So uh, way to go Youtube

[MCProductions]

Okay, so I usually avoid this board as my religious, political, and just values in general would typically turn anything into a clusterfuck rather quickly, but this new "policy" on Youtube concerns me to say the least. Sure, I know my beliefs are rather controversial, but at least I feel I can post them on social media without the site itself saying "no, your beliefs are wrong" even if the comments most likely will. Bullshit like this is just wrong. I get copyright strikes on Youtube's site, but "Advertiser Friendly" sounds more to me like a easy way to get away with saying "Only our beliefs"

[Ken Masters]

Youtube is a company. As such, it needs to make money, and the money comes from it's partners and advertising revenue.

Now, many of its partners don't want to be associated with some of the more controversial stuff. For example, imagine one of these "Drama channels" is in the middle of reporting a rape allegation (which unfortunately is extremely common) a Pepsi ad pops up. That's not what Pepsi wants to be asociated to.

Youtube is protecting it's more valuable resource: partnership with other companies. Not content creators, but ads.

Youtube has all the rights to do so.

Now, it's etically correct? That's a talk I'm definetly looking forward to see.

[Water Mage]

This mess will be fun to watch!

There hasn't been a mess like this for while.

The internet is gonna go crazy! Well, crazier than usual.

Also, here are the conditions:

In other words, 90% of the youtube videos won't be able to be monetized.

Won't be long before they realize that their money is going down the drain.

How long before they take this back?

I'm genuinely curious to see how this thing will turn out.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Water Mage

[MCProductions]

Youtube is a company. As such, it needs to make money, and the money comes from it's partners and advertising revenue.

Now, many of its partners don't want to be associated with some of the more controversial stuff. For example, imagine one of these "Drama channels" is in the middle of reporting a rape allegation (which unfortunately is extremely common) a Pepsi ad pops up. That's not what Pepsi wants to be asociated to.

Youtube is protecting it's more valuable resource: partnership with other companies. Not content creators, but ads.

Youtube has all the rights to do so.

Now, it's etically correct? That's a talk I'm definetly looking forward to see.

That raises a hypocrisy issue for me tho, why the hell is Pepsi fine with having their ads on say something like South Park or Family Guy, but not something like the AVGN who btw breaks these new regulations? They shouldn't, and I usually have a major bias for business rights.

Edited September 1, 2016 by MCProductions

[Time the Crestfallen]

No vulgar language or sexual humour? Good luck with that.

Seriously, these criteria are way too broad and easily abusable.

[Rezzy]

I'm all for free markets and letting private companies do what they want, but the problem is Youtube is basically a monopoly now. There's no other user created video uploading site that can compete with it. Unless the antitrust laws come and bust it, freedom of speech needs to be protected on it, since it's the only game in town so to speak, and it becomes an echo chambers if only "approved" views can be monetized.

[Water Mage]

Egoraptor explained a lot of things about this in his Twitter.

I'm on a mobile right now, could someone post it for me?

[Ken Masters]

That raises a hypocrisy issue for me tho, why the hell is Pepsi fine with having their ads on say something like South Park or Family Guy, but not something like the AVGN who btw breaks these new regulations? They shouldn't, and I usually have a major bias for business rights.

I'm not saying it's optimal, or anything.

I just pointed out the thought process behind YouTube's new policy.

I do think it's a self-destructing measure.... at best. Youtubers that rely on Patreon will not mind, but the rest will suffer from this.

Still, at least 70% (citation needed, I read this not so long ago and I can't yet find the source) of YouTube's traffic comes from un-registered casual viewers, that go for short viral videos. Not the Content Creators that grind their subscriber count day by day.

[Life]

Now I really want to see next week's episode of Louder with Crowder.

Crowder was saying that Facebook tried to screw him (after he paid them money to advertise), he legally sued them and won. I want to see if YouTube will pull down his stuff due to him being a hardcore Conservative.

[Raguna]

I sometimes have to ask myself if these measures are just an extension of companies following the trend of "not offending" someone due to how things are expressed and done. I can understand that basic respect and courtesy must exist between human beings but denying one's freedom to vent to alleviate oneself isn't exactly healthy and while of course people should avoid using too much cussing or the like, we're not robots and these things happen regardless.

On the last point Water Mage demonstrated, we can't just ignore certain topics because it could possibly hurt other peoples feeling. They need to be discussed in order to cause some sort of progression. If no one spoke about the impact of wars in other countries in their videos in a way, then how would people be aware of the issue in more peaceful areas if they weren't much to reading the local paper or news. Also if you don't like the video in question, you can simply not watch it and keep on with your life simple as that.

The world's gotten too sensitive, getting offended over the tiniest of details. Companies are scared of losing money or people so they appease them but in cases like these, you'll just end up self-destructing yourself in no time.

[eclipse]

This mess will be fun to watch!

There hasn't been a mess like this for while.

The internet is gonna go crazy! Well, crazier than usual.

Also, here are the conditions:

In other words, 90% of the youtube videos won't be able to be monetized.

Won't be long before they realize that their money is going down the drain.

How long before they take this back?

I'm genuinely curious to see how this thing will turn out.

Quoting this so I can attempt to figure out what the hell is going through their heads, while giving them the benefit of the doubt. In order:

- Hmmm, first one could either be to get rid of racy previews for the kids, or to maybe curtail revenge porn. Money's on the former.

- Probably there in an attempt to keep the violent extremist videos in check.

- Videos made to bully others.

- Reads like CYA.

- Getting rid of the really hateful conspiracy things (like Holocaust deniers).

It makes great sense from a business standpoint, because it's basically YouTube's way of saying "we won't let you make money off of these things which look pretty bad at first blush". It's a lot trickier from an ethics standpoint, because part of this list flirts with the law (like drugs/extremist violence), and I doubt YouTube enjoys entertaining subpoenas, and there's very little explanation of just how much is too much.

Overall, this is going to be a hell of a shitstorm.

[Rezzy]

Quoting this so I can attempt to figure out what the hell is going through their heads, while giving them the benefit of the doubt. In order:

- Hmmm, first one could either be to get rid of racy previews for the kids, or to maybe curtail revenge porn. Money's on the former.

- Probably there in an attempt to keep the violent extremist videos in check.

- Videos made to bully others.

- Reads like CYA.

- Getting rid of the really hateful conspiracy things (like Holocaust deniers).

It makes great sense from a business standpoint, because it's basically YouTube's way of saying "we won't let you make money off of these things which look pretty bad at first blush". It's a lot trickier from an ethics standpoint, because part of this list flirts with the law (like drugs/extremist violence), and I doubt YouTube enjoys entertaining subpoenas, and there's very little explanation of just how much is too much.

Overall, this is going to be a hell of a shitstorm.

It's seems like it would be easily abused. If they were doing it "for the children", I'm not sure how hard it would be to implement a "safe search" option, since it's been engulfed by Google, anyway. Pretty much everything on Youtube falls into at least one of those categories.

What I really hope comes from this is a rival company to fill the void that Youtube creates by alienating 90% of its user base. Youtube and Google could use some competition.

[eclipse]

It's seems like it would be easily abused. If they were doing it "for the children", I'm not sure how hard it would be to implement a "safe search" option, since it's been engulfed by Google, anyway. Pretty much everything on Youtube falls into at least one of those categories.

What I really hope comes from this is a rival company to fill the void that Youtube creates by alienating 90% of its user base. Youtube and Google could use some competition.

I'm talking about the recommended videos, off to the side. While watching a video for some obscure musc, one of the preview clips I saw was some lady holding her bra up.

EDIT: Clarity

Edited September 1, 2016 by eggclipse

[Tryhard]

Considering how much youtube already doesn't follow their own guidelines, it's going to be some arbitrary bullshit where they don't even try to be consistent.

The biggest channels will still be safe, because they make the money.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Tryhard

[Time the Crestfallen]

It's seems like it would be easily abused. If they were doing it "for the children", I'm not sure how hard it would be to implement a "safe search" option, since it's been engulfed by Google, anyway. Pretty much everything on Youtube falls into at least one of those categories.

What I really hope comes from this is a rival company to fill the void that Youtube creates by alienating 90% of its user base. Youtube and Google could use some competition.

I'm not sorry.

[Rezzy]

I'm talking about the recommended videos, off to the side. While watching a video for some obscure musc, one of the preview clips I saw was some lady holding her bra up.

EDIT: Clarity

True, but I think this solution is like slitting your throat to stop your nose from bleeding. I think it might be better to make some sort of "kid mode" that filters out those things, if wanted. I know I don't want my son seeing everything I watch on Youtube, but I try to monitor what he has access to, and would rather just keep him away from Youtube entirely, rather than have vague arbitrary monetization rules creating an echo chamber. He's also reaching the age where I can't walk around naked at home anymore.

I'm not sorry.

I knew someone would post that eventually.

[twice]

Maybe they should just implement a better restricted program. So that people that are easily offended by controversial topics or whatever, don't see it? I don't know.

I don't get content being removed if it isn't hurting someone.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrOYVnqUMAE10if.jpg:large Not my account, but this is already getting out of hand.

[eclipse]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrOYVnqUMAE10if.jpg:large Not my account, but this is already getting out of hand.

. . .never mind, YouTube's stance can bite me. Like, this is one of those policies where mod explanation should be detailed and required, and this is neither.

[Rezzy]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrOYVnqUMAE10if.jpg:large Not my account, but this is already getting out of hand.

Sonic is controversial now? It's not even Sonic 2006!

Darn it, the Console wars of the early 90s are long over.

[Life]

Well, Crowder is gonna SCREWED.

This is an excellent way for YouTube to clamp down on political videos that are contrary to YouTube's wants. Twitter did a similar thing and Facebook has also been slightly shady.

For companies that are only as good as the trust that they sell, this is going to hurt them overall.

[Time the Crestfallen]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrOYVnqUMAE10if.jpg:large Not my account, but this is already getting out of hand.

Eat your heart out Archaon, we already have our sign of the End Times.

EDIT: Maybe 'controversial' means anything with a certain percentage of dislikes if stuff like this is getting demonetised

Edited September 1, 2016 by Phillius

[Ebony]

Isn't this technically shooting themselves in the foot more then anything else? I doubt they'll be getting much cash flow and such due to... well.... a good number of popular content being of the un-advertiser friendly type?

[The Geek]

Eat your heart out Archaon, we already have our sign of the End Times.

EDIT: Maybe 'controversial' means anything with a certain percentage of dislikes if stuff like this is getting demonetised

I think this is a reasonable assumption for what Youtube may use to measure "controversy". Probably the only way they could get their bots to do it, unless they looked for certain key words which could cause a lot of problems in both the "flagging the wrong kind of videos" and "bias against certain views" senses.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrOYVnqUMAE10if.jpg:large Not my account, but this is already getting out of hand.

I know this is supposed to be a serious discussion, but this is hilarious.

Honestly, Youtube has always been hard on smaller channels and enacting dumb policies. Hopefully they do realize that this is a big mistake and retract these restrictions.

[Azure Sen]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrOYVnqUMAE10if.jpg:large Not my account, but this is already getting out of hand.

That's actually fake. The LPer in question posted a couple of joke edited e-mails on his Twitter, and apparently someone missed the joke.

Egoraptor explained a lot of things about this in his Twitter.

I'm on a mobile right now, could someone post it for me?

To summarize, Egoraptor e-mailed YouTube about the issue and they replied back that this isn't an actual change in policy, it's just clarifying existing policy. These sorts of strikes were already happening, and the rules were only revised because it was apparantly unclear why the strikes were happening in the first place.

Relevant tweets here, here, here, and here.

Edited September 1, 2016 by AzureSen