So uh, way to go Youtube

[Espinosa]

Don't get the fuss at all; not sure if it can affect anything of consequence.

[Moblin Major General]

Don't get the fuss at all; not sure if it can affect anything of consequence.

If you want to make money on YouTube, you have to avoid basically what happens on YouTube, which kinda sucks for anyone who isn't a major youtuber (2 mil+ subs).

[Ken Masters]

Don't get the fuss at all; not sure if it can affect anything of consequence.

YouTube works with automathed systems. It compares a bunch of samples to its own videos for copyright strikes and community strikes.

Assuch, chances are that the new strikes will hit a massive amount of channels with certain keywords being used.

For starters, all prank channels are at the very edge of the drop, so are drama channels and politically incorrect ones.

After that, every content creator that doesn't have the cleanest of mouths.

3 strikes, and you're out, suspended from YouTube.

Edited September 1, 2016 by 20XX

[Espinosa]

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en&pageId=112591426142112458787

So if I'm reading this correctly, this prevents YouTubers from making money off arbitrary shit and isn't in any way related to account strikes and whatnot?

Neither I nor anyone I watch makes money off their uploads, so this doesn't sound too bad if it's exactly what it sounds like and nothing more.

[shadowofchaos]

Read egoraptor's tweets linked above.

It feels like nothing is really going to change. Just policy clarification.

[Rezzy]

It mostly affects medium sized channels, with people who try to live off their videos, but aren't the behemoths that YouTube wouldn't want to lose.

[Tryhard]

I do make money off the youtube channel that I have (even though I pretty much put it on hiatus) and so far I haven't seen anything, but I pretty much only exclusively played games.

these were youtubes original guidelines. Funnily enough, a lot of those prank channels were already violating these guidelines and yet did not receive any repercussions because they had violence/fights or harassment in their videos.

etc

Neither I nor anyone I watch makes money off their uploads, so this doesn't sound too bad if it's exactly what it sounds like and nothing more.

So because of that, it does not matter? Edited September 1, 2016 by Tryhard

[Moblin Major General]

etc

Why do I think that GradeAUnderA is going to have a field day with this?

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

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.

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.

whoops i feel silly now, my bad for posting a joke.

[Espinosa]

So because of that, it does not matter?

I'm sure it does for some, but should it really be seen in a negative light? The rules had always been active before their recent discovery and are so vague they might not see any apparent implementation. After all, people have got into trouble for sharing critical videos of media before.

If we are to look at this issue from the perspective of YouTube partners maximising their monetary gain (as you implied, "somebody out there cares"), then it only seems like a beneficial change if you ask me. There's no stricter punishment or policy compared to what was the case in the past, and now partners struggling to offer anything of substance can exchange a new kind of viral clickbait videos with titles alongside IS THIS THE END OF YOUTUBE and ascend to a new level of commercial cyber attention-whoring.

...but that's only assuming there isn't more to this than what has been made public.

[Tryhard]

You are right, this is something that youtube has been trying to do for a while. Every once in a while they get anal about certain videos and then after they realise they can't really restrict everything they go back to how they are normally. But as for stricter punishment, there is still the possibility of copyright strikes and removal of channels over monetization, that hasn't gone away.

Though it looks to be more to the benefit of youtube advertisers than youtube partners in my opinion.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Tryhard

[Espinosa]

You are right, this is something that youtube has been trying to do for a while. Every once in a while they get anal about certain videos and then after they realise they can't really restrict everything they go back to how they are normally. But as for stricter punishment, there is still the possibility of copyright strikes and removal of channels over monetization, that hasn't gone away.

Though it looks to be more to the benefit of youtube advertisers than youtube partners in my opinion.

Yeah, but the advertisers are surely a party to remember and take into account, aren't they? I'm sure they wouldn't want their stuff on dodgy content, so if people want to attract attention with tits in the thumbnail, they may well do so without the profit aspect. It's not an aspiration I can approve of, but surely there's some ground to such a solution?

I'll confess I'm mostly waxing dialectical on this one; for the most part, I resent what YouTube has evolved into and wouldn't touch the most active part of it with a barge pole.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Espinosa

[Tryhard]

Oh no, I don't dispute that, youtube is perhaps smart to pander to advertisers from a business perspective, but they also need to remember that people monetizing their videos is why (commercial) youtube is a big deal in the first place, and considering most of their policies are to cover their own asses instead of standing up for their users, they can't really claim that they have the users interests in priority.

Still, you could question the ethics of it.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Tryhard

[Rend Keaven]

Just finished reading every single comment on this topic, which I'm glad I did so I know more about this dilemma before posting.

The only way I see this working is that it will stop content creators such as prank channels who go a step to far from make more money for the controversal reasons. It can go overboard thought, where Boogie2988 got monetized for a video where he mentions suicide, there is the odd chance that some of his fans face a troubling issue like this and seeing their idols give advice on how to overcome this is what avid youtube visitors and subscribers want to see. Now channels worry that their actions can affect their salary. Obviously it won't hurt the big youtubers because the website does not want to lose revenue as the content creators that help made the video popular. About 50% of the youtubers I follow rarely/ don't use vulgar language in their videos, however Youtube has to be aware of the main age group for its regular users.

As far as advertising goes, I wouldn't like my product being advertised on a video that promotes terrorism, but surely youtube can place ads that are aimed for the target audience depending on the video and the content creators main audience. I'm not sure if SJW's have a part in this though but I won't go into too much details on that. Overall these guidelines were probably just not worded correctly and hopefully all this will be blow over in a few days.

[Water Mage]

I'm not sure if SJW's have a part in this though but I won't go into too much details on that.

Suprisingly, that might not be case, considering that even the SJWs are complaining about this.

[Rend Keaven]

Suprisingly, that might not be case, considering that even the SJWs are complaining about this.

That does make sense, now that I think about it. It represses them from making a profit from their ridiculous content, this could be a dose of reality to them. Not sure if it will work on big time ones like Anita Sarkesain.

Also here is GradeAUnderA's response to this as some of us have anticipated.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Rend Keaven

[Ken Masters]

That does make sense, now that I think about it. It represses them from making a profit from making ridiculous content, this could be a dose of reality to them. Not sure if it will work on big time ones like Anita Sarkesain.

Also here is GradeAUnderA's response to this as some of us have anticipated.

I'll never understand why people seem to love Grade A.

Sure his drama videos are usually fair and entertaining, but the rest of his channel.... man... Old jokes and overdone topics.

[DemolisherBPB]

Me and some friends were on about the policy changes and after we read them I just said "Doesn't that go against human rights?" jokingly but it was an interesting debate. It's silly but since its an automated system it'll do barely anything as for the most part it'll work off tag's. But it does get strange in that someone a bit back said something along the lines of "Imagine watching a drama show and it on about a rape trial then a pepsi add shows up" and thats fine but I know that some of the soap opera's here in England have had such plots and still before an add break it just comes up "sponsored by McCains Chips!" So...One second its about someone been sexual abuse by his relitive then oven chips (I can't remember if that was the advertising sponsor but that was the plot)...I don't know how the US does advertising though so I can't speak for that (From what I have see they're all very long and try to sell you trash) Some shows also get advertising because they're on after 9pm which is when the major stations put on the more mature programs (ones that have harsh language, adult themes, exct.) So...yeah, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. I still like Ashens first video after it, I am not quoting that sentence after he describes the changes briefly...