressive organizations (16 percent of the total) and 21 nonpartisan civic groups, including three League of Women Voters chapters.

The IRS took a hard look at Friends of Abe, a group for Hollywood conservatives, and at five state chapters of Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition. But also at LULAC (the League of Latin American Citizens), seven state groups with Progress in their names and two Occupy groups.

The Deerfield Beach, Fla., chapter of the National Council of Jewish Women caught the agency's eye. So did the National Federation of Independent Business and a group recorded simply as The Institute. Thirty-two groups couldn't be identified

I could go on.

Re:The problem I see

[gweihir]

Makes sense. Stupid people cannot accept voices disagreeing with them, because they cannot grasp the idea that they may be wrong themselves. Hence they create a filter-bubble and make the world a bit worse for everybody.

Anyways, I much rather give to Patreon for my favorite creators and block ads completely.

Re:The problem I see

[cold fjord]

Stupid people cannot accept voices disagreeing with them, because they cannot grasp the idea that they may be wrong themselves.

I'm pretty sure it isn't just "stupid people" that are known to exhibit that trait.

Re:The problem I see

[Opportunist]

Bad ideas require censorship to survive. Else even stupid people could easily see how stupid the ideas and those following them are.

Re:The problem I see

[SuricouRaven]

Youtube is international. Gun videos might be seen a good fun in the US, but elsewhere in the country a love of guns is seen as suspicious.

Re:The problem I see

[AmiMoJo]

I can only speak for the leftist circles I move in, but we are well aware that it's 4chan and right wing YouTube users. They discuss it quite openly, there is no need to guess.

Anyway, we have a better technique. Check out Operation Shiny Object. A guy called "Bearing" has been harassing small YouTube channels, with his mob of supporters. But he has a weakness: he can't resist responding to criticism. All we had to do was make a quick video or two every week and he couldn't resist making a long response, which stopped him having time to bother smaller channels and made him destroy his own channel with an endless series of boring nit picks.

Re:The problem I see

[taiwanjohn]

I think we're talking about two different but related things: the "it" I'm referring to is YouTube demonetizing videos, whereas you seem to be talking about groups of people deliberately flagging videos as offensive.(?) My only point is that the demonetizing happens to everybody, not just the left or the right.

Re:The problem I see

[sproketboy]

Lots of the "right" wing channels continually get flagged. But keep playing the victim card you leftist communist.

Re:The problem I see

[AmiMoJo]

Oh okay, my mistake. You are right, their bot has been going a bit nuts lately.

Re:The problem I see

[arth1]

Politics is one controversial category. Religion is another.
It's fine to flag those, but they need to be distinguished. One advertiser might be fine with political controversy, but don't want to be associated with religious views. Another might be the opposite.
And I think they should have an informed choice where they put their advertising dollars.
But that means finding out exactly why people found it controversial, and not just that.

Re:The problem I see

[gweihir]

Well, ignoring facts in decisions is pretty much one of the core definitions of "stupid".

You probably confuse "stupid" with "of low intelligence". The two do not match. People with low intelligence can be very much not stupid by clearly understanding what they do and do not understand and seeking expert advice on the latter. The problem stupid people have (even those of high intelligence) is vastly over-estimating their skills and hence arriving at invalid conclusions, such as to which facts do matter and which facts can be ignored. Personally, I like to call this "low wisdom" which, when combined with high intelligence, makes for the most dangerously stupid people. In science, the "Dunning-Kruger Effect" describes basically the same thing, although they have a bit of a different angle on it.

Re:The problem I see

[gweihir]

Yes, they very much do require censorship. Which is why we are seeing censorship and its ugly little sibling "chilling effects" on the raise all in the west.

Re:The problem I see

[Hognoxious]

I can only speak for the leftist circles I move in

Islamism isn't leftist.

Re:The problem I see

[AmiMoJo]

Wait... You think I am an Islamist? What the hell gave you that impression?

Re:The problem I see

[Hognoxious]

Your hatred of everything white, western & democratic. For example: https://slashdot.org/comments....

Re:The problem I see

[AmiMoJo]

So you think that if someone doesn't hate Muslims then they must hate white people and the West? There is no other possibly, it's either join the war against Islam or you must hate your own skin colour and the culture you live in?

Simple solution

[Okian Warrior]

is folks flagging stuff as 'controversial' because they disagree with it. Lots of the left wing channels got flagged. But even some science channels got flagged by the anti-climate change folks and the 'intelligent design' crowd.

The simplest solution would be for Google to simply say "all or nothing".

I've never understood why companies want to wade into arguments about what is acceptable speech. It's killing Hollywood, the NFL, CNN, the NYT, the professional lives of many high-profile people, and a whole lot of companies such as Twitter and Kelloggs.

Google could step up and say "It's not our job to regulate speech. If you want to advertize with us, it's all or nothing". It would be simple, easy, and cheap to implement.

As a second choice, they could say "If you want to specify which YouTube videos your ads get served to, give us a list. Otherwise, it's not our job to regulate or even *categorize* speech".

Trying to second-guess what advertizers find objectionable is a foolish goal.

If the advertizers have concerns, it should be their job to police it.

Re:Simple solution

[DedTV]

"It's not our job to regulate speech. If you want to advertize with us, it's all or nothing". It would be simple, easy, and cheap to implement.

And would demonetize Youtube very quickly as Coca-Cola or Starbucks doesn't want to be seen as providing advertising revenue to someone extolling the virtue of ISIS. Better to not advertise on such a platform than risk customers gaining a false perception that your company promotes something that is socially abhorrent.

Re:Simple solution

[AHuxley]

Re "I've never understood why companies want to wade into arguments about what is acceptable speech."
Place a political sign for an election in the front yard..
Will the electric, telephone, gas, internet and water company stop all services as they don't like the local politics?

Once a few big "social" media sites get too big they become a service needed to interact with local, state, federal governments?
People have their freedom of speech but won't be found by a search engine, have their political comment removed, won't be allowed to link.. no political/news video uploads? Only some political views are approved and allowed?
Yet the site is still open as a public commons for big government and gov services...
All the benefits of social media supporting a big gov, none of the freedom of speech, freedom after speech?
A walled garden for users unable to enjoy the protection of expression, assembly, and the right to petition?

Re:Simple solution

[William Baric]

YouTube is not a broadcasting company. If people watch a video, it's because they choose to watch it, meaning they like the content. Companies refusing to display ads for their products before some content is pretty much like saying : because you like this content, we don't like you and we don't want you to buy our product.

It looks to me companies in the US now prefer to push a political agenda rather than to make a profit.

Re:Simple solution

[UnknownSoldier]

That would require Google actually having some balls.

The pussification will continue until everything is offensive (to someone.)

--
Hate Speech IS censorship.

Re:Simple solution

[Opportunist]

Here is your anthem.

Re:Simple solution

[AmiMoJo]

A lot of advertisers would leave it. For them the damage of being on pro-Nazi videos, for example, would far outweigh any benefit.

Re:Simple solution

[serviscope_minor]

The simplest solution would be for Google to simply say "all or nothing".

No, an even simpler solution would be to not run any ads at all. It's even simpler than yours since they wouldn't have the burden of running the ad infrastructure. Of course then they wouldn't make any money.

And that's where your simplest solution falls down: they tried it since it's cheap and it turned out they didn't make as much money as they could because major advertisers left.

If the advertizers have concerns, it should be their job to police it.

Right, so instead of selling the product (advertising space) that their customers want, they should tell their customers to get what their given or GTFO.

I hear that's a great business strategy. Have you tried it?

Re:Simple solution

[Paradise Pete]

They don't care about that. What advertisers don't want to happen is to be accused of, for example, funding terrorists by running ads on those videos.

Re:Simple solution

[SuricouRaven]

Companies don't want to get dragged into free speech debates, but sometimes they have no choice.

Take the NFL, for example. Some years back they started injecting more patriotism into their games - anthem singing, flags everywhere. It was great, almost everyone loved it (America being a country where displays of patriotism are widely admired), and they even got some government grant money for it.

Then a few players decide they don't want to take part, as they no longer feel they admire the country to that extent. The NFL has two, and only two options:
1. Let the players sit it out. Incur the wrath of half the country for allowing this insult to said country. Be condemned as hating American hero soldiers. Anger politicians.
2. Force the players to take part anyway, under threat of suspension or expulsion. Incur the wrath of the other half of the country for forcing people to take part in a political statement against their will.

No matter what they do, they are screwed.

Re:Simple solution

[jez9999]

It's actually not. For years this worked fine until some far left activists (ie. the old media) started making a load of noise about "some neo-Nazi videos". Until then people didn't give a shit and nor should they.

Re:Simple solution

[AmiMoJo]

Wait wait wait... The "old media" are far left activists? You mean like the Daily Mail and Fox News?

I can't think who else you could mean... It's the Morning Star still going?

Re: Simple solution

[guruevi]

No it wouldnâ(TM)t. They wouldâ(TM)ve switched ad agencies and continue doing what theyâ(TM)re doing as soon as everything blew over. Corporations really donâ(TM)t care what they are put on as long as it is profitable, if there is a demographic within ISIS they wouldâ(TM)ve been glad to advertise to them.

Re: Simple solution

[guruevi]

Walmart does. They are big enough they can tell their suppliers what to do. Walmart knows that their suppliers canâ(TM)t lose them.

Donâ(TM)t want to advertise on Google platforms and they would lose their demographic.

Re: Simple solution

[AmiMoJo]

If they marketed to ISIS they would quickly find that other customers started to avoid them. Like how Tiki torches are desperate not to become associated with Nazis because it would make their other customers buy fewer and the Nazi market isn't that big.

Re:Simple solution

[Rockoon]

Funny, because when NFL players wanted to do something against... for example breast cancer... the NFL prevented them... but then when it became about BLM the NFL caved in...

Re: Simple solution

[serviscope_minor]

um what?

Wal-Mart is their customer, so what you're saying is that the vendor can't afford to piss off their customers. Which is true.

Re:Simple solution

[jez9999]

CNN, NBC, the BBC, Al Jazeera, The NYT, and basically every other non-alternative news outlet.

Re:Simple solution

[Mashiki]

Wait wait wait... The "old media" are far left activists? You mean like the Daily Mail and Fox News?

You man CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC(and ABC AUS) Guardian, CBC, CTV, Global, Globe and Mail, NYT, Washington Post, USA Today? Boy oh boy, we got 2 vs all of those other ones. Well actually 3, because you forgot to rail against breitbart.

Re:Simple solution

[thegarbz]

I've never understood why companies want to wade into arguments about what is acceptable speech.

Because other companies who do business with you only want to be associated with acceptable speech and don't want the burden of identifying that to fall on themselves.

Youtube didn't really care about this until the likes of Pepsi stopped giving them wheelbarrows of money.

Re:Simple solution

[AmiMoJo]

You think CNN, NBC, the Guardian and the WaPo are far left activists?

I think your political scale is miscalibrated. If the Guardian, widely regarded as a fairly centrist newspaper in the UK, is in your mind a far left activist then what are actual communists? Where does the Morning Star lie on your axis? Even the Mirror is much further left than the Guardian and way left of the WaPo.

Re:Simple solution

[AmiMoJo]

The BBC and Al Jazeera are far left activists? What. The. Fuck.

What does that make the Socialist Worker, the New European and the Morning Star? What about actual communists?

So do you consider Brietbart to be far right, or nearer the centre? If the latter, what about Storm Front and literal Nazis, where are they on this scale?

Re: Simple solution

[guruevi]

What I'm saying it works both ways. Google is the ad agency's customer, the vendor of the ads can't afford to piss off their customer (Google) either.

Re: Simple solution

[serviscope_minor]

Except the thing is there was a big backlash and a load of prominent customers left Google. Then Google decided that they ought to spend some money cleaning up to keep those customers.

So the evidence is that a bunch of large customers does in fact have enough clout that Google do care.

Re:Simple solution

[Cinnamon Beige]

Some of them seem to be less far left activists and more either targeting that demographic, having some regrettable hiring choices if they were wanting to avoid ending up heading for the far left, or some mix of the two. A few of them I can't really say much about on their political bias because I stopped watching them not because of their politics but more because I have a very low tolerance for people who being surprised and confused and possibly distressed by the discovery that not everybody shares their same rich, Western and generally White culture...nor am I very fond of incompetent flailing attempts at 'understanding.' (That's in quotation marks because I'd certainly hope that an actual attempt to understand a different culture would be less...superficial and flaky.)

This is going off of some of the interesting decisions I've seen them make, incidentally, and using sites which are set up to check for bias and how it affects the behavior of the news media to make sure that the scale in use is balanced.

Re:Simple solution

[SuricouRaven]

We've had a similar mess in the UK. FIFA, one of the agencies that organises football (not handegg) tournaments, has a long-standing policy that prohibits players displaying any form of political symbol on the field. Simple enough. Until a match is to be played on Remembrance Sunday.

Remembrance Sunday is an event similar to Memorial Day in the US, except with fewer overt displays of patriotism and a lot more regret*. It's also an event for which wearing the poppy symbol is socially obligatory. Every adult in the country has one, and most of the children. If any politician neglected to wear theirs, it would be a major scandal. Tabloid papers run stories about how some immigrants are not wearing their poppy, which proves how much they hate the country.

In short, very close to every single person in the UK was utterly horrified when FIFA declared that the poppy was a political symbol and could not be worn on pitch. In the face of such outcry, FIFA had to revise their policy with a poppy exception.

So far, it's been quiet since. But how long before other countries start expecting their own exception for their versions of memorial day? It's going to happen, and some countries have memorial day counterparts that are a lot more nationalistic then wearing a poppy. How long before the Russian team starts wanting to wear badges commemorating those who died in the Russo-Georgian War?

* We tend to regard our war dead not as great heroes who served their country, but as a reminder that war should never be entered lightly.

Re: Simple solution

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Please demonstrate, if that is the case.

Re:Simple solution

[KozmoStevnNaut]

How in the world do you categorize those as "far left"?

That is only true if you're looking from a severely skewed right-wing perspective, and you think you're actually centrist.

Re: Simple solution

[guruevi]

My point is that nobody left. People threatened, but I never stopped seeing major companies advertise on Youtube, they simply can't afford to.

Re: Simple solution

[serviscope_minor]

My point is that nobody left

Yes they did!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-p...
https://www.theguardian.com/te...

And so on.

Google were pretty quick to respond so many of the advertisers returned.

they simply can't afford to.

Except that they can and they did.

People who appreciate other peoples' work

[Leuf]

I get a little money from YouTube ads. It doesn't come anywhere near to paying for the hours that go into making my content. I'm okay with that but the more money I get the easier it is to justify the time spent. I used to be like you and think I was cool for knowing what an adblocker is.

Re: People who appreciate other peoples' work

[guruevi]

Then you should complain to YouTube that too many people arenâ(TM)t watching the ads. I started blocking the ads when 15s became an unskippable 1:30. At one point they were even allowing full other YouTube movies as âoeadsâ although they eventually became skippable after 30s.

And the worst thing is that I donâ(TM)t care for any of the ads, I donâ(TM)t need a new car, Iâ(TM)m too poor to buy most of the luxury items and Iâ(TM)m really not interested in makeups and perfume.

Re:People who appreciate other peoples' work

[110010001000]

Ads frequently contain malware. You are stupid if you allow it. Adblocking isn't "cool", it is necessary.

Re:People who appreciate other peoples' work

[EvilSS]

I get a little money from YouTube ads. It doesn't come anywhere near to paying for the hours that go into making my content. I'm okay with that but the more money I get the easier it is to justify the time spent. I used to be like you and think I was cool for knowing what an adblocker is.

I love that this got modded troll. People are really touchy when it comes to their perceived entitlement to be entertained for free.

Re:People who appreciate other peoples' work

[EvilSS]

There is no malware in youtube ads so it's easy to make an exception. unless you are using one of those inflexible, stupid host file systems.

Re:People who appreciate other peoples' work

[Cinnamon Beige]

Patreon is the way to go.

Yeah, and you can also become active in pushing for adservs to be more responsible and ethical about things like the malware risks involved. If you are in a position to choose what adserv is used for a site? Try to pick one that at least tries to keep from being a malware vector. Don't just whine about adblockers being used, start doing your part towards making it safe to turn them off or poke holes in.

Re:Why?

[SeaFox]

Why would YouTube do this?

Because the policy was causing lots of highly-popular content creators to consider ditching YouTube for other sites. They want to make money for their videos, and if YouTube is going to stop the flow of revenue they have no reason to post there. But, not-coincidentally, people go to YouTube to watch the videos of those creators. If those videos stop appearing there people have less reason to go to YouTube.

See how the system benefits publishers and creators as well when there is no exclusivity contract locking content to a particular service?

Re:Why?

[AHuxley]

The SJW jumped the shark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
People are now looking for real sites to host their video clips. The fun people, smart people started looking for better sites.
Sites that allow media to be uploaded, search for, linked to and commented on without the complexity of SJW.

The need to to censor was not a good policy as top "social" media sites are not unique anymore in bandwidth support and encoding support.
Other better, smarter, more fun sites will emerge from the censorship that can support the USA, freedom of speech and freedom after speech.
The USA offered something few other nation had, protection from government and freedom of speech.
SJW wanted to turn US social media into what any other nation could provide, a boring internet.
The more boring SJW approved social media gets, the more fun new sites attract branding, ads and users.
Want to stay on a site that allows the user to watch an ad and then watch an approved positive move review?
Read down for 100% positive, approved comments?

They tried that

[rsilvergun]

it was their old system. It lead to a few adverts showing up on Neo-Nazi channels. The advertisers freaked out thinking they'd be associated with supporting Nazis and pulled their ads. Like it or not youtube, like tv, has to worry about offending people since people who get offended are loud. Annoying, but loud.

Re:They tried that

[jez9999]

The advertisers freaked out thinking they'd be associated with supporting Nazis and pulled their ads.

Which is the real problem. It's retarded to think people will associate you with the video content, it's obvious you're just advertising on the site as a whole.

Re: They tried that

[guruevi]

Which was really only advertisers being politically correct, YouTube couldâ(TM)ve let the whole thing blow over and/or allowed a way for advertisers to specify channel filters. Ad companies would never have used it because they really donâ(TM)t care as long as people see the ads and buy the stuff and everyone else wouldâ(TM)ve been happy and the SJW appeased.

Re:They tried that

[arth1]

Which is the real problem. It's retarded to think people will associate you with the video content, it's obvious you're just advertising on the site as a whole.

The problem isn't just associations, but that you may have an objection to advertising to particular group. If I sell Nordic clothing, I may have a real objection to neo-nazis even seeing my ads and buying my products. If I sell condoms, I may have a real objection to my ads being shown on channels which will cause a barrage of hateful mail and phone calls.

I think the advertisers should be able to choose, but I think they should be provided with enough information to make informed choices. Overly broad classifications do not seem all that useful.

Re:They tried that

[Ol Olsoc]

it was their old system. It lead to a few adverts showing up on Neo-Nazi channels. The advertisers freaked out thinking they'd be associated with supporting Nazis and pulled their ads. Like it or not youtube, like tv, has to worry about offending people since people who get offended are loud. Annoying, but loud.

While most reasonable people would have no issue with demonetizing Nazi or White supremacist channels, Youtube's original "solution" ended up as people trying to squelch others.

The Young Turks or the MGTOW channels might have opinions that some folks don't like, but the concept of trying to put them out of business simply because you don't like their opinion is dumb.

Its a little amusing that the middle-far left has discovered a tool once used mainly by the religious right. Boycotting only works a small portion of the time. And now that people on both sides of the spectrum are using it, under the present ad model, it will just kill monetization.

If the ad services are going to continue, here is the solution:

Ad-serving is badly broken. Grandma is using Ad-Blockers now. People using phones to surf the web get their caps blown with the crap they are served. My favorite example is once when I needed a 15KByte file, the associated Web page Downloaded 40 MByte to my phone.

No one has time for that crap.

As well, it is well documented that you can easily get malware through the ads. Grandma doesn't call me so often when she's got her computer screwed up.

The solution is simple - demographics.

Ever watch say, Judge Judy in the afternoon? They have a target audience that enjoys listening to her yell at idiots. So the ads played are for crap like maintenance drugs, and lawyer firms that want you to sue the company for the side effects of those maintenance drugs. Adult diapers and Ensure protein drink. Lawyers firms that promise to get you on SSI disability. There's some more, but its obvious that the audience is targeted - older people and people who aren't working.

Cartoon Channel, Nickelodeon and the Food Channel also has their targeted adverts.

This way, instead of conservatives being pissed off at Cenk Uygar and want to hit him in the pocketbook or the Lesbian Alliance and Association of Gender studies who want to silence the butthurt guys who lost everything in a divorce case, you can get more targeted ads that people who are interested in the content - not eliminating the content - are going to accept.

Demographics, and malware removal aka the people serving up this stuff knowing what and who they are serving will go a long way towards fixing the problem. Because the present model is 100 percent unsustainable.

Re:They tried that

[Ol Olsoc]

Which is the real problem. It's retarded to think people will associate you with the video content, it's obvious you're just advertising on the site as a whole.

The problem isn't just associations, but that you may have an objection to advertising to particular group. If I sell Nordic clothing, I may have a real objection to neo-nazis even seeing my ads and buying my products. If I sell condoms, I may have a real objection to my ads being shown on channels which will cause a barrage of hateful mail and phone calls.

I think the advertisers should be able to choose, but I think they should be provided with enough information to make informed choices. Overly broad classifications do not seem all that useful.

SRSLY? Your examples require blocking of viewers, not ads. Do you think that a Nazi is somehow not capable of looking at your ads, or that the Duggar's won't ever see an ad for condoms?

If an advertiser wants only a specific audience and no other to see their product ads, there is no solution.

Re:They tried that

[djinn6]

Thing that's weird is that the folks who serve up these ads haven't figured that out. Of course it will take a little work, but the Television industry has been doing this for years.

Scale is the difference. TV channels serve the same dozen ads on a hundred ad time slots each day. YouTube serves millions of different ads on billions of videos each day.

You might be able to pick up a handful of sand, but moving the entire beach is a different matter altogether.

Re:They tried that

[Ol Olsoc]

Thing that's weird is that the folks who serve up these ads haven't figured that out. Of course it will take a little work, but the Television industry has been doing this for years.

Scale is the difference. TV channels serve the same dozen ads on a hundred ad time slots each day. YouTube serves millions of different ads on billions of videos each day.You might be able to pick up a handful of sand, but moving the entire beach is a different matter altogether.

Well, the alternative is total failure. There is absolutely no impediment to having different packages of advertisements tailored to specific demographics. And no reason that a Youtuber cannot pick and choose say a conservative or liberal package, or one for older people or younger people's interest. If I have say a technical video I produced, I don't even want a Depends advertisement on it.

This is about as much rocket science as a file suffix. I'd even say that the first internet ad server service that comes up with this will put a number of others out of business.

So if the companies that are aghast that the right or left wing social Justice crowd will boycott them can say I only want my advertisements on the politically correct pages that are safe for us.

Re:They tried that

[arth1]

SRSLY? Your examples require blocking of viewers, not ads. Do you think that a Nazi is somehow not capable of looking at your ads, or that the Duggar's won't ever see an ad for condoms?

I am not a binary thinker, and do not think everything has to be black or white, win or lose, success or failure. I think a reduction in exposure to unwanted audiences is a worthwhile thing in itself, even if only partially effective.

Re: They tried that

[Ol Olsoc]

First off, I deplore the ideals espoused in _Mein Kamp_, and its sequel. Furthermore, I found _White Man's Bible_ illogical, irrational, unethical, immoral, and unjust.

All that said, demonitising video advocating/utilising those philosphical/theological/political positions, or anything similar is troubling. What happens when it is is decided that _Das Kapital_, and the philosophical/economic/political system it advocates is viewed as unacceptable? Alternatively, substitute _The Bhagavad Gita_, or _The Book of Coming Forth By Day_.

Then there is the issue of commenting on issues of the day, when those issues involve unsavory ideas, characters, actions, economic systems, or political theories.

You are right you know, and that's part of this whole problem. People on the far right and left have been complaining and getting perfectly civil youtube channels demonitized that merely espouse a different opinion than they hold.

The real freakshow channels were the first and easiest targets.

I'm pretty certain that Youtube has figured out where this all ends up, and it is a lot less money for them.

Re: They tried that

[Cinnamon Beige]

Well then you are the only advertiser with a conscience. Kudos to you, but the rest of the advertisers think "annoying you" and "advertising" are synonyms.

It's actually a decent portion of the advertisers who think that, and it's both the traditional and probably-true view--after all, just because you might not be in my target demographic or a potential sale now doesn't mean you won't be in the future, or in a position to lose me a sale.

It is, however, easier to confuse 'annoying you' with 'advertising' because it does admittedly increase brand recognition--but that may not necessarily translate into the sort of positive image that will get you sales, and if you get a bad enough image then a brand the consumer has never heard of might still get preferred because it isn't your brand.

Really, if you can still believe that there's no such thing as bad publicity after the recent spate of very public demonstrations of the opposite, you must be living under a very isolated rock.

Re:They tried that

[RyoShin]

Like it or not youtube, like tv, has to worry about offending people since people who get offended are loud. Annoying, but loud.

Which is fine, but what really annoys me is that I pay for YouTube Red in order to avoid ads entirely. However, my understanding is that if a video gets demonetized (which could be for something as horrible as using a non-controversial swear word like "shit") then the channel doesn't get a cut of my Red fees, either, even if I watch the entire episode/video.

It's one things for ad agencies to get their undies in a bunch, but their fears shouldn't obstruct my ability to support creators I like. I've taken the extra step to start funding some Patreons, but not all creators I want to support have that or similar accounts.

It seems akin to blocking people from buying South Park DVDs because McDonald's disapproves (sorry, I couldn't think of a car analogy.)

YouTube has really pissed off its creators

[gweihir]

If a viable alternative becomes available, they will be gone, even if it is years from now.
Morale: Do not do something like this to people you critically depend on.

Re:YouTube has really pissed off its creators

[ka9dgx]

A lot of people think that creators won't move to a new platform until a new, BIGGER audience can be found somewhere else. I believe that any minimally viable video platform that has monitization that works at all, and can import back catalogs in some sort of reasonable manner is all that is required to start an avalanche. That shift would start with simply having content on multiple platforms, and letting viewers try out the new platform.

The creators are pissed, and intelligent viewers will realize that people need to be paid.... I for one am already pissed at Youtube, and willing to tolerate a lot of rough edges to help in the long run.

Re:YouTube has really pissed off its creators

[gweihir]

Indeed. Same here. YouTube does not have exclusivity and it is not _their_ content in the first place. They seem to have forgotten that.

Re:YouTube has really pissed off its creators

[Opportunist]

If your business model is "You make the content, we make the profit", you have to give people a reason to make content for you.

Re:YouTube has really pissed off its creators

[Opportunist]

It needn't even be bigger. If someone who now has a million viewers that pay him nothing because he's demonetized and could have 10k elsewhere where he actually gets paid for it, he's gone. Because 10k times x (with x > 0) is more than a million times zero.

Re:YouTube has really pissed off its creators

[Rockoon]

In fact some of the biggest youtube channels have even bigger audiences outside of youtube. Joe Rogan says he gets way more views and makes way more money on podcast subscriptions than he does youtube monetization, and this is a guy that easily surpasses 1 billion views per year just on youtube.

Basically the internet has greatly surpassed traditional media as far as viewership numbers go, and its not even close any more. Its the big secret that the media will not talk about.

Re:YouTube has really pissed off its creators

[Opportunist]

Yes, and if you demonetize those videos, people will stop making them.

Re:Why?

[gweihir]

Indeed. And they critically depend on people continuing to make content for them, so they have to make sure enough money ends up with the content creators. This "demonetizing" nonsense indicates they do not understand their own business model.

Re:Why?

[AHuxley]

Re Germany AC, East Germany kept a watch over its authors, journalists, editors and publishers.
Just as SJW now watch over videos, news, movie review, politics, arts, culture, history and block content and comments....
The people of East Germany had to work hard to get freedom back.

Re:Shit job of not being evil

[Opportunist]

People turned to YouTube exactly because TV was regulated into oblivion and all that was left was cookie-cutter, family friendly "entertainment" that was about as entertaining and exciting as watching the linoleum warp in a moist Summer.

Now YouTube is supposed to be turned into the same kind of bullshit, and we're moving on to something less linoleum-y.

it's out of control

[slashmydots]

I run a huge channel and about 1 in 5 of my PG-rated content is being flagged. 100% of the appeals were reversed by a human, indicating the bot is wrong. It's basically random at this point. Creators are PISSED and they're moving to Twitch. Youtube needs to send snowflakebot back to its safe space and tell these marketing reps for companies whining about MAAAHH AAADDDSSS to fuck off. You don't need all advertisers, especially progressive liberal nut jobs whining about their ads being on Christian and gun channels.

Re:it's out of control

[Rockoon]

Why is youtube an all-or-nothing advertising platform anyways? Why arent the advertisers allowed to choose exactly where they place there ads?

In every other case of advertising, advertisers have input. "We want this ad to be played 20 times this month during initial airing of The Walking Dead" .. advertisers arent buying time expecting prime placement and then being shoved into the 3am spot when the 3rd rerun of Sports Center is being shown.

This is youtubes real problem and its a problem other media solved a long time ago.

Re:it's out of control

[thegarbz]

You don't need all advertisers

No, but you do need ones with big pockets. When your prominent customers stop working with you then *you* need to change. Telling them to bugger off only works if your business doesn't depend on them for income.

Re:it's out of control

[Hognoxious]

Why arent the advertisers allowed to choose exactly where they place there ads?

If their they're ads I don't want them hear.

Ad friendly depends on who's advertising

[Air-conditioned cowh]

Just because X company says, "We don't want our advert next to any drug-related video (including harm-reduction)" doesn't mean that every advertiser feels the same stupid way. Just give advertisers the option to check-box exactly what type of videos they freak out about without just assuming a one-size-fits-all. Probably most advertisers don't care or would rather not impact on free speech, given the choice.

Re:Ad friendly depends on who's advertising

[thegarbz]

Probably most advertisers don't care or would rather not impact on free speech, given the choice.

Probably all people who voted for Trump actually are great supporters and fans of Hillary Clinton. There, that's my contribution to opposite-day.

Ad-Match

[Citizen of Earth]

Running fewer ads just makes YouTube less money. Why don't they have a scheme where the advertisers choose what kinds of videos they want to be associated with. I'm sure there's lots of sleazy or politically-partisan advertisers for everyone.

Re:Ad-Match

[Rockoon]

Thats what other media does. Its a solved problem and is the natural endgame. Youtube just doesnt know it yet.

Let the advertisers decide (each by channel/video)

[TheRealHocusLocus]

Forward all the 'oh dear I feel so triggered' complaints to a queue accessible to the individual advertisers whose ads showed up on the page. With text of the complaint. Give complainers a blank space and force them to type something rather than select from a list. If the advertisers really care they will have someone monitor the queue, can read the complaints and decide. If they flag it will keep that advertiser off of that channel or that video.

- Advertisers do have a right to decide where their money goes.
    (by channel or in rare cases by specific video, if it's a viral they don't approve of)
- Demonetizing channels outright puts YouTube in an untenable position.
    (against their original business model of minimal interference)
- YouTube should not offer net-nanny-for-money services. Just give advertisers good tools.
    (and most advertisers won't put in the effort to do it. Whatever floats their boat)
- Complainers should be given no crutches, no pulldown lists. Force them to use their words.
    (and in the process humans reviewing complaints can easier spot bot patterns)

Of course you say, this is a lot of work! YouTube has no right to make advertisers do so much work! Damned right, censorship should be expensive to maintain. And it should take a concerted effort to do it effectively. When censors lose interest and wander off the job the world will become a more provocative (but better) place.

People who post 'questionable' content of POOR quality have every right to learn the heard way that they cannot make a decent living because no one gives a shit about them, even advertisers too lazy to check complaint queues. Channel demonietizing just elevates them to faux-victim-celeb status.

People who post 'questionable' content of HIGH quality are the most promising bards and jesters of humankind. They should be cherished and rewarded. The next George Carlin is out there.

Who cares?

[AndyKron]

Ya? So what? An atheist politely discusses sexual abuse in churches and they get demonetized. Someone talks about gay marriage and they get demonetized. Someone calls out Trump's bullshit and they get demonetized.

Re:Shit job of not being evil

[Rockoon]

Agreed.

Some of the most popular TV programming of all time would not be allowed today.

All in the Family for instance could not get past a pilot episode today. Someones feelings might get hurt.

Meanwhile the casting couch rape culture and pedophile rings of Hollywood are only just now being noticed.. Hollywood is full of a bunch of hypocrite assholes that think all their own problems are also part of everyone elses lives. I got news for you Hollywood... what the rest of the country isnt... is like Hollywood.

Maybe Facebook could take a hint from this

[Tinfoil]

I am a photographer, and admin of groups numbering over 20,000 members. I am also currently in Fb jail because of an image I posted that shows a female and a small amount of pubic hair. No nipple, no bum, no labia.

*rolls eyes*

Re:Maybe Facebook could take a hint from this

[ebvwfbw]

I have friends that are into photography and they have a number of facebook accounts for when that BS happens. They simply switch to the other one.

Re:Maybe Facebook could take a hint from this

[Tinfoil]

I do this as well. It's a minor annoyance, for sure, but still irksome.

Re:Shit job of not being evil

[Opportunist]

Pffft. Harmless.

Married with children.

That show wouldn't make it to the end of the pilot. It would get canceled at the first "A fat woman came into the store".

Re:Shit job of not being evil

[Opportunist]

Sorry. Here is the "a fat woman came into the store" collection.

The trouble is they don't want that choice

[rsilvergun]

they just want it to work. Youtube promises advertisers that their algorithms will target likely buyers to push them over the edge into becoming customers or find those folks who are forgetting your brand and bring them back to the fold. The last thing and advertiser wants to do on youtube is the hard work of figuring out who to market to. If they were going to do that they wouldn't need youtube...

fjjf

[bico540]

http://www.al-awa2el.com/%D9%8..."> , , , a href="https://www.al-awa2el.com/%D9%85%D9%83%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D8%AB%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B6/270-%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%83%D9%87-%D9%85%