Youtube Demonitization of Videos

[gourimoko]

So because your world view is different than sunshine and rainbows and kids only content then you have no right to be paid?

Where does the concept of "rights" come from?

You understand content creators sign contracts with YouTube to get paid, right? YT's job in this relationship is to sell products while meeting ToS. The content YT pushes and the products YT pushes have to meet corporate standards.

If you want to rub your dick on a camera for 25 minutes and post it online, that does not mean YT/Google has an obligation to dole out cash to you.

Also if I review an Xbox game Sony can complain that their ad is on that and boom gone.

First off, what you just said is not true. The only thing Sony can do is protect their IP. This is what Nintendo does by issuing out copyright strikes.

Secondly, even if it were true, I'd be totally okay with this.

If I'm Sony, why on Earth would I pay you to advertise Xbox games???

But with that said, it isn't true, and Sony does not have this kind of micromanagement level of control over individual advertisements on individual videos. You cannot be blacklisted from the partner program or monetization simply for reviewing an Xbox game (unless the IP holder issues a copyright strike).

Also you have no grounds to fight it.

First off, what you just said is false. And secondly, of course you shouldn't have grounds to fight it because it's YT's platform. Who are you going to fight?

I'm a bit miffed; because I don't really understand your view here.. It seems like you feel content creators are entitled to money. And that YT must come up with money for creators, and that money is rightfully owed to creators.

You understand it works the other way round, right?

I am sorry but anyone can find anything offensive. That is my issue this is very subjective and quite frankly bs.

So what?

Again, you're behaving as though the creators are being denied something that is intrinsically theirs; again, you reference their "right" to get paid. Paid for what??

If you hire someone to do a job, and they don't do what you asked them, and you pay them and say "ok, from now on it must be like this, xyz;" does that person then have a right to demand that you pay them without them doing what you, the person who hired them, has asked?

What kind of sense does this make?

What kind of sense does it make to suggest YouTube and it's ad partners cannot determine what content it is or is not willing to pay for?

Where do people think this money is coming from?? YT isn't printing it in backrooms; Google has to sell that ad space; and again, (especially in the Google Adwords space), this is something I'm very familiar with from the business end of it.

It's insane to think that any video regardless of content should be eligible for monetization.

It is YouTubes right. I have said that but again it is a form of censorship

Booya.... how is this censorship?? That makes literally zero sense.

The videos are not getting pulled... and videos that are getting pulled are because they violate ToS.

Honestly man, I'm really trying to understand your viewpoint here because personally I reject arguments for censorship and safe spaces and free speech zones and all that bullshit.. but this is not "censorship."

 

[gourimoko]

Tyt got 19 of their videos demonized for this

And more will be coming...

So what?

 

[BooyaCS]

Where does the concept of "rights" come from?

You understand content creators sign contracts with YouTube to get paid, right? YT's job in this relationship is to sell products while meeting ToS. The content YT pushes and the products YT pushes have to meet corporate standards.

If you want to rub your dick on a camera for 25 minutes and post it online, that does not mean YT/Google has an obligation to dole out cash to you.



First off, what you just said is not true. The only thing Sony can do is protect their IP. This is what Nintendo does by issuing out copyright strikes.

Secondly, even if it were true, I'd be totally okay with this.

If I'm Sony, why on Earth would I pay you to advertise Xbox games???

But with that said, it isn't true, and Sony does not have this kind of micromanagement level of control over individual advertisements on individual videos. You cannot be blacklisted from the partner program or monetization simply for reviewing an Xbox game (unless the IP holder issues a copyright strike).



First off, what you just said is false. And secondly, of course you shouldn't have grounds to fight it because it's YT's platform. Who are you going to fight?

I'm a bit miffed; because I don't really understand your view here.. It seems like you feel content creators are entitled to money. And that YT must come up with money for creators, and that money is rightfully owed to creators.

You understand it works the other way round, right?



So what?

Again, you're behaving as though the creators are being denied something that is intrinsically theirs; again, you reference their "right" to get paid. Paid for what??

If you hire someone to do a job, and they don't do what you asked them, and you pay them and say "ok, from now on it must be like this, xyz;" does that person then have a right to demand that you pay them without them doing what you, the person who hired them, has asked?

What kind of sense does this make?

What kind of sense does it make to suggest YouTube and it's ad partners cannot determine what content it is or is not willing to pay for?



Booya.... how is this censorship?? That makes literally zero sense.

The videos are not getting pulled... and videos that are getting pulled are because they violate ToS.

The TOS is too vauge. Secondly if I dI'd something in violation of that TOS I should know what the violation was and why it was flagged.

So again if you had a video up for 2 years and was making money off of it and now 2 years later it is demonitized with no reason given shouldn't you know why you lost revenue?

Lastly bans are happening as well

 

[gourimoko]

The TOS is too vauge.

Is it? How so?

Don't make offensive content. Don't you understand YOUTUBE determines what is or is not offensive?

What content are you referring to that violates ToS and shouldn't?

Secondly if I dI'd something in violation of that TOS I should know what the violation was and why it was flagged.

I'm not sure to what instance you're referring to, but, when YouTube suspends accounts it generally provides a reasoning. However, you have no right to due process on YouTube; this isn't the U.S. government, it's a private corporation.

You shouldn't have much of an expectation as to their expenditure of resources and capital in order to review your videos personally and somehow give you specific reasoning behind being banned (even though this is generally what they do).

So again if you had a video up for 2 years and was making money off of it and now 2 years later it is demonitized with no reason given shouldn't you know why you lost revenue?

The reason was given.. The reason is in the OP.... What do you mean, without reason?

Lastly bans are happening as well

Bans are happening for violations of ToS... Why shouldn't YT ban individuals who publish what YT itself finds objectionable??

 

[Maximus]

Thanks a lot, Obama...

 

[gourimoko]

@BooyaCS

Think about this for a second...

YouTube, you agree, is the only one entitled to any rights here.
YouTube has a business relationship with advertisers selling products.
YouTube offers to share revenue generated from ads, but content must meet certain standards.

Those standards are set by YouTube in consultation with advertisers and viewers; but ultimately, YouTube gets final say in what it will or won't pay for.

So YouTube is saying "we won't pay for content that is either a, b, or c; just a heads up;" and now somehow that amounts to censorship and fuck YouTube?

I really really really don't get this. Isn't this indignation somewhat hypocritical? It seems to be rooted in an appeal to freedom of speech, but the only entity that enjoys such a freedom is YouTube/Google. They are the ones paying for the platform to exist... They own it, and they made it.

So why are content creators, who are being told upfront "no thanks," somehow entitled to YouTube's corporate profits, profits they themselves did not earn, profits that were generated from advertisements that will no longer play on their videos??

???????????

This makes no logical sense.

 

[BooyaCS]

@BooyaCS

Think about this for a second...

YouTube, you agree, is the only one entitled to any rights here.
YouTube has a business relationship with advertisers selling products.
YouTube offers to share revenue generated from ads, but content must meet certain standards.

Those standards are set by YouTube in consultation with advertisers and viewers; but ultimately, YouTube gets final say in what it will or won't pay for.

So YouTube is saying "we won't pay for content that is either a, b, or c; just a heads up;" and now somehow that amounts to censorship and fuck YouTube?

I really really really don't get this. Isn't this indignation somewhat hypocritical? It seems to be rooted in an appeal to freedom of speech, but the only entity that enjoys such a freedom is YouTube/Google. They are the ones paying for the platform to exist... They own it, and they made it.

So why are content creators, who are being told upfront "no thanks," somehow entitled to YouTube's corporate profits, profits they themselves did not earn, profits that were generated from advertisements that will no longer play on their videos??

???????????

This makes no logical sense.

What is offensive or controversial? What is their definition? As a business partner you would expect them to tell you explicitly what is and isn't allowed. Instead it is left open to subjectivity

 

[KI4MVP]

The TOS is too vauge. Secondly if I dI'd something in violation of that TOS I should know what the violation was and why it was flagged.

So again if you had a video up for 2 years and was making money off of it and now 2 years later it is demonitized with no reason given shouldn't you know why you lost revenue?

Lastly bans are happening as well

you tube can't ban anyone from the internet, they can just ban them from youtube. if anyone has content that stands along and doesn't leverage the youtube brand, build a web site and post it there. It's not that hard to post videos online.

 

[BooyaCS]

you tube can't ban anyone from the internet, they can just ban them from youtube. if anyone has content that stands along and doesn't leverage the youtube brand, build a web site and post it there. It's not that hard to post videos online.

What is offensive or controversial material. So basically any company that doesn't like anything (anything) that doesn't like what is posted can just call Youtube and get it removed. Effectively corporations in this country dictate who has the right to voice their opinion and what opinion that is.

And the whole build a website and post it there. Until someone gets butthurt and sues you because they have more money and more power and effectively shutting down your opinion or voice.

Sorry this just screams Orwell... Welcome to the Nanny state where Corporations can dictate what opinions you have...

 

[gourimoko]

What is offensive or controversial? What is their definition? As a business partner you would expect them to tell you explicitly what is and isn't allowed. Instead it is left open to subjectivity

Certain things are common sense, no?

For example: nudity, profanity is objectionable no? I mean, if I was cursing and flashing my dick to people that'd be considered objectionable, right?

Racism, or really an -ism, is by definition, objectionable.. We don't need to argue this right?

People dying is generally not family material; that could be objectionable by the definition YouTube put forward.

I mean, this is pretty straight forward.

Also, they did put forward a list of subjects that outlined where they're going with this; and yes, it's their money, they have ever right to be subjective -- we're talking about judging content on their platform, this isn't a math equation.

 

[gourimoko]

What is offensive or controversial material. So basically any company that doesn't like anything (anything) that doesn't like what is posted can just call Youtube and get it removed.

Are there any examples of this happening in the "anything" case?

If you mean "offensive" material; why is YouTube as a corporation obligated to give a platform to what it and it's partners subjectively find offensive? Why is there a requirement for objectivity here?

Effectively corporations in this country dictate who has the right to voice their opinion and what opinion that is.

@KI4MVP just referenced YouTube. We're talking about YouTube, not freedom of speech.

What you are saying Booya, is that your freedom of speech somehow trumps YouTube's... Why? You are on their private platform; their corporate platform. In fact, the people complaining are complaining about YouTube's money..

YouTube could tell them to fuck off and still would make billions. They don't have to revenue share with videos that they feel don't fit their platform.

This has nothing to do with corporate power and everything to do with understanding how YouTube is a business platform run by a private corporation. This is within YouTube's rights, as a corporation, to express itself. It seems people don't realize YouTube is a part of Google, and Google is a corporation.

And the whole build a website and post it there. Until someone gets butthurt and sues you because they have more money and more power and effectively shutting down your opinion or voice.

How can someone sue you over your website and "get you shutdown?" I build websites for a living, I've never heard of something like that happening in the United States unless you committed a crime.

And think about this Booya.. Who is "butthurt" in this situation? Is it YouTube?

Who is the indignant person in this conversation? Again, who is "butthurt?"

It's the people who want to turn YouTube into a playground and simultaneously want to get paid for it. It's the people screaming "censorship" when there's no such thing happening.

Sorry this just screams Orwell...

This is not a government action...

Welcome to the Nanny state where Corporations can dictate what opinions you have...

Bro......

This is not a state action; there is no "Nanny state" here...

YouTube is not dictating anything to anyone...

YouTube is saying (1) we will not pay you to produce certain kinds of content; and (2) we will ban you if you make offensive material.

How is that Orwellian? How is that anything to do with the "State?" And what does this have to do with dictating what personal opinions are or are not allowed??

 

[KI4MVP]

What is offensive or controversial material. So basically any company that doesn't like anything (anything) that doesn't like what is posted can just call Youtube and get it removed. Effectively corporations in this country dictate who has the right to voice their opinion and what opinion that is.

And the whole build a website and post it there. Until someone gets butthurt and sues you because they have more money and more power and effectively shutting down your opinion or voice.

Sorry this just screams Orwell... Welcome to the Nanny state where Corporations can dictate what opinions you have...

the advertisers aren't removing anything, they just aren't advertising on everything. It's certainly their right to decide what content their ads should be associated with. And if YouTube can't guarantee that, they won't advertise there.

And in the issue being discussed, YouTube isn't banning videos, they are simply excluding them from the advertising and associated revenue. YouTube makes revenue on the ads they run too, it doesn't all go to the content creators. If YouTube is blocking ads from some content, it's because the advertising revenue they would lose without doing so is greater than the advertising content they would generate running ads there.

The quoted text in the original post says just that - content that isn't advertiser friendly won't generate advertising revenue on YouTube. Plenty of other companies make plenty of money providing content on web sites other than YouTube.

If the revenue generated by the content represents a person's livelihood, and their content isn't advertiser friendly to youtube's broad advertiser base, build a web site that is supported by more targeted advertisers.

 

[BooyaCS]

the advertisers aren't removing anything, they just aren't advertising on everything. It's certainly their right to decide what content their ads should be associated with. And if YouTube can't guarantee that, they won't advertise there.

And in the issue being discussed, YouTube isn't banning videos, they are simply excluding them from the advertising and associated revenue. YouTube makes revenue on the ads they run too, it doesn't all go to the content creators. If YouTube is blocking ads from some content, it's because the advertising revenue they would lose without doing so is greater than the advertising content they would generate running ads there.

The quoted text in the original post says just that - content that isn't advertiser friendly won't generate advertising revenue on YouTube. Plenty of other companies make plenty of money providing content on web sites other than YouTube.

If the revenue generated by the content represents a person's livelihood, and their content isn't advertiser friendly to youtube's broad advertiser base, build a web site that is supported by more targeted advertisers.

Here is the thing YouTube takes 45% of the ad revenue of each video per hit. The more views on a video the more money YouTube takes. They don't make that much money on the ad sales they make more money on the revenue brought in by the views of those videos.

Also you are getting into a flagging war where ANYONE that views anything as offensive it gets flagged/demonitized/banned.

 

[KI4MVP]

Here is the thing YouTube takes 45% of the ad revenue of each video per hit. The more views on a video the more money YouTube takes. They don't make that much money on the ad sales they make more money on the revenue brought in by the views of those videos.

This makes no sense at all. The money YouTube makes from the views of videos comes from the ads they sell to run with the videos. That's why they only allow "advertiser friendly" videos to be monetized. The very first question on the page to sign up to be monetized is this

How can my videos make money

Once your video is submitted and approved for monetization, YouTube will place ads inside or near the video. After you’ve associated an AdSense account with your YouTube account, you will earn revenue that is generated from the ads
​

And when you click the more info there, you get this:

You upload original, quality content that is advertiser-friendly
​

YouTube sells ads, they place them in or near videos, they share the the revenue from those ads with the content creators. Videos that are not advertiser-friendly can still be posted, YouTube just isn't going to run ads with that content, thus has no revenue to share.

And, again, YouTube isn't the only way to make money from ads associated with content on the internet. There are tons of sites outside of YouTube that generate their own content and are supported by advertiser revenue. Others are supported by subscription.

 

[gourimoko]

Here is the thing YouTube takes 45% of the ad revenue of each video per hit. The more views on a video the more money YouTube takes. They don't make that much money on the ad sales they make more money on the revenue brought in by the views of those videos.

Booya, that's not how YouTube earns money. This is not how it works.

YouTube sells ad space on it's platform to it's ad partners; this is a one-to-many relationship with the ad partners paying YouTube/Google directly. The content creators have no relationship, financial or otherwise, with the ad partners through YouTube.

YouTube's role in this relationship is to develop and maintain an algorithm that will place ads on relevant content.

YouTube has offered a 55/45 split of revenue sharing to encourage content creators to make content that will generate views; but also content that appeals to advertisers.

For some reason, you think views themselves generate revenue; when this is false. Views are monetized through advertisements. Those advertisements are paid for by YouTube's ad partners, and the ad partners AND YouTube together are suggesting the platform needs revision.

Also you are getting into a flagging war where ANYONE that views anything as offensive it gets flagged/demonitized/banned.

Not really, this is just a slippery slope argument.

Most of the topics that were demonitized were legitimately demonitized. Finding edge cases to this seems to be a trend on YT/Twitter right now, but, much of the content that I've seen get hit (like TYT's videos) seem to clearly fit the bill and are not advertiser-friendly.

Moreover, if the community-at-large finds a video objectionable, then, by definition, it is objectionable. That's what "objectionable" means.

So yes, if enough people say "we don't want this here" then it won't be there.

What's the problem with that? Again, YT is not a platform to exercise free speech; and as @KI4MVP stated, you are totally free to build your own platform for that purpose.