I think there's a weird sort of problem with even talking about this in that it's like people are trying to rationalize with something that is inherently irrational.
YouTube knows that they're being hypocrites, they just don't [I]care.[/I] This isn't about logic or being advertiser friendly because the reality is that almost everything deemed not 'advertiser friendly' is somewhere either on the internet or on television [I]with[/I] advertisements abound. The vast majority of content on youtube that gets dinged is not only Advertiser Friendly, but could be redone at a professional level and smacked on TV with ads ahoy.
It's about control, more than anything. Old media and advertising companies want [I]control[/I] of YouTube. And they pretty much have it. This entire adpocalypse and ad bot is all about Google being stuck, and bled, until it bowed down to the other corporations. And it has!
Despite being the most popular video site on the planet, I don't think anyone in the corporate world wants YouTube the way it is. They don't [I]like[/I] having independent content creators, and millions of videos to sort through. They like pandering to children and mainstream audiences that tune in to youtube to watch late night clips. Guys like H3H3, and iDubbbz are the exact kind of people they [I]don't[/I] want, viewership or no.
But there's this uncomfortable reality where you have guys like Jake Paul, that fit the kind of content they want on youtube (pandering basic bitch shit), but the only way to get those people is to let them crop up on their own. And even then, guys like Jake are difficult because they're impossible to control.
While corporations could handcraft their own Jake Paul, grab some millenial male model motherfucker and carefully build him to appeal to the widest demographic possible, and give you the Bake Raul channel by Pepsi, that shit falls on it's head all the time.
Corporations just don't [I]get[/I] this whole video thing in spite of wanting to control it. An overly corporate youtube channel, a channel with just too much clickbait or buzzfeed, has been done 8 million times before and fell flat the vast majority. Take [url=https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3WasXQgZ7ApbIhJyw02hdA/videos]the Three Musketeers[/url] for example. This was a channel presumably backed by 3 Musketeers candy, with horrid horrid basic bitch content. It was advertised all over youtube to everyone's annoyance. Their channel ended up being a horrible horrible failure, because a successful youtube channel [I]requires[/I] actual humanity under the cover. Jake Paul succeeds because while he fits the mold, and he is a cunt, he is an actual human being with personality (even if it's a bad one).
Long story short, YouTube was and became one of the most popular sites ever because it was the wild west in terms of content. A free for all where anyone could make anything and become famous. And corporations want that format and those numbers but are trying to grab control of it. If YouTube is the wild west, advertising companies and tv networks are the government come to forcibly tame the land, exploit it, and take everyone's freedoms. They want YouTube to be the new TV only the things that make YouTube popular don't fit their vision so we're all experiencing them trying to shove a square peg in a round hole. I wouldn't be surprised if one day this whole partner program is vastly limited, so that only select YouTubers are saved and brought under contract. I expect a Netflix-style future where there are a few hundred content creators max and not just anyone can become a YouTuber or even upload a video anymore.
Is this news?
I really don't want to sound like a dick and the recent problems with the ad revenue is bad but "YouTube's Rules Don't Apply To Everyone" is not anything new at all.
Anybody in a big YouTube Network already has higher privileges and options to combat all kinds of problems.
Yes, they still got hit with the removal of monetaristion in the latest thing but big YouTubers are already in a higher postion where some rules don't simply apply to them compared to the majority of small channels.
Now we have some even bigger company that enjoys even more privileges and suddenly everybody is on the fence about that.
I'm actually not even surprised that a TV show that is produced for TV by a big TV corporation gets a free pass from YouTube rules. I'm not sure how exactly it works in the US but I'm probably right when I say that their content is always pre-checked by a special team to make sure it doesn't go against regulations and such.
As much as YouTube gives bigger YouTubers more freedom and leeway in their privileges they can give a big TV station and production team probably full freedom.
And yes, YouTube is hypocritical to the max but that is nothing new anyways.
I'm just slightly put of by the talk about "Rules don't apply to anybody" when big YouTubers are in a similar situation them self.
I'm not surprised by anything anymore.
Commersialism is build on marketing and marketing is built on lies. Modern capitalism is just lies upon lies and we've built our whole society around falling for it all, as if an amoral, explotative collective of sociopathic suits so far removed from reality and struggle could possibly be at all friendly or trustworthy.
Advertising [I]during[/I] a tragedy even after leaving so many small-time entertainers in the dust because one guy put a picture of Hitler in his internet video and a dying media outlet "snitched" on it.
Anyone who believes any company as any sort of moral compass or does anything out of the goodness of their own heart is borderline brainwashed and needs a lesson on real economics, not the bullshit spouted by bought politicians or PR spin-wizards.
[editline]9th October 2017[/editline]
Of course it took Youtube to break the illusion that's been upon the West since the invention of mass media. Networks needed the censorship and oversight of governments to make sure their methods of control and hypocracy didn't leak to the populous. We finally had a free platform and got a taste of of the truth and now that it's being taken away we've realised what we were missing and what we've taken for granted.
Youtube will stop being the #1 video site someday. probably not soon.
What I'm wondering is, what will its replacement be, and how will it be different from youtube?
It's definitely not going to be a clone of youtube, because "youtube but without a userbase but we promise it will work this time lol" isn't a good pitch for investors or creators.
[QUOTE=JXZ;52760726]Youtube will stop being the #1 video site someday. probably not soon.
What I'm wondering is, what will its replacement be, and how will it be different from youtube?
It's definitely not going to be a clone of youtube, because "youtube but without a userbase but we promise it will work this time lol" isn't a good pitch for investors or creators.[/QUOTE]
Like I said before if I could I would make a replacement.
My idea would make it service and creator funded. Three platforms.
One would be a communication and social platform. Discord, aol style chat, online phone Skype, social media, tiny chat, video chat email and all that into one package. Basic free service would be email, text and Twitter style social media. Upgrade would be a subscription fee for the entire package.
Second would create a gaming network. For subscription fee a person can download any game or software they want or not. Content creators would have pay a fee to be allowed to up load their work.
The final would be media creation to replace you tube.
Instead just video it would be an online version of a media studio. Whatever Disney, Fox or any media corporation can do would be turned into a product for your ever day consumer. The free package would be just video and audio upload. For a monthly subscription access to online animation software, audio and video editing and creation software would be part of the package.
Its pretty amazing how JP is far more toxic than anything Ian, Frank, or anyone puts out (even including human cake) and yet he's the poster child of youtube right now
[editline]8th October 2017[/editline]
I would unironically let my kid, if I had one, watch frank waaaaay before letting him watch Jake Paul
YouTube doesn't care about it's audience. CBS/ABC/NBC probably have partnerships with them, or YouTube is just so afraid to piss off these networks and face a scenario like 2007. It wants to make money, simple as that, and they don't want to piss off their big earners.
From YouTube's viewpoint, they can tell these relatively smaller channels to fuck off, because they have no where else to go. There isn't any real competitor to YouTube. If the big wigs at YouTube/Google decided to just up and delete their channels because they don't like them, they can with little repercussion.
There is little anyone can do, because Google can just choose to ignore them and shuffle them off to a robot/automated form. The only true solution is to make a competitor, but no one has such capital or resources to do such a thing. Something like this would have to be facilitated by an already massive company to do so.
[QUOTE=J!NX;52760802]Its pretty amazing how JP is far more toxic than anything Ian, Frank, or anyone puts out (even including human cake) and yet he's the poster child of youtube right now
[editline]8th October 2017[/editline]
I would unironically let my kid, if I had one, watch frank waaaaay before letting him watch Jake Paul[/QUOTE]
When Frank is acting like an asshole, you know he's doing an in character thing that's obviously fantasy, with Jake Paul he presents it as reality.
[QUOTE=Dr. Doughnut;52760928]When Frank is acting like an asshole, you know he's doing an in character thing that's obviously fantasy, with Jake Paul he presents it as reality.[/QUOTE]
and unironically with Jake when he's being nice, it's a fallacy and lie
the shits all for the views
[QUOTE=Mitsuma;52760485]Is this news?
I really don't want to sound like a dick and the recent problems with the ad revenue is bad but "YouTube's Rules Don't Apply To Everyone" is not anything new at all.
Anybody in a big YouTube Network already has higher privileges and options to combat all kinds of problems.
Yes, they still got hit with the removal of monetaristion in the latest thing but big YouTubers are already in a higher postion where some rules don't simply apply to them compared to the majority of small channels.
Now we have some even bigger company that enjoys even more privileges and suddenly everybody is on the fence about that.
I'm actually not even surprised that a TV show that is produced for TV by a big TV corporation gets a free pass from YouTube rules. I'm not sure how exactly it works in the US but I'm probably right when I say that their content is always pre-checked by a special team to make sure it doesn't go against regulations and such.
As much as YouTube gives bigger YouTubers more freedom and leeway in their privileges they can give a big TV station and production team probably full freedom.
And yes, YouTube is hypocritical to the max but that is nothing new anyways.
I'm just slightly put of by the talk about "Rules don't apply to anybody" when big YouTubers are in a similar situation them self.[/QUOTE]
Nope. Forest for the trees.
It's not the big. Big has jack shit to do with it, as the latest Content Cop showed in spades.
It's that Kimmel [B]has the right politics.[/B] He's a til-I-die Clintonite. And so is almost the entire MDS of youtube and google.
Youtube is dead, and has been since three years ago, and it's never coming back to life as a freeform content creation venue.
[QUOTE=27X;52760948]Nope. Forest for the trees.
It's not the big. Big has jack shit to do with it, as the latest Content Cop showed in spades.
It's that Kimmel [B]has the right politics.[/B] He's a til-I-die Clintonite. And so is almost the entire MDS of youtube and google.
Youtube is dead, and has been since three years ago, and it's never coming back to life as a freeform content creation venue.[/QUOTE]
Seriously? Fox news videos on tragedies such as this shooting can be seen with ads on them, such as [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HtabySB4HQ"]this one[/URL], and [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nk5yR8MkJY"]another for a direct terror attack[/URL].
They aren't strong clintonites last I checked. Big does not necessarily mean being a notable business with direct lines of contact with YouTube.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52760977]Seriously? Fox news videos on tragedies such as this shooting can be seen with ads on them, such as [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HtabySB4HQ"]this one[/URL], and [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nk5yR8MkJY"]another for a direct terror attack[/URL].
They aren't strong clintonites last I checked. Big does not necessarily mean being a notable business with direct lines of contact with YouTube.[/QUOTE]
Why is it, do you think, that a news channel [I]so political they're classed as entertainment[/I] has direct lines to google's management?
and a company directly involved with "violent content" like raytheon that happens to be an official partner with google on video content?
[QUOTE=27X;52760948]Nope. Forest for the trees.
It's not the big. Big has jack shit to do with it, as the latest Content Cop showed in spades.
It's that Kimmel [B]has the right politics.[/B] He's a til-I-die Clintonite. And so is almost the entire MDS of youtube and google.
Youtube is dead, and has been since three years ago, and it's never coming back to life as a freeform content creation venue.[/QUOTE]
I mean, Neistat [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjS6OdY2dBQ"]voted for Clinton[/URL] and that apparently didn't stop youtube from demonetizing his shit.
Because he isn't actual bros with youtube staff.
[QUOTE=27X;52761070]Because he isn't actual bros with youtube staff.[/QUOTE]
Wait, so you disagreed with the post that said it was about how big the channel is by arguing that it was about politics, then when it was pointed out that not only does Fox News get monetized but even people who hold the political views you say allows them to be monetized get demonetized- you argue that it's because those channels aren't big channels that are connected?
You've created a situation where anytime a channel get demonetized, regardless of what political view it holds or how big it is, it still- in your mind- proves you right. And anytime a channels doesn't get demonetized, regardless of what political view it holds, it still- in your mind- proves you right.
This is reaching levels of those conspiracy theorists who respond to any holes in their argument by using unprovable bullshit like "that's just what they want you to think" or "it was a false flag operation."
The word you're glossing over is [B]politics.[/B]
And no where did I state that [B]all[/B] demonetization is political, nor even implied, as the situation that occurred was the literal opposite of that, a video got [I]extra ads[/I] because of chummy politics.
That said, John Bain is apparently on a whitelist and has not been impacted AT ALL because of his politics and an equally large youtuber (dunkey) whom has different sociopolitical outlook is pretty much losing a big ol chunk of his revenue right now, and so is anyone whom posts "toxic or harmful or inappropriate content".
If you have a better word than political I am all ears, cause all those companies getting all butthurt about their ads and pulling them did absolutely nothing to youtube's bottom line for the quarter. Nada. Yet youtube lets their bot run riot all over [B]most[/B] content despite that. A mystery.
And here we are.
You're also conflating social politics with national party politics. Politics starts when more than one person is expected to have standards or rules placed on their behavior or expression as implied behavioral governance, and that is exactly what is happening here.
[QUOTE=27X;52761129]The word you're glossing over is [B]politics.[/B]
And nowhere did I state that [B]all[/B] demonetization is political, nor even implied, as the situation that occurred was the literal opposite of that, a video got [I]extra ads[/I] because of chummy politics.
That said, John Bain is apparently on a whitelist and has not been impacted AT ALL because of his politics and an equally large youtuber (dunkey) whom has different sociopolitical outlook is pretty much losing a big ol chunk of his revenue right now, and so is anyone whom posts "toxic or harmful or inappropriate content".
If you have a better word than political I am all ears, cause all those companies getting all butthurt about their ads and pulling them did absolutely nothing to youtube's bottom line for the quarter. Nada. Yet youtube lets their bot run riot all over [B]most[/B] content despite that. A mystery.
And here we are.[/QUOTE]
I don't really think there's any real deep reasoning behind why some content is demonetized and others aren't at all. The bot YouTube uses to check whether videos should be demonetized or not is based on an algorithm that is inherently faulty, YouTube itself has said as much.
Check out Valve News Network's video on the subject, he explains the background history much more clearly and goes through the extremely tiresome "manual review process" to find that the videos that were flagged as "not appropriate for all advertisers" were not actually harmful in any way according to YouTube and, in fact, were not supposed to be demonetized.
[video=youtube;jzdbCxy0Roc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzdbCxy0Roc[/video]
Channel owners have been finding that many of their videos have been demonetized seemingly at random without any notice as to why, and often in a highly inconsistent and hypocritical fashion. This is because the bot, which is based on a supposed self-learning computer algorithm, was rushed out as quickly as possible in response to major advertisers pulling out of YouTube due to not having the complete control over what channels their advertisements are viewed on.
What's happened as a result is that the political pundit-type channels, who have entire channels dedicated to self-victimizing propagandizing, have assumed that they're the only ones under attack because they believe that the SJW liberal agenda is out to get them- when in reality, this has been happening to pretty much everybody regardless of the type of content they produce.
I think if we try to apply some sort of political lens to a bot based on a computer algorithm that is inherently irrational and hypocritical because it was rushed out so quickly, it's possible to end up trying to find a political slant when there isn't one. Especially when, in cases like your argument, demonetization of channels that share the view you think the bot is protecting is just part of the underlying conspiracy and any time it doesn't demonetize something you just argue it's the exception rather than the rule.
No matter who is monetized and who isn't, you'll still be convinced that you're right.
[b]In other words, you're trying to make a computer program political when it reality it's just dumb. You're also trying to pin YouTube as being political when in reality they just don't care.[/b]
YouTube, like most companies, exists primarily to make money. The only reason they would provide any sort of backing to any political movement would be either an act of appeasement to make them go away or because they thought it would affect their bottom line. This means that it is incredibly unlikely that they would be deliberately targeting conservatively-minded channels for demonetization, but they would also be unlikely to do anything about it if those channels are demonetized unless they could stand to lose money because of it (hence why big channels like Fox News aren't affected).
[b]YouTube isn't political. They just don't care.[/b]
[QUOTE=Zyler;52761164]I don't really think there's any real deep reasoning behind why some content is demonetized and others aren't at all. The bot YouTube uses to check whether videos should be demonetized or not is based on an algorithm that is inherently faulty, YouTube itself has said as much.
Check out Valve News Network's video on the subject, he explains the background history much more clearly and goes through the extremely tiresome "manual review process" to find that the videos that were flagged as "not appropriate for all advertisers" were not actually harmful in any way according to YouTube and, in fact, were not supposed to be demonetized.
[video=youtube;jzdbCxy0Roc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzdbCxy0Roc[/video]
Channel owners have been finding that many of their videos have been demonetized seemingly at random without any notice as to why, and often in a highly inconsistent and hypocritical fashion. This is because the bot, which is based on a supposed self-learning computer algorithm, was rushed out as quickly as possible in response to major advertisers pulling out of YouTube due to not having the complete control over what channels their advertisements are viewed on.
What's happened as a result is that the political pundit-type channels, who have entire channels dedicated to self-victimizing propagandizing, have assumed that they're the only ones under attack because they believe that the SJW liberal agenda is out to get them- when in reality, this has been happening to pretty much everybody regardless of the type of content they produce.
I think if we try to apply some sort of political lens to a bot based on a computer algorithm that is inherently irrational and hypocritical because it was rushed out so quickly, it's possible to end up trying to find a political slant when there isn't one. Especially when, in cases like your argument, demonetization of channels that share the view you think the bot is protecting is just part of the underlying conspiracy and any time it doesn't demonetize something you just argue it's the exception rather than the rule.
No matter who is monetized and who isn't, you'll still be convinced that you're right.
[b]In other words, you're trying to make a computer program political when it reality it's just dumb. You're also trying to pin YouTube as being political when in reality they just don't care.[/b]
YouTube, like most companies, exists primarily to make money. The only reason they would provide any sort of backing to any political movement would be either an act of appeasement to make them go away or because they thought it would affect their bottom line. This means that it is incredibly unlikely that they would be deliberately targeting conservatively-minded channels for demonetization, but they would also be unlikely to do anything about it if those channels are demonetized unless they could stand to lose money because of it (hence why big channels like Fox News aren't affected).
[b]YouTube isn't political. They just don't care.[/b][/QUOTE]
Youtube is pretty political and i think a very strong case could be made for that bias with some time, just that this bot isn't one of those reasons. Like, there is a case to be made about the choices of people being put outside the bot on a case by case basis being political, though i havent looked into that so i wouldn't know.
At the same time youtube's twitter account twitter is ignoring all the complaints about bots they're responding and following the whims of random twitter sjws upset with tame ads: [url]https://i.imgur.com/EcTzG8e.png[/url]
Except google and youtube are both highly political, that's not even up for debate, so it's great you think this is just about the bot when my ->original<- post did not even cover that [B]because it's irrelevant[/B], when again open your ears, take your hands off the keyboard:
[quote] Jimmy Kimmel [B]received extra ads[/B] for posting content Youtube deemed as inappropriate content for monetization [/quote]
Political decision, political outcome.
Jimmy Kimmel's [I]national[/I] political stance enabled him to use his [I]personal[/I] political standing amongst youtube upper management whom he knows of on a first name basis to violate youtube's TOS and media content rules with not only no repercussions but a thumbs up from youtube and immediate and instantaneous boost to #1 trending.
None of that has anything to do with a bot, because it was done by a real live group of people at Youtube in conjunction with ABC's marketing team, so if you're done dragging the topic to a related but completely separate issue, my original point stands.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;52761192]Youtube is pretty political and i think a very strong case could be made for that bias with some time, just that this bot isn't one of those reasons. Like, there is a case to be made about the choices of people being put outside the bot on a case by case basis being political, though i havent looked into that so i wouldn't know.
At the same time youtube's twitter account twitter is ignoring all the complaints about bots they're responding and following the whims of random twitter sjws upset with tame ads: [url]https://i.imgur.com/EcTzG8e.png[/url][/QUOTE]
Again, I think those aren't most likely cases of YouTube being inherently political but rather being a private company that exists to make money.
They aren't selectively ignoring complaints about the bot because the people making them are conservative, they're ignoring them because the people making the complaints don't make them any money so they don't care, whereas the big companies that don't get demonetized DO make them money.
I could cherrypick cases of left-leaning channels getting demonetized and then messaging YouTube and getting ignored as well, it doesn't mean anything.
They answer the complaints about stuff not related to the bot because it's potential bad publicity that may affect their bottom line (they create the illusion of caring about what their customers think).
[b]They don't respond to the complaints about the bot because, from their point of view, not responding to it is the better PR move[/b] (because they have no intention of fixing it). In other words, they're waiting for it to go away.
[editline]9th October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=27X;52761199]Except google and youtube are both highly political, that's not even up for debate, so it's great you think this is just about the bot when my post did not even cover that [B]because it's irrelevant[/B], when again open your ears, take your hands off the keyboard:
Political decision, political outcome.
Jimmy Kimmel's [I]national[/I] political stance enabled him to use his [I]personal[/I] political standing amongst youtube upper management whom he knows of on a first name basis to violate youtube's TOS and media content rules with not only no repercussions but a thumbs up from youtube and immediate and instantaneous boost to #1 trending.
None of that has anything to do with a bot because it was done by a real live group of people at Youtube in conjunction with ABC's marketing team, so if you're done dragging the topic to a related but completely separate issue, my original point stands.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't make any sense though.
If YouTube is deliberately deciding to accept left-leaning content and demonetize right-leaning content, then why hasn't Fox News been demonetized when they've broken the TOS by putting ads on videos reporting on tragedies?
You keep trying to find some political angle when there isn't one. YouTube, as a company, exists to make money- why would they intentionally decide to demonetize political videos if they couldn't make any money out of it? What would be the point?
Is it so difficult to consider that a business would want to make money as opposed to pushing politics that doesn't even make sense?
I don't have to try find anything, we gots several threads documenting political stuff at google and youtube right here much less anywhere vetted and verified.
You're the one simplifying shit to ALL/NONE EVERY AND FOREVER OR NOT AND NEVER.
If you go back read the op title and then watch the videos, you will see THIS, this thing, this topical thing is 100% political. Not Donkeys and Elephants political, but PURELY political, as in attempting to influence the conduct and viewpoint of people by policy, dictate, and procedure. The end.
Youtube is highly political in all of the ways that political can be used in this context and has been for a very very long time, and "sense" has nothing to do with it, because if sense were involved youtube would have spent all that money and engineering hours making an [B]ad matching algorithm so everyone was happy[/B] instead the piece of crap they currently employ, but they made what they wanted because they want to restrict and control what content [B]they deem as worthy of attention[/B], aka politics.
You're asking me why when a guy who just internet murdered a deserving dumbfuckimus maximus not one thread over has over 16 million views in two days and is nowhere to be seen on youtube's "hey guys this video is mad watched" list.
You're asking me why when youtube spent a month coming up with dumbfuck icons on why they spanked your video when they could have spent that same time and money making icons that immediately described content to ad companies could match content without having to even watch the video, provided youtube was remotely competent in doing that sort of thing, which they are clearly not, because as we see, they don't have to be.
[QUOTE=27X;52761241]I don't have to try find anything, we gots several threads documenting political stuff at google and youtube right here much less anywhere vetted and verified.
You're the one simplifying shit to ALL/NONE EVERY AND FOREVER OR NOT AND NEVER.
If you go back read the op title and then watch the videos, you will see THIS, this thing, this topical thing is 100% political. Not Donkeys and Elephants political, but PURELY political, as in attempting to influence the conduct and viewpoint of people by policy, dictate, and procedure. The end.
Youtube is highly political in all of the ways that political can be used in this context and has been for a very very long time, and "sense" has nothing to do with it, because if sense were involved youtube would spent all that money and engineering hours making an [B]ad matching algorithm[/B] instead the piece of crap they currently employ, but they made what they wanted because they want to restrict and control what content [b]they deem as worthy of attention[/b], aka politics.[/QUOTE]
How am I over-simplifying things "to every and forever or not and never"? I'm not even sure what that means, but I'm assuming you're accusing me of black-and-white thinking? [b]YouTube is a company, they want to make money.[/b] That's it. They are responding to situations based on how it will affect their bottom line.
If YouTube has a left-leaning political agenda, then why is Fox News not demonetized? Why does YouTube refuse to respond when left-leaning channels are demonetized and the channel owners complain?
Does Fox News have the correct political position that YouTube is trying to push? Does Jimmy Kimmel also? What political view are they attempting to push?
[b]Both left-leaning and right-leaning channels are demonetized, and in both cases, YouTube refuses to respond when asked about them. Both left-leaning and right-leaning channels are not demonetized when they are big enough to warrant special attention.[/b] What political position are they trying to push?
[b]You're basically telling me that YouTube is biased no matter who is monetized and who is demonetized[/b].
No matter who is promoted and who is not promoted, you're going to assume that they have some kind of nonsensical (and unprofitable) political agenda no matter what.
[editline]9th October 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=27X;52761241]
You're asking me why when youtube spent a month coming up with dumbfuck icons on why they spanked your video when they could have spent that same time and money making icons that immediately described content to ad companies could match content without having to even watch the video, provided youtube was remotely competent in doing that sort of thing, which they are clearly not, because as we see, they don't have to be.[/QUOTE]
That's exactly what the bot does. It matches ads to video content based on a computer algorithm.
[QUOTE=Mitsuma;52760485]Is this news?
I really don't want to sound like a dick and the recent problems with the ad revenue is bad but "YouTube's Rules Don't Apply To Everyone" is not anything new at all.
Anybody in a big YouTube Network already has higher privileges and options to combat all kinds of problems.
Yes, they still got hit with the removal of monetaristion in the latest thing but big YouTubers are already in a higher postion where some rules don't simply apply to them compared to the majority of small channels.
Now we have some even bigger company that enjoys even more privileges and suddenly everybody is on the fence about that.
I'm actually not even surprised that a TV show that is produced for TV by a big TV corporation gets a free pass from YouTube rules. I'm not sure how exactly it works in the US but I'm probably right when I say that their content is always pre-checked by a special team to make sure it doesn't go against regulations and such.
As much as YouTube gives bigger YouTubers more freedom and leeway in their privileges they can give a big TV station and production team probably full freedom.
And yes, YouTube is hypocritical to the max but that is nothing new anyways.
I'm just slightly put of by the talk about "Rules don't apply to anybody" when big YouTubers are in a similar situation them self.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you to some extent, but in my opinion the biggest failure (and a good reason for these complaints to exist) is that YouTube isn't doing [I]anything[/I] to communicate these things properly.
Youtube is political when they can profit from it.
So it's less about having a agenda (except for profitable views) and more about the sweet advertising money.
So the moment it's suddenly resulting in less money, then they're suddenly apolitical.
[QUOTE=JXZ;52760726]Youtube will stop being the #1 video site someday. probably not soon.
What I'm wondering is, what will its replacement be, and how will it be different from youtube?
It's definitely not going to be a clone of youtube, because "youtube but without a userbase but we promise it will work this time lol" isn't a good pitch for investors or creators.[/QUOTE]
A fair few gaming channels have started livestreaming on Twitch and they are not bothered whatsoever when it comes to copyrighted material etc.
[QUOTE=Steam-Pixie;52761583]A fair few gaming channels have started livestreaming on Twitch and they are not bothered whatsoever when it comes to copyrighted material etc.[/QUOTE]
Twitch mutes (sections) of VoDs if it recognises a copyrighted song, even if that's part of a game or conference.
[QUOTE=Steam-Pixie;52761583]A fair few gaming channels have started livestreaming on Twitch and they are not bothered whatsoever when it comes to copyrighted material etc.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Tamschi;52761629]Twitch mutes (sections) of VoDs if it recognises a copyrighted song, even if that's part of a game or conference.[/QUOTE]
I suspect that, rather than a whole new 'replacement' YouTube website, people are much more likely to move to new websites that cater to specific interests, especially those that offer specific features that are uniquely purposed for those interests which YouTube doesn't have.
e.g. Twitch for video games, [url=https://vimeo.com/]Vimeo[/url] for artsy video content, [url=https://picarto.tv/]Picarto[/url] for digital painting.
[QUOTE=JXZ;52760726]Youtube will stop being the #1 video site someday. probably not soon.
What I'm wondering is, what will its replacement be, and how will it be different from youtube?
It's definitely not going to be a clone of youtube, because "youtube but without a userbase but we promise it will work this time lol" isn't a good pitch for investors or creators.[/QUOTE]
Remember [URL="https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/ZippCast"]Zippcast[/URL]? Prob not but it used to be a youtube clone that was made to look like 2007-esque youtube. Sadly, it never caught on since almost all the videos on it were basically THIS IS HOW YOUTUBE OUGHT TO BE REMEMBER THE MID 2000s?
Vidme is a close second but even then, that encourages monetization. Fuck that! I just wanna make videos for fun, not for quick cash. Vimeo, isn't that basically a portfolio for people in the film industry [I](and you have to pay to upload videos)[/I]?
Bring back stage6, it was the best one.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
