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.

Nailed it:



It's better to admit that Youtube didn't listen to the WTFU campaign and will never be as it was from the beginning. I even think that the video that made it popular (nipplegate) isn't on the site anymore due to the new TOS.

Care to explain what's going on?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Care to explain what's going on?

Youtube's new terms of service and monetization policy being highly questionable, and it's no wonder why. It feels like they didn't take WTFU serious and decided to make it worse. Of course the new TOS will also damage adult toons like Flashgitz.

wait...

Youtube has ads? o.O

Basically, they reserve themselves the right to disable monetization on people's videos if they, for example, talk about "controversial" topics, because it isn't "advertiser-friendly" enough.

I'd say leave it.

This policy isn't new, it's been in effect since last year (May or June iirc).

The difference is that they've recently changed the way they're enforcing it with a new automated system that no one seems to fully understand as of yet (and that is most likely not working correctly).

This is like what happened last year when Youtube changed the automated system that detected copyright infringement and how it went crazy shutting down fair use content left, right and centre until they retooled it.

Youtube's coffin is more nails than wood at this point. Somehow it just keeps shambling on vomiting up inane clickbait channels which is really what they should have been taking down, but is the crap that keeps it going.

Not really 100% what the issue is here. If I pay for ads on Youtube, I'd like to not worry my ads won't show up on videos talking about how awesome meth is or the top 10 Waffle House bathroom fights.

So far as the "final nail in the coffin" - of what, Youtube? Sure, the third largest website in the world - a site that has a billion registered users, and pulls in 4 billion a year - is going to go down because you can no longer monetize ads with drug use or violence? Come on, even my mother isn't this melodramatic.

malamis wrote:wait...

Youtube has ads? o.O

Living under a stone ?

LethalShade wrote:Basically, they reserve themselves the right to disable monetization on people's videos if they, for example, talk about "controversial" topics, because it isn't "advertiser-friendly" enough.

I'd say leave it.

Agree.

Luckily there are alternatives like Dailymotion, which also has some of Spazkid's Sonichu episodes uncensored and banned cartoons.

Bit of a loaded poll options...

So, TL;DR: Youtube won't let you make money by hosting videos on their site if they don't like the content of those videos, and this is somehow a great disaster? I'm not seeing it, at all.

The only real issue is that the automated system they've recently put in place is flagging many videos it probably shouldn't and/or missing videos it probably should flag. (There's no way someone like Philip DeFranco or Boggie can get their videos flagged while h3h3, Scare and potentially GradeAUnderA don't)

The policy itself is fine and for the past year has worked fine.

 Peregrine wrote:
So, TL;DR: Youtube won't let you make money by hosting videos on their site if they don't like the content of those videos, and this is somehow a great disaster? I'm not seeing it, at all.

The problem is that some videos are being flagged as containing "inappropriate content" for just talking about something in the news that may be controversial or using bad language; this new ID system is meant to demonetise videos that breach YouTube's terms of service, such as promotion of drugs and other explicit content along those lines, but instead it's ended up neutering a lot of good content makers who work on YouTube for a living.

Essentially, YouTube hasn't been clear enough on what now counts as inappropriate content, or why they've suddenly decided now to consider things like swearing to be inappropriate, which has pissed off a lot of people. Added to that is the fact that the videos being demonetised have an entirely random pattern, as they have demonetised age restricted and even private videos, as well as only picking up on a few videos on a certain channel while leaving others with their ads despite them supposedly breaching the same regulations.

Is this the end of YouTube though? No, it's not, far from it, but it's not exactly helping YouTube's case considering they still haven't fixed their copyright policy from 2013 that allows people to actively censor instances of fair use.

G.A

Age-restricted videos were never able to be monetised in the first place afaik.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Age-restricted videos were never able to be monetised in the first place afaik.

Pretty sure they can, the difference is very few companies want to advertise on them, so you rarely see an age restricted video with ads on.

I should add to my first post, companies can choose a set of tags that they're willing to advertise on, which will then correlate to the videos you see that company's ads on. This isn't a problem with the new ID system in theory since it makes absolute sense - it's the demonetisation on videos as a result of very specific tags giving red flags to companies that are often unfair on the video itself, which also doesn't apply itself to all videos of that nature.

 General Annoyance wrote:
The problem is that some videos are being flagged as containing "inappropriate content" for just talking about something in the news that may be controversial or using bad language; this new ID system is meant to demonetise videos that breach YouTube's terms of service, such as promotion of drugs and other explicit content along those lines, but instead it's ended up neutering a lot of good content makers who work on YouTube for a living.

There's a lesson to be learned here: if you're making content as a serious job don't let anyone else have control over your work. Youtube has no obligation at all to allow anything they don't like, so why would you let your continued ability to make money depend on them having a favorable opinion of you? Get your own hosting and full control over your work if you don't want to worry about someone else saying "no, that's not ok".

Essentially, YouTube hasn't been clear enough on what now counts as inappropriate content, or why they've suddenly decided now to consider things like swearing to be inappropriate, which has pissed off a lot of people. Added to that is the fact that the videos being demonetised have an entirely random pattern, as they have demonetised age restricted and even private videos, as well as only picking up on a few videos on a certain channel while leaving others with their ads despite them supposedly breaching the same regulations.

Ok, so the issue here is "I am a user and I don't like what the site is doing", not any larger concerns about censorship or legal issues with the TOS? This seems more of a "the forum moderators banned me for swearing" thing than a serious issue.

No, it's not, far from it, but it's not exactly helping YouTube's case considering they still haven't fixed their copyright policy from 2013 that allows people to actively censor instances of fair use.

Youtube can't do anything about this because it's not something under their control. The issue is with US copyright laws allowing an IP owner (or even someone claiming to be the IP owner) to get something removed immediately and putting the burden of proof that it was fair use on the creator if they want to get their work restored. If they don't comply with the request to remove the "offending" material (which, by the way, is not censorship, just like a forum moderator deleting a post they don't like) they make themselves vulnerable to legal consequences if it does violate copyright laws. And yes, this is completely absurd and needs to be changed, but that's what you get when you let corporations write the laws.

(Though, while it might not be relevant in the cases you're thinking of, it's important to understand that "fair use" refers to specific exceptions to copyright laws and has nothing to do with general ideas about "it is fair and reasonable for me to do this".)

if you want to play in Youtubes garden with their ball you've got to be prepared to do what they want to do

it certainly wouldn't surprise me if the automation of a feature is causing issues (as did the automation of the copyright feature last year), but it's going to be up to users whos stuff has been effected to complain and get them to fix it

If some of the channels/content providers can't exist (and pay their way) on youtube any more encourage them to set up their own hosting, and be prepared to pay them for the content they produce

 Peregrine wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:
The problem is that some videos are being flagged as containing "inappropriate content" for just talking about something in the news that may be controversial or using bad language; this new ID system is meant to demonetise videos that breach YouTube's terms of service, such as promotion of drugs and other explicit content along those lines, but instead it's ended up neutering a lot of good content makers who work on YouTube for a living.

There's a lesson to be learned here: if you're making content as a serious job don't let anyone else have control over your work. Youtube has no obligation at all to allow anything they don't like, so why would you let your continued ability to make money depend on them having a favorable opinion of you? Get your own hosting and full control over your work if you don't want to worry about someone else saying "no, that's not ok".

It's difficult to get your own hosting that will get off the ground as YouTube has a practical monopoly in this industry - other websites like it don't get anywhere near the traffic that they get. I think most of the people who use that site to make content are still there because of this, alongside wanting to support the platform they have been a part of for years.

See the problem isn't with YouTube's mission and not having a "favourable opinion" of their top content creators - their slogan has been "broadcast yourself" for quite sometime; they want people to be able to express themselves freely on their site, provided it does not involve or provoke illegal activity. It's worth noting that they recently set up a Fair Use protection scheme to protect various YouTubers from people who abuse the content ID system. They are on the side of them, which is why their legislation is so galling, as it never seems to match up with their mission and intention for the site to be this platform for open expression. And you know you've screwed up your system if you need to set up a scheme to stop its abuse by other users.

Essentially, YouTube hasn't been clear enough on what now counts as inappropriate content, or why they've suddenly decided now to consider things like swearing to be inappropriate, which has pissed off a lot of people. Added to that is the fact that the videos being demonetised have an entirely random pattern, as they have demonetised age restricted and even private videos, as well as only picking up on a few videos on a certain channel while leaving others with their ads despite them supposedly breaching the same regulations.

Ok, so the issue here is "I am a user and I don't like what the site is doing", not any larger concerns about censorship or legal issues with the TOS? This seems more of a "the forum moderators banned me for swearing" thing than a serious issue.

In a sense, but there is a huge concern when people who work on the site are worried about their livelihoods possibly being weakened by having their videos demonetised. Right now this policy has not done anything of the sort, but due to its automated nature of function, you can see why it could be a problem. It isn't censorship since we can still view the videos, but much like content ID it is denying the money owed to the uploader for their content.

No, it's not, far from it, but it's not exactly helping YouTube's case considering they still haven't fixed their copyright policy from 2013 that allows people to actively censor instances of fair use.

Youtube can't do anything about this because it's not something under their control. The issue is with US copyright laws allowing an IP owner (or even someone claiming to be the IP owner) to get something removed immediately and putting the burden of proof that it was fair use on the creator if they want to get their work restored. If they don't comply with the request to remove the "offending" material (which, by the way, is not censorship, just like a forum moderator deleting a post they don't like) they make themselves vulnerable to legal consequences if it does violate copyright laws. And yes, this is completely absurd and needs to be changed, but that's what you get when you let corporations write the laws.

(Though, while it might not be relevant in the cases you're thinking of, it's important to understand that "fair use" refers to specific exceptions to copyright laws and has nothing to do with general ideas about "it is fair and reasonable for me to do this".)

Youtube is hosting all the anti-youtube information on it's site for free?

They seem like pretty chill compadres.

 Scrabb wrote:
Youtube is hosting all the anti-youtube information on it's site for free?

They seem like pretty chill compadres.

Thanks for not censoring us YouTube, we're forever in your debt!

There are ways around this. If you avoid including tags that refer to controversial topics like suicide, and use a neutral title, then your video will slip under the radar of the bot.

I saw a popular Youtube person talk about the controversy for a bit and they essentially said the same thing about tags and titles.

Saw a video titled today "[censored]girl.lys video reaction"; so I imagine that is the kind of thing they are targeting.

 General Annoyance wrote:
It's difficult to get your own hosting that will get off the ground as YouTube has a practical monopoly in this industry - other websites like it don't get anywhere near the traffic that they get. I think most of the people who use that site to make content are still there because of this, alongside wanting to support the platform they have been a part of for years.

I'm not talking about making a competitor for YouTube in the video hosting business, I'm talking about hosting your own videos on a site you pay for. This is very easy to do if you're willing to pay for enough bandwidth. Now, you won't appear in YouTube's search results anymore, but that's the tradeoff you have to make. If you want to sell your work to YouTube and take advantage of their services you have to comply with their rules.

See the problem isn't with YouTube's mission and not having a "favourable opinion" of their top content creators - their slogan has been "broadcast yourself" for quite sometime; they want people to be able to express themselves freely on their site, provided it does not involve or provoke illegal activity. It's worth noting that they recently set up a Fair Use protection scheme to protect various YouTubers from people who abuse the content ID system. They are on the side of them, which is why their legislation is so galling, as it never seems to match up with their mission and intention for the site to be this platform for open expression. And you know you've screwed up your system if you need to set up a scheme to stop its abuse by other users.

You're still free to "broadcast yourself", even if you take marketing slogans seriously. YouTube isn't removing the "offensive" videos, they're just declining to pay people to make them. You can still express yourself freely as long as expression is genuinely what you care about, not maximizing your advertising income. The only people losing anything here are for-profit businesses that want to take advantage of YouTube's free video hosting to sell their product.

(And really, don't take marketing slogans seriously. YouTube's mission is to make money from advertising, not to be a platform for open expression.)

In a sense, but there is a huge concern when people who work on the site are worried about their livelihoods possibly being weakened by having their videos demonetised. Right now this policy has not done anything of the sort, but due to its automated nature of function, you can see why it could be a problem. It isn't censorship since we can still view the videos, but much like content ID it is denying the money owed to the uploader for their content.

There is no "money owed to the uploaded for their content". You seem to be making the mistake of assuming that people who upload stuff are entitled to some particular payment structure when in reality YouTube can offer whatever payment terms they like. If they want to offer nothing at all then all you can do is decline to put your work on YouTube. The only way YouTube could owe anyone money is if money was earned but not yet paid, and YouTube decided to refuse payment because the video was "offensive". But that's not what is happening here. They aren't going back and erasing the money you've earned in the past, they're simply declaring "we're not going to buy this from you anymore".

It is certainly censorship if the video was removed despite it demonstrating fair use, whereas a moderator removing a post on this site would often be for good reason in correlation to the site's rules (the post being offensive, for instance) combined with the fact that writing here is a privilege, not a right. Content creators on YouTube, however, have the right to create content using other people's intellectual property provided it is transformative work that complies with fair use.

You seem to be completely confused about how YouTube works. Posting videos on YouTube is a privilege, not a right, just like posting on a forum. YouTube can delete whatever they want, for whatever reason they feel like. If YouTube deletes all of your videos because you have too many red pixels in them you have no rights, just like if your forum post is deleted. You have a right to use another person's IP in certain ways, but YouTube is not obligated to allow you to post that material on their service.

And yes, Fair Use is not "ohmahgawd you took down my video no fair that isn't right" it's "My work is transformative and thus is not breaching copyright law under the Fair Use protection act, you have no right to take down this video/monetise it, go away"

YouTube has no obligation to allow all work that does not breach copyright laws. Protesting "you have no right to take down this video" is a complete misunderstanding of how a private video hosting service works.

Also, you can possibly get your money through Patreon like Jim does and avoid all of this, but you're then hoping that people will actually take money out of their wallet to fund you rather than support you simply by watching your videos.

Yep, that's the tradeoff you have to make. You can decide to sell your work to YouTube and accept the fact that your continued sales exist only at the whim of your employer, in exchange for YouTube handling all the work of hosting your videos, making advertising deals on your behalf and collecting the money, etc. Or you can decide to have full control of your work, pay someone to host your videos, and arrange sales/advertising/etc yourself. More work, but more freedom.

Once upon a time, YouTube existed as a platform to distribute user-created content. Fifteen minutes later, pirated videos and stolen content started appearing, the C&D letters started flying, and YouTube realized that they effed up and had to step in.

Then Google bought them, and the original mission parameters ceased to have any actual meaning. The platform now exists as a distribution channel for Google advertisements. This is also why Chrome (Google's browser) now auto-flags extensions that block YouTube comments or ads as "unsafe".

 Peregrine wrote:
There's a lesson to be learned here: if you're making content as a serious job don't let anyone else have control over your work.

What a useless piece of advice. If you're making content as a serious job, it is impossible not to let anyone else have control over the monetisation of your work. If not Google, then your advertisers. If not your advertisers, your bank. Nobody who isn't living in a mud hut out in the wilderness is immune to economic sanctions, which is why it is essential that this power not be used lightly.

 AlexHolker wrote:
What a useless piece of advice. If you're making content as a serious job, it is impossible not to let anyone else have control over the monetisation of your work. If not Google, then your advertisers. If not your advertisers, your bank. Nobody who isn't living in a mud hut out in the wilderness is immune to economic sanctions, which is why it is essential that this power not be used lightly.

The difference is that your bank is your employee, so they have an incentive (and an obligation) to provide you with service. YouTube is your employer, they have no obligation to offer you any particular terms of employment if it goes against their ideas about how best to make money. If you pay for your own hosting for your website and set up payment options for your viewers to give you money you have full control over what you're doing. The bank is going to take your money as long as there's nothing illegal going on, as will the hosting service. If you try to sell your work to YouTube because you don't want to deal with the extra work of setting up your own hosting/advertising/etc you will always be subject to the whims of YouTube. If they decide "nah, we don't want to buy this from you anymore" there is nothing you can do about it.

I have a bold prediction. In 12 months to a year, YouTube's business results will not have been impacted by their TOS.

Deep in the Amazon Jungle, Frazzled swings from tree to tree only stopping long enough to not care.

 Peregrine wrote:

The difference is that your bank is your employee, so they have an incentive (and an obligation) to provide you with service.

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

 Peregrine wrote:

If you pay for your own hosting for your website and set up payment options for your viewers to give you money you have full control over what you're doing.

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

 Peregrine wrote:

The bank is going to take your money as long as there's nothing illegal going on, as will the hosting service.

The bank will probably take your money so long as you willingly provide it.

 Peregrine wrote:

If you try to sell your work to YouTube because you don't want to deal with the extra work of setting up your own hosting/advertising/etc you will always be subject to the whims of YouTube. If they decide "nah, we don't want to buy this from you anymore" there is nothing you can do about it.

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

Spoiler:

 General Annoyance wrote:
It's difficult to get your own hosting that will get off the ground as YouTube has a practical monopoly in this industry - other websites like it don't get anywhere near the traffic that they get. I think most of the people who use that site to make content are still there because of this, alongside wanting to support the platform they have been a part of for years.

I'm not talking about making a competitor for YouTube in the video hosting business, I'm talking about hosting your own videos on a site you pay for. This is very easy to do if you're willing to pay for enough bandwidth. Now, you won't appear in YouTube's search results anymore, but that's the tradeoff you have to make. If you want to sell your work to YouTube and take advantage of their services you have to comply with their rules.

See the problem isn't with YouTube's mission and not having a "favourable opinion" of their top content creators - their slogan has been "broadcast yourself" for quite sometime; they want people to be able to express themselves freely on their site, provided it does not involve or provoke illegal activity. It's worth noting that they recently set up a Fair Use protection scheme to protect various YouTubers from people who abuse the content ID system. They are on the side of them, which is why their legislation is so galling, as it never seems to match up with their mission and intention for the site to be this platform for open expression. And you know you've screwed up your system if you need to set up a scheme to stop its abuse by other users.

You're still free to "broadcast yourself", even if you take marketing slogans seriously. YouTube isn't removing the "offensive" videos, they're just declining to pay people to make them. You can still express yourself freely as long as expression is genuinely what you care about, not maximizing your advertising income. The only people losing anything here are for-profit businesses that want to take advantage of YouTube's free video hosting to sell their product.

(And really, don't take marketing slogans seriously. YouTube's mission is to make money from advertising, not to be a platform for open expression.)

In a sense, but there is a huge concern when people who work on the site are worried about their livelihoods possibly being weakened by having their videos demonetised. Right now this policy has not done anything of the sort, but due to its automated nature of function, you can see why it could be a problem. It isn't censorship since we can still view the videos, but much like content ID it is denying the money owed to the uploader for their content.

There is no "money owed to the uploaded for their content". You seem to be making the mistake of assuming that people who upload stuff are entitled to some particular payment structure when in reality YouTube can offer whatever payment terms they like. If they want to offer nothing at all then all you can do is decline to put your work on YouTube. The only way YouTube could owe anyone money is if money was earned but not yet paid, and YouTube decided to refuse payment because the video was "offensive". But that's not what is happening here. They aren't going back and erasing the money you've earned in the past, they're simply declaring "we're not going to buy this from you anymore".

It is certainly censorship if the video was removed despite it demonstrating fair use, whereas a moderator removing a post on this site would often be for good reason in correlation to the site's rules (the post being offensive, for instance) combined with the fact that writing here is a privilege, not a right. Content creators on YouTube, however, have the right to create content using other people's intellectual property provided it is transformative work that complies with fair use.

You seem to be completely confused about how YouTube works. Posting videos on YouTube is a privilege, not a right, just like posting on a forum. YouTube can delete whatever they want, for whatever reason they feel like. If YouTube deletes all of your videos because you have too many red pixels in them you have no rights, just like if your forum post is deleted. You have a right to use another person's IP in certain ways, but YouTube is not obligated to allow you to post that material on their service.

And yes, Fair Use is not "ohmahgawd you took down my video no fair that isn't right" it's "My work is transformative and thus is not breaching copyright law under the Fair Use protection act, you have no right to take down this video/monetise it, go away"

YouTube has no obligation to allow all work that does not breach copyright laws. Protesting "you have no right to take down this video" is a complete misunderstanding of how a private video hosting service works.

Also, you can possibly get your money through Patreon like Jim does and avoid all of this, but you're then hoping that people will actually take money out of their wallet to fund you rather than support you simply by watching your videos.

Yep, that's the tradeoff you have to make. You can decide to sell your work to YouTube and accept the fact that your continued sales exist only at the whim of your employer, in exchange for YouTube handling all the work of hosting your videos, making advertising deals on your behalf and collecting the money, etc. Or you can decide to have full control of your work, pay someone to host your videos, and arrange sales/advertising/etc yourself. More work, but more freedom.