Youtube Institutes Monetization Changes - ....Really?

So earlier today, Youtube rolled out changes to its monetization setup:

004zr4z.jpg


Reading these, you can immediately see that they're ambiguous enough to allow widespread demonetization of virtually everything and then some. But a recent vid by Phillip DeFranco, and reports by several other YouTubers has revealed a pattern in the channels getting demonetized:



I'm hoping to Christ that this pattern isn't as insane as it seems at a glance, because fuck, man.
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
  • Feels
Reactions: AN/ALR56, Emo Supremo, DirkBloodStormKing and 18 others
Click to expand...
The Giver said:
I disagree, at least in some cases. Like, at a certain level you gotta respect the hustle.
Click to expand...

At least Youtube creators create SOMETHING, at least they have the semblance of work. I mean I have more respect for a Youtuber than say some futures trader, whose career that simply makes money on betting whether things in the market go to shit or not. Or some Executive that just goes from company to company running shit into the ground and always get their severance package because they were in the right buddy group in Yale.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Autistic
  • Dumb
Reactions: Tin, John Titor, Trombonista and 13 others
Phillip DeFranco followup


Jewish Culture said:
More surprised that Jewgle hasn't performed this ethnical cleansing way earlier. The company's goal really isn't to make money, but rather predict and engineer reality by manufacturing false consensus and cultural trends. That's the only reason they bothered purchasing Youtube in the first place.
Click to expand...

Well yeah if we go back to Athene again during google+ debacle.

 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: DirkBloodStormKing, Jewelsmakerguy and Mossy
Ebola said:
Does any of this have anything to do with Obama turning over the master keys of the internet to the UN and the world at large just before leaving office?
Click to expand...
Imma need some more info on this
 
When the Obama administration announced its plan to give up U.S. protection of the internet, it promised the United Nations would never take control. But because of the administration’s naiveté or arrogance, U.N. control is the likely result if the U.S. gives up internet stewardship as planned at midnight on Sept. 30.

It’s shocking the administration admits it has no plan for how Icann retains its antitrust exemption. The reason Icann can operate the entire World Wide Web root zone is that it has the status of a legal monopolist, stemming from its contract with the Commerce Department that makes Icann an “instrumentality” of government.

Antitrust rules don’t apply to governments or organizations operating under government control. In a 1999 case, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the monopoly on internet domains because the Commerce Department had set “explicit terms” of the contract relating to the “government’s policies regarding the proper administration” of the domain system.

Without the U.S. contract, Icann would seek to be overseen by another governmental group so as to keep its antitrust exemption. Authoritarian regimes have already proposed Icann become part of the U.N. to make it easier for them to censor the internet globally. So much for the Obama pledge that the U.S. would never be replaced by a “government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.”

The administration might not have considered the antitrust issue, which would have been naive. Or perhaps in its arrogance the administration knew all along Icann would lose its antitrust immunity and look to the U.N. as an alternative. Congress could have voted to give Icann an antitrust exemption, but the internet giveaway plan is too flawed for legislative approval.

As the administration spent the past two years preparing to give up the contract with Icann, it also stopped actively overseeing the group. That allowed Icann to abuse its monopoly over internet domains, which earns it hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Earlier this month, an independent review within Icann called the organization “simply not credible” in how it handled the application for the .inc, .llc and .llp domains. The independent review found Icann staffers were “intimately involved” in evaluating their own work. A company called Dot Registry had worked with officials of U.S. states to create a system ensuring anyone using these Web addresses was a legitimate registered company. Icann rejected Dot Registry’s application as a community, which would have resulted in lowered fees to Icann.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-internet-giveaway-to-the-u-n-1472421165
 
  • Informative
  • Feels
Reactions: Splendid, Super Collie, Lackadaisy and 4 others
Brandobaris said:
When the Obama administration announced its plan to give up U.S. protection of the internet, it promised the United Nations would never take control. But because of the administration’s naiveté or arrogance, U.N. control is the likely result if the U.S. gives up internet stewardship as planned at midnight on Sept. 30.

It’s shocking the administration admits it has no plan for how Icann retains its antitrust exemption. The reason Icann can operate the entire World Wide Web root zone is that it has the status of a legal monopolist, stemming from its contract with the Commerce Department that makes Icann an “instrumentality” of government.

Antitrust rules don’t apply to governments or organizations operating under government control. In a 1999 case, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the monopoly on internet domains because the Commerce Department had set “explicit terms” of the contract relating to the “government’s policies regarding the proper administration” of the domain system.

Without the U.S. contract, Icann would seek to be overseen by another governmental group so as to keep its antitrust exemption. Authoritarian regimes have already proposed Icann become part of the U.N. to make it easier for them to censor the internet globally. So much for the Obama pledge that the U.S. would never be replaced by a “government-led or an inter-governmental organization solution.”

The administration might not have considered the antitrust issue, which would have been naive. Or perhaps in its arrogance the administration knew all along Icann would lose its antitrust immunity and look to the U.N. as an alternative. Congress could have voted to give Icann an antitrust exemption, but the internet giveaway plan is too flawed for legislative approval.

As the administration spent the past two years preparing to give up the contract with Icann, it also stopped actively overseeing the group. That allowed Icann to abuse its monopoly over internet domains, which earns it hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Earlier this month, an independent review within Icann called the organization “simply not credible” in how it handled the application for the .inc, .llc and .llp domains. The independent review found Icann staffers were “intimately involved” in evaluating their own work. A company called Dot Registry had worked with officials of U.S. states to create a system ensuring anyone using these Web addresses was a legitimate registered company. Icann rejected Dot Registry’s application as a community, which would have resulted in lowered fees to Icann.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/an-internet-giveaway-to-the-u-n-1472421165
Click to expand...

Who cares? The whole root nameserver concept has been obsolete and broken for literally fucking decades.

It's time to replace it with something decentralized. This just creates an impetus to do that finally.
 
  • Agree
  • Optimistic
  • Disagree
Reactions: Splendid, Super Collie, DirkBloodStormKing and 5 others
AnOminous said:
Who cares? The whole root nameserver concept has been obsolete and broken for literally fucking decades.

It's time to replace it with something decentralized. This just creates an impetus to do that finally.
Click to expand...

Why would most government support a system they had no control over, they'd want a centralized, easy to manage system for spreading "news" like Television or the Newspapers. Who is going to be funding it? Silicon Valley? Why? They are happy with what they have, they are big enough that everyone has each others backs. If you look at the recent news story on German Government working with Facebook to identify, shut down, and in some cases charge people in Germany with anti-muslim immigration views. I'd think all the bigwigs would definately push back against any headway made into a new de-centralized system. They almost have everything under lock down now. Why would they give that up?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: DirkBloodStormKing, A Cold Potato and Shokew
Brandobaris said:
At least Youtube creators create SOMETHING, at least they have the semblance of work. I mean I have more respect for a Youtuber than say some futures trader, whose career that simply makes money on betting whether things in the market go to shit or not. Or some Executive that just goes from company to company running shit into the ground and always get their severance package because they were in the right buddy group in Yale.
Click to expand...

Please tell me you are kidding
 
  • Agree
  • Autistic
Reactions: Vitriol, DuskEngine, Emo Supremo and 8 others
tehpope said:
MrEnter made a video on this. He thinks the Gov. should get into this and make laws against this sort of thing.

Click to expand...

Yeah... Nah. The Government is not even gonna bother touching this, especially with how Big and Bigger business tends to control them in general (not without the miraculous removal of them from power tomorrow, anyway...). I definitely & personally feel that anyone who thinks otherwise is naive as fuck, if not outright stupid.

I'm a little sad this is happening, as there are no alternatives to YT out there to appease these people who want to get paid so badly (too bad most (actually far too many!) on YT right now don't deserve to get paid for anything...). I really hope most of these people banking on this are looking for actual work, now, as I don't see this getting better unless some alternative miraculously does come along (only further encouraging this brand of laziness.).
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: TheLateGreatBate, DirkBloodStormKing, A Cold Potato and 1 other person
Beaniebon said:
I thought we determined that we want government involvement when it comes to the internet to be as little as possible. We can't have our cake and eat it, too.
Click to expand...

Yeah - that's what I mean. Gov't can't (or, better yet, won't) touch this - and it's clear no one should want (or, obviously enough, need) them to, either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back