Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's mostly done to go against all the clickbait and prank channel stuff and things like DramaAlert and all it's disgusting variations. These people have ruined enough peoples lives through false allegations and earning money off of it.

There might be hiccups, but no doubt it'll get straightened out

Edit: oh god... This phones auto correct...

I wonder if there's a single internet platform where the most common conversation among core users isn't how much their platform sucks and/or is evil?

 sebster wrote:
I wonder if there's a single internet platform where the most common conversation among core users isn't how much their platform sucks and/or is evil?

I know it would never happen here!

(Really just a great excuse to visit a classic thread from the rich history of Dakka)

 d-usa wrote:
I know it would never happen here!

(Really just a great excuse to visit a classic thread from the rich history of Dakka)

Most internet drama is really boring. Sometimes it is magnificent

 dogma wrote:
Yeah, I'm not seeing that. Such a standard renders the taco joint down the street my employee.

Yes, that's exactly what it does. Obviously they aren't your employee in the legal sense, but I'm talking about a more general "which direction is the money going" concept. You hire the taco business to provide you with a taco, in a very short-term form of employment. The money goes from you to the person providing you with what you want. With people submitting stuff to YouTube the money goes from YouTube to the person creating content that YouTube wishes to buy. The primary difference between the two situations is that the taco guy has diversified their employment across a large number of buyers and can afford to care less about any single employment deal, while the video guy has only one potential employer and few options if the person buying their videos decides "nah, I don't need any more of these".

Not really, ultimately you're still beholden to the ISP.

Only in the same way that a physical store is beholden to the power company. This is why net neutrality is so important, infrastructure provides are forced by law to provide their services to anyone who wants them. If you treat the ISP as an infrastructure provider then they're forced to provide you with bandwidth on the same terms as all of their other customers, regardless of who you are or what you want to do with it. So your choice as a content creator (or small business owner, etc) is to keep full control of your work and only deal with infrastructure providers like your ISP and the power company, or to sell your work to someone else who will do all the work (and take all the rewards) of getting it to an audience but only on the terms that they set (including the ability to stop buying from you).

But that isn't really how it works. Sure, Google deals with the hosting and advertising, but everything else is on content creators or the network they're a part of.

I don't see how that contradicts anything I said. Providing hosting, marketing your work to new viewers, and arranging the advertising deals is a huge part of being a successful content creator. As a content creator you have three choices: you can do it all yourself (full control, but way more work), you can pay someone to do it for you (full control, but costs money), or you can sell your work to someone who will do all of that stuff for you (zero control, but minimal effort). The fact that many people are willing to give up control and sell their work to companies like YouTube does not change the fact that those are the choices available.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 General Annoyance wrote:
If YouTube themselves were taking down or demonetising videos, this would be an entirely different story.

But YouTube is demonetizing videos. YouTube sets the policy for who they are willing to pay and what videos are eligible. They have chosen to set a policy of "our advertisers decide, and here's what they want".

Now, the copyright issue is somewhat more complicated since YouTube does have a degree of freedom in how they respond to questionable takedown requests (at the cost of getting sued and losing money if their refusal is found to be incorrect by the court), but it's also not a very relevant one here. The current controversy is about YouTube voluntarily making choices about their own policies with no legal threats involved. The copyright controversy is one where a bad law enables abusive legal tactics and any decision YouTube makes has to be considered in the context of the metaphorical gun held to their head by the lawyers.

And no, I don't take their slogans 100% seriously, but their mission statement says something along those lines too. Whether you consider that to be PR bullgak or not is up to you, but I think their protection scheme is good ground for saying it isn't.

Of course it's PR garbage that presents their business as favorably as possible. YouTube's actual mission, like any other for-profit business, is to make as much money as possible for its owners/shareholders. They are not a charity, any "mission statement" they post is nothing more than PR material attempting to give you a good opinion of the company and ensure that you keep doing your part in making them lots of money.

 Peregrine wrote:

Obviously they aren't your employee in the legal sense...

Then they aren't my employee at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

...but I'm talking about a more general "which direction is the money going" concept.

So a person in a romantic partnership is employed by their partner? A kid is an employee of their parent?

You're getting really vague with the standard of "employment".

 Peregrine wrote:

You hire the taco business to provide you with a taco, in a very short-term form of employment.

No, I just pay for a taco. I do not hire the business, or anyone working at said business. If I don't like the taco the stipulations regarding employment do no apply to me.

 Peregrine wrote:
With people submitting stuff to YouTube the money goes from YouTube to the person creating content that YouTube wishes to buy.

Well, no. It goes to the monolith that is Google, passing through various Youtube networks, and maybe getting back to the person that actually created the content.

 Peregrine wrote:
...while the video guy has only one potential employer and few options if the person buying their videos decides "nah, I don't need any more of these".

You mean aside from Twitch?

 dogma wrote:
So a person in a romantic partnership is employed by their partner? A kid is an employee of their parent?

You're getting really vague with the standard of "employment".

Now you're just nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. We're talking about people in business relationships here, not parent/child relationships or any of that stuff. A person buying a taco is making a business transaction just like a person selling their work to YouTube. Please don't try to go off on pointless tangents about how the most literal meaning of my words can be something completely unrelated to this thread.

You mean aside from Twitch?

I am commenting based on the previous statement of people worrying about their livelihoods being hurt by YouTube's policies, not people suffering the minor inconvenience of having to change hosting services. This would imply that "just upload everything to Twitch" is not an option.

 Limeblossom wrote:

malamis wrote:wait...

Youtube has ads? o.O

Living under a stone ?

Not quite. Apparently my steadfast refusal to install flash, along with noscript running in the background is enough to bypass the advertising framework for now.

I genuinely wasn't joking; I have never actually seen an ad on youtube in 10~? years, apart from the ones I was actually looking for.

 Peregrine wrote:

Now you're just nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.

No, I'm reducing your argument to absurdity, because your argument is absurd. Reductio ad absurdum is a well established argumentative tactic.

 Peregrine wrote:

We're talking about people in business relationships here, not parent/child relationships or any of that stuff. A person buying a taco is making a business transaction just like a person selling their work to YouTube. Please don't try to go off on pointless tangents about how the most literal meaning of my words can be something completely unrelated to this thread.

Sure, but the guy selling me the taco is not suddenly my employee. You're mixing arguments.

And people don't sell their work to Google...well some of them might, but most of them don't. Their work remains their property because they are not Google employees.

 Peregrine wrote:

I am commenting based on the previous statement of people worrying about their livelihoods being hurt by YouTube's policies, not people suffering the minor inconvenience of having to change hosting services. This would imply that "just upload everything to Twitch" is not an option.

That''s not how people generally make money on Twitch. It's a streaming service, and people make money by streaming, not uploading.

Youtube will probably still dominate. It's entrenched. I'm sure they will use the ban hammer sparingly, as ad revenue depends on people actually coming to their site.

If this means that all those gakky click-baity channels are going to disappear, all the better.

And maybe all those youtubers can learn to behave like the 30-something they are, huh?

My problem with YouTude is the recent changes to advertisements to make sure they are in your face.

Adds float half off screen to you need to maximise windown to find the close button. Also some adds pause rthe video to give you a restart button and an option to divert to the advertisers link.

The ads are far more frequent also and more ads are for a full thirty seconds and dont have the skip option.