Youtube to delete non commercially viable accounts

Kermit.de.frog

Have not seen this elsewhere so surprised no one has brought this up.

New terms of service coming in for Youtube on the 10th of December are going to see big change on the platform apparently. Also this may involve removing access to Gmail accounts.

Already I have noticed more pop up ads during vids but also in the last year many channels say they have been demonitised for whatever reason.

This is good in one way as it will probably get rid of the channels of racist bloggers, conspiracy nuts, flat earthers etc etc...

However, it will also fundamentally change Youtube.

You won't be allowed a channel that does not make enough money seems the long and short and looks like a huge shut down of channels and deletion of videos that don't make enough money is on the cards in the new year.

Shame if lots of really good vids and channels that never set out to make money getting the axe.

Only heard about this today but i'm amazed at the scope of what they seem about to do (and entire Gmail accounts apparently as well).

What yeh reckon? Good or bad?

Sheridan81

Probably just been blown out of proportion.

https://mashable.com/article/youtube-new-terms-of-service-no-longer-commercially-viable/?europe=true

To clarify, there are no new rights in our ToS to terminate an account bc it’s not making money. As before, we may discontinue certain YouTube features or parts of the service, for ex., if they're outdated or have low usage. This does not impact creators/viewers in any new ways.

To be honest, there's far too much rubbish on Youtube and it could do with a clean-up anyway.

Kermit.de.frog

Maybe it is blown out of proportion. Seems a fair bit of concern based on the increase in demonitisation of channels in the last year though before new ToS

To be fair I wouldn't mind it used as a proxy to get rid of the toxic rubbish vids/channels.

Ficheall

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

To be fair I wouldn't mind it used as a proxy to get rid of the toxic rubbish vids/channels.

YouTube has been censoring vids for quite some time now by excluding them from search results. This is just an extension of that agenda. Soon YouTube will only cater to those type of channels it deems to be acceptable.

Ipso

[Deleted User] wrote: »

YouTube has been censoring vids for quite some time now by excluding them from search results. This is just an extension of that agenda. Soon YouTube will only cater to those type of channels it deems to be acceptable.

Corporation does what it wants. Shock horror.

Started similar a while back but people don't really care.

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058029595/1/#post111733298

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Started similar a while back but people don't really care.

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058029595/1/#post111733298

People generally don't care about censorship until it becomes too late to combat it.

Yup, the sheeple will only "want to close the stable door after the horse has bolted" pretty much.

I have a YouTube channel, which I can stream live videos from:

Now, in the "New" YouTube studio, I cannot share my screen anymore and show my Microsoft Office 2019. (This was possible in the Old YouTube studio)

Plain anwer, GOOD only for the likes of Susan W, CEO of YouTube

This is what is means apparently, to the Model fraternity in North America. There are'nt really the numbers here in Ireland to really care

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmohTr20npk&t=500s

But I don't care. I'm a vimeo user now.

Feisar

Being the weirdo that I am, I'm into guns/knives. A lot of those type channels are being demonetized.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

That’s a shame. There’s a lot of niche channels that are interesting but that will never attract big numbers. For example, there’s an Irish one that I like that uploads clips from Irish TV from the past. I’d hate to see it go.

An opportunity for another company to provide a platform though, I guess.

I’ve noticed a lot of channels disappearing already. Maybe channels were deleted by the creator but I’m suspicious that they all are.

patrickbrophy18

I find it amazing that what made it such a popular platform to begin with (i.e. it's openness, freedom of content and ability for people like the average Joe to become micro-celebs) is now being removed and rewired to be profit based.

Also, for many people who want to grow their fan bases gradually and organically, some won't stand a chance if their content is removed before it gains traction. This will only create a pressure cooker which will serve to deter content creators from uploading videos. If that is the case, YouTube could very much go the way of MySpace and Bebo. In this scenario, I could see usage of Vimeo surging.

Unless Google have been operating at a loss due to a lack of returns on cyber real estate from YouTube, I really don't see the logic behind this proposal. If it aint broken, don't fix it. Facebook had a similar idea a few years back where they were going to charge for memberships and quickly flip-flopped on the decision.

It's bad enough that many videos that are deemed remotely edgy or offensive on YouTube (mainly by the snowflakes of society) are being removed, demonetised or in extreme cases result in the content creators channel being deleted:

https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/3/20845071/youtube-hateful-content-policies-channels-comments-videos-susan-wojcicki

This upcoming change will be the nail in the coffin for many content creators and very possibly, YouTube itself.

Potential-Monke

I'm more annoyed that the person working for YouTube who clarified it used 'bc' instead of 'because'...

20Wheel

[Deleted User] wrote: »

People generally don't care about censorship until it becomes too late to combat it.

Its not censorship.

20Wheel

20Wheel wrote: »

Its not censorship.

It is when someone's opinion (unpopular with the authorities) is being suppressed.

20Wheel

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It is when someone's opinion (unpopular with the authorities) is being suppressed.

No that's wrong. YouTube are not censoring any content.

YouTube may not feature certain content , or may even remove prior content which was on their servers.
This however is not censorship. The rest of the Internet is available and YouTube will not prevent you from uploading your content there.

I invite you to search for the hendrix original of crosstown traffic on YouTube. You won't find it.
Just like you may not find certain political content.

You will however find that songs original on daily motion.
YouTube in this instance have not featured the song due to rights claims, and they are under no duty to do so.

The day that YouTube go about suppressing the song on daily motion servers will be the day you can say that YouTube are censoring.

YouTube have no duty to feature any content. So removal is not censorship.

Just like how not featuring the hendrix song is not censorship.

ArchXStanton

That whole Gillette ad debacle and the obvious wiping out thousandsof down votes and increasing up votes along with more ads on it now have completely turned me off it, I hope an alternative to it starts up

Vic_08

ArchXStanton wrote: »

That whole Gillette ad debacle and the obvious wiping out thousandsof down votes and increasing up votes along with more ads on it now have completely turned me off it, I hope an alternative to it starts up

Why would anyone care enough about a razor add to give it any thought whatsoever?

Assetbacked

Vic_08 wrote: »

Why would anyone care enough about a razor add to give it any thought whatsoever?

What sort of a post is that? If you think it's just about a razor ad then you are incredibly naive.

Junkyard Tom

Vic_08 wrote: »

Why would anyone care enough about a razor add to give it any thought whatsoever?

Probably took in a few hours of YouTube cranks foaming at the mouth about cultural marxism, attacks on 'western civilisation', feminazis trying to commit men-o-cide, and all the other shit you hear from idiots like Paul Joseph Watson, Stefan Molyneux, Carl Benjamin and the rest of the them.

ArchXStanton

Vic_08 wrote: »

Why would anyone care enough about a razor add to give it any thought whatsoever?

It was the blatantly obvious deletion of down votes and increase in up votes that was happening, that **** don't fly with me regardless if I agree or disagree with the ad itself

ArchXStanton

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Probably took in a few hours of YouTube cranks foaming at the mouth about cultural marxism, attacks on 'western civilisation', feminazis trying to commit men-o-cide, and all the other shit you hear from idiots like Paul Joseph Watson, Stefan Molyneux, Carl Benjamin and the rest of the them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKmfHOPf3YU

Hell of an assumption there champ..

Danzy

20Wheel wrote: »

Its not censorship.

When you have such a monopoly, it hardly matters what you call it, censorship is as good a word as any.

SantaClaw

ArchXStanton wrote: »

hope an alternative to it starts up

I highly doubt there ever will be an alternative that pays people. Its not like some CEO decided they don't like X and stopped putting adds in front of it.

Youtube needs to make money. Which is mainly advertisement. And advertisers want their adds only with videos that are 110% uncontroversial. There are plenty of alternatives out there, but the reason content creators are not on them is they get even less money there, than they get from youtube. And should any other platform ever get enough traction to bring in big add money they will have to deal with the same issues youtube is.

You could go down a subscription based route, but good luck on selling people yet another one of those. With Nextflix, Amazon, Apple and all the others the market is getting rather crowded.

I agree that Youtube might be going overboard with the being on the save side on allowed content.

And in my option nobody making a living of youtube gets to complain. They knew or should have known very well that they are putting their livelihood into the hands of an american for profit company that gets their money through adds. Nobody gets to be surprised if youtube is doing exactly what it is supposed to, make money. Creators are not Youtubes customers, they are the product youtube sells to the add people.

20Wheel

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Your definition of censorship seems to imply that something is only censored if it is removed from public access entirely? As long as it can be accessed somewhere, censorship has not taken place?

I want you to nail this down. Convince me you'd sit here making the exact same argument if right-leaning Russian Oligarchs bought YouTube of Google and picked and choosed what was on the platform. That you would say it's not censorship as DailyMotion still has the content.

I don't really care who owns it.
Something is or it isn't. And 100 oligarchs can't change that.

When I change the channel on my TV I'm not imposing censorship on you.
When I go over to your home and change the channel on yours I am.

YouTube owes you nothing. Don't like it simply go elsewhere.

If oligarchs turned YouTube into a propaganda station then that's what it would be, and I would know my anti Putin documentary would not be published there.

So I would put it elsewhere. And watch content from other sites.

If they followed me and suppressed it from my own site, or stopped me showing it to third party audiences or from emailing it, etc that would be censorship.

If they said 'no we don't want to show your content on our site, thanks' then that's just their preference.

In the same way the great liberty monkey Alex Jones, captain of free speech, might equally say 'no thanks' to my documentary on the benefits of gun control.

20Wheel

Danzy wrote: »

When you have such a monopoly, it hardly matters what you call it, censorship is as good a word as any.

YouTube is not a monopoly.

And yes it matters what you call it. Sausages is as good a word as any. So why not just use sausages if it doesn't matter.

20Wheel

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It is when someone's opinion (unpopular with the authorities) is being suppressed.

Its not being suppressed.

Youre not owed space on anyone's server, including YouTube.
Its a big Internet. Go forth.

20Wheel

20Wheel wrote: »

I don't really care who owns it.
Something is or it isn't. And 100 oligarchs can't change that.

When I change the channel on my TV I'm not imposing censorship on you.
When I go over to your home and change the channel on yours I am.

YouTube owes you nothing. Don't like it simply go elsewhere.

If oligarchs turned YouTube into a propaganda station then that's what it would be, and I would know my anti Putin documentary would not be published there.

So I would put it elsewhere. And watch content from other sites.

If they followed me and suppressed it from my own site, or stopped me showing it to third party audiences or from emailing it, etc that would be censorship.

If they said 'no we don't want to show your content on our site, thanks' then that's just their preference.

In the same way the great liberty monkey Alex Jones, captain of free speech, might equally say 'no thanks' to my documentary on the benefits of gun control.

I get why you think your argument is sound, but I think "Company can do what it wants, and other sites exist." is too simplistic when talking about how important this topic is. You seem to treat this change in our society very flippantly.

A few massive sites have the vast majority of users. They are for all intents and purposes monopolies. What they do and the views they take have real global impact. In the same way I don't think they should censor content based on their political views, I don't think these sites should support presidential candidates or parties. The two go hand in hand, and I don't think it will be allowed forever. At some point, people will realise that giving a few unelected businessmen the power to change public discourse is a bad thing.


Just yesterday, Sacha Baron Cohen talked about the power over society that these "Silicon Six" have. The world is waking up to this stuff.

• Mark Zuckerberg: Facebook
• Sundar Pichai: Alphabet/Google
• Larry Page: Alphabet/Google
• Sergey Brin: Alphabet/Google
• Susan Wojcicki: YouTube
• Jack Dorsey: Twitter

"This is ideological imperialism — six unelected individuals in Silicon Valley imposing their vision on the rest of the world, unaccountable to any government and acting like they're above the reach of law," he continued. "It's like we're living in the Roman Empire, and Mark Zuckerberg is Caesar. At least that would explain his haircut."


There's also the issue of the demonitising of the content that Google doesn't like. Remove the revenue stream and content will not be made for any site. Daily Motion won't pay the bills. YT is quite literally in control of what topics get covered by creators. They can control what stance on a topic gets filtered down to the masses.

I don't think your argument will stand the test of time. This change, which defines this decade, is too big and the effects are too important.

20Wheel

20Wheel wrote: »

Its not being suppressed.

Youre not owed space on anyone's server, including YouTube.
Its a big Internet. Go forth.

True, but eventually it will be the service providers loss and another providers gain.
When viewers find that what they want is no longer available, they'll go elsewhere.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

True, but eventually it will be the service providers loss and another providers gain.
When viewers find that what they want is no longer available, they'll go elsewhere.

True.

But always keep in mind that YouTube doesn't care a flying sh:t about xieanns YouTube channel, whether or no they are a YouTube Partner premium etc.

Customer loyalty, really means that you're the sheep that's more willing to be sheared!
This applies to all services, internet, shopping etc

beejee

This right here is emblematic of the collapse of these tech-bro dreams

Sure, tons of people will use your spyware for free, myself included.

That's why these things are "valued" at ridiculous share prices!

But it's bubble town, because while there's long been this idea that "free" (hence losing money every second of every day), will eventually start making money, they're plain wrong.

Well the jokes on these day dreamers, because the vast, vast majority of people wouldn't pay 50 cent a year for them.

YouTube is a bit of fun, but it's worth a tiny fraction of what they dreamed, and I'll live without it without a second thought. Just like all the rest of the "killer apps"

Fr_Dougal

The main reason for this is because some people were using YouTube as free cloud storage for their videos.

Fr_Dougal

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

The main reason for this is because some people were using YouTube as free cloud storage for their videos.

Hardly the main reason. Personally, I believe the "main reason" is to extend the control of google and their perception of what is acceptable on the internet. Which is why many searches don't show up, or are given far less priority on their search engines, both within Youtube and externally. Just as they sought to affect the US presidential elections, or the Irish Abortion referendum. Or it's use of personal information from facebook.

Google with it's many online outlets seeks to 'manage' their audiences access to information, and shape their opinions. It's the next step in modern marketing.

20Wheel

Deleted User wrote: »

I get why you think your argument is sound, but I think "Company can do what it wants, and other sites exist." is too simplistic when talking about how important this topic is. You seem to treat this change in our society very flippantly.

A few massive sites have the vast majority of users. They are for all intents and purposes monopolies. What they do and the views they take have real global impact. In the same way I don't think they should censor content based on their political views, I don't think these sites should support presidential candidates or parties. The two go hand in hand, and I don't think it will be allowed forever. At some point, people will realise that giving a few unelected businessmen the power to change public discourse is a bad thing.


Just yesterday, Sacha Baron Cohen talked about the power over society that these "Silicon Six" have. The world is waking up to this stuff.

• Mark Zuckerberg: Facebook
• Sundar Pichai: Alphabet/Google
• Larry Page: Alphabet/Google
• Sergey Brin: Alphabet/Google
• Susan Wojcicki: YouTube
• Jack Dorsey: Twitter

"This is ideological imperialism — six unelected individuals in Silicon Valley imposing their vision on the rest of the world, unaccountable to any government and acting like they're above the reach of law," he continued. "It's like we're living in the Roman Empire, and Mark Zuckerberg is Caesar. At least that would explain his haircut."


There's also the issue of the demonitising of the content that Google doesn't like. Remove the revenue stream and content will not be made for any site. Daily Motion won't pay the bills. YT is quite literally in control of what topics get covered by creators. They can control what stance on a topic gets filtered down to the masses.

I don't think your argument will stand the test of time. This change, which defines this decade, is too big and the effects are too important.

So the hendrix song? Is that a case of YouTube "censoring"?

Or maybe they just don't want the bullsht of legal issues. So select content on criteria beneficial to the business.

Putting grand conspiracies aside, there's money at stake here. YouTube becoming the home of political agenda channels interferes with how viewers use the site, makes it into something it was never intended to be.... an arena of flame wars and lunatic recruitment... and can damage the sites reputation.

Maybe YouTube and its shareholders just want to stick to the script and keep making their money. The money machine is working, so change nothing.

If their customer demographic finds certain content displeasing, then money would suggest that you feature to your customers preferences, as do the likes of 'the telegraph' 'fox news' 'the guardian' and so forth.

This is not censorship, its catering to your audience. And scale doesn't somehow change that.

Also, business often affects social outcomes. So if it should be the case that YouTube be owned in large part by left leaning millionaires well guess what they have the right to use their site to their preference. If some of them are minorities then a video raging about minorities might not get the best treatment.

Being hosted is not a right, being monetized is not a right.

Not being hosted is no more censorship than not being given a column in the Times. Not being monetized is no more censorship than not being allowed to sell socialist titles on breitbart.

Alternatives exist. If its so bad use them.

ILoveYourVibes

I dunno how they expect people to watch then? Most viewers have accounts to sub etc and they don't have videos so how will that work?

scamalert

youtube been going down the drain long now, sponsored crap biased or paid oppinions doesnt interest me from large channelss id rather read up forum or real reviews then trust somoene who gets promo items for free and without experience or any longetivity to give fair opinion.


Social media is only bad as people that are into it are invested, less time on fb, and other crap and those issues wont exist.

kowloon

scamalert wrote: »

youtube been going down the drain long now, sponsored crap biased or paid oppinions doesnt interest me from large channelss id rather read up forum or real reviews then trust somoene who gets promo items for free and without experience or any longetivity to give fair opinion.

You can get paid to write reviews on forums, cheaper than sponsoring a video. Give it time and you won't be able to tell the difference between an entirely bot written review and a genuine person.

20Wheel

20Wheel wrote: »

So the hendrix song? Is that a case of YouTube "censoring"?

Or maybe they just don't want the bullsht of legal issues. So select content on criteria beneficial to the business.

Putting grand conspiracies aside, there's money at stake here. YouTube becoming the home of political agenda channels interferes with how viewers use the site, makes it into something it was never intended to be.... an arena of flame wars and lunatic recruitment... and can damage the sites reputation.

Maybe YouTube and its shareholders just want to stick to the script and keep making their money. The money machine is working, so change nothing.

If their customer demographic finds certain content displeasing, then money would suggest that you feature to your customers preferences, as do the likes of 'the telegraph' 'fox news' 'the guardian' and so forth.

This is not censorship, its catering to your audience. And scale doesn't somehow change that.

Also, business often affects social outcomes. So if it should be the case that YouTube be owned in large part by left leaning millionaires well guess what they have the right to use their site to their preference. If some of them are minorities then a video raging about minorities might not get the best treatment.

Being hosted is not a right, being monetized is not a right.

Not being hosted is no more censorship than not being given a column in the Times. Not being monetized is no more censorship than not being allowed to sell socialist titles on breitbart.

Alternatives exist. If its so bad use them.

It's not just about YouTube, though, is it? The argument is basically about impartiality by the media giants that now dominate their respective areas.

If I apply your arguments and logic from this thread elsewhere, and I am perfectly entitled to that, the results are pretty interesting:

• Google can manipulate their search results how they see fit. Site owners and users have no right to unbiased results and it's not censorship because Bing has those sites. Nobody is owed space in Google's search results.
• Google News can hide stories to aid a political candidate, or promote stories to harm another. This is absolutely fine because there are other news aggregators. It is ok for news to be hidden on their Android phones. Get an iPhone instead.
• Facebook need not regulate the quality of their ads. We users are not owed quality and truth. Fake news is fine.
• Facebook can hide people's posts or make them show up in people's feeds less. There should be no expectation of anything else as other social media exists. Don't like it? Use an alternative.
• Twitter can ban whoever they want to suit their politics. Not having a Twitter account is no more censorship than not being given a column in the Times.
• boards.ie can remove any posts that do not agree with their personal leanings. This is no more censorship than not being allowed to sell socialist titles on breitbart.

If you don't believe those things, but do believe what you said about Youtube, you are the type of person to selectively apply your morals and principles based on personal biases. If you believe those things, then fair enough. We just happen to be in complete disagreement and we can argue those points.

ILoveYourVibes

Deleted User wrote: »

Customer loyalty, really means that you're the sheep that's more willing to be sheared!
This applies to all services, internet, shopping etc

I know ..i mean shouldn't they be more loyal to us?

suicide_circus

its no coincidence that this is happening as the 2020 election is a year away.

its also funny that youtube claims to be a platform rather than a publisher but still has a very clear editorial stance regarding demonitisation and interference with its algorithms.

20Wheel

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not just about YouTube, though, is it? The argument is basically about impartiality by the media giants that now dominate their respective areas.

If I apply your arguments and logic from this thread elsewhere, and I am perfectly entitled to that, the results are pretty interesting:

• Google can manipulate their search results how they see fit. Site owners and users have no right to unbiased results and it's not censorship because Bing has those sites. Nobody is owed space in Google's search results.
• Google News can hide stories to aid a political candidate, or promote stories to harm another. This is absolutely fine because there are other news aggregators. It is ok for news to be hidden on their Android phones. Get an iPhone instead.
• Facebook need not regulate the quality of their ads. We users are not owed quality and truth. Fake news is fine.
• Facebook can hide people's posts or make them show up in people's feeds less. There should be no expectation of anything else as other social media exists. Don't like it? Use an alternative.
• Twitter can ban whoever they want to suit their politics. Not having a Twitter account is no more censorship than not being given a column in the Times.
• boards.ie can remove any posts that do not agree with their personal leanings. This is no more censorship than not being allowed to sell socialist titles on breitbart.

If you don't believe those things, but do believe what you said about Youtube, you are the type of person to selectively apply your morals and principles based on personal biases. If you believe those things, then fair enough. We just happen to be in complete disagreement and we can argue those points.

You can't opt in to censorship.

When you pursue the use of the site or app, and click yes, then you are beyond any claims of being censored while on that site.

Your actual rights exist outside that site/app.
They have not been infringed on.

Your mild inconvenience or displeasure with a websites administration does not constitute a real life human rights violation.

20Wheel

20Wheel wrote: »

You can't opt in to censorship.

When you pursue the use of the site or app, and click yes, then you are beyond any claims of being censored while on that site.

Your actual rights exist outside that site/app.
They have not been infringed on.

Your mild inconvenience or displeasure with a websites administration does not constitute a real life human rights violation.

The EU's many cases against Google and the now 50 US states investigating it for antitrust violations disagree with your views regarding this. The billions of euros of fines prove that Google cannot just do whatever it wants like you claim.

Courts and governments supercede unread terms and conditions that have got pretty much no legal power. Zuckerberg in Congress and called to the British parliament prove this.

These are hardly the results of "mild inconveniences and displeasure".There are very strong arguments against this monopolistic power and ability to influence the public. "But alternatives! They signed up!" is frankly comical in light of what is actually happening.

20Wheel

Deleted User wrote: »

The EU's many cases against Google and the now 50 US states investigating it for antitrust violations disagree with your views regarding this. The billions of euros of fines prove that Google cannot just do whatever it wants like you claim.

Courts and governments supercede unread terms and conditions that have got pretty much no legal power. Zuckerberg in Congress and called to the British parliament prove this.

These are hardly the results of "mild inconveniences and displeasure".There are very strong arguments against this monopolistic power and ability to influence the public. "But alternatives! They signed up!" is frankly comical in light of what is actually happening.

None of this is censorship. Lets see if the dean of a university law school can get it through to you.
God knows i cant seem to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiJccWcmg8

Skip to 3:22

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiJccWcmg8

04:50. Type it out. Print it. Then roll it up nice and tight.