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

YouTube monetization analysis

docs.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 168 posts

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#31

Post by krapp »

kakarot wrote: post #16
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #6

The other day I stumbled upon this project: https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube It's a federated tube that uses ActivityPub and WebTorrent. I think this platform should be invested in and creators should consider moving. The interests of YouTube and its creators will never be entirely aligned.

That's a cool project. However, to make videos with quality content at a reasonable frequency, many of these creators depend on YouTube for income or at least partial income. Any P2P / federated service would have to find an agreeable way to A) send ads in a safe and private way to each viewer B) stop people from manipulating the system to game ads while accurately determining if an ad was viewed.

Any form of advertising would likely be unacceptable on a platform like this, as would any attempt to enforce copyright or limit the redistribution or reuse of content. Creators would just have to find another way to make money and accept that they have no practical right to "ownership" over the content they upload, regardless of legality.

To clarify: I don't believe the set of people willing to adopt a FOSS distributed peer-to-peer video streaming platform and the set of people who believe advertising to be tolerable would likely overlap enough to provide a better or more stable market than the existing web already provides. And advertising on the web is already breaking down and likely doomed to fail as a concept.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#32

Post by meebs »

jakebasile wrote: post #12
eref wrote: post #3

I think it is right to „soft“-censor in this way (i.e. the information is accessible but not promoted). Reality without sorting and filters would be inhuman because market incentives to grab people’s attention would maximally exploit our tribal instincts and thereby completely destabilize our societies. This is already happening and it needs to stop immediately.

Who decides what to filter? How are they elected?

A better set of questions might be: who is already deciding what to filter? How are they elected?

I think the answer to the latter is "by being wealthy". The former has too many answers.

/tinfoil

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#33

Post by wybiral »

lettergram wrote: post #27
wybiral wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I uploaded a video yesterday that's already demonetized. It's part of a series to write an RSS feed reader in Python (specifically the part about adding static files to the server). Tags: python, rss, feedparser, feed reader, news aggregator, flask, css, static files It doesn't seem "controversial" to me.

I'm wondering if "flask" is getting flagged (as in relation to alcohol. Or news, because you know - "fake news"

Maybe, but the series before that had nothing to do with flask or news.

For instance a video in a series about writing a Go web app had these tags: golang, http, server, redis, gorilla mux, go-redis, web, application, tutorial, howto

And it was demonetized. Every single video I've uploaded seems to have been until I request manual review (which takes a couple of days).

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#34

Post by koolba »

wybiral wrote: post #22
RyanShook wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, Youtube demonetizes based on metadata. So any tags/descriptions with keywords that YT views as “controversial” the system will demonetize regardless of actual content in the video.

I uploaded a video yesterday that's already demonetized. It's part of a series to write an RSS feed reader in Python (specifically the part about adding static files to the server). Tags: python, rss, feedparser, feed reader, news aggregator, flask, css, static files It doesn't seem "controversial" to me.

You should try making the same video with a parser written in Golang and see if that get's demonetized as well.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#35

Post by make3 »

adekok wrote: post #18

I never understood why Youtube didn't have uploaders select various categories for videos. It would do a number of things: * allow them to demonetize / ban / block videos for abuse of categorization * train machine learning on the various categories It's a lot more socially palatable for Youtube to say "Hey guys, we HAVE a blood and violence category, but you didn't use it for this video. So we'll punish you for that…

this would be an extremely dirty dataset, as there is no incentive to not put your videos in as many categories as possible. if you can only have one, people will still put it in the most popular category a large fraction of the times I'm sure, not the correct one

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#36

Post by superflyguy »

wybiral wrote: post #22
RyanShook wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, Youtube demonetizes based on metadata. So any tags/descriptions with keywords that YT views as “controversial” the system will demonetize regardless of actual content in the video.

I uploaded a video yesterday that's already demonetized. It's part of a series to write an RSS feed reader in Python (specifically the part about adding static files to the server). Tags: python, rss, feedparser, feed reader, news aggregator, flask, css, static files It doesn't seem "controversial" to me.

Feedp arse r maybe?

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#37

Post by wybiral »

kawsper wrote: post #30
wybiral wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I uploaded a video yesterday that's already demonetized. It's part of a series to write an RSS feed reader in Python (specifically the part about adding static files to the server). Tags: python, rss, feedparser, feed reader, news aggregator, flask, css, static files It doesn't seem "controversial" to me.

Do you know which excluded_ads labels it was tagged with?

For the video I uploaded yesterday, in the source for the video I can see:

"excluded_ads": "46=14_14; 59=14_14; 76=2_2_1,2_2_4; 102=1_1,1_3,2_1,2_3; 106=1_1,1_2_1,1_3,2_1,2_2_1,2_2_4,2_3,14_14,17_2_1,17_2_4"

EDIT: This may just be the generic variable in their source code, I'm not sure how to get the value specific to my video.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#38

Post by simias »

adekok wrote: post #18

I never understood why Youtube didn't have uploaders select various categories for videos. It would do a number of things: * allow them to demonetize / ban / block videos for abuse of categorization * train machine learning on the various categories It's a lot more socially palatable for Youtube to say "Hey guys, we HAVE a blood and violence category, but you didn't use it for this video. So we'll punish you for that…

That seems like a reasonable idea to me but I think part of the answer is that a mind boggling amount of videos are uploaded to Youtube every second. Tracking categorization abuse seems straightforward in theory but good luck automating that reliably over millions of videos especially when you know that some very dedicated people will try their best to game the algorithm in their favor.

People will start using the "blood and violence" category exclusively if it means they're less likely to be demonetized, rendering it useless. Or the other way around: if this category means they get fewer views they'll try their best to be always nearly avoid it, except of course it can get very subjective and some people are going to be flagged "blood and violence" even though they argue it's not that violent and channel XYZ did worse and didn't get tagged etc...

When it come to moderating Youtube, and given the ridiculous amount of content hosted there, you shouldn't think "how would I do it" but rather "how would I design an algorithm that would do that". And suddenly it becomes a lot less obvious. You can't teach algorithms common sense (yet).

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#39

Post by wybiral »

koolba wrote: post #34
wybiral wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I uploaded a video yesterday that's already demonetized. It's part of a series to write an RSS feed reader in Python (specifically the part about adding static files to the server). Tags: python, rss, feedparser, feed reader, news aggregator, flask, css, static files It doesn't seem "controversial" to me.

You should try making the same video with a parser written in Golang and see if that get's demonetized as well.

The series before this one was about Golang and they all got demonetized too.

Re: YouTube monetization analysis

#40

Post by adekok »

make3 wrote: post #35
adekok wrote: post #18

I never understood why Youtube didn't have uploaders select various categories for videos. It would do a number of things: * allow them to demonetize / ban / block videos for abuse of categorization * train machine learning on the various categories It's a lot more socially palatable for Youtube to say "Hey guys, we HAVE a blood and violence category, but you didn't use it for this video. So we'll punish you for that…

this would be an extremely dirty dataset, as there is no incentive to not put your videos in as many categories as possible. if you can only have one, people will still put it in the most popular category a large fraction of the times I'm sure, not the correct one

> there is no incentive to not put your videos in as many categories as possible.

We are talking about how to incentivize people here... why suddenly decide that there's magically "no incentive" for something?

Youtube is free to also de-incentivize people for using the wrong category.

Post reply on HN