Youtube Demonitization of Videos

[BooyaCS]

I don't know if anyone has seen this (or cares) but Youtube is now demonitizing videos that don't meet their advertiser friendly TOS.

Content that is considered "not advertiser-friendly" includes, but is not limited to:

• Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor
• Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism
• Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language
• Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items
• Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown

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

So explain to me how Natural Disasters is controversial? So if someone makes a video to help out for a Katrina like incident their video will be demonitized?

I understand Youtube is a company and this is their right, but this is getting absurd...

 

[gourimoko]

I don't know if anyone has seen this (or cares) but Youtube is now demonitizing videos that don't meet their advertiser friendly TOS.

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

So explain to me how Natural Disasters is controversial? So if someone makes a video to help out for a Katrina like incident their video will be demonitized?

I understand Youtube is a company and this is their right, but this is getting absurd...

It deincentivizes people from making videos that might violate ToS simply to generate views, likes/dislikes, and rack up revenue. I think that's great for the platform...

I really don't know why this would be problematic?

YouTube has had a long history of not being able to enforce their Terms of Service. These rules are simple to follow, and should solve a great deal of problems within the YouTube system with respect to quality of content.

Also, the issue you raised about national disasters doesn't really fit. People wanting to contribute to natural disasters generally donate directly to charity; not indirectly through monetization and advertising programs. So, if a video does relate to something like a disaster; YouTube is saying you as an individual or company cannot generate advertising profits from those videos. That's.. a good thing in my opinion as it creates a more transparent environment.

Honestly, I'm not sure why this would pose a problem for anyone?

And FWIW, people seem to be getting rather pissy about this on YT, particularly creators; but, those creators are being told "if you want this money, these are the standards you must meet." I just think it's rather strange, this attitude that these creators are entitled to ad revenue that goes against what the corporation and ad partners are asking for... Where does this sense of entitlement come from?

 

[BooyaCS]

It deincentivizes people from making videos that might violate ToS simply to generate views, likes/dislikes, and rack up revenue. I think that's great for the platform...

I really don't know why this would be problematic?

YouTube has had a long history of not being able to enforce their Terms of Service. These rules are simple to follow, and should solve a great deal of problems within the YouTube system with respect to quality of content.

Also, the issue you raised about national disasters doesn't really fit. People wanting to contribute to natural disasters generally donate directly to charity; not indirectly through monetization and advertising programs. So, if a video does relate to something like a disaster; YouTube is saying you as an individual or company cannot generate advertising profits from those videos. That's.. a good thing in my opinion as it creates a more transparent environment.

Honestly, I'm not sure why this would pose a problem for anyone?

Several videos were demonitized for talking about Mental Health issues like Depression or Sexual Abuse (that they may have felt) as a kid.

In addition the satire videos are being targeted as well as videos for Video game content.

Basically if you do some civilian reporting on issues in the Middle East, talk about Islam in a bad light or show "terrorist events" aka stuff like 9/11 you get your videos demonitized. It is Youtube's way of censoring their content and going after creators for arbitrary rules that technically can apply to anything.

 

[gourimoko]

Several videos were demonitized for talking about Mental Health issues like Depression or Sexual Abuse (that they may have felt) as a kid.

Okay... To be perfectly honest, while that could be an edge case of the algorithm that targets these videos; I really do not see a problem with it.

Honestly, I'm missing where the indignation is coming from? The video is still up right? YouTube is simply saying, you cannot use these videos with our ad partners...

What's the problem? What am I missing??

In addition the satire videos are being targeted as well as videos for Video game content.

Yep, and this is where I have some experience because I've worked with companies (tangentially) that have ads that target that demographic. You have no idea how many times these companies have to deal with irate people emailing them saying "do you know your ad is supporting this YouTube channel (x) that said (y) that I find offensive?"

Folks don't realize the ad partners at a micro-level don't have that kind of control over what video will broadcast their ad; YouTube and Google are responsible for this.

So, since people have always been told to vote with your pocketbook; and that's exactly what is happening... People (including ad partners) are saying enough is enough.

What is the problem with that?

Basically if you do some civilian reporting on issues in the Middle East,

There are tons of issues in the Middle East that would not fall under the change in rules... In fact, the majority of Middle East affairs/news wouldn't be affected.

If however, you're saying that you should be able to monetize war reporting or the Syrian refugee crisis; I agree with YT, that such content is not really where they want to push product ads.

talk about Islam in a bad light

Why would I as a company put forward an ad that does this on an international platform? What sense does it make for me as an advertiser or as Google to push something like this onto prospective customers?

or show "terrorist events" aka stuff like 9/11 you get your videos demonitized.

Riight.. and to me, that makes perfect sense...

I just don't understand why does this seem like a bad idea to you?

My company is in the business of making products, websites, and developing technologies; we deal with startups and even very large corporations. While we don't handle any business-to-business marketing at all, we do subcontract it out to firms. Why would we as the company handling development and business growth, the marketing firm, or the IP holder want to advertise on a video that might relate to the September 11th attacks?!?



Think about that for a second..

It is Youtube' way of censoring their content and going after creators for arbitrary rules that technically can apply to anything.

This isn't censorship...

YouTube is not blocking the videos, they are saying "we will not pay for these videos." These videos are not the kinds of videos we want to run ads for...

How does that amount to censorship.. And how are these rules in anyway arbitrary? In fact, they address very real problems on the platform as it relates to their business interests.

Moreover; you have to understand something... When you use YouTube either as a content creator or as a viewer; you are exercising Google's right to free speech, not yours. Google owns the platform in it's entirety. When people post videos on Google, they don't get to yell at Google for telling them what Google should and shouldn't allow; let alone what Google and it's ad partners should or shouldn't be prepared to preemptively pay for.

Now, if there was some public interest here; like actual freedom of speech issues, or electioneering issues, or some kind of defrauding of content creators revenues, that would be a topic worthy of discussion. But this? This amounts to quality controls over videos submitted for revenue sharing. To say that Google shouldn't do this is tantamount to saying Google should STFU and just pay people for anything they put up regardless of content.

That's not how this business works, and it's never how this business has worked historically.

 

[KI4MVP]

I don't follow, how does demonetizing a video censor it's content? Advertisers want some control over the expected type of content their ad will show on and some combinations could be highly inappropriate.

 

[BooyaCS]

I don't follow, how does demonetizing a video censor it's content? Advertisers want some control over the expected type of content their ad will show on and some combinations could be highly inappropriate.

Because anyone that gets paid with a youtube channel now has to censor their videos or they don't get paid. Basically if anything offends anyone (and there is a slippery slope here) then they can deem it not ad friendly and you don't get paid.

So, say for example, if you made money reviewing a product on Youtube (say video games) and one of your video game you are reviewing has violent content. Not only can that video get demonitized but others as well thus causing you to lose your livelihood in that manner.

And Gour I have stated it is Youtube's right to do that. However don't be a site that says you can post creative content on their site. You cannot that is why Dailymotion or even Patreon are starting to outpace some of these other sites.

 

[BooyaCS]

Now, if there was some public interest here; like actual freedom of speech issues, or electioneering issues, or some kind of defrauding of content creators revenues, that would be a topic worthy of discussion. But this? This amounts to quality controls over videos submitted for revenue sharing. To say that Google shouldn't do this is tantamount to saying Google should STFU and just pay people for anything they put up regardless of content.

Gour this is happening. That is what the issue is. A channel makes it's money as a Political channel that reaches either the right or the left, and it addresses those issues. Boom Demonitized for Political content and now the person who may not say anything controverisal other than their own views is now not allowed to make a living because someone may get offended by it.

Basically if you have the wrong opinion Youtube shuts you down.

 

[gourimoko]

I don't follow, how does demonetizing a video censor it's content? Advertisers want some control over the expected type of content their ad will show on and some combinations could be highly inappropriate.

Right, this is exactly where I'm confused as well... This seems perfectly legitimate on their part.

 

[gourimoko]

Because anyone that gets paid with a youtube channel now has to censor their videos or they don't get paid. Basically if anything offends anyone (and there is a slippery slope here) then they can deem it not ad friendly and you don't get paid.

Booya, that's not really how YT monetization / partner program works.

When content creators make a video, they upload it to YouTube, assign tags, mark probable demographics, etc; and then they request this video is either eligible or not eligible for monetization.

YouTube is saying that content creators must use these new standards for that eligibility. It does not prevent creators from publishing videos. What it says is "these are the videos YT is willing to pay for."

But this is on a video-by-video basis. Accounts will be suspended for violating ToS, but, I'm not sure how that relates to this.

So, say for example, if you made money reviewing a product on Youtube (say video games) and one of your video game you are reviewing has violent content. Not only can that video get demonitized but others as well thus causing you to lose your livelihood in that manner.

That's not true. That's only true if you the content creator continually requests monetization (which is based on a trust relationship) for videos that don't meet ad partner terms of service.

And Gour I have stated it is Youtube's right to do that. However don't be a site that says you can post creative content on their site. You cannot that is why Dailymotion or even Patreon are starting to outpace some of these other sites.

Those guys aren't coming close to YouTube, and the reason they have different business models is so that they can eek out a revenue stream on alternative content that otherwise couldn't be published to YouTube.

Also Patreon is not really comparable... There's nothing stopping someone from having a YT and a Patreon, and a person can request Patreon subscriptions over YT. In fact, that's what the folks you're talking about should be doing to support their content; not demanding advertisers pay for questionable material they or their customers find objectionable.

Don't you see the problem with this?

 

[gourimoko]

Gour this is happening. That is what the issue is. A channel makes it's money as a Political channel that reaches either the right or the left, and it addresses those issues. Boom Demonitized for Political content and now the person who may not say anything controverisal other than their own views is now not allowed to make a living because someone may get offended by it.

Basically if you have the wrong opinion Youtube shuts you down.

YouTube isn't "shutting you down."

BooyaCS, please try to understand where I'm coming from here... YouTube is not blocking political channels; in fact, I don't think they even referenced political discussion at all, did they? Instead, they are saying "if you make objectionable videos, we cannot pay you for them..."

What's wrong with YouTube saying it won't pay for content it doesn't think it can sell to it's advertisers?

People are responding, on the right and left (see: Secular Talk, a channel I personally watch) with tons of complaints. Neither side wants this...

But that's really irrelevant. YouTube is not the platform for this with respect to the partner program. The partner program is designed to sell products; not to foster freedom of speech and political narratives.

They are free to get direct subscriptions, through Patreon, or what have you; but not earn revenue sharing for questionable material.

Also.. btw, do the guidelines say anything about politics? I'm a bit confused by what you mean by "political."

p.s.
The biggest political channels on YouTube are The Young Turks and the Alex Jones Network, AFAIK. I don't think this will affect TYT at all; whereas, Jones, probably will need to spend time editing his videos.

p.s.2: Alex Jones got kicked out of the YT Partner Program years ago, so, I'm not even sure why they're complaining -- they don't earn ad revenue on his channel, AFAIK?

 

[KI4MVP]

Because anyone that gets paid with a youtube channel now has to censor their videos or they don't get paid. Basically if anything offends anyone (and there is a slippery slope here) then they can deem it not ad friendly and you don't get paid.

So, say for example, if you made money reviewing a product on Youtube (say video games) and one of your video game you are reviewing has violent content. Not only can that video get demonitized but others as well thus causing you to lose your livelihood in that manner.

And Gour I have stated it is Youtube's right to do that. However don't be a site that says you can post creative content on their site. You cannot that is why Dailymotion or even Patreon are starting to outpace some of these other sites.

youtube isn't the only way (or even the best way) to make money on content published on the internet. YouTube absolutely has to be able to guarantee that advertisers won't have their ads show up on inappropriate content relative to their product.

 

[gourimoko]

youtube isn't the only way (or even the best way) to make money on content published on the internet. YouTube absolutely has to be able to guarantee that advertisers won't have their ads show up on inappropriate content relative to their product.

This is precisely the point.

The creators complaining about this don't care if the products actually get sold or not; they're only interest is in getting paid. YouTube is saying: "make content that is appropriate for our business model..."

I really cannot fathom why that would be a big deal.

 

[BooyaCS]

This is precisely the point.

The creators complaining about this don't care if the products actually get sold or not; they're only interest is in getting paid. YouTube is saying: "make content that is appropriate for our business model..."

I really cannot fathom why that would be a big deal.

So because your world view is different than sunshine and rainbows and kids only content then you have no right to be paid?

Also if I review an Xbox game Sony can complain that their ad is on that and boom gone. Also you have no grounds to fight it.

I am sorry but anyone can find anything offensive. That is my issue this is very subjective and quite frankly bs.

It is YouTubes right. I have said that but again it is a form of censorship

 

[BooyaCS]

YouTube isn't "shutting you down."

BooyaCS, please try to understand where I'm coming from here... YouTube is not blocking political channels; in fact, I don't think they even referenced political discussion at all, did they? Instead, they are saying "if you make objectionable videos, we cannot pay you for them..."

What's wrong with YouTube saying it won't pay for content it doesn't think it can sell to it's advertisers?

People are responding, on the right and left (see: Secular Talk, a channel I personally watch) with tons of complaints. Neither side wants this...

But that's really irrelevant. YouTube is not the platform for this with respect to the partner program. The partner program is designed to sell products; not to foster freedom of speech and political narratives.

They are free to get direct subscriptions, through Patreon, or what have you; but not earn revenue sharing for questionable material.

Also.. btw, do the guidelines say anything about politics? I'm a bit confused by what you mean by "political."

p.s.
The biggest political channels on YouTube are The Young Turks and the Alex Jones Network, AFAIK. I don't think this will affect TYT at all; whereas, Jones, probably will need to spend time editing his videos.

p.s.2: Alex Jones got kicked out of the YT Partner Program years ago, so, I'm not even sure why they're complaining -- they don't earn ad revenue on his channel, AFAIK?

Tyt got 19 of their videos demonized for this

 

[gourimoko]

I'm actually a moderate fan of this show and listen in fairly regularly (not subscribed but, close to it)...

I support this guy in his endeavors, but I reject his argument.

If I create a product; say it's a series of courses for learning web development. I target that towards tech minded individuals which will have a large overlap with gamers. Those folks generally are a big part of his demographic.

Do I want my ads (the ads I'm paying both per impression and per click) playing before/during his videos?

Lol.... Fuck no. His videos evoke a wide range of emotions; often negative emotions, and people aren't thinking "man, I wanna learn web development" while watching him talk about child marriages, rapes, and ISIS (issues I agree with him on 150%).

His narrative just makes no sense here... and while I'm sorry he's likely going to go under if this is actually enforced (he lost 20% of his videos overnight); I understand YouTube doing this.

Folks seem to think the internet was always like this; but it wasn't. I've been using the internet since before people knew what the word meant... Things have changed, and YT is just responding to that change.