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

YouTube might terminate your access if not profitable for Google

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 95 posts

Re: YouTube might terminate your access if not profitable for Google

#41

Post by Maxion »

madiathomas wrote: post #21

I skip all YouTube adverts that are longer than 15 seconds and never click on any advert when searching. I am probably considered "commercially unviable", even though a company I own 100%, pays Google thousands of dollars every year to use Google Suite and Google Cloud Engine. I don't see a reason for my personal account to be commercially viable.

Keep in mind that not all advertisement is made with the intent of the ad watcher clicking the ad and purchasing a product immediately. The larger brands especially do a lot of share of mind advertising where the goal is simply to make you aware of / remind you of the brand.

Re: YouTube might terminate your access if not profitable for Google

#42

Post by nickjj »

This is a weird rule for people uploading videos.

You can't just decide to show ads on your videos. Youtube requires you to meet certain guidelines. The last time I checked you need 4,000+ hours of view time each year and 1,000+ subscribers to be allowed to show ads on your videos.

That means smaller channels who have limited audiences would have no way to avoid termination because Youtube is blocking themselves from generating revenue from that channel due to their own monetization rules.

Re: YouTube might terminate your access if not profitable for Google

#43

Post by chii »

utf985 wrote: post #36
mic47 wrote: post #11

This might be actually a good thing. Say that you are a user, which uploads a LOT of large videos that almost nobody is watching, apart from your small cabal, and you restrict ads on them (AFAIK was possible in past, not sure if it is now). In such case, you get quite good service for free, and you cost YouTube quite a lot of money for storage. I see that YouTube have following options: 1.) Show more ads elsewhere (s…

How is this a good thing? Obscure and/or old archive footage which usually doesnt get that many views is one of the best things about YT.

> Obscure and/or old archive footage which usually doesnt get that many views is one of the best things about YT.

and one of the costs youtube bears, since by definition they can't make money off those videos, but has to pay for storage.

I dont know if there's a solution - perhaps non-commercialized accounts can't upload more than X gigabytes of vidoes, or be forced to have ads? Or you (the channel owner) pay for the storage?

Re: YouTube might terminate your access if not profitable for Google

#44

Post by k_sze »

utf985 wrote: post #36
mic47 wrote: post #11

This might be actually a good thing. Say that you are a user, which uploads a LOT of large videos that almost nobody is watching, apart from your small cabal, and you restrict ads on them (AFAIK was possible in past, not sure if it is now). In such case, you get quite good service for free, and you cost YouTube quite a lot of money for storage. I see that YouTube have following options: 1.) Show more ads elsewhere (s…

How is this a good thing? Obscure and/or old archive footage which usually doesnt get that many views is one of the best things about YT.

I’d argue that YouTube is a for-profit business. They have every right, within legal bounds, to do whatever makes economic sense to them.

If you want an archive, go with archive.org. But even then, nothing is free. If somebody thinks a footage deserves to be archived and preserved, somebody needs to pay for the cost anyhow, e.g. via donations.

Re: YouTube might terminate your access if not profitable for Google

#45

Post by chii »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #39
sornaensis wrote: post #26

Good, maybe this signals the leveling off and impending implosion of ad revenue. Internet 3.0 cannot arrive fast enough... I am tired of all these giant sites de facto controlling information repositories and communications channels because they have ad-sponsored inertia.

What do you envision internet 3.0 to look like? Some kind of shared, distributed blockchain thing with no centralized repositories and control, with micro-revenue flowing to each provider?

More likely a completely closed off, proprietary protocol garden that only authorized partners can post content on. Costs 10$ per month, and you get clean, sanitary and non-controvertial, commercial content.

Re: YouTube might terminate your access if not profitable for Google

#46

Post by pingyong »

Contrary to what some people seem to believe I really don't think this has anything to do with trying to ban people who use adblock or the like. YouTube actively allows for adblock, if they didn't want people blocking ads they could just splice the ads directly into the video and stop transmission of the actual video content.

This is most likely just a random change that gets blown way out of proportion, it's not like Google hasn't banned people for any BS reason they could come up with before.

Re: YouTube might terminate your access if not profitable for Google

#47

Post by alexeichemenda »

nickjj wrote: post #42

This is a weird rule for people uploading videos. You can't just decide to show ads on your videos. Youtube requires you to meet certain guidelines. The last time I checked you need 4,000+ hours of view time each year and 1,000+ subscribers to be allowed to show ads on your videos. That means smaller channels who have limited audiences would have no way to avoid termination because Youtube is blocking themselves from…

It's very likely that if the said small channels are indeed too small to be allowed to monetize, then they would fall under the not profitable accounts even if they were allowed to monetize.

Re: YouTube might terminate your access if not profitable for Google

#48

Post by icebraining »

crdoconnor wrote: post #30
mic47 wrote: post #11

This might be actually a good thing. Say that you are a user, which uploads a LOT of large videos that almost nobody is watching, apart from your small cabal, and you restrict ads on them (AFAIK was possible in past, not sure if it is now). In such case, you get quite good service for free, and you cost YouTube quite a lot of money for storage. I see that YouTube have following options: 1.) Show more ads elsewhere (s…

Option #4 take a small dent to their profits.

I think YouTube as a whole might already be a not-so-small dent on their profits.

Re: YouTube might terminate your access if not profitable for Google

#49

Post by thejackgoode »

It's funny as I was just thinking that this makes sense for YouTube in my case. I am using it mostly via mobile browser and current page refresh behavior removes advertising from the video. I do it all the time.

I am expecting something like "pay for subscription or else" feature proposal in the observable future.

Re: YouTube might terminate your access if not profitable for Google

#50

Post by utf985 »

So let's say you have an old YT account that you don't use anymore tied you your gmail account and there a few dozen family holiday videos you uploaded years ago to show friends (which was kinda the original purpose of YouTube) and completely forgot about. Does this mean that one day you might wake up with access to your gmail completely blocked off because an algorithm on YT decided that your channel is not profitable?
Post reply on HN