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

YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

twitlonger.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 256 posts

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#191

Post by hnarn »

ChicagoDave wrote: post #189

As I just explained to my 16 year old daughter about YouTube policies. YouTube is a business. Businesses will do whatever they need to do to get customers and make money. If anyone was under some strange illusion that YouTube was a public and free platform to make money and/or create any content they wanted was naive at best. If you want to create a channel for users to view your content, purchase a domain, buy a VM…

> I'm pretty sure that anyone with millions of subscribers would be bankrupt instantly.

It would be interesting to see a napkin calculation on this, because I highly doubt this is true. Bandwidth cost and video compression are both a lot better these days than people think, and if you could cut the middle man out of advertising (which you might could if you have millions of viewers) I think the benefit would be significant.

Of course, YouTube does not only provide bandwidth and servers. They provide a "platform", not in the technical sense but in the broader sense. They have well working apps on all mobile platforms, they have a social network, they have editing tools and redundancy, they have so many benefits that you'd really have to think twice before taking them on.

Your idea of a strike is interesting, while I doubt it would happen I would love for content creators to team up and make common demands.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#192

Post by simook »

ChicagoDave wrote: post #189

As I just explained to my 16 year old daughter about YouTube policies. YouTube is a business. Businesses will do whatever they need to do to get customers and make money. If anyone was under some strange illusion that YouTube was a public and free platform to make money and/or create any content they wanted was naive at best. If you want to create a channel for users to view your content, purchase a domain, buy a VM…

Why would million of subscribers bankrupt someone? I work in the industry building video software that would allow anyone to create their own personalozed video on demand or live streaming service. I havent ran the numbers myself, but the cost to provide a youtube like experience is not that expensive. I would be happy to run the numbers if we could determine how many minutes a single subsriber would watch in a month.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#194

Post by kinkrtyavimoodh »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #38
amarkov wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strict rules for tagging would just run into the same problems as strict rules for demonetization. LGBT groups won't be any happier to see their content publicly branded "sexually explicit" than just demonetized.

By strict rules I also mean objective and unbiased. Penis/vagina -> nudity (even if it's medical or educational). "Fuck" -> cursing (even if it's about the etymology of the word). Advocating murder of group X -> ban (even if you're quoting a religious text). If these rules are strict and clear, we have a chance of creating a legal-like system. Otherwise it's subjective chaos with everyone pissed off.

It's ironic that all your examples are so impractical and yet you confidently used them to illustrate how tagging is so easy.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#195

Post by [deleted] »

rayalez wrote: post #6

I have a feeling that the internet will get outraged about this for one reason or another, but just from looking at this, it actually seems like a sensible policy designed to keep YouTube out of trouble. Nothing extreme or unfair, just avoiding to show ads next to stuff advertisers would not want to see their ads next to, while also making an effort to avoid offending or censoring youtubers. Probably won't be flawles…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#196

Post by forgottenpass »

randyrand wrote: post #88

"Any language intended to spread hate." Could that be any more vague? Does encouraging people to hate DRM or hate cancer count under that? Clearly not. So what does 'hate' even have to do with it? Really its because "Hate speech" in and of itself is a dumb phrase. AFAIK It only refers to an incredibly small subset of hate. It does not refer to hate. And often refers to mean-speech instead of referring to the emotion…

Tangential, but you might like this: https://www.ecosophia.net/hate-new-sex/

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#197

Post by PeterStuer »

dogma1138 wrote: post #186
NietTim wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah having country specific moderation teams with people form those countries would be great. But I won't hold my breath..

It would be great until you reach Saudi Arabia or Iran, or heck don't need to go that far since Venezuela is just near by...

So you are saying it would not be ok for those cultures to impose their morals, but it is ok for the US?

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#198

Post by pbhjpbhj »

kthejoker2 wrote: post #110
simion314 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big problem is that youtubers do not know the reasons for the demonetization, so creators have to guess what is the problem, an example was a Linux video, nothing was bad with the video, people were speculating that maybe the problem was the word "bash" but we can't know if this word is on a blacklist or not.

My wife runs a "mom vlog" mostly recipes, lifestyle things, how tos, etc. Since late October her content is regularly demonetized with no indications as to what's wrong. Her content is literally some of the most desirable, adfriendly content on YouTube. No idea why they don't have a whitelist for channels with 10 years of a spotless record.

Perhaps it competes with a favoured provider or someone who has paid for promotion?

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#199

Post by sandworm101 »

rayalez wrote: post #6

I have a feeling that the internet will get outraged about this for one reason or another, but just from looking at this, it actually seems like a sensible policy designed to keep YouTube out of trouble. Nothing extreme or unfair, just avoiding to show ads next to stuff advertisers would not want to see their ads next to, while also making an effort to avoid offending or censoring youtubers. Probably won't be flawles…

Funny, I see plenty of adds next to "offensive" content in other media. Plenty sponsor TV news, which is fully of the violence specifically forbidden here. SouthPark gets advertisers. So youtube's blanket demonetization is overkill. If certain sponsors want out of certain videos, they should be free to do so. But leave room for those advertisers who aren't so squeamish.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#200

Post by pbhjpbhj »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #171
mromanuk wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I concur, youtube is filled with trash, at least for the youngest audience (2-5 years)

If you let your 2-5 year olds watch Youtube videos, then you're the problem, not Youtube. I really mean that seriously, this is just irresponsible.

We're watching some nursery rhymes (Farmees) on YT now, it's as good as TV (!), it's low effort but there far worse things IMO educationally/recreationally.

Is it all TV you object to for this age range or just when it's served via YouTube?

Mind you, as an aside, we're using FireTV so we won't be allowed by Google to have YouTube from January ...

Post reply on HN