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

81–90 of 256 posts

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#81

Post by PeterStuer »

ajkjk wrote: post #30
PeterStuer wrote: post #23

Google is an American company. Their "rules" are extremely embedded in a US culture. Unfortunately YouTube is a product that is consumed worldwide. Many of the regions where it has a dominant market share for web VoD do have cultural palates that are very different from the US. I feel Google should embrace their international position and be less biased in it's reasoning.

What culture-specific reasonings are you referring to, exactly?

For example, the US is extremely sensitive to things like nudity, swearing, identity political issues, and at the same time callously tolerant about violence and commercial interests.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#82

Post by chii »

fragmede wrote: post #64
icebraining wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if they could get outside sponsorship. Many creators show ads (sorry, "sponsorships") in their own video, outside of YouTube's ad system. Apparently YouTube has been saying they want the advertiser to pay for YT ads on the channel, but if the videos are demonatized, I wonder if that still holds?

Outside sponsorship is explicitly prohibited by section 4 of YouTube's TOS. "YouTube creators can not include promotions, sponsorships or other advertisements for third party sponsors or advertisers in their videos where YouTube offers a comparable ad format" https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3364658?hl=en (Patreon, as a way to make money as a YouTube creator occupies a gray area but this restriction hampers…

a lot of videos i watch seems to be sponsored videos (lately, there's been lots of 23 and me, and squarespace, skillshare and a few others).

How come these videos are not violating youtube's policies?

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#83

Post by chii »

thisisit wrote: post #47
that70sshow wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

creaters can find the monetary status of the videos in their dashboard. They get notified whenever any of their video is demonitized.

Thanks but is there a way for non-creators to find it?

may be probablistically by loading up an incognito window (or use a vpn), and see if ads show up (removing adblock of course).

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#84

Post by krapp »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #12
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…

The real problem with these rules is subjectivity. Something you would consider offensive is probably not from my perspective. In the end it will be a moderator bias galore. I can easily see a Christian mod demonetizing atheist videos, democrat republican, prude free, etc etc etc. I'd like to see a true free speech platform with violence/nudity sectioned off according to the local laws, and then let the advertisers d…

>I'd like to see a true free speech platform with violence/nudity sectioned off according to the local laws, and then let the advertisers decide where they want to spend the money, instead of treating them as children who don't know better.

A true free speech platform wouldn't have any concern at all for laws regarding content or any specific cultural mores - laws exist to limit the freedoms of the individual for the good of the community, not to define or enforce them, and the web doesn't belong to any culture but its own.

I think you could still have tagging or filtering for such a platform, but it might need to be a service or market of systems in and of itself, either community driven or local to each user, and not something enforced by a central authority.

Of course, that means first treating all content equally - including objectionable and illegal content, because that's the real and for many uncomfortable consequence of free speech.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#85

Post by chii »

AnkhMorporkian wrote: post #27
justboxing wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> any idea about why these rules would be secret? Don't work for youtube, but I'm guessing they would be secret for a couple of reasons. 1. If made public, people could post violating content and work around it by making sure they won't get flagged with carefully crafted thumbnails, content etc. Ex: Take a look at the 'Nudity' section. There are examples of 'Partial nudity' in which a guy wearing underwear is deemed…

I think you're spot on. I manage an online game, and we don't have rules. We have somewhat vague guidelines, and moderators we trust to enforce them. Rules are open to arguments, and with dozens of bans/appeals a day, it'd be ridiculous to do that. We tried strict rules, and they are both too restrictive and ineffective. Humans need to make judgements, and guidelines give you the latitude to do that.

People who skirt those judgement will always exist, but having the 'we are the law' kind of rule sucks for a community.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#86

Post by habirton »

awakeasleep wrote: post #2

Does anyone have any idea about why these rules would be secret? The only thing I can think of is that YouTube is not confident in their guidelines & categorization, and does not want to defend these choices publicly.

They're not a secret, I'm surprised this is so high up on HN: https://www.youtube.com/intl/en-US/yt/about/policies/#commun...

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en

The only thing I found confusing was the unwanted creators for the alleged secret meeting. GradeAUnderA is hilarious[0] and has a few videos that point out the drama in YouTube. Keemstar is toxic. I don't know about the others and I can name quite a few channels that should be on YouTube's unwanted creators list (if such thing existed).

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XyH8MJARcM (NSFW language)

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#87

Post by patrickaljord »

What I don't understand is why don't they allow advertisers to accept showing their ads on these more explicits videos? They were ok with it for a decade but all of sudden they're not? I'm sure most non-American brands would be ok with it, even many American brands would be ok with it. I'm sure Google has the ability to add such a simple feature to their video ad platform (it's basically a checkbox with a boolean that would say "restrict to family friendly content" or something). Am I missing something?

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#88

Post by randyrand »

"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 hate at all, which is even more frustrating.

I'd rather we just throw the phrase into the dumpster where it belongs and come up with something better. Good terminology combats extremism.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#89

Post by nailer »

kw71 wrote: post #53
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point is appreciated, but keep in mind that these are people's livelihoods. They're in a vulnerable position, and change is a big deal for them. Fairly small changes to the YouTube landscape could mean major changes to their income and business viability. Change a few bits of a suggestion algorithm and the kid making $11 million per year playing with toys could be out of business overnight. It's the same reason…

The fact that those people chose or happened to make a living off someone else's website doesn't give them employment rights. Unfortunately the platform is property of YouTube and while I think it would be nice for them to explain their rules when they invite the public to engage and participate, they are allowed to hold these as trade secrets :(

That's exactly it: YouTube is 'sharing economy' - privatise the profits, socialise the expenses, in this case the costs of videos which are controversial.

Re: YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks and Secret YouTube Meeting

#90

Post by shak77 »

clouddrover wrote: post #17
wmf wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means the video won't have ads and thus the creator won't earn any money from ads. It's very difficult to make a lot of money from YouTube ads, but some people are doing it and getting "demonetized" really hurts them.

> It's very difficult to make a lot of money from YouTube ads Like anything else, I think you have to find your audience. A 6 year old apparently made $11 million this year off his YouTube channel: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/12/1...

That's news precisely because it's rare.
Post reply on HN