Youtube to delete non commercially viable accounts

Kermit.de.frog · 21-11-2019 4:24am #1

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 · 21-11-2019 4:42am

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 As before, we may discontinue certain YouTube features or parts of the service, for ex., if they're outdated or have low usage.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 · 21-11-2019 4:50am

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 · 21-11-2019 4:56am

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.

21-11-2019 5:13am

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 · 21-11-2019 6:12am

[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.

21-11-2019 6:18am

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

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

21-11-2019 6:29am

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.

22-11-2019 2:14pm

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 · 22-11-2019 3:40pm

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

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 22-11-2019 3:57pm

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 · 23-11-2019 6:51pm

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 · 23-11-2019 7:03pm

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

20Wheel · 23-11-2019 7:21pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

Its not censorship.

23-11-2019 8:08pm

20Wheel wrote: »

Its not censorship.

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

20Wheel · 23-11-2019 10:34pm

[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 · 24-11-2019 12:50am

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 · 24-11-2019 1:05am

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 · 24-11-2019 1:37am

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 · 24-11-2019 1:39am

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 · 24-11-2019 1:57am

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 · 24-11-2019 2:05am

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 · 24-11-2019 2:09am

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 · 24-11-2019 2:16am

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 · 24-11-2019 4:05am

[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 · 24-11-2019 4:13am

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 · 24-11-2019 4:20am

[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.

24-11-2019 5:28am

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.

24-11-2019 3:07pm

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.

24-11-2019 3:10pm

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.

24-11-2019 3:15pm

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

Youtube to delete non commercially viable accounts

Comments