Slashdot Mirror


YouTube Videos Could Get Demonetized If They Have 'Inappropriate Comments'

In response to a mother's inquiry into why her son's gymnastics videos were deemed not advertiser friendly, YouTube said on Twitter it has "taken a number of actions to better protect the YouTube community from content that endangers minors." The video-sharing website went on to say something very concerning for anyone who has ever uploaded a video to the site: "... even if your video is suitable for advertisers, inappropriate comments could result in your video receiving limited or no ads (yellow icon)."

Essentially, what YouTube is saying is that if someone leaves a "incendiary or demeaning" comment, or one with "inappropriate language," the video which features that comment could get demonetized and the content creator would not generate money from it. If you've ever read a comment thread on YouTube, it shouldn't take long for you to realize how big of an issue this could become. According to YouTube's "advertiser-friendly content guidelines," the following content may not be suitable for most advertisers: "controversial issues and sensitive events," "drugs and dangerous products or substances," "harmful or dangerous acts," "harmful or dangerous acts," "hateful content," "inappropriate language," "inappropriate use of family entertainment characters," "incendiary and demeaning [content]," "sexually suggestive content," and/or "violence."

The best advice for circumventing this issue is to disable comments entirely, but this would significantly reduce the interaction between the YouTuber and the viewer. "If this is our new reality we're going to need the ability to restrict comments from accounts under 1-4 weeks old," says news commentator and YouTube personality Philip DeFranco. "Sounds like this is prime for weaponization. Also it would probably be best to have an official blog post instead of my tweet as a reference for this change."

184 of 347 comments (clear)

  1. Of course Brin & company will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...have no problem collecting 100% of the ad money. They will still run the ad and bill for it, it's just a new way to stiff you out of the money.

    1. Re: Of course Brin & company will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they can detect those comments... Why not just hide the offensive comments ???

    2. Re: Of course Brin & company will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They already massively shadow ban (i.e. comments just visible to yourself if logged in). Log out and they are not there, No explanation no indication this has happened. Worse it seems to happen particularly if you have a polite comment backed by links etc. that is considered wrongthink. But you can still see all comments like "kill all....", direct insults and the conspiracies. Total shit.

    3. Re: Of course Brin & company will... by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      Worse it seems to happen particularly if you have a polite comment backed by links etc. that is considered wrongthink.

      For example?

    4. Re: Of course Brin & company will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Another example:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVJmPmb_LWY

      I simply posted how I could not understand why, in a scientific lecture, @7;47, this guy felt the need to recur to racial slurs. I mean science, something that should unite. No insults, no cussing, nothing.
      ZAP! Gone.

    5. Re:Of course Brin & company will... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      My solution is to use YT-Adblockers and instead pay the content providers I like directly.

      FUYT

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re: Of course Brin & company will... by raynet · · Score: 2

      Perhaps your comments were moderated instead of deleted by Youtube's algorithm

      --
      - Raynet --> .
    7. Re:Of course Brin & company will... by djinn6 · · Score: 2

      YouTube Red / Premium is basically that plus some paywalled content. If everyone paid for it, advertisers wouldn't have a say in how YouTube operates anymore.

    8. Re:Of course Brin & company will... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Agreed. But even so, your content providers will miss that ad revenue just the same. Why not give them an option: either you risk losing ad revenue by having inappropriate comments on your videos, or you simply let YT delete the offensive ones.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    9. Re: Of course Brin & company will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I could be wrong but I believe that, if it shows when you are logged in and not when you are out, it's not the owner of the channel.
      I heard that all it's needed it's for your message to be reported by multiple people, maliciously or otherwise.Then Youtube just censors it. No appeal, no notification.

    10. Re:Of course Brin & company will... by taylorius · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I don't know why you were modded down - this is exactly what will happen, and gives the lie to whatever "hate free zone" smokescreen they might construct as justification.

    11. Re:Of course Brin & company will... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The problem with direct payments is that the minimum amount due to processing fees is too high.

      There is no middle ground between watching an ad for 5 seconds and donating $1.00 (of which about $0.30 gets to the creator). People would pay $0.01 to view if they could (which is more than the ad pays), but there is simply no way for them to do it.

      YouTube could fix it by having a monthly "tip jar". You put in however much you want, and then get to watch videos ad free with the creator getting a cent or two each time instead of the ad revenue.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re: Of course Brin & company will... by jythie · · Score: 1

      That.. is a really good question. Something as simple as auto-hide comments and have a switch to make them visible or not. But then again, that would be a good solution from the product's perspective, not the customer.

    13. Re:Of course Brin & company will... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      That's great if you know exactly what constitutes an inappropriate comment.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    14. Re:Of course Brin & company will... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      YouTube/Google Monetizing algorithm is messed up. However, the public outcry when offensive information and there is a post making money, that is breaking copyright laws... Is also bad for the company.

      The biggest problem with social media is the fact that all the content is user created, and it is nearly impossible to police and follow the rules set up for the broadcast industry. For the broadcast industry, there is only 24 hours of content to monitor. This could mean for a full day to live TV there needs to be 3 or 4 people ready to hit the bleep button, with a few seconds lag. Social media company can get thousands of hours new content a day. Making it nearly impossible for everything the be monitored, and categorized. So they use algorithms. Unfortunately the cost of broadcasting offensive information is high, so the algorithms and policy are set to a high standard, as to try to make sure the people who do this for money, are spending time to make sure they are self policing themselves.

      However... What I have seen as a trend on You Tube for the bigger channels, to tends to get demonetized, they find sponsors (Skill Share, Dollar Shave Club are the biggest ones I have seen ) to pay for the video, and part of their video they put in their own advertisements. Much like the old Soap Opera of the past.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    15. Re:Of course Brin & company will... by ctilsie242 · · Score: 1

      This is what Twitch does with their Bits system. It doesn't take much to toss in a few bits towards a channel that you like.

    16. Re:Of course Brin & company will... by sg_oneill · · Score: 2

      ...have no problem collecting 100% of the ad money. They will still run the ad and bill for it, it's just a new way to stiff you out of the money.

      Your making a critical mistake in understanding this. Youtube viewers are not the consumer. Youtube viewers are the product. Your eyeballs , watching youtube advertisements are what is sold to the real consumer, Youtube Advertisers.

      This is true of almost all entertainment economies since we first learned to reproduce performance with the advent of the printing press.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    17. Re: Of course Brin & company will... by nctritech · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When I leave comments now, I right-click the post time on the comment and "open in a private window." If I don't seem my comment highlighted, I know it's been blocked or spam-filtered, either by the creator or by YouTube. I then delete and re-issue my comment with modifications until it posts. Oddly, deleted/orphaned comments are still counted in comment counts.

    18. Re: Of course Brin & company will... by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      It's my understanding that the person that manages the channel can moderate comments. Is this not the case? If not, I know that comments can be disabled.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    19. Re: Of course Brin & company will... by mr.mctibbs · · Score: 2

      Drinking on the job isn't a good luck for anyone.

    20. Re: Of course Brin & company will... by Cederic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      all the paid Trump propagandists

      It is actually possible for real people to support the current US President. I mean, shit, he did win the election.

      Maybe, just possibly, those 'propagandists' happen to be 'people with whom you disagree' and not paid astroturfers at all.

      Indeed, it's the most likely explanation.

    21. Re:Of course Brin & company will... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I'm worried about the amount of money other people make from my videos, over a thousand of which have been monetised by the music industry against my wishes.

      So fuck them.

    22. Re:Of course Brin & company will... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Youtube viewers are not the consumer.

      Flat out wrong. Consumers are the people viewing videos on Youtube. They may or may not also be the customer.

      This is why consumer protections are important, because they protect you from companies trying to exploit you even if you have no business relationship with them.

    23. Re: Of course Brin & company will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that is the channel being set to "approve all comments" and the moderator simply has not approved your links because they appear to be malicious or counter what the video is trying to say.

    24. Re: Of course Brin & company will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I see you haven't been on youtube lately...

    25. Re:Of course Brin & company will... by quanminoan · · Score: 1

      If only there were a good way to avoid the whole Google ad / analytics network for sites. I can't stand using them but not a whole lot of options.

    26. Re:Of course Brin & company will... by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1
      One thing first....

      In response to a mother's inquiry into why her son's gymnastics videos were deemed not advertiser friendly

      Explain to me how a mother trying to get revenue on her son's gymnastics videos isn't creepy as FUCK, and probably pedophilic.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    27. Re: Of course Brin & company will... by Known+Nutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Am I the only one who thinks that commenting on YouTube videos is a bigger waste of time than fucking a sofa?

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    28. Re:Of course Brin & company will... by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

      It is not a common pile.

      My understanding is that content creators get half of YouTube revenue for that video:
      - For ads, they get half of what the announcers pay for the specific ads showns on your video, the number of views is far from being the only factor: the value of the ads shown, the proportion of people using adblockers, etc... It is extremely unstable and tends to drive YouTubers mad.
      - For Red/Premium, they get half of the subscription, weighted by watch time. Ads are of course irrelevant because Red/Premium users don't see ads.

      Content creators can see which part of their revenue comes from Red/Premium and with part come from ads. Most of the revenue usually come from ads but a premium view is typically worth more than an ad view.

    29. Re:Of course Brin & company will... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      One thing first....

      In response to a mother's inquiry into why her son's gymnastics videos were deemed not advertiser friendly

      Explain to me how a mother trying to get revenue on her son's gymnastics videos isn't creepy as FUCK, and probably pedophilic.

      Geeze fellow, the idea that it's pedophilic never occured to me, at least. There seems to be this expanding idea that if there is a picture or video of a child, that it is somehow encouraging sex with kids. You do know that normal people don't even think that way.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    30. Re: Of course Brin & company will... by h4x0t · · Score: 2

      This is an excellent point. AC forgot to mention those duped by paid propagandists. They are people too.

    31. Re: Of course Brin & company will... by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who thinks that commenting on YouTube videos is a bigger waste of time than fucking a sofa?

      What's the difference between commenting on a Youtube video and commenting on a Slashdot article?
      Not much, other than the quality of the commenters and video makers, and that varies wildly from channel to channel. Arguing with some moron about 9/11 or "government directed energy weapons?" Total waste of time. But sharing details with fellow fans of some sort of video being featured? It can be quite enjoyable, as long as toxic people don't invade the channel and turn the discussion inappropriately political.

    32. Re: Of course Brin & company will... by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 1

      Oh, another difference -- the person creating and editing the video is far more likely to see user comments than the writer of an article posted to slashdot. So there's more chance of user/creator engagement. YMMV as to whether you would ever want that, but that's why there are such things as channels.

    33. Re: Of course Brin & company will... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Because we don't like the idea that 30% of Americans are awful, disgusting, horrible idiots

      Only 30%?

      But I joke. I recognise that people have real issues and don't disparage them without trying to understand those issues and why they'd vote for an obvious braggart in preference to a continuation of everything that they perceive has failed them in the past.

      Maybe that's why I didn't call them all deplorable and lose an election.

    34. Re: Of course Brin & company will... by RuiFRibeiro · · Score: 1

      So you are a dick, and have no qualms talking about it. Seems fair.

    35. Re: Of course Brin & company will... by nctritech · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sure, whatever makes you feel better bro. I'm not breaking any rules, so I don't see the problem. I modify what I say so it passes the filter's criteria, which supposedly is the point of having a filter in the first place. Perhaps you'll enlighten me with your authoritative internet comment etiquette expertise, though.

    36. Re: Of course Brin & company will... by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      "J. Peterson had misrepresented Bill C-16, Pronoun Use. That he had lied since none was going to be compelled to use certain pronouns."

      I don't understand what Peterson is complaining about. Using what he calls the 'wrong' gendered pronoun in someone's presence seems to require special effort on his part.

      And if that's the case, in the very rare situations where he could use a gendered pronoun in public when the other person is present he can always bypass gender by using they.

      Am I missing something?

    37. Re: Of course Brin & company will... by Evtim · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      He is against government compelled speech. The topic is irrelevant. He always uses the pronoun that the person likes to identify with. But not when the powers that be force to do it....
      Of course, the lefties choose to "misunderstand" and declare him transfovbic or something....

    38. Re: Of course Brin & company will... by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      Like with Trump media often take what he said way out of context. On pronouns I just watched a few videos on youtube and he says he always uses "whatever pronoun goes along with the persona the person is projecting". From the bits in the media a few years ago that's not the impression I got. So thanks for clarifying that.

      "But not when the powers that be force to do it...."

      In one video he explained that he's fine with laws that compel you to not say certain things, like other harassment and hate speech laws, but not with laws that "compel you to use their choice of words" which he explains as how someone could pick a word from a list of 50, like xi or hir, and then he'd be legally forced to use that word.

      But I don't think the Ontario policy does that :

      "Gender-based harassment can involve: Derogatory language toward trans people or trans communities ; Insults, comments that ridicule, humiliate or demean people because of their gender identity or expression ; Behaviour that “polices and or reinforces traditional heterosexual gender norms” ; Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun ... "

      That and after reading the examples in section 7.4, I don't think the policy's intention compels him to use words like ze or hir, but rather, what he does, using the 'regular pronoun' the person is projecting or prefers, is the kind of thing the policy suggests doing.

      I understand that someone can be worried the policy will be abused and I get the impression he's being honest but I think he's mistaken about the law's intent and also about how it will be interpreted especially in the context of provincial charter of human rights and the legal definition of harassment, and if the law needs to be clarified I'm sure it will be.

      http://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/de...

    39. Re: Of course Brin & company will... by tomhath · · Score: 1

      paid propagandists

      Yea, the incessant stream of anti-Trump comments does get old.

  2. Happy Friday From The Golden Girls! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I hole-hardedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go. Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it's a peach of cake.

    1. Re: Happy Friday From The Golden Girls! by cs96and · · Score: 1

      Sorry but your argument is nothing but a damp squid https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=...

    2. Re:Happy Friday From The Golden Girls! by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Ricky get off of slashdot.

    3. Re:Happy Friday From The Golden Girls! by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 3, Funny

      I hole-hardedly agree,

      Just for your future reference, the phrase is whole-heartedly.. I.e. you agree with your whole heart.

      So, is that the *only* one you're going to correct? Did you even read the rest of it?

    4. Re:Happy Friday From The Golden Girls! by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      So, is that the *only* one you're going to correct? Did you even read the rest of it?

      Nope.. I missed that one... Jokes on me.. I can admit it.. Once I saw the first I stopped reading and offered a friendly correction. Yes yes, I missed it all, I suck...

  3. Golden Age is Over. by AtomicSymphonic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Making a business or any sort of living as a content creator on YouTube seems to be coming rather quickly to an end if this rule takes hold.

    Then again, maybe all that will be left on YouTube are those that do this as a passion project and not expect to make money from it... Those that are only in it for the money will quickly move on to something perhaps more profitable.

    1. Re:Golden Age is Over. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nope. Don't worry. Those that really just do it for the money (and I mean big money) will find a way around it. Those that do it as a passion project are few, far between, and usually about as entertaining and interesting as all the other "let's play" videos.

      What we'll really lose is the ones that have a passion, want to show, teach, inform and share their knowledge and need to make at least a bit of revenue to make it work out. I.e. the only thing still worth going to YT for.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Golden Age is Over. by NicBenjamin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Most of mine already have a Patreon. That and sponsored videos seem to be most of their revenue.

      Nobody depends on AdSense revenue since at least the Adpocylypse.

    3. Re:Golden Age is Over. by MobaHup · · Score: 2

      Patreon itself is pretty cancerous and may decide to remove your account for whatever you did or said on the platform or off it.

    4. Re:Golden Age is Over. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      And this is why crypto-currencies will take over for YouTube channel financing.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    5. Re:Golden Age is Over. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Most of mine already have a Patreon. That and sponsored videos seem to be most of their revenue.

      Nobody depends on AdSense revenue since at least the Adpocylypse.

      Can you name a single channel that started on Patreon funding, rather than moved to Patreon after having an AdSense revenue stream (or some other independent revenue stream)?

      Yes, established channels are doing well (if they didn't say something off-color in a radio interview) but new channels are not getting started anymore. There needs to be a path for organic growth.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:Golden Age is Over. by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      People making a living as content creators on YouTube don't count on YouTube to provide an income stream. Initially they did, but demonetization showed them this was a bad idea. A lot of them moved to Patreon, until Patreon started to take sides in the cultural wars. Now many creators solicit funds directly, either via Paypal, crypocurrency or even directly via standard online credit pay processors or through merch stores. It is also possible to do inline ads, something a lot of channels do..

      If your content is your business there are ways.

    7. Re:Golden Age is Over. by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      You get AdSense for no extra work, so once you hit the view-time/views metrics you get AdSense revenue. If you're getting enough viewership that you were able to go part-time at the real gig prior to AdPocalypse (which was all of last year), you set up a Patreon.

      But, yeah, ever since those bastards in the ad industry decided to freak but that hey were paying Neo-Nazis it's been a lot harder to get started at a channel. Because the Neo-Nazi channels were starter channels, so the only possible response was to yank funding from starter channels.

    8. Re:Golden Age is Over. by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Thus SubscribeStar.

      Most of mine also have other Youtube-related jobs. The extreme examples are Jenna Moreci and Scholagladiatora. Moreci is an author with multiple revenue streams telling other authors how to make it as an author, and also hawks her books when appropriate. Scholagladiatora runs a HEMA fencing club, sells antique swords through Easton Antique Arms, and got a job with an auction house selling old swords, and all of that is much easier now that he's got a Youtube channel that people who like old swords watch.

      The pure Youtube guys tend to be doubling down on sponsored content, and/or cutting costs. Skalligrim is literally moving to Nova Scotia because he couldn't afford a house on Vancouver Island on an Adsense salary.

      So it's a tough time to be a Youtuber, much less start a channel.

  4. Good grief by atrex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they're so obsessed about "protecting the children", then just hide and disable comments across the entire site on the Youtube Kids interface. Then it's just up to the parents to ensure that Youtube is locked in the Kids mode on their devices.

    1. Re:Good grief by Chas · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Can't do that. That requires adulthood and actual initiative.

      Everyone MUST be coddled and saved from everything, including themselves!

      All this really is, is another push at screwing content creators out of their cut.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    2. Re: Good grief by peppepz · · Score: 3, Informative

      You need to understand how YouTube works. Videos don't generate money by themselves, it's advertisers who pay; since their own livelihood, and certainly their return on investment for the ads, depend on their public image, they have a reason not to publish ads on videos that are used by paedophiles to do their thing. YouTube have no say in this decision, and if they can't manage to appease the advertisers, the alternative is for them not to get money any more - at all. Surely that would hurt content creators even more.

    3. Re:Good grief by bob8766 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They aren't concerned with making this a safe space for children at all. They want to make it a safe space for advertisers . Want to make a video on a political topic? Nope, that's getting demonitized. Can't take a chance that someone sees and ad next to a video of something that might offend them.

    4. Re: Good grief by Chas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I understand.

      I also understand that a content creator could do NOTHING WRONG, and could still have legitimate videos demonetized through no fault of their own.
      Simply because some jackass puts up a comment.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    5. Re: Good grief by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Demonetized videos still show ads: YouTube keep 100%.

      The whole system is rigged against the content creators and the only option is to not play the game.

    6. Re: Good grief by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I understand.

      I also understand that a content creator could do NOTHING WRONG, and could still have legitimate videos demonetized through no fault of their own.
      Simply because some jackass puts up a comment.

      Well, that's the current environment advertisers are finding. Remember yesterday when a bunch of advertisers pulled out because of a pedophile ring in the comments?

      Guess what? When advertisers pull out, videos get demonetized. So just because some jerkoff manages to jerk off to your video causes advertisers to pull their support and your video gets demonetized.

      The only thing YouTube has been doing is making it even more transparent - you can tell when major advertisers are pulling out because of comments in videos that it would be the cause of demonetization.

      Whining about it isn't going to fix it - those advertisers discovered the youtube comments section and it offended them.

    7. Re:Good grief by Barny · · Score: 1

      This is likely in response to the recent discovery that pedophilia groups were making comments that effectively "tagged" the video and what point to skip to in it, for particular tastes to be fulfilled. A child's gymnastic video would most likely fit in that category.

      They had a few major advertisers pull their ads for this reason.

      Ultimately, the comment section is up to the video owner to police, it seems.

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    8. Re:Good grief by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Want to make a video on a political topic? Nope, that's getting demonitized. Can't take a chance that someone sees and ad next to a video of something that might offend them.

      Advertisers can rest easy then. They don't have to worry about me ever affiliating them with a topic or viewpoint they don't want to be, since I don't see any of the ads on YouTube anyway.

    9. Re:Good grief by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They don't care about protecting the children, they care about protecting their ad revenue!

      Advertisers can make any arbitrary demands they want, and YouTube is reliant on ads for most of its income so has little choice but to comply.

      This is very very bad because it makes it easy for anyone to force channels to disable comments (and thus reduce their income due to decreased engagement, resulting in decreased recommendation and views) or lose their monetization.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re: Good grief by tehcyder · · Score: 5, Funny

      The problem is the left and the right which make up 98% of the world are just nuts and demand this sort of bull shit. Advertisers responded. YouTube responded. The 3% who are not nut jobs and want freedom over safety are working on moving to New Hampshire and organizing a free state to be less harmed by the nuts jobs everywhere else.

      Yes, you're 101% correct.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    11. Re: Good grief by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Of course if no one see the content, well advertisers are paying for nothing. Just another scam by google to reduce outgoings, what is bad language in one tongue is just an expletive in another. So from an Australian perspective, you scummy pack of Alphabet cunts, stop pushing your fucking bullshit on the rest of the world, seriously go fuck yourselves. All legal words in Australia and Google can eat a dead dogs dick.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    12. Re:Good grief by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Agreed, haven't seen an ad on youtube in years. Don't miss em either. I sometimes feel bad for the creators, then I remember they know what they signed up for. Ads ruined the internet and are an additional attack vector.

    13. Re:Good grief by epine · · Score: 1

      I rarely watch videos with comments disabled, because then there's no way to find out in advance that the critical parts of the video were filmed through a potato, that the audio is 1.5 s out of sync, that another version is available without all the problems, that the most improbable sequence on a blooper real was actually filmed as a commercial (even if never aired), or where to find the associated PDF of a technical talk, etc. etc.

      But I suppose I rely more on comments than most people, because I never subscribe to any channel, and most of what I watch is a la carte.

    14. Re: Good grief by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      Which all but guarantees that this will be weaponized. Don't like a video or a content creator on YouTube? Why bother with a well-released response or making a video of your own, when you can leave comments designed to get them demonetized. Pretty soon creators will be forced to disable comments entirely because they can't take the risk if their content production has become their livelihood.

    15. Re: Good grief by peppepz · · Score: 1

      No, they don't. The whole point is that advertisers don't want their ads displayed on those videos.

    16. Re: Good grief by peppepz · · Score: 1

      The "work" is not the video: it is the channel, including videos, descriptions, comments, playlists, notifications and anything that the audience looks for in the site.

    17. Re: Good grief by Pyramid · · Score: 2

      You just demonstrated that 77.8769% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

      You've got it backwards - it's the 3% fringe that are the problem.

      --
      ~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
    18. Re: Good grief by peppepz · · Score: 1

      I don't know, you should ask a Google-sucking Nazi about that. You'll find no shortage of them on YouTube.

    19. Re:Good grief by dittbub · · Score: 1

      Which is it, coddling or screwing content creators?

    20. Re: Good grief by peppepz · · Score: 1

      True. To be honest, I think that it's not wise for your livelihood to be based on a Google product; at least, not if you haven't got backup plans.

    21. Re:Good grief by mjwx · · Score: 1

      If they're so obsessed about "protecting the children", then just hide and disable comments across the entire site on the Youtube Kids interface. Then it's just up to the parents to ensure that Youtube is locked in the Kids mode on their devices.

      You're assuming this is about "the children" when it's actually about Alphabet reducing the number of things they could be potentially sued for.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    22. Re:Good grief by hey! · · Score: 1

      I think it's more about protecting Google's revenue than it is about protecting kids.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    23. Re: Good grief by Cederic · · Score: 1

      You need to understand that the internet was not designed as a children's playground. There are adults here and advertisers like adults and their money.

      Get the fucking children off my fucking internet and everything will be much better. They can have their own walled garden full of Disney and paedophiles and the rest of us can get on with an adult world consisting of things that offend people.

    24. Re: Good grief by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Anyone who doesnÃ(TM)t see this as a problem is retarded or is a pedo apologist.

      I guess that's me, but as I'm not 'retarded' and I don't know what a 'pedo apologist' is I'm not sure where this leaves me. Is that someone that says sorry for standing on your toes? I mean, I do do that.

      Meanwhile people posting those comments are making it very easy for the police to track them down and at the same time offering reasonable cause for a search of their homes. Looks like a great way to detect paedophiles breaking the law.

    25. Re:Good grief by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 1

      ...Then it's just up to the parents to ensure ...

      Easy there, turbo. That's not how we work in today's world. You can't have parents being responsible.

    26. Re: Good grief by peppepz · · Score: 1
      I don't know if I understand your response. To be clear: the problem that YouTube is trying to solve is that some videos of children were used by pedophiles. The comment sections of those videos contained adult persons making vulgar appreciations of a sexual nature about the minor subjects of the video, attaching keywords to make the videos searchable by other members of their community, including links to other videos and timecodes that they could jump to in order to quickly obtain the sequences that were most interesting to them. After discovering this, the people paying for the expenses for keeping those videos online, that is the advertisers, don't want to pay anymore, because that would give them negative publicity which is the opposite of what they are paying for.

      What does this have to do with Disney and people getting offended? Shouldn't Disney, or anyone, be free to choose what kind of content they want to support financially? Their own money is a private property, isn't it?

    27. Re: Good grief by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      I also understand that a content creator could do NOTHING WRONG, and could still have legitimate videos demonetized through no fault of their own.

      Ok, they do nothing wrong, and the consequence are ... oh, right, nothing bad happens.

      It's hard to think of any game with lower stakes than youtube "monetization." Youtube never owed anyone anything, so it's basically impossible for a video maker to come out behind. The absolute worst case scenario is that some people might decide Youtube's free hosting service isn't as cool as some fanboys said it would be.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    28. Re: Good grief by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're 101% correct.

      As taught in Logic 101(%) courses.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    29. Re: Good grief by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I don't know if I understand your response. To be clear: the problem that YouTube is trying to solve is that some videos of children were used by pedophiles. The comment sections of those videos contained adult persons making vulgar appreciations of a sexual nature about the minor subjects of the video,

      Gee - why doesn't Youtube and law enforcement go after....... wait for it....... the pedophiles?

      Children participate in things like gymnastics. Normal people don't see a child and think that they want to have sex with the kid.

      Perhaps if someone makes a comment about boinking a youngster in YT comments, Youtube could just Kick them, and notify Law enforcement. Otherwise we'll end up having it illegal to show images of anyone under the age of 18 on the Intertoobz.

      tl;dr version: It isn't the lady's fault, it's the perv's

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    30. Re: Good grief by Chas · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand.
      Even in a demonetized video, ads still play.
      If the video's demonetized, Google keeps that ad revenue all to themselves.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    31. Re: Good grief by Chas · · Score: 1

      The fact that A Random Person can drive-by your video with a simple off-color comment, getting you demonetized and Google still plays ads that they then keep the money for pretty much makes your attempt at a point useless to anyone.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    32. Re: Good grief by Chas · · Score: 1

      Thank you Captain Obvious.
      Did you want to kick sand in people's faces too?

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    33. Re: Good grief by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      This has already been weaponized. This was all started by a failed Youtuber (who as I understand it) was posting creepy videos. When his content was demonetized he solicited a sizable number of people to contact advertisers and point out to them a large number of comments which supported pedophilia.

      He strangely knew where they were.

      YouTube had been actively working to trace down the commentors and either ban them or at least ban the comments. However when this dude and his friends started contacting advertisers YouTube needed a quick response to keep them from running and so they went to this.

      So weaponization has already happened.

  5. So anybody can now sabotage any video? by gweihir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That will work out well. Everybody on YouTube, no matter how nice or friendly, has enemies. There are a lot of dissatisfied, cruel, envious and stupid people around and also some outright psychos. If these people now get handed a Really Big Stick, they are going to use it.

    On the plus-side, this extreme stupidity hopefully will hasten the demise of YouTube. It has vastly overstayed its welcome anyways.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:So anybody can now sabotage any video? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Can someone please destroy PewDiePie? I don't even know who he is, but I think he needs to go.

    2. Re:So anybody can now sabotage any video? by Calydor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How long until 4chan weaponizes this with a comment posting script to attack ALL of Youtube at once?

      Random video, random comment from random account containing a bunch of random keywords. BOOM.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    3. Re:So anybody can now sabotage any video? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:So anybody can now sabotage any video? by Spamalope · · Score: 1
      Especially if they take writings from places like stormfront, then replace all the racial epithets with the names of google properties before posting. Maybe throw a few others in like any news sites that have been critical of 4chan. That way if Google automates cleaning things up the usual Google way, the AI will be keyword trained to nail posts about Google, as it'd be more funny if they start censoring anything about Google's business practices.

      Hopefully the googles at 4chan will have waymo fun time.

    5. Re:So anybody can now sabotage any video? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Well, yes. But now anybody can do it in a minute with minimal effort.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re:So anybody can now sabotage any video? by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 1

      They are currently working on it, and will have something by the end of day or possibly end of next week.

      --
      http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
    7. Re:So anybody can now sabotage any video? by ripvlan · · Score: 1

      I can appreciate the value of using the comments to weigh/score the content of the video. BUT -- they need to give the content owner the ability to delete offending comments and keep it clean.

      I want my ads and I can't have a bunch of @#$ of a **!$&! ruining it for me. So $!&$-off. [delete] [delete] [delete]. ^H^H^H^H^H

      People need to see their scores and understand why ads aren't appearing. Plus have the tools to do something about it. Otherwise publishers will leave. "gee I'm not making money on this platform. I wonder why?!. oh well - I give up, let me try another platform"

    8. Re:So anybody can now sabotage any video? by philmarcracken · · Score: 1

      You're greatly overestimating modern 4chans ability to organize raiding or even post anymore. The majority of users have left because they browse on mobile phones and were only going to toss a throwaway comment which is of less effort than solving the catchpha.

      They can't create OC and have generally ruined any kind of discussion or proper debate. Their screens are so tiny they see even a single paragraph and instantly tl;dr. Their input methods are horrible so they don't want to compose anything of length. And they're not going anywhere because they're dumb enough to not use adblock and click on ads.

      4chan was never good but its also never been this bad.

  6. Morton's Fork by mentil · · Score: 2

    So Youtubers uploading videos of minors are going to have to choose between no comments or no monetization? This'll doom channels that are specifically about audience participation, like "leave a comment about what you want me to do in my next video". This'll push more Youtube content creators to accept kickbacks from companies to shill their products, rather than being able to rely on monetization and potentially remain unbiased.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Morton's Fork by CronoCloud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This'll doom channels that are specifically about audience participation, like "leave a comment about what you want me to do in my next video".

      If only there was a way for viewers to send comments and suggestions directly to the content maker, like sending a letter in the mail. We could call it "electronic mail" People could have addresses where such "e-mail" could be sent.

      All sarcasm aside, perhaps those youtube content creators overlooked how useful e-mail is in their haste to adopt social networking platforms.

    2. Re:Morton's Fork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Have you ever used youtube?

      You can make comments moderated (eg approve comments) and approve certain commentators.

      The catch, be-all end-all, is that this is just youtube trying to solve things with algorithms instead of people, again. Every single comment should be reviewed by a human, a really popular channel is simply not going to devote time to that, and they aren't going to hire someone to do it, hardly any channel makes enough money to buy dinner, and the very-popular channels thrive on bad comments.

      This goes back to the earlier issue with troll farms downvoting certain videos. Again, just make the default "no likes/dislikes/comments unless the video has been watched in it's entirety, and automatically prevent new accounts from posting unless approved."

    3. Re:Morton's Fork by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      The catch, be-all end-all, is that this is just youtube trying to solve things with algorithms instead of people

      I think it's the other way around. They want people to do it, but by "people" they mean the poster of the video, not somebody they have to pay a salary.

    4. Re:Morton's Fork by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Email isn't really a good substitute. What would you prefer, 900 emails all saying the same thing that you have to manually process, or one comment and 899 up votes supporting it? And if you need to reply to that comment, do you want to send 900 email responses or one follow up comment?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Morton's Fork by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      fuck those people

    6. Re:Morton's Fork by Riceballsan · · Score: 1

      I believe there's at least an option that can be set in which the owner see's all comments, and then manually approves ones liked. That would fully allow someone to do a "let me know what you want me to do", and they can look through approve a few hundred, and deny any pedo comments etc...

    7. Re:Morton's Fork by nctritech · · Score: 1

      Oh, but you get "points." I don't know what the exchange rate is for "points" to real money. Probably similar to the exchange rate for "exposure." Gamification in order to entice free labor is fucking bullshit.

    8. Re:Morton's Fork by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      LIKE COMMENT AND SUBSCRIBE MAKE SURE YOU RING THAT BELL

      I guess now they have to say "Like, comment very nice and safe, and subscribe. AND DING THAT BELL". Also email would not be a good substitute for what the people requesting comments truly want. The reason they want comments is to have people comment on the comments and keep coming back over and over to reply and follow videos to continue commenting on past arguments and internet battles. Well, also to pretend that they care about the comments and input of all of their subscribers.

    9. Re:Morton's Fork by tdailey · · Score: 1

      If only there was a way for viewers to send comments and suggestions directly to the content maker ...

      YT used to have a button-feature to write a private message to the account owner. YT removed this feature many months ago.

    10. Re:Morton's Fork by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      If only there was a way to use e-mail as a group communication tool. To have a list of members of a group who's messages could be handled by a server as a group. Instead of sending an e-mail to the content creator directly. It would go something like this:

      You'd get an email from a mailing list service about the new video.
      You could respond to that message with comments. Your e-mail would be sent to the whole group subscribed to the "list-service" and would be properly threaded.

      We could call the whole thing something short and snappy like "list-serv"

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  7. False flags galore by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What'll happen is people who hate others speaking their minds will infest their comment sections and troll them, leaving inflammatory comments. This'll get them demonetized, which is about the same as being shut down. Appearing on Youtube is a full-time job if you do it right. It's not vapid internet celebrities either, there is some really incisive content by people like Jimmy Dore that is regularly reported and demonetized by these trolls.

    Censorship isn't a school board banning Huckleberry Finn any more. In the corporatist system we have, corporate censorship isn't any different than government censorship. It doesn't make much difference whether the one silencing your dissent is Youtube or Andrew McCabe. The effect is the same.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:False flags galore by Qwaniton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Being demonitized is absolutely not the same as being shut down. In fact, nonmonetized videos are more true and pure, coming from the mind and the heart. Google doesn't owe you money, and the very concept of "monetization" is venal and corrupt.

    2. Re:False flags galore by butchersong · · Score: 1

      This was already a common tactic to take down channels that have live streams. Very difficult to moderate the realtime stream and several youtubers have lost their channels due to such comments.

    3. Re:False flags galore by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Eh, it is though. The best commentators do it full time, and it shows in the quality of their work. Having your budget yanked for no reason is a real detriment. Imagine your favorite TV show having its budget yanked for no reason that anyone would tell them. Same effect.

      Venal and corrupt? What are you, a socialist? Weird comment.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  8. Use an alternative video sharing site by blind+biker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I duplicate every video I put up on YT on at least one alternative site. So far I have everything up on Bitchute as well. Anyone who doesn't duplicate their content on an alternative video sharing site, is crazy.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  9. Re:No worries, by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Itll get abused rather quickly and they will have to remove it. :)

    --
    [($)]
  10. How to solve a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "How to solve an important but complicated problem"
    By: YouTube

    1. Ignore problem
    2. Keep ignoring problem
    3. Once people bring light to problem, keep ignoring it
    4. If it might lose you ad revenue, announce you're looking into it (but keep ignoring it)
    5. If it has caused you to lose ad revenue, PANIC! ANNOUNCE YOU'RE TAKING MAJOR STEPS TO SOLVE IT!
    6. Implement the worst possible solution to fixing the problem (Make sure the solution can be easily abused to shutdown small channels!)
    7. Wonder why people hate YouTube
    9. ???
    10. No profit

    1. Re:How to solve a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Note: Step 8 is missing because YouTube has ignored that problem

    2. Re:How to solve a problem by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Yeah, somehow the idea of making the down-vote and flag actions ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING, it too much of a stretch for YouTube to imagine.

    3. Re:How to solve a problem by Spamalope · · Score: 1

      6. Implement a fix that re-directs all the revenue to Google while blaming the creator.

  11. Think of the Children Hysteria by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

    An attentionwhore suddenly decides that ordinary videos of children dancing or in swimwear uploaded by the families or kids themselves is 'softcore child porn' in his own words, (softcore CP that he plays back in the very video that went viral and he's made tons of thumbnails that have been seen by millions) and now the livelihood of content creators across the internet are at risk, regular people will no longer be able to upload videos, and tons of people are generally going to be inconvenienced. All because 'think of the children' hysteria is so powerful nowadays everybody is too terrified to stand up against it and for common sense.

    1. Re: Think of the Children Hysteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, it's "think of the advertisers" (who don't want their products associated with some kind of comments and might stop paying)

      Anyone else? They don't care.

    2. Re:Think of the Children Hysteria by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you get a boner watching a video with a child, the problem is not the video but you.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re: Think of the Children Hysteria by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

      Google encourages people to see them as a content cop. They know they could stand their ground and the few protesting advertisers would need them more than they needed the advertisers. But Google while it doesn't like the scandal itself in the end agrees with assuming more and more control.

    4. Re:Think of the Children Hysteria by butchersong · · Score: 1

      Pretty much. What is ironic is the that there are reported early videos of the fellow himself driving around asking girls if they want to be in a sex video... I doubt he verified their ages before accosting them this way. They guy couldn't make it on YouTube as a creator so... generate some media hysteria to get advertisers to react and Youtube to overreact about a problem they were already working on in the background.

  12. This isn't about kids seeing comments by raymorris · · Score: 2

    This isn't about comments that they don't want kids to see.
    This is about some really messed up stuff that happens with the algorithm for recommending videos and comments certain people post on videos of kids. It's a messed up situation that needs to be addressed somehow. Hopefully YouTube will come up with better solutions.

  13. Obviously a well thought out policy by jrumney · · Score: 1

    It's lucky for Google that there is no way this policy could be abused to demonetize your competitors videos. Otherwise there could have been a lawsuit coming their way.

  14. Will they refund advertisers as well? by Sivaraj · · Score: 2

    Why should the content creators be solely responsible for such comments. Isn't Youtube jointly responsible? Will they refund the money charged to their advertisers?

    If not, this is only a tactic to maximize their revenue, not for protecting children.

  15. If they can identifty the comments... by jonwil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they can identify the comments and demonetize or restrict the video, surely they can give creators the option to instead opt for the comments to be deleted or blocked when they are detected. Some way that creators can choose to have the inappropriate comments removed to prevent demonetization.

    1. Re:If they can identifty the comments... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think the ulterior motive here is just more censorship. I see signs all over the place that the establishment is trying to reign in free speech. They want the country back to the way it was during the cold war when they could perfectly control the messaging from news media.

    2. Re:If they can identifty the comments... by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      Google could easily plant the comments themselves.

  16. Been to NPR lately ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    No comments there either.
    The propaganda must flow.

  17. Money, money, money by jenik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A mother wants to make money off her son's gymnastics videos? This world is really going to hell...

    1. Re:Money, money, money by doubledown00 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly this! I'm more creeped out that she's trying to monetize her 5 year old this way. It's not a platform to share "OMG cute!" videos anymore. It's "Hey Austin, do something adorable so mama and dada can make this month's mortgage payment".

      Also lost in this lady's question, but probably very relevant, was Youtube's announcement the other day that they had identified videos that had high pedo interest. One of the top categories *drum roll* Youth gymnastics videos. It is possible that Youtube's actions were an attempt to prevent sickos from looking at her kid!

    2. Re:Money, money, money by aicrules · · Score: 1

      If content you upload is driving views, which drives ad revenue for Youtube, why shouldn't you get a cut? Doesn't matter what the content is, there is now an expectation that if your content hits a certain level of popularity, you get some of that money.

    3. Re:Money, money, money by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Exactly this! I'm more creeped out that she's trying to monetize her 5 year old this way

      Are you creeped out that some big corporation will make the ad revenue on her son's gymnastics video (to the extent that she doesn't)?

      Did you castigate America's Funniest Home Videos when they'd send somebody $100 for a tape? What's the objective criteria here?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Money, money, money by chill · · Score: 1

      Are you creeped out that some big corporation will make the ad revenue on her son's gymnastics video (to the extent that she doesn't)?

      How do you figure? Google said it isn't eligible for ads at all, not that there were going to be ads and SHE wouldn't get paid. Nobody is going to make money on ad revenue on her little kid's gymnastic's routine.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    5. Re:Money, money, money by doubledown00 · · Score: 1

      Exactly this! I'm more creeped out that she's trying to monetize her 5 year old this way

      Are you creeped out that some big corporation will make the ad revenue on her son's gymnastics video (to the extent that she doesn't)?

      Did you castigate America's Funniest Home Videos when they'd send somebody $100 for a tape? What's the objective criteria here?

      If someone is swimming in shark infested waters and is then attacked, it is a waste of time to be mad at the shark for doing what is in its nature.
      I am not about to waste time and aggravation at Youtube / Google for it was not they that posted the video to begin with.
      It's scummy behavior, don't get me wrong. But it's predictable and expected given who you're dealing with.
      Youtube / Google would have had no opportunity for profit had the mother made a different decision.


      Also don't white knight for her too much.......it would appear she has an entire channel dedicated to trying to monetize her kid and gymnastics. She has made her choice.

  18. If YT wasn't troll heaven before, it is now by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    We are the trolls who say "FUCK!". We shall say "FUCK" again to you, if you do not appease us.

    And a shrubbery won't do this time!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  19. Re:This must end.... Fight dirty with dirty by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    You think YouTube does not put ads on videos that were demonetized? Who do you think you'd hurt that way? Hint: It ain't YouTube.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  20. Blame the victim by kbg · · Score: 1

    So Youtube can detect inappropriate comments obviously, but instead of deleting, hiding the comment or banning the user of the comment the video itself will be banned. Does not make any sense.

    1. Re:Blame the victim by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Deleting the individual comment would make the most sense... banning the user entirely could open up another can of worms.

    2. Re:Blame the victim by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      It sounds like youtube could use some sort of moderation system....

    3. Re:Blame the victim by kbg · · Score: 1

      It could be time based so may ban the user for one week or month depending on the severity.

  21. Re:No worries, by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That was my thought as well. If I don't like certain social or political commenters on YT, I can just post a few inappropriate comments on their videos and take away their ad revenue.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  22. The next step beyond fake reviews by Pimpy · · Score: 1

    Now companies wishing to hamstring their competitors can resort to paying people to troll monetized videos instead of leaving fake reviews.

  23. Why can't the trolls render themselves invisible? by shanen · · Score: 1

    My solution approach would be to use MEPR (Multidimensional Earned Public Reputation) to help the trolls in rendering themselves invisible, except to each other and to people who actually want to play with the trolls.

    Time's up, but I bid you ADSAuPR, atAJG.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  24. Cobra effect by recrudescence · · Score: 1

    It would be interesting to see what kind of Cobra effect this will create. E.g. content creators make 2 videos, one with comments disabled and one redirecting for comments where less advertising income is expected.

  25. Re:No worries, by jythie · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but just like the big copyright holders, they will probably have special protections put in place for some channels while not others. DMCA takedowns already do not generally work on 'official' channels, there will probably be something similar for this comment policy.

  26. backwards by sad_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    why punish the video, while the commenter is the one who should be blamed.
    wouldn't it be easier to set a time limited (or permanent) commect ban on that id?

    basically you could build a bot right now that makes sure everything on youtube get demonetized.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
    1. Re:backwards by RuiFRibeiro · · Score: 1

      Easy, youtube is getting new employees for free...

  27. What a dick move by ReneR · · Score: 2

    Expected nothing less form silicon valley ethics, not. Take the users content, make big $$$, give nothing back. profit.

  28. Pretty soon we'll have this omnipotent AI Deity by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

    Hanging over us monitoring, censoring, and reporting on everything everybody in the world does on a real time basis and people will wonder how we got here.

  29. YouTube is not a career by Cloud+K · · Score: 1

    Those who are truly entertaining enough to be worth enough subscribers to make money should probably just go into the proper entertainment industry instead, rather than propping their livelihood up on Google. I wouldn't rely on them to provide me with any service that doesn't get whisked away or changed unrecognisably at a moment's notice, so I sure as heck wouldn't rely on them to pay the bills!

    Then we can all use some alternative to Youtube and just be happy with the old idea of making videos because you genuinely want to entertain, educate, vlog etc for the fun and benefit of other people, and not having to slap a "please like, comment, subscribe and hit that bell icon" at the end of every pointless 5 minute video telling you something that could've been typed in 5 seconds.

    1. Re:YouTube is not a career by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      Why not?

      If I can make videos that good enough to be monetized, why shouldn't I be able to make a living at it?

      It can take a lot of work to make a really good video.

      BTW: I have never attempted to monetize a video myself.

    2. Re: YouTube is not a career by Cloud+K · · Score: 1

      Of course you have a right to get paid for good content (though so many just do things like reading aloud some instructions for something and then begging for likes/subscribes/notification bells I.e. low effort optimisation stuff)

      But mostly because YouTube (or anything Google) isn't a stable platform. They can demonetise you at any moment, lower what you get paid, suddenly decide to go by a different metric than number of likes and subs to decide how much you get, etc. It seems very unreliable to me as an income

  30. Inquiring mother, as bad as the pedophiles? by sabbede · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Well, probably not, but she is exploiting her kid for money. And how many of the viewers are pedophiles? If she's moderating comments she probably knows at least some are, yet continues to try and make money from her son showing off for them.

    Maybe don't put your children on YouTube.

    Maybe don't try or expect to make money from your child being on YouTube.

    Maybe we all know that social media isn't good for kids anyway.

    1. Re:Inquiring mother, as bad as the pedophiles? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I agree with you as far as kids go, they're not educated enough to make intelligent decisions about what should be online, even if you give them a say. But they're going to apply this logic to all videos, and that is wrong. If they are so against the content of those comments, the correct thing to do is nuke the comments, not demonetize the video. They're going to have to censor something, so what should they pick? Answer, the thing that doesn't interfere with livelihoods. People depend on YouTube for their income, and letting trolls pedos interfere with that is abusive. YouTube has an effective monopoly position in this market, and should be regulated as such. It's well past time to break Google up for abuse of their market position.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  31. Brilliant! by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    YouTube hasn't abandoned or even limit censorship in any way.

    They have outsourced it.

    Now, consider that YouTube will censor your video, by denying you full exposure/rights/permissions, not (ostensibly) for the content, but because of the comments, even (especially) those you have no control over. If someone wants to harm you, they can easily post objectionable comments to your posts, and *poof*, you suffer consequences of their deliberate acts.

    The State wins.

    Oh, be sure the State is working their evil on this site also.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  32. YouTube? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    Every day it seems less and less like YouTube, and more and more like UsTube.

  33. How convenient. by Pyramid · · Score: 1

    A tool to stifle comments comments that are contrary to their agenda as well as an excuse to snarf up 100% of the profits for other people's work.

    --
    ~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
  34. Im ALL FOR IT, until.. by evanchik · · Score: 1

    they make a block channel feature in all versions of their app. the pedo thing is sorted resume.

  35. I for one, welcome our corporate overlords... by Pyramid · · Score: 1

    ...because the more massive communications companies behave this way, the more ammunition there is to claim they should be treated as common carriers.

    --
    ~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
  36. Why not make YouTube 13+ by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 1

    And if you let your children watch something fucked up, its on you.
    Hell force YouTube to require a Google account to even get to the page. Those require you to be 13.
    Got to anyways to watch videos with the word fuck in them

    --
    http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
  37. Re:Who's always thinking of the children? by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 1

    I will give you the last.
    The two former are just doing so to get money. There is no altruism there.

    --
    http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
  38. Re: Looks different to me by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 1

    That, and it can't play most games.
    Mostly just emulators.

    --
    http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
  39. Sweet! by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    So we can just post inappropriate shit on videos of content creators we can't stand, and they get demonetized? Just create an alt account so your primary one doesn't start getting shit suggestions of stuff by RG and the Pauls...

  40. Youtube as it was won't survive by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

    I think within the least year or two it's become clear that Youtube as it once existed will not be able to survive. This is partially the fault of advertisers and partly the fault of Youtube itself.

    I can understand demonetizing blatant racism, or terrorist training videos, etc, but it seems that just using profanity or DISCUSSING bad things (even for the sake of informing viewers) leads to demonetization now.

    What made Youtube refreshing to me was that I don't have to put up with bullshit censorship like mainstream media had. Now Youtube is basically trying to enforce it on the new platform too.

    I'm sure some people will survive off of Patreon pledges, and I support about a half-dozen creators there myself, but all in all I think we need a competing platform with a more reasonable approach towards the advertising.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  41. Re:Just another excuse to rip off creators by doubledown00 · · Score: 1

    Sure, but I don't have any sympathy. Social media is made up of an army of nudniks that willingly give their creations away for others to monetize. They knew the score going in.

    The fact that Youtube was willing to deal them in to begin with was rare and generous. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyway that they want to change the deal now.

  42. I got an idea by skovnymfe · · Score: 1

    Let's figure out what the words are, weaponize them, and then go back to complaining YouTube is a bad platform after the feature is removed again.

  43. punish the victim! by JaiWing · · Score: 1

    Is this not akin to punishing the presenter at a venue for comments shouted by the audience?

  44. Bots by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    forget that. It'll be bots. Lots and lots of bots. Including Bots by state actors attacking videos they don't like.

    Say goodbye to any political discourse that isn't from the establishment. Say goodbye to anything that's not pro-corporate.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  45. Contamination Spreads by Bromancer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Which would be great, except the people who run google are effectively friends with those in Patreon. So, the same policies are spreading over there. If you have content that they deem offensive, then Patreon is defunding you too. This famously occurred for Sargon of Akad last December, which is the reason some large content creators who champion free speech left patreon in protest.

    You might feel your content is safe, and it is just those "bad" people who disagree with you get silenced. The problem is that when bad means disagree, you can find yourself suddenly on the wrong side very quickly.

    Free speech is the hardest thing, because it means defending the right of someone to say something that is completely annoying to you. It goes against human nature, which makes it one of the great intellectual achievements of humans.

    Ironically, you might not see this post because my karma is bad. My karma is bad because I said some very, very critical things about the slashdot community chasing politics over the quest for science. Even here, censorship happens.

    1. Re:Contamination Spreads by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Ironically, you might not see this post because my karma is bad. My karma is bad because I said some very, very critical things about the slashdot community chasing politics over the quest for science. Even here, censorship happens.

      Why would you think that you are censored? The rating system might hide your post if you have it set to a certain level. But here you are at 1, just like most of us Non-AC's.

      Slashdot's rating system is one of the few ways that people can moderate a list, and not kick off those who are posting off topic or abusive posts. I do admittedly hide heverything below 1 when I'm not moderating. But if I for some reason wanted to see the posts about gay sex or 3000 word screeds, I could do it.

      Remember, your free speech does not require me to listen.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:Contamination Spreads by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      Yeah but Sargon is a prime example of the Streisand effect. I never heard of him until Patreon pulled him and then pushed Paypal to try to shut down SubscibeStar

      SubscribeStar survived. At the same time while YouTube might have demonetized Sargon and he initially lost revenue, but seems to have recovered enough that he now has actually hired a couple of guys to help with his channel.

      Meanwhile a legal team is working on getting the FTC to investigate what happened.

      Patreon has also lost a few of it's biggest users over the banning.

  46. Re: Errrm... by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Theres people decrying pictures of newborn babies as child porn.

    ..without stopping to consider that the rest of us don't find it erotic at all.

  47. Now trolls have 2 ways to takedown folks videos by Cito · · Score: 1

    Over last couple years the rise and ease of filing false dmca takedowns to get a person's video removed has become a weekly occurrence. Even various forums one in particular with infamous names like "seo blackhat" have step by step instructions on having an enemy's video removed by using a false dmca because there are no penalties for filing a false one anyway, the steps even go through creating alt youtube accounts to use and all steps and what to out on the forms, etc.

    Now not only can trolls use false dmca takedowns to remove random videos, they can just use same steps as the false dmca instructions given in various forums mentioned previously to setup as many alt youtube accounts as ya want and just create threads of the vilest grossest comments alone or with a friend or 2 and get your target's video demonetized.

    Also with the current fad of scammers using blackmail and extortion on various youtubers, this just gives another weapon in the arsenal to force a youtuber to disable comments which loses them a lot of views and dropped out of the "algorithm" costing them money, and scammers hitting all videos on a youtubers channel to demonetize everything for extortion before graduating to having channel hitten with strikes.

    YouTube always handles things ass backwards.

  48. Turning Comments Off Not The Solution by lance_of_the_apes · · Score: 2

    "The best advice for circumventing this issue is to disable comments entirely, but this would significantly reduce the interaction between the YouTuber and the viewer."

    Not only that, but videos with comments turned off gets pushed way down the priority list when it comes to their search engine. I have some videos with comments off that don't show up in search results even when the terms are VERY specific.

  49. So what by sunking2 · · Score: 1

    If you're making money on advertisements you should take the time to moderate the comments. Or turn them off. When that story of the kid toy review that topped the list came out I noticed the channel was smart enough to disable comments altogether, yet it didn't hurt and likely helped their revenue stream.

    I loathe this free loader society we are becoming. Upload video, free money. Can't pay for something, crowd fund it.

  50. Net of a million lies -- Vernor Vinge by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Great. Now there's an easier way to take down videos of the political opposition than lying that you own it.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  51. Comment ranking system by Macdude · · Score: 2

    If only there was some way to rank comments, on say a -1 to 5 scale, then people could view comments at the level they're personally comfortable with.

    --
    "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
  52. Re:Youtube is the next target in anti-free speech by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Next? Youtube has censoring conservatives for years.

  53. Responsible but not Liable by ParadyNexus · · Score: 1

    The creator should certainly assist monitoring the comments and reporting inappropriate comments, however they shouldn’t be financially liable for comments they can’t control. Maybe frequent inappropriate comments means comments are disabled by default.

  54. How's life in the hypocrite lane?

  55. Total Anti-Ad War by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    Bring down the whole system by widespread use of AdBlock software. I haven't seen a YouTube ad for 10 years.

    Kill advertisement as a concept in its entirety. Make it criminal to knock on people door, make it criminal to play ads on TV, make it criminal to erect billboards.

    No. More. Advertisement. Stop the junk.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  56. and nothing of value was lost by Paul+Carver · · Score: 1

    Are there ever any youtube comments of any value? I've never seen one.

    I have to be honest and say that I don't often read youtube comments. But I have read them on rare occasions and always regretted wasting my time.

    YouTube is a great resource. I especially appreciate the technology conferences like PyCons and college level math and physics classes, but I've never seen any indication that the youtube comments feature has any value at all.