Jump to content
ChildofChaos

YouTube and The Age Of The Internet Apocalypes

Recommended Posts

#TheEndOfYouTube

 

What a tag that's driving the internet insane. Everyone is retweeting it, and with all the chaos that's happening on YouTube, it's honestly making me more and more afraid to start uploading to YouTube.

 

I'm personally waiting this whole disaster out.

 

What's everyone else's opinion on what YouTube is doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to remark years ago (for those who care to search) that the goal of the world authorities was to get control of the internet and dumb it down to the level of FTA TV or the main stream media and this is just another milestone in that direction. You'd think that would create a vacuum for another startup to appear? Anyone got the skillz?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#TheEndOfYouTube

 

What a tag that's driving the internet insane. Everyone is retweeting it, and with all the chaos that's happening on YouTube, it's honestly making me more and more afraid to start uploading to YouTube.

 

I'm personally waiting this whole disaster out.

 

What's everyone else's opinion on what YouTube is doing?

 

Youtube (google), are doing what?

I just finished watching the latest release by MightyCarMods and noticed nothing odd going on.

 

If they do cross the line, it just means more videos for DailyMotion. No big deal.

Edited by Master_Scythe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's telling that most of the people complaining about it are the dime-a-dozen mouthy lets-players. People that rely on shock value and foul language to gain a following.

 

People uploading quality content are largely unaffected.

 

Remember they're not changing the rules about what can be on Youtube, only the rules on what can be monetised.

Edited by SquallStrife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is happening?

 

A search on that tag reveals little. I found this video, I was able to put up with about 50 seconds of it. From what I gather the changes have been around but not strongly enforced until recently and relate to videos that you've uploaded and want to get ad revenue from.

 

Just why this guy posted his video which doesn't seem to explain anything is beyond me. Good for a larf though...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VgHCN-ErAU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's telling that most of the people complaining about it are the dime-a-dozen mouthy lets-players. People that rely on shock value and foul language to gain a following.

 

People uploading quality content are largely unaffected.

 

Remember they're not changing the rules about what can be on Youtube, only the rules on what can be monetised.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just why this guy posted his video which doesn't seem to explain anything is beyond me. Good for a larf though...

Ironically, a clickbait video to generate revenue. ;)

 

Youtube (google), are doing what?

They changed the monetisation policies to exclude "Advertiser Un-friendly" content:

 

zPmcrGN.jpg

 

Basically, types of videos that advertisers probably wouldn't have bid on anyway.

D5KiS4Y3sm0

First comment nails it:

 

jumping the gun here, totally. there is no discrimination, the whole process is automated. it is a bot that screens for keywords. to make it even less conspicuous, this apparent change has actually been in place for a long, long time. the only difference is that now, you are told when your video is demonetised, and now have means to appeal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Google make their money from ads, but people these days want block ads.

Youtube is one giant advertising site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, digging a bit further, the changes were made in 2015, it's only come up now because some of the larger channels were hit by it.

 

Someone at Youtube tweaked the algorithm to make it more effective, and guess who got hit first? The vacuous click-baity channels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, digging a bit further, the changes were made in 2015, it's only come up now because some of the larger channels were hit by it.

 

Someone at Youtube tweaked the algorithm to make it more effective, and guess who got hit first? The vacuous click-baity channels.

Not really. I know someone who makes trading videos (as in the trading the market) and he got one vid rejected because he mentioned a 'weaponised' MACD (indicator). The nanny/police state goes global.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. I know someone who makes trading videos (as in the trading the market) and he got one vid rejected because he mentioned a 'weaponised' MACD (indicator). The nanny/police state goes global.

You can dispute those decisions. If it's really just a "mention", or a minced/reused term, it'll come good once it's reviewed by a real person.

 

Also "nanny/police state". TIL Youtube is a country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they're smart they'll move to targeted ads.

If a video is flagged for... say... weapons......

It'll get thrown into 'age restricted' but also have its ads derived from, fuck, I dunno, 'Johnsons Gun Emporium!' or some shit.

 

People are getting worked up over the first step, if they stick with this, it'll be a long path.

As well documented, youtube make THEIR money from ads too; if you flag the big guys, your stock drops.

 

Not a smart move, they'll "refine" this process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't actually see anything fundamentally wrong with this. Many advertisers don't want to be associated with content that might be regarded as offensive, extreme or overly political. Partly this is to placate the PC Police - a scare campaign to the effect that a particular company is racist, sexist, supports violence, etc. can be a nightmare for a company board. Partly this is also to ensure that a broader range of people can identify with the products that are being sold (and in turn spend their money on them) - if a company is seen as being too closely associated with a particular set of political views or a particular ideology, then this can alienate people who don't hold that ideology and make them less willing to buy that company's products.

 

As such, it's hardly a surprise that Youtube has implemented this policy - it is a simple and effective way for Youtube to make sure that companies that spend money on advertising their products through Youtube don't subsequently end up complaining that their product or brand has been tarnished through Youtube placing the ad on a video containing content that could be considered 'inappropriate'. It is much easier for this to be done through the implementation of a blanket policy that is enforced by a bot that looks for keywords than through employing people (at significant cost) to look through every video and make the decision manually.

 

It's also actually a good thing that they tell people when their video has been demonetised and that they've introduced an appeals process - this will ensure that people have a way of challenging these decisions if the bot makes a mistake.

 

Oh and for those concerned that their shock videos and cheap, tawdry or racist humour will no longer make them money, they can grab a box of Kleenex, shove it up their arse and find some other forum where they can make money off their material - the Internet is a big place and I'm sure there are other companies that will pay them money to produce their content, provided that it has some commercial value. Just as they, being private individuals, are entitled to make whatever videos they want (subject to legal restrictions of course), so also is Youtube, being a private company, entitled to place advertisements on whatever videos it chooses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they're smart they'll move to targeted ads.

Youtube, and by extension Google AdSense is already very highly targeted.

 

What you'll find, though, is that a big advertiser like a car company or video game company will tick nearly every box when they put in a bid for ad space.

 

If a video is flagged for... say... weapons......

It'll get thrown into 'age restricted' but also have its ads derived from, fuck, I dunno, 'Johnsons Gun Emporium!' or some shit.

 

Age restricted videos can't be monetised. Never have been.

 

As well documented, youtube make THEIR money from ads too; if you flag the big guys, your stock drops.

The process by which ad space is sold to advertisers is interesting.

 

Advertising space is worth more when the content it's alongside has wider appeal. It's worth less (or rather, bids won't be as high) if advertisers are aware that their ads may be shown alongside the types of content in question here (even if that is because uploaders are gaming/abusing the system).

Oh and for those concerned that their shock videos and cheap, tawdry or racist humour will no longer make them money, they can grab a box of Kleenex, shove it up their arse and find some other forum where they can make money off their material

That's it in a nutshell.

Edited by SquallStrife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck protesting your video re actually having someone look at it and decide.

 

I told these fuckwits almost 2 months ago that they'd removed the Murrumbidgee River from Google Maps and it's still not back.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched an interview on the Dotcom farce as well, lot's of BS and U.S. government criminality with big implications if the nazis win this one. Can post link if anyone cares. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched an interview on the Dotcom farce as well, lot's of BS and U.S. government criminality with big implications if the nazis win this one. Can post link if anyone cares. :)

 

Sounds interesting - link me! Feel free to PM if you're worried about starting a big flame war, though, or if the Rules of At0mic have changed during my absence so as to make such content inappropriate for public posting. :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Watched an interview on the Dotcom farce as well, lot's of BS and U.S. government criminality with big implications if the nazis win this one. Can post link if anyone cares. :)

 

Sounds interesting - link me! Feel free to PM if you're worried about starting a big flame war, though, or if the Rules of At0mic have changed during my absence so as to make such content inappropriate for public posting. :-P

 

Nah shouldn't start a flame war, he was interviewed on The Keiser report with his solicitor and some people don't like Max Keiser... :)

 

Interview starts at the 11min mark.

 

https://youtu.be/DIBM0I_c_X4?t=665

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If a video is flagged for... say... weapons......

It'll get thrown into 'age restricted' but also have its ads derived from, fuck, I dunno, 'Johnsons Gun Emporium!' or some shit.

 

Age restricted videos can't be monetised. Never have been.

 

Thats a very closed attitude for you. You're acting like with new rules they cant create more new policies to help govern them.

 

If 60% of their income revenue starts getting flagged, they'll need 'adult ads' to keep their money coming in.

 

As you point out; adsense offers me adult stores while on porn sites; its pretty smart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a very closed attitude for you. You're acting like with new rules they cant create more new policies to help govern them.

Just being realistic.

 

Excluding age-restricted videos from monetisation has been there since day 1, I have no reason to believe they'd relax that, especially given the additional ineligible categories added last year.

 

Youtube is very stalwart. I'd like to think they could change and adapt, but I sincerely doubt they will, since they don't really need to.

 

If 60% of their income revenue starts getting flagged, they'll need 'adult ads' to keep their money coming in.

If that was even remotely close to being true, then sure, but look at the top 100 channels by views: http://socialblade.com/youtube/top/100/mostviewed

 

What're the common themes? Music videos ([artist name]VEVO), content aggregators (Machinima, Movieclips, Watchmojo), media companies (EMI, GMM, Disney), and variety/comedy (Ellen Degeneres, Smosh, Pewdiepie).

 

If you switch over to top 100 by subscribers it's largely the same, but you start to see more of the variety channels like Vsauce, Dude Perfect, Slow Mo Guys, etc.

 

Those are the moneymakers, not the relatively niche channels affected by these policies.

Edited by SquallStrife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thats a very closed attitude for you. You're acting like with new rules they cant create more new policies to help govern them.

Just being realistic.

 

Excluding age-restricted videos from monetisation has been there since day 1, I have no reason to believe they'd relax that, especially given the additional ineligible categories added last year.

 

Youtube is very stalwart. I'd like to think they could change and adapt, but I sincerely doubt they will, since they don't really need to.

 

If 60% of their income revenue starts getting flagged, they'll need 'adult ads' to keep their money coming in.

If that was even remotely close to being true, then sure, but look at the top 100 channels by views: http://socialblade.com/youtube/top/100/mostviewed

 

What're the common themes? Music videos ([artist name]VEVO), content aggregators (Machinima, Movieclips, Watchmojo), media companies (EMI, GMM, Disney), and variety/comedy (Ellen Degeneres, Smosh, Pewdiepie).

 

If you switch over to top 100 by subscribers it's largely the same, but you start to see more of the variety channels like Vsauce, Dude Perfect, Slow Mo Guys, etc.

 

Those are the moneymakers, not the relatively niche channels affected by these policies.

 

 

Oh I agree.

And with the broad stroke of the brush, they can all be offensive.

There are quite a few sexual themes, women with uncovered faces, videogames that might be M rated (pewdie), WWE has violence, Taylor swift has brushed on some pretty sexy topics before, Eminem is DEFINITELY red flagged, College Humor? For fucking sure!

Basically that entire list, with a couple of pointed kid related exceptions is FUCKED if they actually ENFORCE their rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I agree.

And with the broad stroke of the brush, they can all be offensive.

There are quite a few sexual themes, women with uncovered faces, videogames that might be M rated (pewdie), WWE has violence, Taylor swift has brushed on some pretty sexy topics before, Eminem is DEFINITELY red flagged, College Humor? For fucking sure!

Basically that entire list, with a couple of pointed kid related exceptions is FUCKED if they actually ENFORCE their rules.

Age-restricted in Youtube parlance means 18+. M-level content is usually fine.

 

You're talking about this like YT have no visibility into what's on their network. They know what's on there, they know who their policy changes will affect, they can probably predict to within single dollars how much a given decision will affect the bottom line.

 

IMO: The policies are deliberately vague, a lot like our classification laws. They're designed to be a catch-all, but unlike our classification system where pieces of content are actively viewed by a panel and classified individually, Youtube (due to sheer volume) relies on viewer flagging and keyword heuristics, with a dispute system. At the dispute stage, judgement calls can be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh I agree.

And with the broad stroke of the brush, they can all be offensive.

There are quite a few sexual themes, women with uncovered faces, videogames that might be M rated (pewdie), WWE has violence, Taylor swift has brushed on some pretty sexy topics before, Eminem is DEFINITELY red flagged, College Humor? For fucking sure!

Basically that entire list, with a couple of pointed kid related exceptions is FUCKED if they actually ENFORCE their rules.

Age-restricted in Youtube parlance means 18+. M-level content is usually fine.

 

You're talking about this like YT have no visibility into what's on their network. They know what's on there, they know who their policy changes will affect, they can probably predict to within single dollars how much a given decision will affect the bottom line.

 

IMO: The policies are deliberately vague, a lot like our classification laws. They're designed to be a catch-all, but unlike our classification system where pieces of content are actively viewed by a panel and classified individually, Youtube (due to sheer volume) relies on viewer flagging and keyword heuristics, with a dispute system. At the dispute stage, judgement calls can be made.

 

 

Yes but we've proven time and time again all it takes is a few hundred 'flags' to have it listed.

Yeah they can appeal it, but that's a lot of appeals to go through.

 

If I'm deadly serious for a moment;

If that new ruling doesn't ban Eminem from being able to Monetize, I'm going to completely nerd rage.

I cannot see a more offensive, adult themed channel on that list.

 

He has the right to "sing" about what he wants, but if we're flagging people with inappropriate content, I can't think of one song that qualifies as 'clean'.

Even his non swearing songs like the censored "stan" has VERY adult themes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×