Youtube Policy is changing the rules for monetize again! Chaos! PANIC! UPDATED AGAIN!!!!

[Saelune]

Source, please? I looked around online and couldn't find any news about a policy change.

I mean the youtube video I posted with this is kinda a primary source document is it not?

It's not even a secondary source. It's hearsay. A primary source is not someone covering other information. The primary source is the updated TOS.

I hope you never made that mistake in your high school English.

Like the thread Sloth posted, and TB's speculation, it seems rather likely this is in response to rubbish like DramaAlert. It's definitely not a good way to handle that though.

What is it with Google (amongst other companies) wanting to intentionally crash their own websites? Because this, if it remains, will end up in a competitor popping up.
[snip for conspiratorial ranting]
At this point Google and Facebook are led by people who want them to fail, there is no rational explanation other then that. Someone much have bought enough stock of both that pissed off the administrators of both sites enough to want to see them crash.

You have absolutely zero clue about what you're talking about. Youtube actually doesn't bring in a net profit, and causes a significant pain in the ass to run. That's also why the magical competitor service that everyone keeps saying needs to come and take away their business doesn't crop up. It's nothing to do with crashing a successful business. It is very hard to defend rationality when one starts from false pretenses

They almost certainly are trying to make them more advertiser friendly and sanitised, case in point, the TOS update is about monetisation, and that's regretable, but it in no way is some attempt to drive it into the ground, in fact, it's about avoiding that. That trying to get more advertisers and a larger market share necessitiates being blander, more polite, and less potentially offensive. You can't argue for the profit motive and then against moves made with one. That is entirely irrational. You don't give a flying fuck about their business, you just want to defend a certain style of content. Which is fine, just be fucking honest.

Ofcourse they want to -make- money, but this isn't how it will work. This is a stupid idea and will ruin almost every channel worth a damn. Every channel I actively watch? They will stop when they aren't making money. Maybe WatchMojo will stick around, but if you think they are bad now, I don't need 5 episodes of "Top 10 cutest kittens" every day.

And ofcourse we don't give a fuck about their business, but WE are their business. Shitty product and no customers, money does not make. If they drive us away, they wont earn shit.

 

[Erttheking]

Censorship that's actually worth being concerned over? Imagine if we focused on this instead of anime girls showing one square inch less of skin.

Seriously though, Youtube gets more fuckheaded every day, it's pathetic.

 

[Ryallen]

So, I'm reading the comments not only on the Philip DeFranco video but also on the Boogie2988 video...

And I'm seeing a lot of people blaming SJWs. I know that I'm going to cause an argument here, and I hate that I'm asking this, I really do, so I don't mind if I get a strike for this, but I want to know where people are getting the idea that SJWs are behind this. Like, this is just referring to the code of conduct in general, and I don't think that people would be stupid/offended enough to want videos demonetized because they swore or talked about kinda messed up subjects, like mass shootings and rape. Hell, you'd think that SJWs would be AGAINST this sort of thing, seeing as how it would spread the word about problems like this and raise awareness.

 

[Saelune]

So, I'm reading the comments not only on the Philip DeFranco video but also on the Boogie2988 video...

And I'm seeing a lot of people blaming SJWs. I know that I'm going to cause an argument here, and I hate that I'm asking this, I really do, so I don't mind if I get a strike for this, but I want to know where people are getting the idea that SJWs are behind this. Like, this is just referring to the code of conduct in general, and I don't think that people would be stupid/offended enough to want videos demonetized because they swore or talked about kinda messed up subjects, like mass shootings and rape. Hell, you'd think that SJWs would be AGAINST this sort of thing, seeing as how it would spread the word about problems like this and raise awareness.

I don't think "SJW"s are the cause. I think marketing people are the cause.

 

[Ryallen]

So, I'm reading the comments not only on the Philip DeFranco video but also on the Boogie2988 video...

And I'm seeing a lot of people blaming SJWs. I know that I'm going to cause an argument here, and I hate that I'm asking this, I really do, so I don't mind if I get a strike for this, but I want to know where people are getting the idea that SJWs are behind this. Like, this is just referring to the code of conduct in general, and I don't think that people would be stupid/offended enough to want videos demonetized because they swore or talked about kinda messed up subjects, like mass shootings and rape. Hell, you'd think that SJWs would be AGAINST this sort of thing, seeing as how it would spread the word about problems like this and raise awareness.

I don't think "SJW"s are the cause. I think marketing people are the cause.

Thus my confusion.

 

[Just Ebola]

Yea, I'm gonna throw my money in with the "this sounds like bullshit crowd". A few youtubers get a bit of flack from the website, and of course the first defense they're gonna use is "CENSORSHIP!". No, I highly doubt that what's really going on. If it is, Youtube is basically going to pull the trigger on itself, and I'd hate to see that happen.

Don't forget the other cornerstone of comedy: shrieking! Specifically, "RAPE! RAAAAAAPE!", in the first and last video of his I ever watched.

Oh dear God, he used an internet buzzword! It's somehow in a completely different league than every other profanity. Seriously, of all the shit you could possibly talk about Pewdiepie, that's what stands out in your mind? Didn't he recently get into some hot water on Twitter for saying he was unverified for "joining ISIS" as a joke of course.

I don't like that salty Swede any more than the next guy, but I really hate when people perpetuate stereotypes. First, all of his videos are about screaming about rape, next you'll tell me that a dog's mouth is cleaner than a humans, and before you know it we're living in mud huts flinging rocks at each other.

It'd be like if someone brought up Anti Sarkeesian and I yelled "feminist sjw!". Let's ignore sensationalism and form some opinions of our own.

 

[Ender910_v1legacy]

Snip

I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this tangent, but incase linking to youtube's updated policy [https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en] wasn't enough:

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

If any of the above describes any portion of your video, then the video may not be approved for monetization. If monetization is approved, your video may not be eligible for all available ad formats. YouTube reserves the right to not monetize a video, as well as suspend monetization features on channels that repeatedly submit videos violating our policies.

And then I dug and checked another section for more policy information, so I'll link that and quote the relevant section(s):

https://www.youtube.com/yt/policyandsafety/policy.html

Additional policies
Vulgar language

Some language is not appropriate for younger audiences. Use of sexually explicit language or excessive profanity in your video or associated metadata may lead to the age-restriction of your video.

Which would tie in with this bit from my first link:

Depending on the nature of the policy violation, videos can be removed from the site or age-restricted. Monetization is disabled on age-restricted videos and Google will immediately stop serving ads on these videos.

On further examination from that second link though, I will admit some of it doesn't sound quite as bad as I'd feared (in other sections specifically). For instance youtube won't be flagging sex educational content or journalistic/news based videos. The language part though is still rather iffy, and I imagine unless youtube further refines their meaning with that, they'll probably be enforcing it rather arbitrarily, much like they already do with other things such as DMCA and copyright infringement.

 

[Just Ebola]

snip

It's a bit short to be a tangent, don't you think? And yes, that may be what they're saying now, but history tells us they'll do what everyone who comes under scrutiny does: backtrack. It happens every time someone big missteps, and I have no reason to think it won't happen now. But like I already said, if that doesn't happen, shame on YouTube, they're only hurting themselves by trying to police their content creators so heavily. And if that causes them to plummet from the good graces of the internet, oh well, they did it to themselves.

But let me restate: I don't believe this will lead to shit. They're over-stepping their bounds and will likely get stung for it. For a long time now YouTube has been a clusterfuck of nonsense, from bullshit copyright takedowns, to flagrant misuse of copyright laws. If you want to pretend some writing on Yt's policy info is the be all end all, be my guest. I'll be over here with the rest of reality waiting to see how this actually goes.

 

[SweetShark]

I will be the one I will say I am a little glad for this new policy.
I am not 100% ok of course, but I want to see youtube comedians do actually comedy and not yelling all the time the well known bad words...
I want to see something funny and smart at the same time without hearing fuck/shit/*****/etc every second god dammit.

 

[Kina]

This is not censorship. People are still more than welcome to create such content - they just wont get paid for it.

If you rely solely on your Youtube income to survive, then you've got bigger things to worry about than your "content haven". Perhaps getting a real job would be right up your alley.

 

[RaikuFA]

So, I'm reading the comments not only on the Philip DeFranco video but also on the Boogie2988 video...

And I'm seeing a lot of people blaming SJWs. I know that I'm going to cause an argument here, and I hate that I'm asking this, I really do, so I don't mind if I get a strike for this, but I want to know where people are getting the idea that SJWs are behind this. Like, this is just referring to the code of conduct in general, and I don't think that people would be stupid/offended enough to want videos demonetized because they swore or talked about kinda messed up subjects, like mass shootings and rape. Hell, you'd think that SJWs would be AGAINST this sort of thing, seeing as how it would spread the word about problems like this and raise awareness.

I think they'really blaming SJW's just for a scapegoat. But the whole "you can't talk about rape" thing does sound like something a SJW would say. I bet there are "SJW's" that are happy about it to avoid "being triggered" but you can count the amount on one hand.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

This is not censorship. People are still more than welcome to create such content - they just wont get paid for it.

If you rely solely on your Youtube income to survive, then you've got bigger things to worry about than your "content haven". Perhaps getting a real job would be right up your alley.

If a newspaper had its ads pulled and lost all its revenue because they report on human rights violations, would you say "well you're welcome to create that content, you just won't get paid for it"? Or a tv station? A radio station?

Also, how is being a youtuber reporting on real world news not a "real" job? People used to found newspapers back in the day to report on things, and they relied on outside monetary support, ie. advertising, to cover their costs. How is founding a youtube channel to report on things and relying on outside monetary support, ie. ads, to cover their costs so fundamentally different?

 

[Barbas]

Oh dear God, he used an internet buzzword! It's somehow in a completely different league than every other profanity. Seriously, of all the shit you could possibly talk about Pewdiepie, that's what stands out in your mind? Didn't he recently get into some hot water on Twitter for saying he was unverified for "joining ISIS" as a joke of course.

I don't like that salty Swede any more than the next guy, but I really hate when people perpetuate stereotypes. First, all of his videos are about screaming about rape, next you'll tell me that a dog's mouth is cleaner than a humans, and before you know it we're living in mud huts flinging rocks at each other.

It'd be like if someone brought up Anti Sarkeesian and I yelled "feminist sjw!". Let's ignore sensationalism and form some opinions of our own.

It's difficult to believe that rape qualifies as a buzzword to a lot of people. It was a little mortifying that he used it because at the time he thought peppering sentences with it was a cheap source of comedy.

Also, I must draw your attention to this part of my post:

...in the first and last video of his I ever watched.

That, along with the other behaviour he managed to cram into those few astonishing minutes, put me off his videos right quick. I had no desire to watch any further. The bit he did for charity was very nice, though, if that helps.

 

[Kina]

This is not censorship. People are still more than welcome to create such content - they just wont get paid for it.

If you rely solely on your Youtube income to survive, then you've got bigger things to worry about than your "content haven". Perhaps getting a real job would be right up your alley.

If a newspaper had its ads pulled and lost all its revenue because they report on human rights violations, would you say "well you're welcome to create that content, you just won't get paid for it"? Or a tv station? A radio station?

Also, how is being a youtuber reporting on real world news not a "real" job? People used to found newspapers back in the day to report on things, and they relied on outside monetary support, ie. advertising, to cover their costs. How is founding a youtube channel to report on things and relying on outside monetary support, ie. ads, to cover their costs so fundamentally different?

You're sitting in front of your webcam in your studio apartment desperately trying to find an edge or a hook to your hard-cut "journalism". There's slim to no integrity too it, and if they wanted to actually report news in a professional and adequate way, they'd apply to school, get a proper journalistic degree and find an outlet that allows them to do just that.

But to think of them as actual reporters..? Sit down.

 

[Fox12]

This is not censorship. People are still more than welcome to create such content - they just wont get paid for it.

If you rely solely on your Youtube income to survive, then you've got bigger things to worry about than your "content haven". Perhaps getting a real job would be right up your alley.

"Har! Making YouTube videos isn't a real job! These people should be as miserable as me!"

Dude, whatever. You make money any way you can. If that includes making dumb jokes on the Internet, so be it. If you can make money having fun, go for it. I can't stand job shaming, as if anything anyone does actually matters. No matter what you do, you can be replaced, and one day you will die. Until then, if you want to get paid to make dick jokes, go for it.

 

[Kina]

Oh, they can absolutely make some money. I'm in no way disputing that. But you're doing everyone a disservice by referring to them as reporters or journalists. Similar to how I would never refer to myself as a carpenter for putting up an IKEA bookshelf.

Sit down.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

While this might at first glance seem like a "SJW conspiracy grr grr" the guidelines are equally damaging for everyone, and I have no idea what kind of brain process was behind their creation. Especially the mention of "controvesial subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters or tragedies" cuts out pretty much 90% of real world news. A rape case where the perpetrator walks scot free? Not eligible. Police shooting another innocent unarmed man? Not eligible. Pretty much any news regarding racism, misogyny or sexual minority rights? Not eligible.

 

[Sonmi]

I wouldn't call it censorship, it's simply a retouching of their policies, this time emphasizing that they want YouTube to be a family friendly unpoliticized outlet. If people still want to make content that doesn't fit YouTube's criteria, they are still free to, they simply won't get payed for it anymore (or at least, for the time, I doubt this change is going to last).

 

[RaikuFA]

Well, I just saw illwillpress got hit with a lot of these.

Either YT will change things back very quickly or its gonna die very quickly.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I wouldn't call it censorship, it's simply a retouching of their policies, this time emphasizing that they want YouTube to be a family friendly unpoliticized outlet. If people still want to make content that doesn't fit YouTube's criteria, they are still free to, they simply won't get payed for it anymore (or at least, for the time, I doubt this change is going to last).

KiA from my lurkings seems to think it's revenge by the secret feminist illuminati run by that girl in the lyft driver thing Phil covered the day before. It was in another thread that is now locked.

But it's also now being reported this has been going on for about a year now and they're only now making the policy public.

I'm not one for the tinfoil hat crowd, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't an element of that to shut down channels like LeafyisHere and Dramaalert. Less of an identity politic thing and a more, "Lets get this crap off youtube before they drive someone to suicide."