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

Recommended Videos

RaikuFA

New member
Jun 12, 2009
4,370
0
0
So Caddy just posted this last night.


Was just something that made me laugh.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,580
7,215
118
Country
United States
Parasondox said:
Sidenote: Is it true Hulu has ads? So you pay for a monthly service and you have advertisement during programming? Have it before and after, thats fine. Not during.
Licenses for live TV are very expensive. There's a reason Netflix doesn't get stuff for months/years after they're broadcast normally.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
MatParker116 said:
FalloutJack said:
Silentpony said:
FalloutJack said:
The OP should also note that Jim Sterling has made a video, and I think TotalBiscuit has, as well. So, Great Britain speaks, I guess.
Yeah but Jim didn't say much new. Just his usual righteous indignation and bark-bark speeches. Haven't seen TB's video, but I can guess its a slightly better phrased and researched version of JimmyBoy's vid.
What he said DID make sense, of course Youtube will never have the manpower or the competence to do the job themselves either. For some reason, Google somehow can't afford quality workmanship.
Because it's the equivalent of trying to check every drop of water for disease, five billion minutes of video are uploaded every hour trying to check them all manually is next to impossible.
Well, that's tough shit, man. The CDC doesn't complain about stuff like that. (Not sure your analogy's accurate, anyway.) You can gripe and grumble and say whatever you like, but until the system properly works, it doesn't. And when it doesn't, it fucks everything up. And when THAT happens, it's your fault. SO! Right back where we started. Youtube isn't funded properly, isn't manned properly, and does not have the expertise to do its job. You don't like that its job is hard? Too bad. It's still their job.
 

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,760
0
0
RaikuFA said:
So Caddy just posted this last night.


Was just something that made me laugh.
Felt kinda stilted and obvious. I mean duh, music videos are basically softcore porn these days.
And obviously someone like Manaj and her music label is going to be more important to YouTube than a bunch of lets players, and thus their appeals are going to be expedited.
 

RaikuFA

New member
Jun 12, 2009
4,370
0
0
Silentpony said:
RaikuFA said:
So Caddy just posted this last night.


Was just something that made me laugh.
Felt kinda stilted and obvious. I mean duh, music videos are basically softcore porn these days.
And obviously someone like Manaj and her music label is going to be more important to YouTube than a bunch of lets players, and thus their appeals are going to be expedited.
At least rap music videos are softcorn porn. And yeah it felt forced but at least there were a few good jokes in there.

Also I guarantee any rock video that has the same content would get deleted off of the website.
 

Kina

New member
Mar 8, 2008
46
0
0
Mmyes, let's ignore him by speaking of him repeatedly over and over and over. Flawless plan, similar to launching your own Youtube channel in hopes of making money. When I refer to a 'real job', I'm talking about a job that, by all traditional sense, offers stability and is based on something reliable/already proven. Expecting something like Youtube as a platform to forever remain a reliable source of income is.. very naive. I pray few people do this.

By definition, you are all indeed right that whatever pays is just that, a job. But if someone were to tell me that their full time job is to record videos for Youtube, I'd be prone to react similarly to what I imagine most of you would in that situation - whether or not you're willing to admit that.

Sitting yet?
 

MatParker116

New member
Feb 4, 2009
2,430
0
0
FalloutJack said:
MatParker116 said:
FalloutJack said:
Silentpony said:
FalloutJack said:
The OP should also note that Jim Sterling has made a video, and I think TotalBiscuit has, as well. So, Great Britain speaks, I guess.
Yeah but Jim didn't say much new. Just his usual righteous indignation and bark-bark speeches. Haven't seen TB's video, but I can guess its a slightly better phrased and researched version of JimmyBoy's vid.
What he said DID make sense, of course Youtube will never have the manpower or the competence to do the job themselves either. For some reason, Google somehow can't afford quality workmanship.
Because it's the equivalent of trying to check every drop of water for disease, five billion minutes of video are uploaded every hour trying to check them all manually is next to impossible.
Well, that's tough shit, man. The CDC doesn't complain about stuff like that. (Not sure your analogy's accurate, anyway.) You can gripe and grumble and say whatever you like, but until the system properly works, it doesn't. And when it doesn't, it fucks everything up. And when THAT happens, it's your fault. SO! Right back where we started. Youtube isn't funded properly, isn't manned properly, and does not have the expertise to do its job. You don't like that its job is hard? Too bad. It's still their job.
Companies exist to make money, it not fiscally feasible to hire the amount of people that would be required to check every video title and tag for advertiser friendly content. AI is unfortunately not yet advanced enough to do it either, it's not a perfect system but it's the best we are going to get in the near future.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
MatParker116 said:
Let me put it in plain business terms. A business asked them to do a thing. They said "Sure!" and then proceeded to not be able to do it properly, causing them no end of problems. This is not operating. It is not doing. So, right back to where we started. Youtube is not funded, manned, or skilled enough to do its job. You can go around the Merry-Go-Round as much as you like, but they are not capable, period.
 

Dragonbums

Indulge in it's whiffy sensation
May 9, 2013
3,307
0
0
In this whole debacle I would also like to add in this.

This new policy rule basically states that advertisers have the right to take away ads from a video they don't want to be associated with.

Isn't this also a basic right granted to businesses and person anyway? SC Johnson has every right to say that they don't want their brand ads on a video that features a Lets Player who talks about liver in squalor all day.

Disney has every right to say they don't want their ads to be on an Angry Joe video because he swears and depicts harsh violence.

St.Judes childrens hospital has every right to deny THEIR ADS bringing in monetary revenue to a guy who makes his living saying hospitals are scams.


I would also like to point out that 'the ability to not make money' on a video is not synonymous to censorship and Youtube 'banning' content they don't like. If you can still post the damn thing on your channel and not get hit with a ban hammer it's neither censored or banned. This overreaction and conflation of the terms 'banning' when it comes to YT anything makes it hard for people on the outside to give a shit about the next Tube controversy.


So in order to really make a counter argument that this is a shitty thing to do you honestly have to argue about WHY businessse, corporations and companies ranging from heavy hitters like McDonalds to small businesses like 'Videogame Food channel' have no right to dictate where their ads should be shown other than 'because I can't make Google adsense money'

Also keep in mind that some companies could honestly not give a shit and the fact that this has been implemented for a year and none of the big channels even knew about it until now further incriminates this as a cry fest over nothing.
 

RaikuFA

New member
Jun 12, 2009
4,370
0
0
Dragonbums said:
In this whole debacle I would also like to add in this.

This new policy rule basically states that advertisers have the right to take away ads from a video they don't want to be associated with.

Isn't this also a basic right granted to businesses and person anyway? SC Johnson has every right to say that they don't want their brand ads on a video that features a Lets Player who talks about liver in squalor all day.

Disney has every right to say they don't want their ads to be on an Angry Joe video because he swears and depicts harsh violence.

St.Judes childrens hospital has every right to deny THEIR ADS bringing in monetary revenue to a guy who makes his living saying hospitals are scams.
While I agree with you 100%, there's one issue I have and people should have.

If Toyota cuts ads on say, Angry Joe, I'd better never see a Toyota commercial on shows like South Park. Also the fact that rap videos will never be demonetized shows how backwards this is. And this is the stuff we should be calling YouTube out for.
 

Snails

New member
Aug 23, 2016
13
0
0
RaikuFA said:
Dragonbums said:
In this whole debacle I would also like to add in this.

This new policy rule basically states that advertisers have the right to take away ads from a video they don't want to be associated with.

Isn't this also a basic right granted to businesses and person anyway? SC Johnson has every right to say that they don't want their brand ads on a video that features a Lets Player who talks about liver in squalor all day.

Disney has every right to say they don't want their ads to be on an Angry Joe video because he swears and depicts harsh violence.

St.Judes childrens hospital has every right to deny THEIR ADS bringing in monetary revenue to a guy who makes his living saying hospitals are scams.


While I agree with you 100%, there's one issue I have and people should have.

If Toyota cuts ads on say, Angry Joe, I'd better never see a Toyota commercial on shows like South Park. Also the fact that rap videos will never be demonetized shows how backwards this is. And this is the stuff we should be calling YouTube out for.
Youtube isn't deciding what ads goes on what video. The advertisers are choosing. Nothing about it is backwards. All youtube is doing is just notifying people that their videos didn't get "chosen" for ads based on content. You would call out the Toyota in the case you've given not youtube. Toyota chose to cut their ad on Angry Joes videos and continue running them on south park, not youtube.
 

RaikuFA

New member
Jun 12, 2009
4,370
0
0
Snails said:
RaikuFA said:
Dragonbums said:
In this whole debacle I would also like to add in this.

This new policy rule basically states that advertisers have the right to take away ads from a video they don't want to be associated with.

Isn't this also a basic right granted to businesses and person anyway? SC Johnson has every right to say that they don't want their brand ads on a video that features a Lets Player who talks about liver in squalor all day.

Disney has every right to say they don't want their ads to be on an Angry Joe video because he swears and depicts harsh violence.

St.Judes childrens hospital has every right to deny THEIR ADS bringing in monetary revenue to a guy who makes his living saying hospitals are scams.


While I agree with you 100%, there's one issue I have and people should have.

If Toyota cuts ads on say, Angry Joe, I'd better never see a Toyota commercial on shows like South Park. Also the fact that rap videos will never be demonetized shows how backwards this is. And this is the stuff we should be calling YouTube out for.
Youtube isn't deciding what ads goes on what video. The advertisers are choosing. Nothing about it is backwards. All youtube is doing is just notifying people that their videos didn't get "chosen" for ads based on content. You would call out the Toyota in the case you've given not youtube. Toyota chose to cut their ad on Angry Joes videos and continue running them on south park, not youtube.
That's what I said.
 

Snails

New member
Aug 23, 2016
13
0
0
RaikuFA said:
Snails said:
RaikuFA said:
Dragonbums said:
In this whole debacle I would also like to add in this.

This new policy rule basically states that advertisers have the right to take away ads from a video they don't want to be associated with.

Isn't this also a basic right granted to businesses and person anyway? SC Johnson has every right to say that they don't want their brand ads on a video that features a Lets Player who talks about liver in squalor all day.

Disney has every right to say they don't want their ads to be on an Angry Joe video because he swears and depicts harsh violence.

St.Judes childrens hospital has every right to deny THEIR ADS bringing in monetary revenue to a guy who makes his living saying hospitals are scams.


While I agree with you 100%, there's one issue I have and people should have.

If Toyota cuts ads on say, Angry Joe, I'd better never see a Toyota commercial on shows like South Park. Also the fact that rap videos will never be demonetized shows how backwards this is. And this is the stuff we should be calling YouTube out for.
Youtube isn't deciding what ads goes on what video. The advertisers are choosing. Nothing about it is backwards. All youtube is doing is just notifying people that their videos didn't get "chosen" for ads based on content. You would call out the Toyota in the case you've given not youtube. Toyota chose to cut their ad on Angry Joes videos and continue running them on south park, not youtube.
That's what I said.
Your telling people to call out youtube for things advertisers are doing. Youtube hasn't done anything to be called out for.
 

RaikuFA

New member
Jun 12, 2009
4,370
0
0
Snails said:
RaikuFA said:
Snails said:
RaikuFA said:
Dragonbums said:
In this whole debacle I would also like to add in this.

This new policy rule basically states that advertisers have the right to take away ads from a video they don't want to be associated with.

Isn't this also a basic right granted to businesses and person anyway? SC Johnson has every right to say that they don't want their brand ads on a video that features a Lets Player who talks about liver in squalor all day.

Disney has every right to say they don't want their ads to be on an Angry Joe video because he swears and depicts harsh violence.

St.Judes childrens hospital has every right to deny THEIR ADS bringing in monetary revenue to a guy who makes his living saying hospitals are scams.


While I agree with you 100%, there's one issue I have and people should have.

If Toyota cuts ads on say, Angry Joe, I'd better never see a Toyota commercial on shows like South Park. Also the fact that rap videos will never be demonetized shows how backwards this is. And this is the stuff we should be calling YouTube out for.
Youtube isn't deciding what ads goes on what video. The advertisers are choosing. Nothing about it is backwards. All youtube is doing is just notifying people that their videos didn't get "chosen" for ads based on content. You would call out the Toyota in the case you've given not youtube. Toyota chose to cut their ad on Angry Joes videos and continue running them on south park, not youtube.
That's what I said.
Your telling people to call out youtube for things advertisers are doing. Youtube hasn't done anything to be called out for.
I meant to call out the advertisers. Sorry, been fighting a cold.
 

Snails

New member
Aug 23, 2016
13
0
0
RaikuFA said:
Snails said:
RaikuFA said:
Snails said:
RaikuFA said:
Dragonbums said:
In this whole debacle I would also like to add in this.

This new policy rule basically states that advertisers have the right to take away ads from a video they don't want to be associated with.

Isn't this also a basic right granted to businesses and person anyway? SC Johnson has every right to say that they don't want their brand ads on a video that features a Lets Player who talks about liver in squalor all day.

Disney has every right to say they don't want their ads to be on an Angry Joe video because he swears and depicts harsh violence.

St.Judes childrens hospital has every right to deny THEIR ADS bringing in monetary revenue to a guy who makes his living saying hospitals are scams.


While I agree with you 100%, there's one issue I have and people should have.

If Toyota cuts ads on say, Angry Joe, I'd better never see a Toyota commercial on shows like South Park. Also the fact that rap videos will never be demonetized shows how backwards this is. And this is the stuff we should be calling YouTube out for.
Youtube isn't deciding what ads goes on what video. The advertisers are choosing. Nothing about it is backwards. All youtube is doing is just notifying people that their videos didn't get "chosen" for ads based on content. You would call out the Toyota in the case you've given not youtube. Toyota chose to cut their ad on Angry Joes videos and continue running them on south park, not youtube.
That's what I said.
Your telling people to call out youtube for things advertisers are doing. Youtube hasn't done anything to be called out for.
I meant to call out the advertisers. Sorry, been fighting a cold.
Oh my bad. While I personally don't see a reason a reason to call them out for having ads pulled in one place but leaving them in another, I feel like it's their choice to me. I could see how people would want to.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
Snails said:
RaikuFA said:
Snails said:
RaikuFA said:
Snails said:
RaikuFA said:
Dragonbums said:
In this whole debacle I would also like to add in this.

This new policy rule basically states that advertisers have the right to take away ads from a video they don't want to be associated with.

Isn't this also a basic right granted to businesses and person anyway? SC Johnson has every right to say that they don't want their brand ads on a video that features a Lets Player who talks about liver in squalor all day.

Disney has every right to say they don't want their ads to be on an Angry Joe video because he swears and depicts harsh violence.

St.Judes childrens hospital has every right to deny THEIR ADS bringing in monetary revenue to a guy who makes his living saying hospitals are scams.


While I agree with you 100%, there's one issue I have and people should have.

If Toyota cuts ads on say, Angry Joe, I'd better never see a Toyota commercial on shows like South Park. Also the fact that rap videos will never be demonetized shows how backwards this is. And this is the stuff we should be calling YouTube out for.
Youtube isn't deciding what ads goes on what video. The advertisers are choosing. Nothing about it is backwards. All youtube is doing is just notifying people that their videos didn't get "chosen" for ads based on content. You would call out the Toyota in the case you've given not youtube. Toyota chose to cut their ad on Angry Joes videos and continue running them on south park, not youtube.
That's what I said.
Your telling people to call out youtube for things advertisers are doing. Youtube hasn't done anything to be called out for.
I meant to call out the advertisers. Sorry, been fighting a cold.
Oh my bad. While I personally don't see a reason a reason to call them out for having ads pulled in one place but leaving them in another, I feel like it's their choice to me. I could see how people would want to.
Because hypocrisy.

"Oh, that Angry Joe is hardly the sort of thing we want to associate our fine product with. We'll just keep it on rap videos and South Park, instead."

Hypocrites. If you can put it on South Park, you can put it anywhere. And so, they're dicks. We knew this, of course, but this is evidence of unfair treatment. Nothing Angry Joe has ever done has made him more offensive than the other two venues, hence the calling out.
 

Kina

New member
Mar 8, 2008
46
0
0
Ultimately it's the one signing the check who decides where it goes. On paper, it sounds ridiculous excluding someone like Angry joe and let them keep them on South Park, but maybe that's the audience they're going for. If the advertisers don't like the content that you produce, the general tone you set or god know whatever metric they use to decide this - you don't get ad revenue.

There has never been a market where advertisers create an "equal playing field" for everyone. Not sure why anyone would apply that to youtube. But I can definitely see how these horribly entitled content creators feel like they deserve that money.

They need to sit down.
 

sXeth

Elite Member
Legacy
Nov 15, 2012
3,301
676
118
Snails said:
RaikuFA said:
Snails said:
RaikuFA said:
Dragonbums said:
In this whole debacle I would also like to add in this.

This new policy rule basically states that advertisers have the right to take away ads from a video they don't want to be associated with.

Isn't this also a basic right granted to businesses and person anyway? SC Johnson has every right to say that they don't want their brand ads on a video that features a Lets Player who talks about liver in squalor all day.

Disney has every right to say they don't want their ads to be on an Angry Joe video because he swears and depicts harsh violence.

St.Judes childrens hospital has every right to deny THEIR ADS bringing in monetary revenue to a guy who makes his living saying hospitals are scams.


While I agree with you 100%, there's one issue I have and people should have.

If Toyota cuts ads on say, Angry Joe, I'd better never see a Toyota commercial on shows like South Park. Also the fact that rap videos will never be demonetized shows how backwards this is. And this is the stuff we should be calling YouTube out for.
Youtube isn't deciding what ads goes on what video. The advertisers are choosing. Nothing about it is backwards. All youtube is doing is just notifying people that their videos didn't get "chosen" for ads based on content. You would call out the Toyota in the case you've given not youtube. Toyota chose to cut their ad on Angry Joes videos and continue running them on south park, not youtube.
That's what I said.
Your telling people to call out youtube for things advertisers are doing. Youtube hasn't done anything to be called out for.
Well, this does part;y seem like YouTube doesn't have a good ad targeting system and instead is locking Ads/Monetization out to a basic safe "E for Everyone" zone. While some advertisers obviously don't want their ads played amidst content consisting of a stream of profanities, or talking about mass deaths ("2000 people are dead! Lets go to MCDonalds for ice cream!"), there's certainly many, if not an outright majority that would just take the extra demographic slice.

Given that there are various channels with thousands if not millions of views that violate the terms as defined, I'd be surprised if advertisers themselves don't push youtube into redoing this policy, because they want to buy into those viewers. If YouTube didn't want to serve ads on PewDiePie's channel, for instance, someone's going to just go to him directly for a sponsorship deal and cut out the middleman, which is YouTube's pocket taking the loss.

Not to downplay the potential difficulty of accurately categorizing videos for such a system. Following the TV model, the networks on youtube would be sorting their channels out. Indie channels would have to apply for their own ratings or certifications before being monetized. Along with penalties if you go outside your rating. It'd become far less casually approachable to monetize videos in general.
 

Snails

New member
Aug 23, 2016
13
0
0
FalloutJack said:
Snails said:
RaikuFA said:
Snails said:
RaikuFA said:
Snails said:
RaikuFA said:
Dragonbums said:
In this whole debacle I would also like to add in this.

This new policy rule basically states that advertisers have the right to take away ads from a video they don't want to be associated with.

Isn't this also a basic right granted to businesses and person anyway? SC Johnson has every right to say that they don't want their brand ads on a video that features a Lets Player who talks about liver in squalor all day.

Disney has every right to say they don't want their ads to be on an Angry Joe video because he swears and depicts harsh violence.

St.Judes childrens hospital has every right to deny THEIR ADS bringing in monetary revenue to a guy who makes his living saying hospitals are scams.


While I agree with you 100%, there's one issue I have and people should have.

If Toyota cuts ads on say, Angry Joe, I'd better never see a Toyota commercial on shows like South Park. Also the fact that rap videos will never be demonetized shows how backwards this is. And this is the stuff we should be calling YouTube out for.
Youtube isn't deciding what ads goes on what video. The advertisers are choosing. Nothing about it is backwards. All youtube is doing is just notifying people that their videos didn't get "chosen" for ads based on content. You would call out the Toyota in the case you've given not youtube. Toyota chose to cut their ad on Angry Joes videos and continue running them on south park, not youtube.
That's what I said.
Your telling people to call out youtube for things advertisers are doing. Youtube hasn't done anything to be called out for.
I meant to call out the advertisers. Sorry, been fighting a cold.
Oh my bad. While I personally don't see a reason a reason to call them out for having ads pulled in one place but leaving them in another, I feel like it's their choice to me. I could see how people would want to.
Because hypocrisy.

"Oh, that Angry Joe is hardly the sort of thing we want to associate our fine product with. We'll just keep it on rap videos and South Park, instead."

Hypocrites. If you can put it on South Park, you can put it anywhere. And so, they're dicks. We knew this, of course, but this is evidence of unfair treatment. Nothing Angry Joe has ever done has made him more offensive than the other two venues, hence the calling out.
It's true that while someone like Angry Joe may have not done anything to be any worse than south park, it's still the advertisers choice where their ads go. Advertising has never been a fair, equality focused thing. Just because they run an ad in one place doesn't mean that they HAVE to run an ad in another. The advertisers are paying, not the advertisee, it's their decision to make. I'm not denying the hypocrisy in it though, just so your aware. I just don't see a reason to call anyone out.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
Snails said:
FalloutJack said:
Snails said:
RaikuFA said:
Snails said:
RaikuFA said:
Snails said:
RaikuFA said:
Dragonbums said:
In this whole debacle I would also like to add in this.

This new policy rule basically states that advertisers have the right to take away ads from a video they don't want to be associated with.

Isn't this also a basic right granted to businesses and person anyway? SC Johnson has every right to say that they don't want their brand ads on a video that features a Lets Player who talks about liver in squalor all day.

Disney has every right to say they don't want their ads to be on an Angry Joe video because he swears and depicts harsh violence.

St.Judes childrens hospital has every right to deny THEIR ADS bringing in monetary revenue to a guy who makes his living saying hospitals are scams.


While I agree with you 100%, there's one issue I have and people should have.

If Toyota cuts ads on say, Angry Joe, I'd better never see a Toyota commercial on shows like South Park. Also the fact that rap videos will never be demonetized shows how backwards this is. And this is the stuff we should be calling YouTube out for.
Youtube isn't deciding what ads goes on what video. The advertisers are choosing. Nothing about it is backwards. All youtube is doing is just notifying people that their videos didn't get "chosen" for ads based on content. You would call out the Toyota in the case you've given not youtube. Toyota chose to cut their ad on Angry Joes videos and continue running them on south park, not youtube.
That's what I said.
Your telling people to call out youtube for things advertisers are doing. Youtube hasn't done anything to be called out for.
I meant to call out the advertisers. Sorry, been fighting a cold.
Oh my bad. While I personally don't see a reason a reason to call them out for having ads pulled in one place but leaving them in another, I feel like it's their choice to me. I could see how people would want to.
Because hypocrisy.

"Oh, that Angry Joe is hardly the sort of thing we want to associate our fine product with. We'll just keep it on rap videos and South Park, instead."

Hypocrites. If you can put it on South Park, you can put it anywhere. And so, they're dicks. We knew this, of course, but this is evidence of unfair treatment. Nothing Angry Joe has ever done has made him more offensive than the other two venues, hence the calling out.
It's true that while someone like Angry Joe may have not done anything to be any worse than south park, it's still the advertisers choice where their ads go. Advertising has never been a fair, equality focused thing. Just because they run an ad in one place doesn't mean that they HAVE to run an ad in another. The advertisers are paying, not the advertisee, it's their decision to make. I'm not denying the hypocrisy in it though, just so your aware. I just don't see a reason to call anyone out.
The hypocrisy IS the reason, though, because if the cited reason is that 'We don't want to associate this with that', then it's either a lie or they're being stupid. And without the stupid lie, there IS no reason to do that.