nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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.