Youtube Policy is changing the rules for monetize again! Chaos! PANIC! UPDATED AGAIN!!!!

[DudeistBelieve]

Once again, Ladies and Gentlemen, it's the first story talk about by my man PhilyD...


Basically Youtube is stripping monetization not only for videos that have cursing, but any video that talks about any controversial or unad friendly content. Mass-shootings, war, death, famine, whatever.

This is going to seriously change the way channels that rely on money from ads produce and handle content, particularly the news and/or commentary ones.... and this could be a bad thing because do you really want Viacom-Halliburton-Skynet-Toyota-Trader Joe's $$$ to be the deciding factor in what news reaches your ears?

UPDATE Phil has made another video...


updated again

Armored Skeptic weighed in with a very balanced view...

 

[Saelune]

*eyebrow raise*

This is...so insane, that I wont panic, because it seems too insane to be actually true.

Like, the end of youtube as a website level of absurd.

Really, I would imagine, if true, it will be "fixed" quickly, because doesn't Youtube's goldenboy Pewdiepie swear a lot?

 

[Barbas]

*eyebrow raise*

This is...so insane, that I wont panic, because it seems too insane to be actually true.

Like, the end of youtube as a website level of absurd.

Really, I would imagine, if true, it will be "fixed" quickly, because doesn't Youtube's goldenboy Pewdiepie swear a lot?

Don't forget the other cornerstone of comedy: shrieking! Specifically, "RAPE! RAAAAAAPE!", in the first and last video of his I ever watched.

OT: What happened to you, Google? You used to be coo-...well, you were almost a little cool once, back when floppies were still making the rounds.

I doubt this will last...but not as much as I hope it doesn't.

 

[renegade7]

Source, please? I looked around online and couldn't find any news about a policy change. Usually, when an enormous company like Alphabet makes a substantial change to their financial policies, people notice.

Are we sure that in this case, "controversial" doesn't just mean being an obnoxious arse and dragging down the level of discussion and then complaining about censorship when people call you out on it? Or maybe that videos can't be funded by political parties (since that would actually open up Alphabet to huge legal liabilities)?

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Source, please? I looked around online and couldn't find any news about a policy change.

I mean the youtube video I posted with this is kinda a primary source document is it not?

 

[Fox12]

Does this mean that Pewdiepie and Markiplier are going to lose their channel?

Oh, wait, no, because Youtube's head is lodged firmly up its ass. I won't raise the pitchfork yet, because this would be suicidal for the site, and I'm hoping they're not this stupid.

 

[renegade7]

Source, please? I looked around online and couldn't find any news about a policy change.

I mean the youtube video I posted with this is kinda a primary source document is it not?

Not really, that's just the one guy saying that that's what happened.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Well YouTube had a good run. But like all shit things, sooner or later we all realize how smelly it was.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Source, please? I looked around online and couldn't find any news about a policy change.

I mean the youtube video I posted with this is kinda a primary source document is it not?

Not really, that's just the one guy saying that that's what happened.

Well that's all I got. I do see some of my own videos were I talked about the night club shooting also have been striked unmonetizeable, but I have no more evidence than that.

 

[SupahEwok]

Source, please? I looked around online and couldn't find any news about a policy change.

I mean the youtube video I posted with this is kinda a primary source document is it not?

Not really, that's just the one guy saying that that's what happened.

Not just that, one guy who's livelihood is (he claims) receiving quite a hit. Bias, and emotions, both of which cloud judgement and color perception (maybe Youtube is sanctioning him, specifically, for some specific incident, and either out of malice or hurt he's taken that and extrapolated "severe rule changes for everybody"). There's no reason to disbelieve him per se, but no reason to believe in him either. Corroboration from an unbiased source is what I want to see.

I mean, just how many channels make frequent use of profanity and touchy topics? If this were true, Jim Sterling, for one, would be up in arms about it. Don't see anything on his Twitter.

 

[Fox12]

Source, please? I looked around online and couldn't find any news about a policy change.

I mean the youtube video I posted with this is kinda a primary source document is it not?

Not really, that's just the one guy saying that that's what happened.

Not just that, one guy who's livelihood is (he claims) receiving quite a hit. Bias, and emotions, both of which cloud judgement and color perception (maybe Youtube is sanctioning him, specifically, for some specific incident, and either out of malice or hurt he's taken that and extrapolated "severe rule changes for everybody"). There's no reason to disbelieve him per se, but no reason to believe in him either. Corroboration from an unbiased source is what I want to see.

I mean, just how many channels make frequent use of profanity and touchy topics? If this were true, Jim Sterling, for one, would be up in arms about it. Don't see anything on his Twitter.

Yeah, I imagine that my YouTube feed would have erupted if this were true. I haven't heard a thing. I suppose we'll wait and see.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

I'm going to go on a bit of a rant here.

YouTube is doing this because they know they can get away with this, Why? because people would rather shoot puppies then inconvenience themself on the internet. Oh sure people will champion in the comments and it will get more than 1,000,000 view on Youtube but the second big channels switch to a less familiar website, people will copy it, put it on YouTube and will get twice as many view 100% of the time (Remember Blip). They can be the biggest assholes, they could shoot a seal and say they're sending all the money to Nazis and isis and Force big YouTubers give them blow jobs but people will still watch videos on the site. as long as YouTube keeps us happy we wont do a god damn thing. I would love to be proven wrong but I doubt it.

ps. sorry for poor spelling

 

[Zhukov]

Oh no! Not The Censorship!

Seriously though, that sounds pretty dumb. I mean, does it apply to any video with swearing? Any swearing at all? Because how many Youtubers don't swear from time to time?

I know Youtube has pulled some dumb shit before, but this seems a bit too ridiculous to be true.

 

[TheSlothOverlord]

Source, please? I looked around online and couldn't find any news about a policy change. Usually, when an enormous company like Alphabet makes a substantial change to their financial policies, people notice.

Are we sure that in this case, "controversial" doesn't just mean being an obnoxious arse and dragging down the level of discussion and then complaining about censorship when people call you out on it? Or maybe that videos can't be funded by political parties (since that would actually open up Alphabet to huge legal liabilities)?

Unfortunately this does seem to be a thing:
https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/771095982033469440
TB is writing about it, you can check his twitter for some more info.
It seems that the educational channel Kurzgesagt has also been hit:
https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1532883&page=2
I'm hoping that Youtube stops this madness or at the very least makes it very specific what is "inappropriate", so that only garbage like Drama Alert gets hit.

 

[Ender910_v1legacy]

Source, please? I looked around online and couldn't find any news about a policy change. Usually, when an enormous company like Alphabet makes a substantial change to their financial policies, people notice.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en

Not exactly the most difficult info to verify

Seriously though, that sounds pretty dumb. I mean, does it apply to any video with swearing? Any swearing at all? Because how many Youtubers don't swear from time to time?

I know Youtube has pulled some dumb shit before, but this seems a bit too ridiculous to be true.

You'd think so, but based on the new/now current guidelines I linked, it seems pretty cut and dry. I guess Youtube's going to be focusing on the cute/funny pet video business now.

 

[Zontar]

What is it with Google (amongst other companies) wanting to intentionally crash their own websites? Because this, if it remains, will end up in a competitor popping up.

Though then again, YouTube, like Facebook, has reached the point where the government does need to treat them as natural monopolies. They're just too big for that not happening to be the case. Which is frankly why it's shocking both have such insane decisions being made, since there's simply no way their respective leaderships are not fully aware of this fact and would, if they where rational, try everything in their power to balance things out to prevent anyone from wanting to make such calls for regulation.

At this point Google and Facebook are led by people who want them to fail, there is no rational explanation other then that. Someone much have bought enough stock of both that pissed off the administrators of both sites enough to want to see them crash.

 

[Recusant]

Wow. I am truly impressed; I didn't think this was possible. You have actually pushed me to the point where saying "I told you so" has ceased to be satisfying.

This is going to keep going until you don't let them get away with it anymore, folks: no small share of the blame lies on the shoulders of those who keep watching.

 

[Zontar]

[

You have absolutely zero clue about what you're talking about. Youtube actually doesn't bring in a net profit, and causes a significant pain in the ass to run. That's also why the magical competitor service that everyone keeps saying needs to come and take away their business doesn't crop up. It's nothing to do with crashing a successful business. It is very hard to defend rationality when one starts from false pretenses

That just makes it all the worst, and makes even less sense at the end of the day if having YouTube make a profit is the end goal.

They almost certainly are trying to make them more advertiser friendly and sanitised, case in point, the TOS update is about monetisation, and that's regretable, but it in no way is some attempt to drive it into the ground, in fact, it's about avoiding that. That trying to get more advertisers and a larger market share necessitiates being blander, more polite, and less potentially offensive.

This whole argument, if it actually is what Google is using as their thought process instead of only being the claim that no one in their right mind should believe, makes absolutely no sense from a business perspective.

Even ignoring the business truism that controversy sells, television and cinema have demonstrated objectively (this year especially) that not only does controversy sell, advertisers would if anything prefer it because it draws more attention. Literally every televsion series and movie of this year that has a rating higher then PG violates the new terms of service, yet this includes the most profitable movies and television series, some of which are amongst the most profitable ever seen in the history of their respective mediums.

If this is true, then Google needs to spend a tiny bit of that money they're wasting on RnD on those countless pet projects to hire a single economist.

You can't argue for the profit motive and then against moves made with one. That is entirely irrational. You don't give a flying fuck about their business, you just want to defend a certain style of content. Which is fine, just be fucking honest.

You're god damn right I'm trying to defend a certain style of content: that which is above PG. There is literally nothing that has a rating higher then that which does not explicitly violate the new TOS, and of the nearly 200 YouTube channels I'm subscribed to with content that has such a wide range I don't even know how to put it in words, I do hate the fact that now the totality of my experience on the site is now at risk because of an objectively insane and irrational business move that could not possibly have come from someone who actually understand the entertainment industry at even a laymen's level.

And all that is why I think someone important is intentionally trying to sink the site, because there is no rational way to explain such an irrational business move from someone who could be in a position to make such a decision. I know the internet loves the "I have no idea what I'm doing" meme, but there are some jobs that just to make the day-to-day operations possible you need to know just that, and running the second largest website in the world as a subsidiary to the only larger one is one of them.

Someone wants this the site to fail, until a second rational explanation that doesn't rely on the assumption that they're led by idiots who couldn't have logically reached positions of importance in the first place due to their intellect, my stance will not change.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Source, please? I looked around online and couldn't find any news about a policy change.

I mean the youtube video I posted with this is kinda a primary source document is it not?

It's not even a secondary source. It's hearsay. A primary source is not someone covering other information. The primary source is the updated TOS.

I hope you never made that mistake in your high school English.

Like the thread Sloth posted, and TB's speculation, it seems rather likely this is in response to rubbish like DramaAlert. It's definitely not a good way to handle that though.

What is it with Google (amongst other companies) wanting to intentionally crash their own websites? Because this, if it remains, will end up in a competitor popping up.
[snip for conspiratorial ranting]
At this point Google and Facebook are led by people who want them to fail, there is no rational explanation other then that. Someone much have bought enough stock of both that pissed off the administrators of both sites enough to want to see them crash.

You have absolutely zero clue about what you're talking about. Youtube actually doesn't bring in a net profit, and causes a significant pain in the ass to run. That's also why the magical competitor service that everyone keeps saying needs to come and take away their business doesn't crop up. It's nothing to do with crashing a successful business. It is very hard to defend rationality when one starts from false pretenses

They almost certainly are trying to make them more advertiser friendly and sanitised, case in point, the TOS update is about monetisation, and that's regretable, but it in no way is some attempt to drive it into the ground, in fact, it's about avoiding that. That trying to get more advertisers and a larger market share necessitiates being blander, more polite, and less potentially offensive. You can't argue for the profit motive and then against moves made with one. That is entirely irrational. You don't give a flying fuck about their business, you just want to defend a certain style of content. Which is fine, just be fucking honest.

Social Studies.

Social Studies (History) uses primary source documents, at least thats were I know I got the term. Whatevs, I provided a source, its reliability is whats debatable, but I trust it IMO.

Shit like dramaalert is a cancer, but like it or not Keemstar provides a service people want. If TMZ has a right to exist, so does Dramaalert. Theres literally no difference.