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.
 
Chris was never smart enough to monetize his videos despite people recommending him to do so.

It's a shame since weens used to get really angry at the thought of Chris making money on them and it might have incentivised him to make more.
Nah, I'd never expect Chris to figure out how to monetize. I'd be amazed if he even made the video regardless of monetization.
 
I'm actually surprised this didn't happen years ago. The shit that youtube runs ads on is sometimes questionable. It always amazed me that an ad for Target would run before one of those World-star compilations of people getting their brains beaten out (even if most of it is mutual combat), and everyone was fine with a company like Target profiting on that. I don't personally care, Target could directly sponsor bumfights.com and I'd still buy bath towels and socks from them. I'm just surprised it took the fainting-couch crowd so long to make an actual thing out of this.
 
Dumb this down for me, gents. Does this take away the rights a service has to get a creator to endorse them? Or does this limit the services that you may use?

The Greens don't speak about this, but others who have been partnered with Lootcrate, Crunchyroll, NaturesBox, etc seem to be getting this, despite services having no issue whatsoever.

I think Natalie is to blame for this one.

Speaking of, does Nattie even get a pension for their shit
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How is this the end of the internet? It's sad to see in some cases, but I personally think you need to calm down.

Sure its not the end of the internet, but its a move to turn internet into basically "interactive television".

If the UN has legal control over the internet. Say kiwifarms was on a list of "Terrorist affiliated sites" would they have the ability to then simply block it? For everyone? I have no idea since I don't know how that root dns protocol stuff works. Lil help?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: DirkBloodStormKing
If these insights were _so_ astonishing you could hustle up your own sponsors and run your own ad in it yourself like "Hey guys this new movie is THE WORST SHIT EVER! This is brought to you by Tasty Cake! They're Tasty! AND BULGEMAN'S TIGHTS ARE THE WRONG SHADE OF MAUVE AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!"

Actually, a lot of smaller channels have been doing this for some time. (By smaller, I mean they're typically between the 200k and 1mil subscriber zone.) They get sponsorship from different companies to talk about their products in their videos (the where and how much depends on the sponsorship agreement). A lot of the nerdier channels do it with audiobook sites, gaming equipment, etc. and it's extremely prevalent on the product review and make up channels. Quite a few have sponsorships with Lootcrate now or similar companies.

Couldn't these people just make patreons instead? Quite a few of these people who've bashed this new policy, like YourMovieSucks, has a patreon, so what are they complaining about?

See my comment above for part of the explanation. Unfortunately unless you have a viewer base of.. well a lot.. patreon may not be as profitable for you as youtube ad revenue, which is also a lot more stable price wise as patreons can take away their bux whenever they feel like it. Patreon also adds more work to your week with the rewards tiers. (Even if they're shit rewards.)

As a side note, I love how majority of the people complaining are shit-tier youtube channels who look 15 and haven't even invested in a camera and mic above $20. Advertisers don't give a shit about you and don't want their ads on your channels anyway.
 
As a side note, I love how majority of the people complaining are shit-tier youtube channels who look 15 and haven't even invested in a camera and mic above $20. Advertisers don't give a shit about you and don't want their ads on your channels anyway.
That, and I'm pretty sure most of these people aren't even monetized to begin with, and simply jumping the bandwagon because "If DeFranco and other people are doing it, I will too!"
 
That, and I'm pretty sure most of these people aren't even monetized to begin with, and simply jumping the bandwagon because "If DeFranco and other people are doing it, I will too!"

Probably. These people are just for the minor (very minor) attention from posting their shitty videos on youtube and not the money. The way to get monetized (and even a special username now on youtube) is incredibly convoluted so I doubt they've figured it out anyway.
 
besides the younger demographic i'm thinking that youtube is a dying breed of sorts. it's not exactly smart to run (since the amount of content within is staggering, well over three million terrabytes at this point) and the costs to run the site is about as well thought out as reddit standing on nothing but donations and ductape. it's not going to fuck off and die per se but it's definetly showing it's cracks since it's advents.
 
besides the younger demographic i'm thinking that youtube is a dying breed of sorts. it's not exactly smart to run (since the amount of content within is staggering, well over three million terrabytes at this point) and the costs to run the site is about as well thought out as reddit standing on nothing but donations and ductape. it's not going to fuck off and die per se but it's definetly showing it's cracks since it's advents.

It's been doing that since its outset though. And it's underestimated how much having a nearly impregnable legal shield around its video content has actually tended to create a legal environment where its competitors get to exist without having fear of a legal holocaust of video content.

Viacom literally tried to nuke Internet video with a lawsuit against YouTube that disregarded the Digital Millennium Copyright Act safe harbors and would have held ISPs liable for copyright infringement even if they scrupulously obeyed the law, which YouTube did and does. Not many entities could have withstood this legal assault, which says more about our money-driven legal system than the law itself, but Google won it handily.

The issue is still not resolved as the case ultimately settled, but seriously, if you do video that contains other IP, and you can still do that, YouTube is to thank for it. I know people love to bitch about their videos getting taken down and having to counter notify, at least if they aren't gigantic pussies, and even if they are, they can move to dailymotion or some Russian site or anywhere else and still have a place.

Yes, YouTube is fucked up as shit, it's amazing it works at all, it's practically held together with bubble gum and baling twine, but it is good it exists, and it is generally, if not always, on the side of the good guys.
 
When it comes to the shit - tier folk (e.g.: high-school aged kids in general with little to no real-world outlet that need to get off their asses and find one.) doing this shit - yeah. THIS IS for the best. These kids need to get real jobs if they want to make it (or most obviously, get by and properly begin to make ends meet.) anytime soon in this world.
 
Dumb this down for me, gents. Does this take away the rights a service has to get a creator to endorse them? Or does this limit the services that you may use?

The Greens don't speak about this, but others who have been partnered with Lootcrate, Crunchyroll, NaturesBox, etc seem to be getting this, despite services having no issue whatsoever.

I think Natalie is to blame for this one.

Forgive me for being clueless but how can she be the cause of this?
 
When it comes to the shit - tier folk (e.g.: high-school aged kids in general with little to no real-world outlet that need to get off their asses and find one.) doing this shit - yeah. THIS IS for the best. These kids need to get real jobs if they want to make it (or most obviously, get by and properly begin to make ends meet.) anytime soon in this world.

I'd agree if increased automisation, outsourcing unskilled/low skill jobs overseas, and lack of investiture and incentive in high tech education and development wasn't a thing.
 
When it comes to the shit - tier folk (e.g.: high-school aged kids in general with little to no real-world outlet that need to get off their asses and find one.) doing this shit - yeah. THIS IS for the best. These kids need to get real jobs if they want to make it (or most obviously, get by and properly begin to make ends meet.) anytime soon in this world.
Yeah, realistically, even if YouTube wasn't doing this, monetization (or at least the big bucks) usually only gets dolled out after a certain about of views. Otherwise, you'd be lucky to get even a few dollars from it.
 
Back