YouTube goes to Advertiser-Friendly

[DigDog]

have you guys seen this ?

google link: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=y...0j69i57j0l4.5295j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

according to several raging professional youtubers, YouTube now will no longer monetize (i.e. pay for views) videos which are not advertiser friendly: containing swear words, covering difficult material (for example, anti-suicide support groups), and vaguely "not cool with kids"; anything which is controversial or adult-themed.

now, i personally despise people who see youtube as a work platform, who make videos for the sole purpose of making money off the views. The fact that some of them will lose the advertisement revenue only makes me happy.
Unfortunately, it seems that the people hit by this "ban" (you can still upload videos, only the money doesn't roll in anymore) will be mostly the fun ones, while the "made for kids" videos such as PewDiePie and Yogscast will continue to rule supreme.

On the rational side, shouldn't it be that views equate interest? thus videos which have high views, if they contain "questionable" material, are profitable *because* they do; obviously the public has a demand for that kind of stuff.

 

[lxskllr]

They should host themselves, and put up a donate button.

 

[Imp]

From what I've seen, Adsense was always billed as a "family friendly" service and the terms & conditions were pretty clear on the no "adult" stuff. This was for websites, but I assumed it was similar for videos.

However, I have heard that, like all things in life, there are the rules for the peasants and the "rules" for the rich -- replace peasants with low income earners/low view counts and rich with high earners/high views.

 

[Newbian]

Unfortunately, it seems that the people hit by this "ban" (you can still upload videos, only the money doesn't roll in anymore) will be mostly the fun ones, while the "made for kids" videos such as PewDiePie and Yogscast will continue to rule supreme.

I take it you never have watched either of those channels to know they are not made for kids?

Pew is just horrible with bad editing and short videos he spams out and a lot of yogs have nasty language / material but at least most of their individual channels are decent.

 

[Imp]

^The one or two Pew videos I've seen, he kept clipping his microphone every few seconds. So god damn annoying, had to turn them off.

 

[DigDog]

i watched about 30 seconds of pewdipie and was horrified. but i had to endure many a yogscast and from what i see, its two or more guys pretending to be weird characters while playing minecraft. neither seems to contain any offensive material, but then again i'm not an expert.

 

[Dr. Detroit]

YouTube is just enforcing this, it has always been this way. The IAB which governs online advertising and YouTube sells using these T&C's to agencies contains clauses which says "family friendly" advertising will not be placed on sites containing porn, hacking or other subject matter. IAB has been in existence for 20yrs or so.

Advertisers also have a choice of ensuring their advertising only is on "clean" music/videos with no cursing.

Advertisers do not want to associate themselves with this content. I'm guessing YouTube was not enforcing and some ad agencies saw their advertising on these channels and threw a fit. It's in the contract!

 

[Linux23]

So less ads then?

 

[twinrider1]

Raging YouTubers don't have a leg to stand on. They aren't being oppressed or censored in any way. It's just business.

 

[Elixer]

So, in other words, it is a way to keep the ads, and not pay anyone for the content because of strict rules.
Seems about right.
Google laughs all the way to the bank.

 

[twinrider1]

Elixer, are there ads on videos that aren't monetized? I didn't think so, but I'm not a creator.....and I use adblock.

Some are calling it a form of censorship. I disagree. YouTube is well within their rights to protect their advertisers.
But there appear to be three legitimate issues:
1. The wide net of the algorithm being used to demonetize videos.
2. The lack of communication. It appears that there are videos that had been demonetized for months before the creator was notified.
3. There is an appeal process, but creators are losing bucks as views rack up during the appeal process.

 

[Ruptga]

Some are calling it a form of censorship. I disagree. YouTube is well within their rights to protect their advertisers.

TIL: suppressing undesirable speech is not censorship as long as the suppressor has the right to do it.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Anybody who used to post videos for grown ups who is losing their income stream should consider trying to join a different network.
It would be awesome if Swearnet grew and grew and grew until it was the "adults only nonporn comparable to youtube"

(NSFW NSFW!!!!!!) https://www.swearnet.com/ (NSFW NSFW!!!!!!)

 

[Newbian]

Anybody who used to post videos for grown ups who is losing their income stream should consider trying to join a different network.
It would be awesome if Swearnet grew and grew and grew until it was the "adults only nonporn comparable to youtube"

(NSFW NSFW!!!!!!) https://www.swearnet.com/ (NSFW NSFW!!!!!!)

The problem is there is no other network even close to youtube in members / viewers especially when so many have such horrible video players.

 

[Imp]

The problem is there is no other network even close to youtube in members / viewers especially when so many have such horrible video players.

One of the alternatives I almost never use likes to refresh the ads every few seconds during a video...

 

[zinfamous]

TIL: suppressing undesirable speech is not censorship as long as the suppressor has the right to do it.

you didn't learn that in this thread.

 

[twinrider1]

TIL: suppressing undesirable speech is not censorship as long as the suppressor has the right to do it.

You are free to make any video you want. I, as an advertiser, don't have to run my ad on your video and don't have to pay you.

 

[master_shake_]

TIL youtube has ads.

weird.

 

[Red Squirrel]

TIL youtube has ads.

weird.

I always forget about this myself, and am rudely reminded when I try to use it on a machine that has no adblocker.

10 second cat video, 30 second unskippable ad

 

[Newbian]

You are free to make any video you want. I, as an advertiser, don't have to run my ad on your video and don't have to pay you.

The problem is this is not the advertisers choice but googles as they prevent such ad's from being used on certain videos.

Not to mention this could get peoples channels removed from youtube because of their 3 strike rule and a lot of actual news videos have had this happen because the "news" they talk about is deemed inappropriate yet you can see it on any normal tv news shows.

 

[Ruptga]

You are free to make any video you want. I, as an advertiser, don't have to run my ad on your video and don't have to pay you.

And it's still censorship.

I didn't say they were wrong, I said they're censoring speech. If that fact makes you uncomfortable enough that you feel the need to defend them, maybe they're wrong as well.

 

[Meghan54]

And it's still censorship.

How so? These persons who've had their videos demonetized are now unable to post a video on youtube? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Nashemon]

How so? These persons who've had their videos demonetized are now unable to post a video on youtube? Is that what you're saying?

No, that's not what he is saying. Censorship doesn't mean what you think it does if that's what you think he's saying.

Imagine you're a comedian. Your audience loves the way you tell your jokes. However, the best comedy club in town suddenly decides your jokes are too dirty. They aren't going to pay you to perform there unless you clean them up. However, if you clean them up, your jokes won't be as funny and you'll lose your audience.

Like it or not, some people do make a living on Youtube. You can say anything you want, but if you say these things or in this way, you're not getting paid. That's censorship.

 

[twinrider1]

I use words as they are defined. Either they are stopping you from speaking or they are not. They aren't. The issue of payment isn't a factor.

And YouTube is under no obligation to it's content providers, none. They could end monetization across the board tomorrow and nobody could say dick about it.

People make a living digging coal. I'm not obligated to support them if I put solar panels on my roof.

Now, since both sides here are dug in, I could look for a middle ground and look to the origin of the term. To censor is to assess. If you want to say censorship is just reviewing content, I could go for that. But in today's world, most people look at censorship with only negative connotations. In the same way discriminate is almost always taken as a bad thing when really it just means making a distinction between things.

 

[Imp]

I get most of my money from Google's advertising for shitty online videos... but I blame me for not diversifying and/or having a product that no one else wants to pay me for.