Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 201 posts

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#81

Post by intopieces »

lisper wrote: post #61

I don't want to be a spelling and grammar nazi, but this mistake is being made consistently upstream so I thought I'd point it out: "Loose" is the opposite of "tight". The opposite of "win" (which I'm pretty sure is the word you meant to use) is "lose" with one "o".

When a mistake is made consistently in a language, it becomes the rule. If you know what the person meant, the word did its job, whether it was spelled the way you think it should be or not. Besides, the word 'loose' as a verb works perfectly well in that sentence: "They really had no other good choice except force them to sign up, or [release] revenue sharing status.

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#82

Post by Balgair »

oh_sigh wrote: post #68

Does anyone know why content creators would not sign up to get ad money from the red subscription? Even if google wasn't threatening anything by not doing it, why wouldn't you take it? Are they afraid that red subscription revenue is going to be less than typical ad revenue?

Well, a lot of the creators are from very small communities. I personally can't afford to pay Youtube 10$ a month just to watch those people (I can't even afford cable). That means I don't get to watch them now, as far as I can figure. Likely, they will now stop those channels. Some of them do get revenue from the ads, at least enough to buy equipment and support the side hobby. Without that, those channels are gone, at least I think that's the down-low on this. I think it'll drop their fan bases by orders of magnitude, and hence, they no longer exist.

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#83

Post by Snesker »

ars wrote: post #12
bargl wrote: post #5

I think this is a bad decision but let's look at Googles options for showing content to users who pay for their service. Option 1: Don't show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal. Option 2: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but include ads. Option 3: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but eat the loss. Option 4: Remove videos from creators who don't sign, and yo…

Yah, Google did the right thing here. You can't say "this service has no ads, then include ads", and you can't say "if you subscribe you see less videos". They really had no other good choice except force them to sign up, or loose revenue sharing status.

I can't be the only one extremely suspicious that two pro-google comments made the exact same spelling errors.

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#84

Post by eveningcoffee »

ekimekim wrote: post #75
eveningcoffee wrote: post #65

Youtube has become stupidly aggressive with its video ads in my region. To the point I actually try to avoid using it. I will also consciously avoid all companies who think that it is acceptable to interrupt randomly people with their messages. I am fine with overlay ads and I would have been positively influenced with the same ads in overlay form that now are forced on me as video ads. Sorry, but this is a short ter…

Youtube is one of very, very few sites I run adblock on for this reason. I'm fine with ads, as long as they aren't actively blocking content.

I would say that they are not blocking content but they are interrupting my flow.

People abandoned TV for a reason and Google wants to force this intolerable nuisance back into our lives.

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#85

Post by jdminhbg »

Balgair wrote: post #82
oh_sigh wrote: post #68

Does anyone know why content creators would not sign up to get ad money from the red subscription? Even if google wasn't threatening anything by not doing it, why wouldn't you take it? Are they afraid that red subscription revenue is going to be less than typical ad revenue?

Well, a lot of the creators are from very small communities. I personally can't afford to pay Youtube 10$ a month just to watch those people (I can't even afford cable). That means I don't get to watch them now, as far as I can figure. Likely, they will now stop those channels. Some of them do get revenue from the ads, at least enough to buy equipment and support the side hobby. Without that, those channels are gone,…

If none of your viewers pay for a Red subscription, then there is zero change from the current state of affairs, right? You get whatever the ad revenue share is.

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#86

Post by [deleted] »

JshWright wrote: post #55
ars wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yah, Google did the right thing here. You can't say "this service has no ads, then include ads", and you can't say "if you subscribe you see less videos". They really had no other good choice except force them to sign up, or loose revenue sharing status.

> You can't say "this service has no ads, then include ads" That's exactly what Hulu did with their new "ad-free" option. There are a handful of shows they couldn't license with no ads, so they have a pre-roll ad, and a disclaimer about why.

[deleted]

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#87

Post by bo1024 »

corndoge wrote: post #80
bargl wrote: post #5

I think this is a bad decision but let's look at Googles options for showing content to users who pay for their service. Option 1: Don't show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal. Option 2: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but include ads. Option 3: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but eat the loss. Option 4: Remove videos from creators who don't sign, and yo…

Option 7: Remove all pre-video ads from YouTube and return it to the way it was, dropping the idea of monetizing the world's largest creative platform. Edit: False dichotomy. Monetization does not necessitate ads. But you get what I meant.

False dichotomy.

Option 8: consider ways to monetize that don't involve video ads.

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#88

Post by fitshipit »

intopieces wrote: post #81
lisper wrote: post #61

I don't want to be a spelling and grammar nazi, but this mistake is being made consistently upstream so I thought I'd point it out: "Loose" is the opposite of "tight". The opposite of "win" (which I'm pretty sure is the word you meant to use) is "lose" with one "o".

When a mistake is made consistently in a language, it becomes the rule. If you know what the person meant, the word did its job, whether it was spelled the way you think it should be or not. Besides, the word 'loose' as a verb works perfectly well in that sentence: "They really had no other good choice except force them to sign up, or [release] revenue sharing status.

no, it doesn't. loose isn't a verb. loosen is

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#89

Post by sanderjd »

intopieces wrote: post #81
lisper wrote: post #61

I don't want to be a spelling and grammar nazi, but this mistake is being made consistently upstream so I thought I'd point it out: "Loose" is the opposite of "tight". The opposite of "win" (which I'm pretty sure is the word you meant to use) is "lose" with one "o".

When a mistake is made consistently in a language, it becomes the rule. If you know what the person meant, the word did its job, whether it was spelled the way you think it should be or not. Besides, the word 'loose' as a verb works perfectly well in that sentence: "They really had no other good choice except force them to sign up, or [release] revenue sharing status.

I'm usually into this whole language relativism thing, but this doesn't seem right. In fact, your final point about it being possible that it meant loose-as-in-release is exactly why this is confusing. "Lose" is (probably?) what was meant, while "loose" kinda-sorta works, but isn't quite right, so now it's confusing!

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#90

Post by fpgeek »

corndoge wrote: post #80
bargl wrote: post #5

I think this is a bad decision but let's look at Googles options for showing content to users who pay for their service. Option 1: Don't show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal. Option 2: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but include ads. Option 3: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but eat the loss. Option 4: Remove videos from creators who don't sign, and yo…

Option 7: Remove all pre-video ads from YouTube and return it to the way it was, dropping the idea of monetizing the world's largest creative platform. Edit: False dichotomy. Monetization does not necessitate ads. But you get what I meant.

Since running YouTube isn't cheap and Google isn't a charity, that seems practically equivalent to shutting down YouTube altogether (after some reasonable notice period).
Post reply on HN