Creators Call Out YouTube For Demonetizing Videos (dailydot.com) 193
Striek writes: "On Wednesday, several YouTube creators posted videos that voiced concerns over the platform's process of demonetizing videos for not being friendly to advertisers," reports Daily Dot. Many YouTube creators have similar concerns that no, this isn't censorship in the strictest sense, but that YouTube owes its users a better commitment to free speech than most private companies due to its dominant marketplace position. Its criteria for videos being "advertiser-friendly" is also incredibly vague or restrictive, or both. The Daily Dot reports: "Content that is considered inappropriate for advertising includes: Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor; Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism; Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language; Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items; Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown." You read that right -- any YouTube video covering any war or natural disaster is considered inappropriate for advertising, which essentially includes all news and current events shows. This might not seem like a big deal to many people, but it would be, if you made your living creating YouTube videos. So while technically not censorship, many people are arguing YouTube has gone a few steps too far with this, and are likewise worried that this will be too selectively enforced. justthinkit adds: On August 31, 2016, YouTube demonetized videos for reasons that appear to punish those who attack "Social Justice Warriors" and the mainstream media. Philip DeFranco has spoken out about it and hinted he may have to move to other video platforms. Is this an issue most should care about or is it merely a first world problem? The reason this is a story is because YouTube has "recently improved the notification and appeal process to ensure better communication." What this means is YouTube has been making users more aware of the issue with language or content, and the chance to appeal a demonetized video. What has upset many creators is the fact that the company has been demonetizing videos without telling the creators. YouTube has only recently started telling partners what is going on. In addition, there has been a discrepancy as to which channels/networks have been demonetized. For example, while one YouTube creator may be reporting on a current event that isn't "advertiser-friendly" and has been denied monetization as a result, another YouTube creator via a large network like CNN may be covering the same current event but be allowed monetization.
It's about time... (Score:4, Insightful)
YouTube knows what content it's sponsors appreciate and what they object to.
So this is a good thing. You've got all the freedom of speech you want... but being paid for what you say is not guaranteed. They are not pulling the videos- just making sure sponsors are happy.
This is the way it should be. The market at work.
Re: (Score:2)
The Anonymous Cowards aren't going to like this, no sir. Not one little bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope... they sure aren't liking it.
Re:It's about time... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It's about time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually if you would watch any of the video complaints like those by Phil Defranco, he went out of his way to assure people of the opposite. He specifically mentions that Youtube is a private company and that it's within their legal right to do this. HOWEVER, as users of the platform we are also free to voice our disapproval.
Personally, nearly half of the Youtube channels that I view regularly would be considered "non-advertiser" friendly - and most of them pull in very good viewership #'s. If Youtube pushes them off the platform, they'll push me off the platform too. Now naturally they don't care about *ME* as a single viewer, but given how popular most of these guys are as a group their viewers represent a very large number of people.
Too many people seem to be of the opinion "Well, it's not a legal violation of the 1st amendment, so you lot just need to shut up about the issue and accept whatever a private company does without question.".
I can personally say that until something gives I've personally already pulled my Youtube Red subscription.
Re: (Score:2)
I can personally say that until something gives I've personally already pulled my Youtube Red subscription.
Please don't cancel your Red subscription. It's the correct answer to this problem of advertising not being compatible with more-adult content. The problem is that, at least when Red was announced, you couldn't turn on monetisation in such a way to get Red revenue but not ad revenue — useful if you wanted to be rewarded for your work but didn't want to subject your (non-ad-blocker) viewers to ads, but now it's clear that it's essential to support non-family-friendly content.
Please YouTube, allow Re
Re: (Score:2)
Easy solution, another advertising agent simply pays youtubers to be ads in front of their videos (want to change the add, edit the video and upload it again), many already do and google can either delete the entire video. A question though, are those demonetised video now ad free or does Google still push out an ad, which would make their action seem rather fraudulent.
Want to do something to reduce the number of questionable up loaders, then allow end users to block them, and list the number of blocks w
Re: (Score:2)
ultimately i see the only (unlikely) solution being the federated approach to social media and content serving a la disapora et al.
with better upload bandwidth in home connections and perhaps ipv6 giving permanent addresses (isps willing) then content creators can negotiate themselves with advertisers, or perhaps form collectives to do so.
early on in the progression from the origins of the interwebs we went down the wrong trouser leg of time and allowed the concept of 'decentralisation' to be replaced with
Re: (Score:2)
None of them talk about rolling their own video service.
No one can compete against google. Multibillion dollar efforts have gone against google and failed. What makes you think any person can compete when multinationals that dominate the market cant?
Competing with the entrenched players is actually the least of their problems. The major challenge that would be face by video creators who want to monetize videos that don't comply with the new YouTube policy is funding. I don't mean startup funding, I mean ongoing revenue generation, to pay for operational costs and clear enough profit that they can eat. If they had a way to create the latter, they could find the former.
We have found basically two ways to generate revenue from content online: advertisin
Re: (Score:3)
But YouTube is pulling all advertising, whether the advertisers ask for it or not. YouTube is making the decision, not the advertisers.
Re: (Score:2)
But YouTube is pulling all advertising, whether the advertisers ask for it or not. YouTube is making the decision, not the advertisers.
Did you notice that there hasn't been a change in YouTube's policy here? YouTube has long avoided showing ads on videos that don't comply with the guidelines (and even documented the guidelines), because advertisers have complained when YouTube wasn't careful enough about that. The only thing that has changed is that YouTube is now notifying YouTubers which videos don't get ads on them.
Advertisers absolutely have long asked not to have their ads on certain kinds of videos, and YouTube has complied.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's about time... (Score:5, Interesting)
Either those "sponsors" are a bunch of complete idiots, or this is just a bullshit excuse. If I watch a video from a channel I'm subscribed to, it's almost always because I like the content and view that content in a positive way. And if I view the content in a positive way, even if it's "offensive" to someone else, I will also view the sponsor in a positive way. Maybe the sponsor will view the content in a negative way, but the goal of the advertisement is to make me buy a product, not to make the advertisers feel good about himself.
Re: (Score:2)
If I watch a video from a channel I'm subscribed to, it's almost always because I like the content and view that content in a positive way. And if I view the content in a positive way, even if it's "offensive" to someone else, I will also view the sponsor in a positive way.
And that would be fine, and the end of the discussion, if all of the advertising world was focused on selling to you and only you. But it's not, and if you view the content in a positive way but ten other people are offended by it and boycott whoever was sponsoring it, they lose more than they gain from you viewing the sponsor positively.
Naturally, it's all a bit more complex than that, but the point is that when the sponsor views something in a negative way, it's usually relating to how much of their targe
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. If anything this might encourage content producers to embed 3rd party advertisements into their videos thereby doing an end-run around Google's policy. Granted this probably violates their Terms of Service, or maybe it doesn't. I don't know. But if it happens it'd just go to show that advertisers are willing to make it happen and Google would lose out two ways: costs from hosting and lost ad revenue they could have been getting by said advertiser.
Google going full-retard with this SJW nonsense mean
Re: (Score:2)
So all advertisers are hyper-sensitive about their ads theoretically being linked with some content that is theoretically controversial because it contains charged political rhetoric or something?
I find that hard to believe.
And do all advertisers want the same treatment? What if I WANT my company to be associated with edgy political incorrectness, but not fluffy kittens or make-up tutorials? I guess I'm SOL with Youtube, huh?
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube knows what content it's sponsors appreciate and what they object to.
You need to go watch some of the protest videos. The problem is that people who disagree with the viewpoints expressed in some video or another are "flagging" those videos as hate speech, racism, harassment, etc. This is really Youtube demonetizing content because it gets one group (or one person in some cases) upset.
As a content creator, you could have years of content taken offline because one SJW decides they don't like your viewpoints.
Can you get fired for making an off color joke at work? Sure. Can you
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is not what youtube is doing exactly but how.
If this was indeed just a sponsor problem, the implementation would be of the sponsors themselves having the option to block their ads in videos that have x or y in them.
Basically youtube detects this list of contents that may be inappropriate, and offer the sponsor a list of checkboxes and informs the video owner that his video contains x or y, thus some ads may not display.
But as it stands, youtube can use the vague terms on their list to remove the
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you can really say this when they have such a monopolistic market share they can unilaterally dictate terms.
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-SJW people are trolls
Says the AC.
You were doing great until that last paragraph. You clearly have no clue what you're talking about and should probably educate yourself about the people / groups you are disparaging before you embarrass yourself by saying something like that in front of a rational person in real life. Just a friendly suggestion, I won't hold my breath.
Tags (Score:2)
Headlines (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You forget the real queen of Youtube Justine Erizak
Another YouTube tempest in a pisspot... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Another YouTube tempest in a pisspot... (Score:5, Funny)
All the pissing, moaning and groaning by a few YouTube content creators makes for nice click bait video to drive their revenue streams for their videos. Wait a few months... They will find something else to piss, moan and groan about for another click bait video. It's not censorship, it's opportunism.
Indeed, such attempts to play up issues purely for the sake of cash-ins are quite disgusting.
That's why it's essential that you watch this video [youtube.com], where I explain how such bottom-feeding cynicism will lead to the downfall of the narcissistic attention whoring community, the decline of YouTube and the end of Western civilisation itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Click bait are for the ad revenues. If there's no ad revenue, click baits are useless.
Boogie2988 had six out of 1,600+ videos demonetized from making money. That's less than one percent. For that, he cries CENSORSHIP!
Think about it before trying to insult people.
The only people who should be insulted are the viewers of these YouTube channels where the creator used false drama to juice up their numbers.
SJW (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Flamebait)
They'll be OK, They'll just have to go back to lifting a fiver out of their moms' pocketbook.
And just so everyone knows what's what, here's the guy who's claiming YouTube is targeting the brave men who lead the struggle against SJWs. He's threatening to move his videos to a different platform:
https://www.youtube.com/user/s... [youtube.com]
YouTube's response:
https://66.media.tumblr.com/c2... [tumblr.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Good riddance, I say. What a reprehensible person.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, please. I suggest calling the Slashdot support 800- number and tell them I'm a piece of shit who's regularly annoying you and they should stop monetizing my comments. Be sure to reference my UID number.
Re: (Score:2)
I have found that the majority of people using SJW are jackasses too. I have no problem with discussing and criticizing things that some use the SJW label for _however_ in most cases the use of SJW is an indication that they believe in some conspiracy theory that doesn't survive any evaluation.
The question is: are you one of the nuts?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This bothers me because I have found most SJW types to be arrogant, offensive jackasses
Some are, but in my experiences the people who complain about "SJW"s tend to be worse.
and I think the majority of the public would agree with me.
You can think that. I suspect the reality is closer to a small amount really agreeing, a small amount really disagreeing, and the majority not much caring one way or the other.
Re: (Score:2)
> "YouTube demonetized videos for reasons that appear to punish those who attack 'Stupid Juvenile Whiners' " This bothers me because I have found most SJW types to be arrogant, offensive jackasses and I think the majority of the public would agree with me. If YouTube is supporting SJW over those who are critical of them then that is just one more example of political correctness run amok.
Agreed 100%. I also FTFY with a more accurate accurate acronym.
--
"Hey SouthWest dipshits -- WTF is the point of having
ha ha ha (Score:2)
well i noticed some of the more productive types who have actually gotten demonitized like philip difranco don't mind at all.
phil questions the "why" of his being cited as "not friendly for advertising" but he doesn't care because he doesn't suckle the teats of this fucked up advertising driven economic nightmare. when it comes down to it, phil sells merchandise and his popularity increases by word of mouth. he's not concerned because youtube has become his storefront, not his customer.
on the other hand ple
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're saying DiFranco's not mad, he's actually laughing?
Think about that. The forces opposed to the SJWs have merchandise.
It's a wonderful world, isn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
yes, it is. and to help you, friend, and clarify one of the points you were on the fence of making:
the force that oppose the SJWs make merchandise.
just remember, it's not always 100% of the time "have v have-not"
quite often, it really boils down to "make v make-not"
#makersftw
Re: (Score:2)
If by "make" you mean, "don't really make".
http://www.redbubble.com/shop/... [redbubble.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wish the world could be rid of game streamers, who upload hours and hours of mind-numbingly boring gameplay with their ugly mugs superimposed in the corners. If everyone of those sad fuckers got ruined because of demonetization, I couldn't be happier.
Re: (Score:2)
If only you could watch some other video instead or go do something else, like shitpost on Slashdot about other people having hobbies you find boring.
Re: (Score:2)
Did your streaming videos featuring your hideous mug get demonetized?
Isn't that all the videos that are worth watching? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor; Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism; Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language; Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items; Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown."
Isn't that just about all that is worth watching on Youtube? What's going to be left if these creators move away or stop creating new stuff? Cat videos? Unboxing videos?
Sounds to me like another case of a corporation killing the goose that lays golden eggs.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that just about all that is worth watching on Youtube?
Uh, no. There are many niche channels. I personally watch technology, programming, woodworking and tropical fish videos. The few channels that do indulge in explicit language already beep out the words to keep their content advertiser friendly.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 for AvE, EEVblog, LGR, bigclivedotcom, Techmoan, Fully Charged and all the countless others who upload high-quality and extremely informative videos, without having to resort to vulgarity or shock value to get their points across.
Re: (Score:2)
He's not really that vulgar, in my opinion. But he does speak his mind on crap designs. Maybe my professional life has hardened me ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
HBO is $15 - $20 a month depending who you buy it from
Youtube is like broadcast TV via antenna
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube is NOTHING like a broadcast TV antenna.
Yet there is still plenty of sex and violence that makes it's way onto TV. The the evening news alone would be scandalous to old school censors. Let's not even get into what more uptight types might find questionable.
Better matching advertisers to content and viewers is one thing.
"Curating" content is something else entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck does that mean "Advertiser Friendly"? HBO is full of tits, ass, swearing and killing.
And no ads other than for other HBO shows. That's why it's so expensive. It's also why Time Warner has in the past tied the ability to subscribe to HBO to also having a subscription to the co-owned Turner channels (TBS, TNT, CNN, HLN, Cartoon Network) and in some countries still does.
So is AMC, so is CNN.
AMC maybe, but CNN at least tries to bleep profanity and pixelate the most graphic parts of "tits, ass, [...] and killing."
Re: (Score:2)
An error in the write up. (Score:5, Insightful)
"this isn't censorship in the strictest sense"
This isn't censorship in any sense. You can still post to youtube for free but YouTube will not run ads on it for you or pay you for it.
It is still free as in beer, free as in freedom of speech so I do not see the problem.
Re:An error in the write up. (Score:4, Insightful)
Respectfully, I disagree. (That was my writeup)
If I had been creating YouTube videos for years covering a vast array of topics, and had been earning my living doing that, and suddenly am told I can no longer cover subject X or Y if I am to be paid, I have been censored. Again, not in the strictest sense where my content is deleted or altered, but the spirit is the same. I am being told what I am allowed to say and what I am not allowed to say, and again, if I earn my living doing this, my hands are rather tied.
I suppose it depends on your definition of censorship (it's a loaded word). But either way, I think what YouTube is doing here is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
This would be more like editorial review where your an employer of someone like Reuters and they don't like it when you submit something that doesn't fit their narrative.
It's still censorship.
They sold themselves on one thing and now they've violated that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If I had been creating YouTube videos for years covering a vast array of topics, and had been earning my living doing that, and suddenly am told I can no longer cover subject X or Y if I am to be paid, I have been censored.
Oh boo hoo! It's not like they ban you if you dare to touch those subjects.
If those topics are so important to you, you can make a few separate vids.
You won't get money for those, but you will still get ads and money for the others.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you sign a contract for this video-producing job of yours, or did you just rely on the good graces of Youtube to keep feeding advertising dollars your way?
Did Youtube provide you with any sort of promise that you could continue to earn money by creating and uploading video?
So basically, you just latched on to a convenient source of revenue, which just happened to be freely available. That does not entitle you to keep earning money. I'm sorry, but you don't really have much of a say on this, you're opera
Re: An error in the write up. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't buy it. There was a time when no one got paid to post videos on YouTube, and people still posted videos without thinking that they should be paid for it. If you make a living by posting videos on YouTube, great. If YouTube changes their policy so that they don't pay you any more and they take away your livelihood, then if you think that's an actionable offense then sue them. Otherwise, it sounds like there's a great niche market for a video site that will host violent, racist, etc videos that pa
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to cover things that Youtube's advertisers don't want to run ads on then instead you can run your business yourself and line-up advertisers for yourself.
Youtube isn't pulling your content or prohib
Re:An error in the write up. (Score:5, Insightful)
I am being told what I am allowed to say and what I am not allowed to say, and again, if I earn my living doing this, my hands are rather tied.
If you make a living by relying on another person's service then you're bound by the agreement of that service. That's not censorship, that's playing by the rules of the service you choose.
It's not censorship in the strictest, moral or even spiritual sense to complain about not being paid to post something. That's just straight up business supply chain management.
Re: (Score:2)
Respectfully, that's like insisting the earth really is flat and was only created 10,000 years ago.
No, you are not being censored in any sense of the word - because your not being told you can no longer cover certain topics nor are your videos being re
Re: (Score:2)
What you are suggesting is forcing people to pay you to speak on the topic of your choice, and then broadcast it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
And you are incorrect.
1. YouTube is not preventing you from posting the content.
2. YouTube has decided that it doesn't want to pay you for your content and is not running ads on your content.
YouTube is still subsidizing your content they are paying the cost of hosting it and bandwidth.
Are you prevented from speaking? No. Then it is not censorship.
Do you have a right to get paid for your content? Yes you do so do not put it on YouTube if you do not want them give it away.
Do you have a right to force YouTube
No problem (Score:2)
Nobody wants ads. Stop putting ads into your videos. Especially when you think your videos are important (hint: they aren't), you may want people to watch them. So do not scare people away from your important message, just to make a bit of money.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody wants ads.
True; they tolerate ads in order to avoid things they don't want even more strongly, such as
To continue reading, Log In or Subscribe to Damian Yerrick's Comments (PayPal accepted)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, a paywall is only fair. You will definitely learn, what's the worth of your content. And that's not cynic, as you may learn, that people will pay money.
It's only cynic, because many people will learn, that their content is not worth any money, but replacable by other funny stuff as soon as they demand money (or even adblocker switched off).
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, a paywall is only fair. You will definitely learn, what's the worth of your content.
Do you mean a pay-per-page paywall or a pay-per-month paywall? Not knowing which you meant, I shall take the time to answer both:
Re: (Score:2)
> Do you mean a pay-per-page paywall or a pay-per-month paywall? Not knowing which you meant, I shall take the time to answer both:
I do not care at this level. That's up to the site, how they build their paywall and around what.
I only said, they will learn, how much money and how much efford their users are willing to invest for their content and then they can draw conclusions like not publishing online anymore or that the paywall model works for them or anything else. At least it's a honest conclusion t
Newspaper paywall analogy (Score:2)
You know what you pay for in a way you know it when buying a newspaper (you see headlines but do not read articles) and you decide if it's worth the price.
There are two problems with a too-literal application of the newspaper model to websites. First, it can become very expensive to buy five whole newspapers in a day for one article in each newspaper. Second, electronic payment has per-transaction payment processing costs that cash sale of locally printed physical newspapers lacks.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's part of the problem, that we want to combine that many news sources. With paper you choose one and maybe another if somebody tells you there's a really interesting article. On the web you switch between 10.
Re: (Score:2)
So what?
You make a business relying on some service, which isn't granted by any contract to you. You just use the standard ToS of youtube and hope everything will be okay. And subject to change without prior notification and so on.
Maybe you deserve whatever happens to you.
Next time: Search for some service, which makes a contract with you, make sure everything needed is in the contract and you reserved the needed rights for your content, marketing, etc. to you, they cannot arbitrary reject the ad money (wha
Waaaah (Score:2)
Ads are not magic money (Score:2)
You aren't being denied advertising dollars. There are no advertising dollars. What people pay for is to piggy back off the sense of interest and enjoyment your media creates to sell merchandise. Your documentary highlighting the horrors of dying of trenchfoot in WWI is not going to do that, and in fact an advertisement which doesn't fit the somber mood will probably piss people off. Your video might well be an exception, but it's probably not worth Youtube's time to watch it, interpret it, and decide w
Yes, it IS censorship... (Score:2)
It's not the fact that they're choosing who can earn money from advertising and who can't - they've always done that.
What's wrong about this, I think (I am not not a YouTube creator), is the sudden policy shift, with no warning, no notification, and seemingly no recourse.
And yes, this is still a form of censorship. People have been making money making YouTube videos. Now YouTube will decide who is to get paid and who is not to get paid - IOW, only those people who agree with YouTube's political stance can b
Re:Yes, it IS censorship... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is interesting to read through some 50 comments so far and see how the vast majority appear to be quite happy with this move, with most saying it is not censorship because you can still upload, just not get paid.
That is like "You can still protest, only you have to do it way over there where it doesn't disrupt business and no one will ever see you protest."
It is routine in this day and age to control the 99% with monetary means. For example, food. Only the richest can afford to buy non-GMO, certified organic food. The rest suffer in inverse relation to their bank account size.
Same with employment. Have an opinion, lose your job. Or don't get that choice job in the first place. Control through finance.
Anyway, just fascinating how so few on /. get this.
Re: (Score:2)
It's nothing like that. It's exactly like your employer saying that while you are free to do that stuff on your own time, they can't pay you for it.
Non-monetised videos are not promoted less or anything like that. It's nothing like forcing people to protest in some "free speech zone", it's just saying "we can't pay you to protest".
You can't reasonably expect your employer to fund your speech if there is nothing in it for them. You seem to think YouTube should be forced to pay anyone who simply demands payin
Re: (Score:2)
The employer/video choices are not the two black and white choices you list. They are/can include: (1) do whatever you want, (2) do it some of the time (20% if you work at Google), (3) do all you can at lunch time, (4) do none at work but here is some equipment to do it at home, (5) do any of it at work and we own your video, (6) anything you do at work, we share the profits on 50:50, (7) heh, you
Re: (Score:2)
As to your fifth point/new paragraph:
How about giving advertisers choice about where they advertise? Give them a slider, all the way left and you only advertise on My Little Pony videos. All the way right equals you advertise anywhere.
Alternatively you could allow people to categorize their own videos -- "RAW: I don't care if I lose some advertisers" at one extreme, "The Gee Est of Gee: Grandma could watc
Re: (Score:2)
It's really no different than a large nationwide TV channel deciding to not run certain TV shows or show certain movies because of their content.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget your fedora, Guy Fawkes mask and 8-bit tie on your way out.
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong about this, I think (I am not not a YouTube creator), is the sudden policy shift, with no warning, no notification, and seemingly no recourse.
It's amusing when people get confused between a democratic society and a corporation. Youtube doesn't need any reason to ban you. They don't have laws. Their policies aren't the result of democratic procedure. There's no court of appeals. Their constitution is their TOU, and it pretty much says they can do whatever they want at any time.
paranoia will destroy ya! (Score:2)
"...Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown." You read that right -- any YouTube video covering any war or natural disaster is considered inappropriate for advertising.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you didn't read that right. "Controversial subjects...related to X" is not the same as "any video covering X".
There are plenty of ways to criticize this decision without resorting to ridiculous hyperbole. Although, I suppose for some people, ridiculous hyperbole is how they make their bread-and-butter, and such people do seem like the most likely to be affected by all this, so I suppose I'm not surprised. :)
Money brings money-problems (Score:2)
I don't like the whole idea of monetizing your "important messages to the public". If you have something truly intelligent and important to say, you'll find a way to say it without sucking the teats of ad companies trying to sell garbage to idiots. I agree that too much power is being consolidated under the Google umbrella, but that's a whole different story.
Re: (Score:3)
So those with something "truly intelligent to say" do not deserve to be paid for their time?
There's nothing wrong with "monetizing" your work - original creative works should be fairly compensated for, not many people would object to that. Advertising is but one way to do that. Granted, advertising isn't their only source of revenue, but it is a major one.
Selling advertising is far from the best way to get paid for stuff like this, but it works. Until we come up with something better, it is, at least to me,
Re: (Score:2)
Most of these channels have a Patreon now too. I'm not sure it's better than advertising because it creates a nasty feedback loop (see Thunderf00t for a great example of this), but it's there.
Re: (Score:2)
So those with something "truly intelligent to say" do not deserve to be paid for their time?
They don't deserve anything. They can make their own success, however, by selling books, coffee mugs and whatnot. Or sell nothing, go to work and still do it.
I'm probably not the most objective voice around this topic because I have great negative feelings toward advertisers in general.
Fascinating (Score:2)
It is fascinating to me that people seem to be advocating that YouTube should force its customers, which are the advertisers; to pay to have their ads placed on videos which the advertisers perceive as a bad juxtaposition with their ads. Do you really think that Pepsi wants to have their product associated with a video titled "Leaked Video of SJW LOSING IT Blows Up In Her Face"?
Look, it's simple. YouTube content creators are not entitled to monetization through YouTube's advertising system. They can still p
Yeah, they still run ads on these videos (Score:2, Informative)
Free Speech, not Paid speech (Score:2)
You have a right to Free Speech, not a right to get paid for it. Youtube could pay a million dollars to each video that literally said that Hitler did nothing wrong, and that would not change Free Speech in the platform. Now, if they started removing comments that didn't say that, then maybe google did forget about do no evil and it went full Nazi, but as long as they are not removing content for its political commentary, or because it upsets its advertisers, there is still Free Speech on the platform.
Have
Re:The cycle continues (Score:4, Informative)
Really?
Youtube has 1.3 billion users. The handful of drama video posters and their fans aren't even a rounding error. And they can still do "what brought them there in the first place". They just won't get any advertisers.
http://fortunelords.com/27-min... [fortunelords.com]
http://socialblade.com/youtube... [socialblade.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Or, if they want those sweet, sweet advertising dollars that they crave, maybe they can just stop saying motherfucker and cocksucker so much. They have a choice, of course, they can continue to produce the videos that they want to produce in their pure motherfucking art form, or they can eliminate the profanity and get that sweet, sweet advertising cash to rub all over themselves. No one is going to force them, it's really all about why they make the videos in the first place. Either they want to shout p
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any idea how expensive bandwidth costs are? That's the reason there are very few video sites. How exactly is step 1 feasible without some sort of revenue in step 3? You don't just have to cover costs, you also have to make a profit.
Next time you want a free service, ask yourself if you would sign up for a 9-to-5 jo
Vimeo or Dailymotion perhaps? (Score:2)
There are really no other free video hosting sites.
If the uploader is one of the video's authors, and the video clearly isn't promoting something for sale, Vimeo is an option, though where allowed "showcas[ing] your creative work" ends and prohibited "commercial content" [vimeo.com] begins can be tricky to find. And is Dailymotion still around?
Finally, if you're willing to step up from free to cheap (assuming low traffic), you could just make an Amazon S3 bucket and toss a WebM file up there. The current price for U.S. buckets is $0.09 per GB of data transfer and $0.03
Re: (Score:2)
It might pose a problem if it goes viral though.
Don't worry, someone'll rip it off and post it to YouTube if that happens anyway. Then someone else'll rip that off and post it to Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
*feet
Never change, Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
I've yet to find a good ad blocker for the YouTube Android app. I was amazed that longer videos now have commercial breaks in the middle.
Re:Obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as your preferred group-think isn't threatened you're cool with it. Have to give you credit for honesty I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not government censorship, I would think it would be a very libertarian right-wing ideal to vote with your eyeballs and move the fuck on.
Re: (Score:2)
We did. It's minds.com, and everyone should switch to it. It is much more dedicated to protecting free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the the Breitbart, /pol, MRA sort of assholes, as compared to the Cheney/Bush/Buckley sort of assholes.
I think the 'alt-right' guys are more honest because they are at least up front about their horrible views, where as the old school guys draped themselves in a veneer of respectability and authority that made them much more dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
Austin is too much like California. You will end up with the same restrictions.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they can, have you read their terms of service?