Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Warns of 'Consequences' For Creators Who Misbehave (cnbc.com)
YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki has announced that creators whose actions impact negatively on its community will face "consequences." From a report: Wojcicki said the video-sharing platform is developing new policies that "would lead to consequences" if a content creator "does something egregious" that reflects unfavorably on other YouTube creators. YouTube's CEO made the comments in a blog post that detailed a list of the Google-owned firm's priorities for creators in 2018. In January, one of the service's most popular content creators, Logan Paul, published a video that showed the dead body of a man hanging from a tree. Wojcicki did not refer to the Logan Paul incident directly, but said that the misbehavior of some creators could put the broader YouTube community in a negative light. "While these instances are rare, they can damage the reputation and revenue of your fellow creators, so we want to make sure we have policies in place that allow us to respond appropriately," she said.
Behaving more and more like the TV networks we hate every day...
We need some consequences for people on Slashdot who misbehave. This place is full of troll.s
Lately every decision involving YouTube has been a turn for the worse. They've hid 'unwanted' content, limited or disabled what can be monetized, and now have raised requirements to be able to monetize videos. I'm not going to pretend that there's an alternative currently that can truly compete, but these decisions are definitely making people look elsewhere for one.
I wonder when they'll extend their definition of "to misbehave" to include people who are critical of their services/policies...
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
And still no real response to Elsa-gate.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
Perhaps they'll raise the threshold for monetizing channels again (until morale improves).
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
They've demonetized many of the channels I like to watch...such a hunting, camping, home repair, etc.
It's stupid and random. If they have an algorithm doing this the programmer is a moron. If people are doing it, they are morons. if it's a mix, then it's the Perfect Storm of Morons.
Won't belong before the only channels unaffected by their stupidity are the Cute Cat channels and that won't last after the Animal Rights assholes get done with them.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
"that reflects unfavorably on other YouTube creators." Is that flame wars or something?
Google judges you.
Well, this seems like a pretty relevant clip. Thanks, google!
I say this as a European socialist. Wojcicki is a cunt and Youtube suffers from it.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
More talk of "consequences" for "misbehavior" with absolutely clarity about what that means. Just more ass-covering maneuvers by an Alphabet company that allow it to do whatever it wants with absolutely zero explanation.
Given Google's ideological track record both online and in the workplace, there is no reason whatsoever to believe this will be good for the content creator or the free exchange of ideas in general.
~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
"...developing new policies that "would lead to consequences" if a content creator "does something egregious" that reflects unfavorably on other YouTube creators..."
So, let me get this straight. If I feel like calling another YouTube creator an asshole in a viral rant that drives millions of customers to your site, that is going to lead to "consequences"?
Yeah, good luck with drawing the line in the sand between ethics, morals, revenue, and oh yeah, that pesky Freedom of Speech thing. You know damn well that inflammatory content has driven billions into your pockets, so I'm sure your shareholders will enjoy your new revenue-destroying policies as well.
Does this mean they are finally going to do something about all those people posting Nazi screeds thinly veiled as comic book or movie commentaries?
Ah yes, the traditional leftist approach: "I don't like it, so somebody else force them to stop so I don't have to be inconvenienced."
I'm kinda sick of those polluting my searches.
There are a lot of people who are pretty sick of various degenerate agendas polluting their searches too. Should be ban that too? What qualifies one to the noble position of having sensibilities that can be enforced by law? Surely it's not being of Jewish heritage.
For the people old enough to remember YouTube before it became THEIR Tube, the whole idea was to give eveyone equal footing with NBC CBS ABC. The push to sell movies and cable TV goes against the whole platform for INDIVIDUALS. .org to replace TheirTube.
And Defunding people or banning them and blocking their 1st Amendment Free Speech? It is high time we start up an OPEN platform
So, let me get this straight. If I feel like calling another YouTube creator an asshole in a viral rant that drives millions of customers to your site, that is going to lead to "consequences"?
I don't think that's where she was going. If I had to guess it's related to all the sexual harassment claims that have been going around lately. Previous policy changes had to do with demonetizing videos on a video by video basis. I think this is more about demonetizing videos due to behavior of the creators in their personal life. Similar to how some sports leagues punish players for something they may have done outside of the actual sport, like the NFL's "conduct detrimental to the league" policy.
Youtube has the largest collection of video content in recorded human history, and only provides a basic search box and a very half-baked suggestions algorithm to access them. There is no good index, by alphabet, by content type, by content subject or by or any other good way to really explore and sift through content on the site that you do not already know. I've been listening to a bunch of good music artists on Youtube the last few months, and the suggestions algorithm has completely boxed me in both on Youtube.com in the browser and in the Youtube Android app. I keep seeing the same artists and same types of songs being suggested over and over, as if the rest of the musical world doesn't exist at all. The only way to "break out of the box" is to start searching for a completely different type of artist whose name you already know. So from a technical/engineering/UX design standpoint, Youtube is NOT a well designed site at all. Maybe if you search for simple stuff like "Rihanna" or "SNL", the site will work for you. But if you want a text-based or better visual network-graph based UI that really lets you explore the site, that just doesn't exist on Youtube. I bet Alphabet see Youtube that way in their offices, but we ordinary Tubelings only get the search box and the -15 IQ suggestions algorithm that was probably put together by 3 programmers. THIS is what Youtube should be focusing their efforts on. A better UI, especially for the mobile app.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
Then Anita Sarkeesian should be banned for life.
Ah yes, the traditional leftist approach: "I don't like it, so somebody else force them to stop so I don't have to be inconvenienced."
(sigh) One last time, although I fear this will fall on deaf ears.
Youtube is not the government. They are free to allow or disallow whatever content they want on their own website with their branding at the top, and not allowing bait-and-switch NAZI recruitment (or puppies, if that's their issue) would not be censorship. If puppy-fanciers don't like it, they are FREE to go make puppy-tube, and the government can't stop them.
She was probably thinking about Logan Paul posting that video of a suicide victim's body.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Oh, right. Because there's no real competitor.
They killed me with the copyright review process. I can't even get one because my views are too low.
They killed me when they de-monitized all the small channels.
The threaten to take action against "bad actors" and people who "misbehave" without defining the terms. I mean, I was never a great actor, but I don't think I qualified as a bad one. At least I hope not.
And I do misbehave from time to time.
I'm having a really hard time wondering why I don't dump YouTube in favor of Facebook. At least there I have some chance of growing an audience. As it stands, YouTube has made it essentially impossible.
There needs to be a competitor -- and I mean a competitor, not these "Hey, look at this, they're using a distributed infrastructure and blockchain tech!"
Yeah, that's fine and all. I'm the first one to hop as soon as it takes off or shows signs of growing. I need eyes to grow an audience. The only other services that come close to the number of eyes are Dailymotion (French) and VK (Russian).
Maybe I'll just go to VK. Amazingly, there's considerably more free speech on a frakking Russian website than there is on YouTube at the moment.
There needs to be a competitor. A real one. Anybody got about $50 million so I can get it off the ground?
Microsoft leads to Bluescreen; Bluescreen leads to downtime; downtime leads to suffering.
Now this is what Slashdot was meant to be: Friday threads about porn stars.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Don't worry Steemit and Dtube are on their way to rescue us from facebook and google ;) I would say about one more year before critical mass.
I got news, life is cruel and really bad things happen to people or they do it to themselves. I witnessed someone die next to me not too long ago. Get a grip.
The problem wasn't pointing out that life was cruel, it was the total lack of respect. For an individual, for a culture, and for a country. But from the rest of your post, I would guess that you have little understanding of that word.
By censoring anyone, for any reason, without a court-order on a case-by-case basis, they are eliminating any cover they could have found behind "we aren't responsible for what is viewed on our site," because by picking and choosing what can be shown, they unavoidably become responsible, (read: legally liable) for what they ALLOW to be seen on their site. Hence, this is likely the beginning of the end for YouTube.
I think YouTube will end up feeling like they've been hit by a tornado that just before reaching them, first hit a landfill full of medical waste, rusty razorblades, and burning tires.
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
Except they are a video distribution platform (and quite monopolistic at that), not a political party. If they start filtering content to only relay selected ideas, then they will have a significant impact on the population ideas which can easily drive an election in one direction or the other.
Which is why regulation is important, and should be as important as the company is monopolistic and has an impact on the population. We don't need regulation for your personal web site, but we do need it for Facebook and Google because they have a huge power (hence huge responsibilities towards the population).
She has her power because her sister married one of the founders.
She has her anger because her sister is no longer married to one of the founders.
Both her power and her anger are due to workplace romance.
Workplace romance has its positives and negatives: she is a poster child for the negatives.
They already addressed the Logan Paul thing by saying they would monitor every video before they monetized it. But as much as people want to make an example of him, there are a lot worse things that YouTubers have done in the past, some venturing into criminal activity (eg. Austin Jones).
What is the point of paying for YoutubeRed in order to avoid advertisements and to support content creators, when most have been demonitized and have resorted to product sponsorship and patreon begging anyway? I'm happy to go back to using an ad blocker or use another platform entirely that doesn't play games with subscribing, notifications, 'limited state' censorship, and catering to a particular political ideology.
Oh, the irony of a site that has outsourced its censorship to its audience (like /. [1]) talking propagandistically about another site threatening comparably vague censorship of its users. The propaganda of the term "creator" in this context isn't copyright related, but it's still aimed at "elevat[ing] authors' moral standing above that of ordinary people" to justify another power, denying freedom of speech.
[1] Where posts have scores, low-scoring posts are hidden by default, users who score aren't allowed to explain a score because they can't post and score in the same thread, and where scores become arbitrary but are effectively used to keep corporate-friendly talking points ahead of critical or dissenting views.
Digital Citizen
Some of the channels I have seen demonetized would appear to have committed the mortal sin of not obeying the strictures and eschewing following the acceptable ideology of Susan Wojcicki, which also happens to fall in line with Googles, firing of a man for an illegal opinion.
Looks like the brave new world of far left liberals will have some pretty important restrictions on those who dare to commit the crim of disagreement, and this is what they will demand when they take power. I think that my sig line says it all
Of course, the triggering event might have been the British Channel 4 interciew of Jordan Peterson by Cathy Newman. Her "So you're saying (insert baiting and attack third wave feminist language) culminating in a hilarious accusation that Peterson wanted to organize society according to Lobsters, then getting tripped up demanding that Jordan not be allowed to say anything that would make transgender people uncomfortable, and him noting that she spent her time making him uncomfortable, well, she has become an internet meme, and a bit of an embarrassment.
I mean, he was in a battle of wits with an unarmed person. But people are hootin' and a hollerin', so my guess is that anything critical of Cathy Newman will soon be verboten.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Sounds like time for another service to start. Can't disagree with the snowflakes, they'll get booboo feelings. Give em all a participation trophy.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
here's the context. The reason they were showing a song sung in Greece from the 50s with pictures from that era is because it was before immigrants came, e.g. when the country was Greeks only. The subtext is "Things were better before immigrants came, so we should send them away".
I guess the question is, is a segregationist message hate speech? In the United States it most certainly is. We have a long history of what's called "Separate by Equal" between our black and white populations where things were anything but equal. Not sure about Greece, but I'm inclined to agree with Youtube here.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Good luck joining Steemit if your phone number previously belonged to a user of Steemit.
suicide victim
I never noticed before, but the person would also be a suicide perpetrator, no?
Wouldn't Vimeo be a viable alternative?
That's a tall order for several reasons.
No ads Apart from Content ID disputes, most of the recent whining about YouTube is about loss of ability to run ads on a channel's videos. Vimeo.com doesn't support ads at all. This makes it not an alternative for producers who depend on ad revenue. Commercial content confusion Vimeo's guidelines ban "commercial content" if the uploader doesn't pay $240 per year for "pro" upload privileges, and I haven't seen a bright line between "showcas[ing] your creative work" and "representing a for-profit business or brand [or] Product demos". Lack of gamer audience This one affects video game developers and reviewers. Because Vimeo banned all game-related videos from July 2008 through October 2014, the audience for game reviews has ended up on sites other than Vimeo. Upload limit Vimeo appears to behave like SoundCloud in that uploaders who do not pay a recurring fee are limited to 5 GB of total uploads. Those reaching the limit must delete old videos to make room for new ones."ElsaGate" is a name used by a group of watchdogs on Reddit for an apparently Russian live-action video series that (mis)appropriates characters owned by Disney. In this series, Peter Parker from Spider-Man and Elsa Agnarrsdaughter from Frozen live together and go on adventures that aren't always family-friendly. The videos are "silent" in the sense of having no dialogue, and some are violent or mildly sexual in nature.
A high nomenclaturist who got her job through nepotism rather than any trace of personal merit? No! It just can't be! That would never happen, especially not in Northern California!
Little by little they are screwing themselves. Just like the cable companies are with their price increases. Oh well!