YouTube did a thing again

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

image

Basically, if YouTube feels like you're not making the money then they can delete your channel.

This may possibly be the worst thing YouTube is ever done but when you have a Monopoly I guess you can do what you want.

I can't be mad at YouTube for not being able to keep giving out free lunches to everyone on the globe 🤷‍♂️

Let's not forget the huge amounts of money it takes to keep something like YouTube up and running. A platform where millions of people can upload their videos and have them be available for viewing AROUND THE GLOBE on pretty much ALL ELECTRICAL DEVICES within MINUTES after uploading.

We have been lucky thus far that YouTube has had the backing of a giant company like Google.

bluegate:

Let's not forget the huge amounts of money it takes to keep something like YouTube up and running.

Yeah, I think they can very comfortably cover their costs, so I don't see why we should care.

They're not a struggling little startup.

So what does that mean, exactly? Are they planning to retool YouTube into a platform for professional entertainers only and ban old Mary Smith who's just uploading her funny cat videos? Like, is that what it's gonna be? From "broadcast yourself" to "Sponsored Content only"? Jesus, what's happening with the internet?

PsychedelicDiamond:
So what does that mean, exactly? Are they planning to retool YouTube into a platform for professional entertainers only and ban old Mary Smith who's just uploading her funny cat videos? Like, is that what it's gonna be? From "broadcast yourself" to "Sponsored Content only"? Jesus, what's happening with the internet?

TV is dying, so now the internet wants to be the next TV.

Another somewhat vague rule. Theres plenty of youtubers who don't make that much youtube money, but they get good endorsement deals and patron subscriptions.

This is why monopolies are bad. Youtube could demand first night rights at this point and we'd go along with it lol.

PsychedelicDiamond:
So what does that mean, exactly? Are they planning to retool YouTube into a platform for professional entertainers only and ban old Mary Smith who's just uploading her funny cat videos? Like, is that what it's gonna be? From "broadcast yourself" to "Sponsored Content only"? Jesus, what's happening with the internet?

That's basically whats going to happen. Only 1% of youtubers are going to be able to stay and broadcast. Someone needs to figure out how to store millions of terabytes in a cheap effective manner.

Marik2:
Another somewhat vague rule. Theres plenty of youtubers who don't make that much youtube money, but they get good endorsement deals and patron subscriptions.

If this is actually a way to discourage people from doing endorsement deals or patron subscriptions that is an extra level of scum.

I have to wonder how far they're willing to go with this. Others mentioned this would remove the people uploading cat videos or covers of songs. I got a guy I like who makes D&D videos twice a week, both of which seem to hit over 25-40k views that same week and have a high replayability factor. He only has 54K subs though. Is this not enough to justify keeping him as a channel? One of the reasons I like YouTube so much is my ability to watch a dude talk D&D lore, then move on to a channel that delves into creepy stories or narrates SCPs. It has variety TV and even other streaming services don't offer.

There's two ways I can interpret this: "We'll boot you if you're costing us money", or "We'll end the service completely if we decide we're losing too much on it". Maybe we need someone schooled in legalese to give some advice.

Marik2:
Another somewhat vague rule. Theres plenty of youtubers who don't make that much youtube money, but they get good endorsement deals and patron subscriptions.

YouTube has said they deliberately made these rules vague. If you know the exact rule, you can game the system. Then you deliberately step over the line and call out, "Free Speech" and a bunch of people come to your defense.

It why Alex Jones was only Deplatformes recently. He was quite good at gaming the system and sending his followers in to verbally attack anyone who disagreed with him.

I'd prefer clean rules. But then I dont have idiots making advertisers run away scared from an idiot who doesn't think before he speaks. Capitalism will cause them to change because money

I guess it was bound to happen eventually, given the way things are going.

Back in the day, Youtube didn't care what you uploaded (as long as it wasn't porn, or anything illegal) because they could subsidize basically anything simply by plastering ads all over it, and before and after it.

But more recently, advertisers have become weary and concerned with their brands being associated with objectionable content. So now only "advertiser friendly" content actually makes any money, and everything else Youtube is forced to host essentially for free.

So it's hardly surprising that they're wanting to crack down on that.

bluegate:
I can't be mad at YouTube for not being able to keep giving out free lunches to everyone on the globe 🤷‍♂️

Let's not forget the huge amounts of money it takes to keep something like YouTube up and running. A platform where millions of people can upload their videos and have them be available for viewing AROUND THE GLOBE on pretty much ALL ELECTRICAL DEVICES within MINUTES after uploading.

We have been lucky thus far that YouTube has had the backing of a giant company like Google.

Are you serious? No really, maybe you are being sarcastic and I am being Poe'd here.

Saelune:

bluegate:
I can't be mad at YouTube for not being able to keep giving out free lunches to everyone on the globe 🤷‍♂️

Let's not forget the huge amounts of money it takes to keep something like YouTube up and running. A platform where millions of people can upload their videos and have them be available for viewing AROUND THE GLOBE on pretty much ALL ELECTRICAL DEVICES within MINUTES after uploading.

We have been lucky thus far that YouTube has had the backing of a giant company like Google.

Are you serious? No really, maybe you are being sarcastic and I am being Poe'd here.

I thought you of all people would understand the reasoning here. Especially given the amount of hate speech, pseudo white supremacy, and right-wing propaganda that is becoming rife on Youtube.
ie: stuff that's difficult to monetize, not advertiser friendly, and not commercially viable.

Elfgore:
I have to wonder how far they're willing to go with this. Others mentioned this would remove the people uploading cat videos or covers of songs. I got a guy I like who makes D&D videos twice a week, both of which seem to hit over 25-40k views that same week and have a high replayability factor. He only has 54K subs though. Is this not enough to justify keeping him as a channel? One of the reasons I like YouTube so much is my ability to watch a dude talk D&D lore, then move on to a channel that delves into creepy stories or narrates SCPs. It has variety TV and even other streaming services don't offer.

I might be crazy, but the more I look at it, the more I think it's probably meant to be a ToS thing. You know, kinda like a "We have the right to terminate our business with you if you're being an asshole" clause.

Imagine, for instance, a "softcore" Klan or Neo-Nazi channel. Extreme and unlikely example, I know, but for the sake of argument let's assume that this channel has somehow managed to skate by the 'no peddling hate' rule (perhaps the videos were largely sob stories wherein some minority hurt some non-minority, and that pattern is only apparent over time). Such a channel hitting mainstream awareness would have an immediate and drastic negative impact on Youtube. Even if the channel itself is financially profitable, provision of Youtube's service to such a channel would not be commercially viable, due entirely to the negative impact on Youtube's brand image and consumer relations. This clause could be intended to simplify such matters.

This almost makes it seem like if you're a Youtuber, you're actually an employee of Youtube.

In other words, if you're not making them enough money, they can 'terminate your employment' in a manner of speaking.

Saelune:

bluegate:
I can't be mad at YouTube for not being able to keep giving out free lunches to everyone on the globe 🤷‍♂️

Let's not forget the huge amounts of money it takes to keep something like YouTube up and running. A platform where millions of people can upload their videos and have them be available for viewing AROUND THE GLOBE on pretty much ALL ELECTRICAL DEVICES within MINUTES after uploading.

We have been lucky thus far that YouTube has had the backing of a giant company like Google.

Are you serious? No really, maybe you are being sarcastic and I am being Poe'd here.

Hey, if you have a magic solution for YouTube to keep everyone happy and make enough money to keep their data centers up and running and be able to hand out "free" money to people uploading videos to YouTube, I'm sure that the people at YouTube would be happy to hear about it.

It would suck if "your" channel got shut down on YouTube, yes, but I can sort of understand the reasons behind it. They are doing a pretty complicated and delicate balancing act over at YouTube and I doubt that these kinds of policies are put in out of ill intent.

Have you ever thought about the herculean task of running an operation like YouTube?

Silvanus:

bluegate:

Let's not forget the huge amounts of money it takes to keep something like YouTube up and running.

Yeah, I think they can very comfortably cover their costs, so I don't see why we should care.

They're not a struggling little startup.

To the best of my knowledge youtube itself has never been profitable, though it is hard to factor in the way it helps google with certain types of data collection. Now I don't have any pity for google or youtube, especially since they have encouraged and set up a system where many people are dependent on youtube for their income. In my opinion that means you have certain responsibilities even if you aren't legally their employer.

Pseudonym:

To the best of my knowledge youtube itself has never been profitable, though it is hard to factor in the way it helps google with certain types of data collection. Now I don't have any pity for google or youtube, especially since they have encouraged and set up a system where many people are dependent on youtube for their income. In my opinion that means you have certain responsibilities even if you aren't legally their employer.

Well, the Wall Street Journal apparently reported that it was not making a profit in 2015, with revenue of 4 billion approx.

However, since then, it has not been reporting its revenue, profit, or much else, so we cannot tell. But from what I can tell from a quick search, its revenue is likely to be several times higher.

Still, even if not, they're under Google's umbrella. The costs of running the service are perfectly manageable for them.

Silvanus:

Pseudonym:

To the best of my knowledge youtube itself has never been profitable, though it is hard to factor in the way it helps google with certain types of data collection. Now I don't have any pity for google or youtube, especially since they have encouraged and set up a system where many people are dependent on youtube for their income. In my opinion that means you have certain responsibilities even if you aren't legally their employer.

Well, the Wall Street Journal apparently reported that it was not making a profit in 2015, with revenue of 4 billion approx.

However, since then, it has not been reporting its revenue, profit, or much else, so we cannot tell. But from what I can tell from a quick search, its revenue is likely to be several times higher.

Still, even if not, they're under Google's umbrella. The costs of running the service are perfectly manageable for them.

As Jim says "they want all the money or none of the money." If they can make more Money off of youtube they will do it even if it can risk there bottom line in the long run.

IceForce:

Saelune:

bluegate:
I can't be mad at YouTube for not being able to keep giving out free lunches to everyone on the globe 🤷‍♂️

Let's not forget the huge amounts of money it takes to keep something like YouTube up and running. A platform where millions of people can upload their videos and have them be available for viewing AROUND THE GLOBE on pretty much ALL ELECTRICAL DEVICES within MINUTES after uploading.

We have been lucky thus far that YouTube has had the backing of a giant company like Google.

Are you serious? No really, maybe you are being sarcastic and I am being Poe'd here.

I thought you of all people would understand the reasoning here. Especially given the amount of hate speech, pseudo white supremacy, and right-wing propaganda that is becoming rife on Youtube.
ie: stuff that's difficult to monetize, not advertiser friendly, and not commercially viable.

If Youtube/Google made it crystal clear what counts and does not count, their reasoning, and were consistent and fair about it. But considering this kind of stuff is mostly used to oppress LGBT people all the time, No, I am NOT ok with it.

Sure, this kind of stuff COULD be used to stomp bigotry, but usually it is just used to encourage it.

bluegate:

Saelune:

bluegate:
I can't be mad at YouTube for not being able to keep giving out free lunches to everyone on the globe 🤷‍♂️

Let's not forget the huge amounts of money it takes to keep something like YouTube up and running. A platform where millions of people can upload their videos and have them be available for viewing AROUND THE GLOBE on pretty much ALL ELECTRICAL DEVICES within MINUTES after uploading.

We have been lucky thus far that YouTube has had the backing of a giant company like Google.

Are you serious? No really, maybe you are being sarcastic and I am being Poe'd here.

Hey, if you have a magic solution for YouTube to keep everyone happy and make enough money to keep their data centers up and running and be able to hand out "free" money to people uploading videos to YouTube, I'm sure that the people at YouTube would be happy to hear about it.

It would suck if "your" channel got shut down on YouTube, yes, but I can sort of understand the reasons behind it. They are doing a pretty complicated and delicate balancing act over at YouTube and I doubt that these kinds of policies are put in out of ill intent.

Have you ever thought about the herculean task of running an operation like YouTube?

I am not fond of giving corporations free reign to abuse whoever they want, no.

These kind of policies are put out to protect their bottom line, full stop. If being evil is profitable, they will do it. Google has proven it is not concerned with being ethical.

bluegate:

Saelune:

bluegate:
I can't be mad at YouTube for not being able to keep giving out free lunches to everyone on the globe 🤷‍♂️

Let's not forget the huge amounts of money it takes to keep something like YouTube up and running. A platform where millions of people can upload their videos and have them be available for viewing AROUND THE GLOBE on pretty much ALL ELECTRICAL DEVICES within MINUTES after uploading.

We have been lucky thus far that YouTube has had the backing of a giant company like Google.

Are you serious? No really, maybe you are being sarcastic and I am being Poe'd here.

Hey, if you have a magic solution for YouTube to keep everyone happy and make enough money to keep their data centers up and running and be able to hand out "free" money to people uploading videos to YouTube, I'm sure that the people at YouTube would be happy to hear about it.

It would suck if "your" channel got shut down on YouTube, yes, but I can sort of understand the reasons behind it. They are doing a pretty complicated and delicate balancing act over at YouTube and I doubt that these kinds of policies are put in out of ill intent.

Have you ever thought about the herculean task of running an operation like YouTube?

Youtube keeps all the ad money on videos less than 1k (i think that's the number).

But that's probably not going to pay for the thousands of hours everyday with 10 or less views

In the next week we are going to our youtube feed flooded by people screeching at the new rule. Maybe this time there will be a forced exodus where people will go to other video sites. Youtube is now becoming television.

The Rogue Wolf:
There's two ways I can interpret this: "We'll boot you if you're costing us money", or "We'll end the service completely if we decide we're losing too much on it". Maybe we need someone schooled in legalese to give some advice.

After watching this: https://youtu.be/nfkem5e5Iqg?t=1220, I'm tending toward your second statement. They can already ban you for pretty much no reason anyways, why would they need a specific clause to ban you for not making google enough money?

Also, that clause is under the header of terminations for service changes. If the service is getting shelved for not making enough money, they're not going to allow the users to keep attempting to access it (See Google+).

Marik2:
In the next week we are going to our youtube feed flooded by people screeching at the new rule. Maybe this time there will be a forced exodus where people will go to other video sites. Youtube is now becoming television.

It's already been happening. So many videos

tf2godz:

As Jim says "they want all the money or none of the money." If they can make more Money off of youtube they will do it even if it can risk there bottom line in the long run.

Aye. At which point they lose any benefit-of-the-doubt they might have got with regards to operating costs. Google, of all companies, has squandered goodwill.

bluegate:
A platform where millions of people can upload their videos and have them be available for viewing AROUND THE GLOBE on pretty much ALL ELECTRICAL DEVICES within MINUTES after uploading.

Which it's what the screenshot implies it's going to be terminated. *woomp woomp*

Combining this with the COPPA update/FTC YT purge, my, Jan 1st is going to be a s***storm, isn't it?!

Silvanus:

bluegate:

Let's not forget the huge amounts of money it takes to keep something like YouTube up and running.

Yeah, I think they can very comfortably cover their costs, so I don't see why we should care.

They're not a struggling little startup.

Are things only hard for a startup? I'm just wondering what comparison you're using for a basis of what is hard or not on a global delivery of media from anyone and everyone with internet access.

Specter Von Baren:

Are things only hard for a startup? I'm just wondering what comparison you're using for a basis of what is hard or not on a global delivery of media from anyone and everyone with internet access.

Oh, I'm sure it's difficult from an administrative point of view. But it's not difficult in the slightest for them to secure the funding.

Silvanus:

Specter Von Baren:

Are things only hard for a startup? I'm just wondering what comparison you're using for a basis of what is hard or not on a global delivery of media from anyone and everyone with internet access.

Oh, I'm sure it's difficult from an administrative point of view. But it's not difficult in the slightest for them to secure the funding.

Difficult, no. If I were a billionaire, I wouldn't find getting a billion dollar loan "difficult", at least compared to who I am now, a student of probably negative material worth if we subtract my debt from my money and possessions. But that doesn't mean that I want a billion dollar loan to cover a service that was hemorrhaging money instead of making it profitable like a service is supposed to be, or that it's good business practice.

Just cuz big ol' Mr Google has the total revenue to keep Youtube afloat doesn't mean that it's obligated to do so instead of figuring out a way for Youtube to be a viable business by any metric. And I'm someone who thinks businesses should be more socially conscious than just money grubbing machines. If Youtube costs Google a billion to keep the lights on, that's a billion that isn't getting invested into new tech development. And yes, yes, a decent chunk of that billion would just go into certain highly placed persons' pockets, but it turns around and gets invested in the economy and those struggling little startups you mentioned.

Of course, in regards to Youtube, my personal belief is that Youtube should burn to the ground and we should all go back to reading books. But that's me.

Marik2:
In the next week we are going to our youtube feed flooded by people screeching at the new rule. Maybe this time there will be a forced exodus where people will go to other video sites. Youtube is now becoming television.

I remember back in 2012, there was supposed to be this mass exodus to Dailymotion. Which many user threaten to switch sites. Nothing ever came of it, and turned out most these users were blowing smoke. While I wish for it, I doubt most are going to follow through on it again.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here