Gaming YouTube Is In Turmoil Thanks To New Violence and Profanity Rules (kotaku.com) 159
AmiMoJo writes: Members of YouTube's gaming community are calling out the video hosting site for adding new regulations regarding profanity usage and violent content, disproportionately affecting gaming creators who produce unscripted videos such as let's plays of M-rated games. Worse, the policy is retroactively deeming their videos in violation of new rules and affecting their ability to make money on the platform.
The rule changes in question was originally made in November of 2022, and the blog post announcing it says that YouTube now treats all profanity equally (meaning "ass" is just as bad as "fuck"), and any usage of such in titles, thumbails, or in the first seven seconds of a video may result in complete demonetization. While you can swear after the first eight seconds, if you use profanity "consistently throughout the video" it may also be demonetized according to this new policy. The same restrictions apply to violent content, as well.
Previously, YouTube's violent content policy applied to images of real-world violence, though game violence is now specifically noted as of the November update. As for profanity, prior to this change, YouTube allowed creators to use what it describes as "moderate profanity" (it says "shit" and "bitch" fall under this category) in the first 30 seconds without fear of demonetization.
The rule changes in question was originally made in November of 2022, and the blog post announcing it says that YouTube now treats all profanity equally (meaning "ass" is just as bad as "fuck"), and any usage of such in titles, thumbails, or in the first seven seconds of a video may result in complete demonetization. While you can swear after the first eight seconds, if you use profanity "consistently throughout the video" it may also be demonetized according to this new policy. The same restrictions apply to violent content, as well.
Previously, YouTube's violent content policy applied to images of real-world violence, though game violence is now specifically noted as of the November update. As for profanity, prior to this change, YouTube allowed creators to use what it describes as "moderate profanity" (it says "shit" and "bitch" fall under this category) in the first 30 seconds without fear of demonetization.
Nothing will change (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well their are alternatives, it is just everyone uses YT. So that is where the views are. No one is not switching to bitchute because they believe BC will grow too big too fast and its infrastructure will collapse. They dont switch because YT has more viewers, and the viewers stay because YT has more CCs.
What I dislike is their is some push to move to Odysee, but half the world dislikes crypto nonsense enough for that to ever be a possibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Operating a website like YouTube at a global scale is so insanely expensive that it's impossible for anyone to really compete. Even if YouTube doesn't reverse this change, virtually nobody will actually leave the platform.
Unless another mega corp creates a viable alternative, basically nobody will ever leave YouTube.
Huh? There's literally dozens of competitors out there [google.com].
And the scaling isn't hard, sure you need to write the framework cleanly enough to scale, but cloud services are everywhere and with additional users comes additional ad revenue.
Simply make your YouTube competitor, have streamers multistream to YouTube and KiddoTube [switcherstudio.com], and start draining users away.
Re: (Score:2)
What pisses me off the most is that content creators gravitate exclusively towards the most popular platform and don't support any alternatives. "Not worth it", they say. Everybody seems to want a monopoly and put all their eggs in one basket. They're practically begging to be abused or canceled.
I see this a lot in the art gallery communities. For years, more and more people are deleting their galleries and moving exclusively to one social media platform. In that past, that was Tumblr, for now that's T
Re: Nothing will change (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You must have NOT watched YouTube in awhile....these days there are only a few programming interruptions of the commercials.
UGh...it's getting un-watchable on most anything but a computer where you can run adblockers, etc.
Re:Nothing will change (Score:5, Informative)
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/sponsorblock-for-youtube/mnjggcdmjocbbbhaepdhchncahnbgone?hl=en [google.com]
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/sponsorblock/ [mozilla.org]
Re: (Score:3)
SponsorBlock is such a game changer and highly recommended. I started using it about a year ago and it's made watching YouTube so much less obnoxious.
The only problems it has are that the primary servers can be flaky (but you can find more stable mirrors) and the moderation system has (IMO) gotten too powerful. Far too many videos get locked down from adding or fixing segments by "VIPs", and the only resolution is to go on Discord to talk about it (not worth the time). Voting on segments seems to be comp
Re: (Score:2)
For Android TV, Smart Tube has it built in. For mobile devices, YouTube Vanced has it too.
Re:Nothing will change (Score:5, Funny)
You know, you make a great point, but first let me tell you about NordVPN. Do you go to cybercafes? You need a VPN. NordVPN can help you watch movies and crap without your cybercafe spying on your movies. But anyways, yeah, it seem like external ads are a problem, but thanks to my patrons, youtube monetization is less of a concern, but please hit like and subscribe and *SMASH* that bell icon to be notified to help feed the algorithm.
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't hear you over the superior noise cancelling Raycon ear buds.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could pay $12/month and get the site ad free. Or free from external ads; it would be great if you could pay and automatically skip the product placement crap. I really don't need to hear about your completely unrelated sponsor.
thank you for paying. $12 a month for user created content distributed at near planetary scale ... that's really gross. i mean, i once considered subscription (duh, i also donate to wikipedia and the wayback machine regularly) but found the price unbelievable. thanks to you though the rest of the population can view other people's contributions for free, and without ads (because it's trivial to install an ad-blocker or to just use brave on android).
Re: (Score:2)
We all know how to do that.
But most of us don’t off feeling all smug and superior because we managed to avoid coughing up the price of two coffees for hours and hours of entertainment.
Re: (Score:2)
by all means, pay if that makes you happy!
however, you actually think i'm being or playing smug for admitting to using a browser extension that millions of people know about? before continuing this conversation i think i should ask: are you somehow ... you know, ... retarded?
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the channels and video I watch...are not at the level of production.
These ARE the proverbi
Re: (Score:3)
They are competing. It is like Disney streaming service, or cable channel. It creates a space where parents can sit their kids and go off and have sex. Likewise ESPN creates a space where husbands can be distracted while their wives go off and have a nooner during Sunday football.
It is like when I asked who would pay for youtube. And a parent responded parents do. To distract kids without commercial interruption. So that apparently is the YouTube market. They compete with Disney to distract kids. Which means content is limited.
Fuck those kids. Make a different URL or something like YouKids or something. Stop making everything blander.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck those kids. Make a different URL or something like YouKids or something. Stop making everything blander.
YouTube Kids is already a thing. They just refuse to actually use it for its intended purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On YouTube?
Please, there's Twitch and Onlyfans for that.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Nothing will change (Score:5, Insightful)
Plenty of Republicans left YouTube for Rumble and Bitchute.
With only a small following of viewers. The vast majority of creators on YouTube make their living off of YouTube ad revenue. If the competing websites can't attract the same large audiences and provide the same revenue that YouTube can, then it's not a viable option.
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of creators on YouTube make their living off of YouTube ad revenue. If the competing websites can't attract the same large audiences and provide the same revenue that YouTube can, then it's not a viable option.
That doesn't mean they stay with YouTube since the whole point of this topic is YouTube demonetising their streams and are no longer earning ad revenue.
And to say you can just obey the rules going forward completely neglects that to actually make a living on youtube you need to have a shitton of content available all generating revenue for you since the revenue per view is about the only thing smaller than Plank's Constant.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is another viable option [youtu.be]
(Yes, I linked to youtube for irony).
Re: (Score:2)
Conservatives want on platforms for their popularity. I think most of us are down for alternatives cause thats a step closer to the old internet.
Re:Nothing will change (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And they are catering SO MUCH to the European, African, and Asian markets, right? When your target audience is already only a small percentage of the entire world, the cost of entry gets lower.
Re: (Score:2)
Bitchute was demonitized since that word appeared within the first 7 seconds.
Re: (Score:3)
Treatise on Word Fuck (Score:4, Funny)
the NFL has violence so NFL TICKET may get auto bl (Score:2)
the NFL has violence so NFL TICKET may get auto blocked / flagged by this
Gotta protect the children (Score:5, Insightful)
Gotta protect those children from.... words.
Wouldnt want them using the wrong ones!
Re: (Score:2)
So do you concede that if it is adults, at work, who don't want their company's advertisement (that they're responsible for placing) to be placed next to a bunch of impolite language, then it is fine?
Some people just can't comprehend that it has nothing to do with the straw-man they've spent their whole life knocking down.
Re: (Score:2)
So do you concede that if it is adults, at work, who don't want their company's advertisement (that they're responsible for placing) to be placed next to a bunch of impolite language, then it is fine?
Why do you think that is relevant? Nothing about Google's policies talks about advertisers. Every part of their guidelines talks about content appropriate for children. You are building a strawman. If advertisers wanted the choice to not be displayed on videos where an f-bomb is dropped I'm sure one of the largest companies in the world with their insane technical resources could code that change in the first half of a stand-up scrum. But they don't.
Re: (Score:3)
This is nothing more than Google coming up with bullshit reasons to 'demonetize' more content so that they can keep a larger share of the profits. It has nothing to do with advertisers, content creators, or users... hell, it doesn't even have anything to do with foreign regulations. It's about money and Google trying to bilk creators out of more and more of it with each passing day. What the creators should be doing is filing FTC anti-trust complaints for Google using their market power to steal their ha
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta protect those children from.... words.
Wouldnt want them using the wrong ones!
Yup. That's what virtually all parents do.
If YouTube wants parents to let their kids watch their game streamers then that's what YouTube needs to do as well.
Though ideally I suspect they should have multiple sections, mature (with profanity) and family friendly, though they might have a secondary motive. Occasionally a streamer goes over the line and gives the whole group a bad rep, if you ban profanity altogether the crazy incidents become less likely.
Re: (Score:2)
"Now...get them back to studying their pronouns."
Beause saying all those nouns over and over again can really wear you down.
Fingers crossed... (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's hope a whole load of rap videos get removed as well. The world will be a better place without that din.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's hope a whole load of rap videos get removed as well. The world will be a better place without that din.
What's wrong with rap?
Re: (Score:2)
LMGTFY: https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I meant this: https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Rap as a full genre is okay. It's mostly the gangster rap that's just ... ugh. And the problem is there's so damned much of it.
But funny rhymes set to a beat? Go nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
https://youtu.be/5bueZoYhUlg [youtu.be] (MC Hawking - Entropy)
Re: (Score:2)
And nothing of value was lost. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can read of a whole poem of flowery words to describe your anger at something, or you can succulently sum it up in one word.
Artful
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I grew up being told that people who constantly use profane words do so because they lack the vocabulary (or the intelligence) to substitute for anything more clever.
Obscenity is the crutch of inarticulate motherfuckers, eh? That was always a joke, and some of our most talented authors have been fond of profanities. Whoever taught you that lesson was doing so from a position of ignorance. Now that you're an adult, and have access to the internet, you can find numerous counterexamples if you want to.
Re: (Score:3)
They're words. Like any word, it's possible to overuse. Take a course in writing and very quickly you will be taught that unnecessary redundancy detracts from your style, whatever that style may be.
An accomplished author that uses these words doesn't overuse them. (Except maybe in dialogue, where they need to depict a character that overuses them.) Overuse makes them lose the potency that is their purpose.
Re:And nothing of value was lost. (Score:4, Insightful)
I grew up being told that people who constantly use profane words do so because they lack the vocabulary (or the intelligence) to substitute for anything more clever.
And people who drink alcohol just lack the ability to deal with life sober.
And people who use cannabis just lack the ability to entertain themselves without being high.
And people who watch porn just can't form meaningful relationships.
And people who gamble just can't control their impulses.
And people who drink coffee just can't get through a day without a caffeine hit.
And people who have sex outside of marriage just can't keep it in their pants.
Etc, etc, etc.
The first step when indoctrinating someone is to separate "us" from "them" and this is always accompanied by some dehumanization and inferiorization. This both justifies the rules and provides a false sense of superiority over those "lesser" people who don't know any better. The animals.
I was raised Mormon and this is par for the course.
Re: (Score:2)
Fargin' Iceholes!!
Bastiges...
Re:And nothing of value was lost. (Score:4, Funny)
...lol, that reminds me, I gotta go find that movie, haven't watched it in ages.
You shouldn't demonitize my Youtube content, Johnny. My sister did that to me once... once.
For the children! (Score:2)
Once again this is a perfect example of a law which discriminates against the adult population in the name of protecting the children. Profanity is a normal part of the language and it actually has some very important functions like relieving negative emotions or emphasising our message. If it goes like this, we'll end up with a completely new dialect - Safe Online English which is ridiculous.
Re:For the children! (Score:4, Informative)
Once again this is a perfect example of a law which discriminates against the adult population in the name of protecting the children.
What law are we talking about here? Because all I see are Youtube terms of service. Note that I am in no way supportive of this, but it's important to realize that this is no action of government.
Re: (Score:2)
Follow the links and you end up on a page titled "Advertiser-friendly content guidelines". This is whiners whining about having to do what the people who pay them tell them to do. They are not taking down videos. They are not stopping you from getting your own advertisers (sponsored segments). They just, for example, won't run ads on your fucking video if you can't make enough fucking sentences without using the word fuck..
Re: (Score:2)
if you can't make enough fucking sentences without using the word fuck..
Did you know you only need to say fuck once in a Youtube video to be automatically demonetised? Did you know it's not about the word fuck, but advertiser friendly content, which includes demonetising videos of people playing M rated games which don't include swear words. In fact there are several youtubers who have had their videos blocked despite having never sworn once.
Your links are irrelevant if you don't understand what they mean.
This is whiners whining about having to do what the people who pay them tell them to do.
I guess you're also not aware that Youtube is retrospectively applying th
Re: (Score:2)
I'm aware. I produce videos for YouTube about video game development. Many things used to be normal decades ago and are now taboo or illegal. Drinking and driving. Owning people. Dueling. Your arguments make no sense to me. Want to try again?
why? (Score:2)
After trying to analyze this business decision, considering business, political, and technology concerns: I don't get it.
The technical cost is in designing a filtering interface, and that seems trivial. The content will already have been flagged. So it must have to do with the business on the advertiser side. But if there are still ads on profane content, but you're just not paying the creator, what's that about? Just a fast buck? Or if they are throwing away ad revenue, what the heck is that policy calcula
Re: (Score:3)
After trying to analyze this business decision, considering business, political, and technology concerns: I don't get it.
The simplest explanation is that their biggest advertisers are asking them to make this change, because they don't want their ads to be seen anywhere near types of content that repels some of their customers. And since YT is a business, and not a charity founded to promote free speech, they are complying. The safest assumption is that a corporation's actions are economically motivated.
Enforcement? (Score:2)
Will this rely on Youtube viewers complaining or will it be "automatic'? This is not like the (highly abused) Content-Match system, looking specific recordings of specific songs; it has to find every instance of the word "fuck" said by anyone. Given how bad Youtube's auto-captions are, I expect to see a lot of videos with the words "sit" and "luck" get banned.
Gee ... (Score:3)
Gaming YouTube Is In Turmoil Thanks To New Violence and Profanity Rules
Not picking on gamers in particular, they are far from the worst offenders, but large segments of the English speaking world would benefit from learning the skill of consistently forming sentences without a single instance of the word 'fuck' in it.
Re: Gee ... (Score:2)
Fuck that. People who don't swear are liars.
Re: Gee ... (Score:2)
https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/insi... [cam.ac.uk].
Re: (Score:2)
People who can't comprehend that I don't want to hear them swearing in the supermarket on fucking idiots. It doesn't mean I'm against swearing anywhere. In a bar, it isn't going to bother me unless they're being hateful. On slashdot... we've got much worse problems, I wouldn't even think to be bothered by it.
But I don't want to listen to your blah-blah in the supermarket, where I'm a captive audience, and people from all walks of life have to share the same space. I have sympathy for Religious Grandma tryin
Re: (Score:2)
I'm against censorship but I don't want to hear a tantrum, whether it's you saying "fuck" 50 times, or "It's not my fault, you must be gay: I'm telling everyone so." Your repetition of obscenities makes them self-centered and worthless. You want me to listen, tell me more than your one-word emotional tirade against a game/video you decided to post. So I'll agree with the US FCC on limiting 'offensive' words to 2 utterances per 90 minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
but large segments of the English speaking world would benefit from learning the skill of consistently forming sentences without a single instance of the word 'fuck' in it.
We're not talking about idiots who can't string a sentence together without profanities. We're talking about people getting their videos banned because they in some cases contain a single profanity in 20 min of content. We're talking about people getting their videos banned because it includes content that has other people using minor profanity. And we're seeing (haphazard application of) youtube videos taken down of people who don't have any swearing but happen to be doing something such as playing Call of
Bad words (Score:3)
Didn't YouTubers start adding swearing to their videos out of fear that they would be classified as targeting kids under 13 and then demonetized?
Re: Bad words (Score:2)
If your "business model" is predicting YouTube algorithms and making "creative" choices to place on the platform, then maybe you don't deserve to earn a paycheck from it.
Re: (Score:2)
The best part is Youtube already segregates videos for under 13 year olds on its site. It's literally the main question you get asked when you upload a video, and videos for under 13s has never been monetised so they aren't even what this story is about.
So which group is supposed to be offended by censo (Score:2)
No right to earn money from YouTube (Score:2)
If you don't like the policy, go setup your own hosting for the videos and integrate some ads or a subscription for revenue.
Just bleep it for fuck sakes (Score:2)
We've had bleep technology for decades. It's not like gamers are going to lose any nuance.
YT wants more content farms (Score:2)
Monetization at YT is a joke, between copyright claims, advertiser white-washing, and now this. YT seems doing their best to remove unique and interesting content from their platform, ala History Channel and Discovery Channel.
Your point being? (Score:2)
You want my money, you sing my song. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
You're free to create any content you like, I'm free to not pay for it.
What exactly seems to be the problem?
Well fuck me in the ass. (Score:2)
meaning "ass" is just as bad as "fuck"
Ass is just as bad as fuck in the since that neither is bad they're just fucking words
Get a real job (Score:2)
Re:You mean (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
He said a "real" job. YouTube is not an employer.
Like it or not, artists has never made much money, and historically that has been especially true of Internet videos.
Re:You mean (Score:5, Insightful)
Grandpa, what's the difference between a streamer and the sportsball commentator you watch on ESPN after the game?
Re: (Score:3)
Beats me, neither of them has a real job.
Yes, they get paid, but I don't really get either. But hey, apparently there are people who need to be told what they are seeing, so... carry on, I guess?
Re: (Score:2)
It's the entertainment industry. The person playing the game (whether in a chair or not) has to be talking the entire time keeping the viewers entertained. No one watches people just playing games regularly in silence. There are a couple exceptions to that, but usually there's something else involved like it's a speedrun. Then after the video has been recorded it has to be edited. Editing takes a lot of time and effort for top level content (i.e. the videos that are making money) and cuts out the boring
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of videos on youtube with titles like "Game X [Full Playthrough][No commentary]" so there is a market for that sort of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Sitting in a chair playing a game is the bare minimum of 'work'
Try actually doing it enough to turn it into your primary revenue source. Maybe you'll appear like less of an ignorant arsehole.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess to do that, I'd first of all have to understand why people want to watch someone else play a video game in the first place. I tried it. Someone played a game, kept yakking about it and I was bored out of my skull within the minute.
Youtubers work damn hard (Score:5, Insightful)
It is very much not a job I would want.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this has more to do with producers on YouTube (I despise the Google-appointed double-speak euphemism "content creator") relying far too much on working "the algorithm" and trying to reach the masses via automatic recommendations (including crap like click-bait titles, rotating titles and thumbnails, etc) instead of focusing on building a reliable audience of subscribers. When you come to rely fully on the whims of an automated system and cultural drift, you can't act shocked when something changes
The ones that don't work the algorithm (Score:3)
The problem is Google isn't changing the rules the advertisers are. But they'll be damned if they tell us which advertisers called for it
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube has consistently torpedoed the "subscribe" functionality, including failing to update your feed with channels you've subscribed to and failing to notify you when a subscribed channel updates. The only thing left is the algorithm. They want to push you towards the home page, not the subscriptions page.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because someone is putting in a lot of effort doesn't mean they're entitled to money. That's not how it works. You may be entitled to money if, and only if, someone else thinks that you should get their money for what you do.
Whether that is "hard" to do or not means little.
Re: (Score:2)
True... but who's problem is that?
Why should anyone (other than the person working hard to make a living) care how hard they have to work to make a living?
If it works for you... congratulations. If not, find a different job.
Re: (Score:3)
Drawing eyeballs pays. It always has. It's just that the eyeballs are finding new stuff to watch.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not going to see me arguing those people deserve their pay either.
YouTube is not art (Score:2)
I find the euphemism "content creators" to be fascinating. Before social media, they were called artists, filmmakers, actors, etc.
I'm inclined to believe artists should be able to make a living. But let's be real, most of the stuff on YouTube, especially the yelly-gamer stuff, is not art. It's not even critique. Even if they were trying to make art, they failed. Ergo, they are not artists.
I understand that yelling teenagers amuse some people. They should be hanging out with other real-life teenagers, or fam
Re: (Score:2)
The definition implicit in my post is that art is "content" that has a positive impact on society or people's well-being. This is the definition that's relevant to whether someone should get paid for it or not, if you accept the premise that payment should relate to societal value.
This definition may not be relevant in other contexts, but in the context of my argument, which this is, it's quite simple for me to define.
Feel free to come up with your own definition of "art" in this or any other context, and w
Re: (Score:3)
Demonetization of this kind is theft. There's an easier solution, similar to how corporate internet-filters-as-a-service worked: content would be tagged with certain keywords: has profanity, has nudity, has violence, etc. The content creator could even do the tagging (with demonetization being th
Re: (Score:2)
Demonetization of this kind is theft.
congratulations, this is truly a new stupidity landmark in the whole long running intellectual property charade saga. made my day!
now the worms have grown entitled to their breadcrumbs and are ready to bite their master ... oh, wait ... there's that having no teeth issue ...
You gotta ask which advertisers (Score:2)
the SYFY channel now has F-BOMBS on some shows so (Score:2)
the SYFY channel now has F-BOMBS on some shows so what is the issue?
Re: (Score:2)
silly moral panics
To me the silly moral panic is: "Oh noes, they won't let me swear loudly in the restaurant, my freedums!"
A company doesn't want people to swear as much, where other customers can hear them. There is no moral panic involved in that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
fuck you ill do whatever the fuck i want.
Re: (Score:3)
Censorship of pop culture has always, and remains, the domain of "concerned parents" organization, who are notoriously rightwing.