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.
YouTube did a thing again
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
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.
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.
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?
This is why monopolies are bad. Youtube could demand first night rights at this point and we'd go along with it lol.
If this is actually a way to discourage people from doing endorsement deals or patron subscriptions that is an extra level of scum.Marik2 said:
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.
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.Marik2 said:
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.
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.
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.Saelune said:
ie: stuff that's difficult to monetize, not advertiser friendly, and not commercially viable.
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.Elfgore said:
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.
In other words, if you're not making them enough money, they can 'terminate your employment' in a manner of speaking.
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.Saelune said:
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?
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.Silvanus said:
Well, the Wall Street Journal apparently reported that it was not making a profit in 2015, with revenue of 4 billion approx.Pseudonym said:
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.