YouTube Is Shutting Down My Channel and I'm Not Sure What To Do
115 replies, posted
That really bothers me on a fundamental level.
This fucking guy just sits on his ass and blabs about whatever stupid fucking trivial things are going on in the world and he makes about 750 THOUSAND dollars a year, meanwhile my own father, a hard working ox of a man, has been working almost every day of his life for the past 30 years and he can barely make 40k a year.
I can't even come close to 10k a year. Jesus christ. I think it's fair to make some money with your channel, but not get fucking rich from it!
[QUOTE=Cureless;50984876]That really bothers me on a fundamental level.
This fucking guy just sits on his ass and blabs about whatever stupid fucking trivial things are going on in the world and he makes about 750 THOUSAND dollars a year, meanwhile my own father, a hard working ox of a man, has been working almost every day of his life for the past 30 years and he can barely make 40k a year.
I can't even come close to 10k a year. Jesus christ. I think it's fair to make some money with your channel, but not get fucking rich from it![/QUOTE]
Youtube is a business. Just like in any business certain people do poorly, do ok, or make bank.
Youtube is, at this point, an entertainment industry. People in entertainment have the capacity to make a lot of money doing very small things. If you can find a niche, if you have a personality people can enjoy or relate to, and if you have good, quality content? Then you're golden.
Youtube isn't a traditional vocation. It's still very much in its infancy as a medium, and those who were able to capitalize very early on are seeing success because of it. But that doesn't mean these people aren't just as dedicated as someone in a traditional job field. Just that they found something that they are good at and pays well.
It's the nature of the entertainment industry. You make a lot of money for doing what a lot of people deem to be very little.
[QUOTE=Cureless;50984876]That really bothers me on a fundamental level.
This fucking guy just sits on his ass and blabs about whatever stupid fucking trivial things are going on in the world and he makes about 750 THOUSAND dollars a year, meanwhile my own father, a hard working ox of a man, has been working almost every day of his life for the past 30 years and he can barely make 40k a year.
I can't even come close to 10k a year. Jesus christ. I think it's fair to make some money with your channel, but not get fucking rich from it![/QUOTE]
You realize that sites that state how much certain YouTubers earn are based on rough estimates right? Since they're forbidden to release information on how much they earn and ontop of that the estimates can be way off.
[QUOTE=lionheart1066;50985545]You realize that sites that state how much certain YouTubers earn are based on rough estimates right? Since they're forbidden to release information on how much they earn and ontop of that the estimates can be way off.[/QUOTE]
"rough estimates" is being overly generous
The social blade for my channel says I made "$48 - $762" in the last month. That's such a fucking stupidly huge range to the point of basically being meaningless.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;50985585]"rough estimates" is being overly generous
The social blade for my channel says I made "$48 - $762" in the last month. That's such a fucking stupidly huge range to the point of basically being meaningless.[/QUOTE]
I guess so, I don't know how they guess the values since it's never ever close to the amount they predict.
Crossposting from an h3h3 thread on this topic:
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;50985851]I don't see how it's fucked up.
Someone advertising their product has every right to have control over where their money is going, and there are plenty of reasons for someone advertising their product to not want it advertised on programs with mature subject matter.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;50985906]Crossposting from an h3h3 thread on this topic:[/QUOTE]
Then let's not be, idk, retarded, and have a different solution:
Allow advertisers for "adult products" to advertise on "mature channels".
Trojan, Jack Daniels, Ford, w/e can advertise on LegendOfTotalWar
Kid's toys and music ads can be on everyone else
and so on
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50986393]Then let's not be, idk, retarded, and have a different solution:
Allow advertisers for "adult products" to advertise on "mature channels".
Trojan, Jack Daniels, Ford, w/e can advertise on LegendOfTotalWar
Kid's toys and music ads can be on everyone else
and so on[/QUOTE]
They can and do. You just don't make as much money as when every advertiser advertises on your channel. That's what's going on here.
does someone who monetizes their video even get the opportunity to choose who runs the ads, because it just sort of seems like "advertisers in general are now expressing more control over everyone running monetization"
There are many legitimate reasons to be worried about YouTube's centralized nature and de-facto monopoly, but I'm not sure this is really one of them. This isn't censorship: this only affects a YouTubers ability to make a living off their videos, at least in the short term, until they can find better revenue sources. Because let's face it: advertising sucks and has always sucked, and alternatives exist. And no, it doesn't have to be a walled garden, as YouTubers using Patreon have demonstrated. It sucks that this is dropped on people without forewarning as I'm sure it affects people who rely on that revenue for a living and haven't diversified their revenue yet, which I'm sure can be a lot of work, but ultimately no opinion or artistic expression is being suppressed here.
This is a tangent, but when it comes to [i]actual[/i] censorship, such as YouTube's draconian copyright practices: even if creators were to migrate to another centralized service, it's just a matter of time before similar practices are enacted due to pressure from the same forces behind YouTube's policies. I hope someday content creators start offering their videos through decentralized methods, something like IPFS or Zeronet. That way their videos will be transparently available for as long as at least a single person cares enough about them to seed them. This precludes traditional advertising, but a lot of channels already do well on in-video paid promotions and subscription services like Patreon. There's a problem with statistics that needs to be solved: for content creators to effectively evaluate what people like, and for companies to evaluate a channel for promotions, we need to know with some accuracy what people actually watch and all the other stats that YouTube facilitate. If this problem can be solved, then it's just a problem of making the method accessible enough that people would use it, which is probably pretty straight forward. It would probably just mean running some software in the background that you can forget about, then access it through the web browser as if it was the traditional WWW. IPFS and Zeronet both already kind of work like this.
People wouldn't need to switch at the drop of a dime, shifting to such a model could be done over a timespan of months or years. Unless, of course, it was forced by a sudden and dramatic increase in censorship on centralized services.
Just waiting for the software side of things.
[QUOTE=jA_cOp;50987836]There are many legitimate reasons to be worried about YouTube's centralized nature and de-facto monopoly, but I'm not sure this is really one of them. This isn't censorship: this only affects a YouTubers ability to make a living off their videos, at least in the short term, until they can find better revenue sources. Because let's face it: advertising sucks and has always sucked, and alternatives exist. And no, it doesn't have to be a walled garden, as YouTubers using Patreon have demonstrated. It sucks that this is dropped on people without forewarning as I'm sure it affects people who rely on that revenue for a living and haven't diversified their revenue yet, which I'm sure can be a lot of work, but ultimately no opinion or artistic expression is being suppressed here.
This is a tangent, but when it comes to [i]actual[/i] censorship, such as YouTube's draconian copyright practices: even if creators were to migrate to another centralized service, it's just a matter of time before similar practices are enacted due to pressure from the same forces behind YouTube's policies. I hope someday content creators start offering their videos through decentralized methods, something like IPFS or Zeronet. That way their videos will be transparently available for as long as at least a single person cares enough about them to seed them. This precludes traditional advertising, but a lot of channels already do well on in-video paid promotions and subscription services like Patreon. There's a problem with statistics that needs to be solved: for content creators to effectively evaluate what people like, and for companies to evaluate a channel for promotions, we need to know with some accuracy what people actually watch and all the other stats that YouTube facilitate. If this problem can be solved, then it's just a problem of making the method accessible enough that people would use it, which is probably pretty straight forward. It would probably just mean running some software in the background that you can forget about, then access it through the web browser as if it was the traditional WWW. IPFS and Zeronet both already kind of work like this.
People wouldn't need to switch at the drop of a dime, shifting to such a model could be done over a timespan of months or years. Unless, of course, it was forced by a sudden and dramatic increase in censorship on centralized services.
Just waiting for the software side of things.[/QUOTE]
This is absolutely censorship. A lot of big youtubers make a living off their videos and Google is undoubtedly aware of that. If content creators are forced to choose between putting out Google-approved videos to maintain their incomes or awkwardly jumping though hoops [i]hoping[/i] to achieve similar results, most are going to choose the former. Why risk my financial well-being and bombard my viewers with Patreon requests when I can just omit some "fucks" and not talk about this news story with better results? It doesn't have to be hard censorship to be censorship.
[QUOTE=SgtTupelo;50982921]I hope it's not Dailymotion. I'd like my videos to actually load during the same day.
I hope something completely new replaces Youtube someday.[/QUOTE]
The problem though is that only google-sized companies have enough capital to build the massive CDNs required to deliver a consistently performing product. So any competitor will always have the same issue, at least initially.
In fact Amazon Instant Video still has this problem, and Amazon is massive.
Fucking hell. You're fucking over one of the people that made your website what it is today.
What ARE you doing?
Vessel is a thing.
[QUOTE=lionheart1066;50985545]You realize that sites that state how much certain YouTubers earn are based on rough estimates right? Since they're forbidden to release information on how much they earn and ontop of that the estimates can be way off.[/QUOTE]
$750,000 might be hard to believe but Phil DeFranco's been around for years and is behind multiple channels that make a crazy amount of views. At this point he's practically on-par with being an entrepreneur so he's definitely making 6 figures.
[media]https://youtu.be/nLo-s9OzHko[/media]
fuuuck
[editline]2nd September 2016[/editline]
[quote]No, it isn't goodbye - not yet. This is bring it on CUNTS! Never go down withough a fight.
#Fucktember
Save the Youtube we love. Make it happen.
Sorry for the click bait, but I needed your attention.
I haven't been hit by the demonetization storm yet but since it's so widespread I figured it will come for me soon. I have always had a strike first policy so I'm going to try prevent the storm from getting to me in the first place.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Gimme20dollaz;50985710][video=youtube;tJKfe4jjUdg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJKfe4jjUdg[/video]
Followup[/QUOTE]
God that tweet by that Smosh guy was fucking cringy. What a two-faced twat.
I thought swearing was controversial back in the 70s, how is this still an issue?
[QUOTE=Jack32;51000515]I thought swearing was controversial back in the 70s, how is this still an issue?[/QUOTE]
If the advertisers (whom Google gets the only money from on YouTube) don't want to be sponsoring profanity-laced videos, that is their right.
[QUOTE=Ridge;51001521]If the advertisers (whom Google gets the only money from on YouTube) don't want to be sponsoring profanity-laced videos, that is their right.[/QUOTE]
The thing is though, some of them are fine with it.
YouTube is enforcing a blanket ban rather than splitting it into "is okay" and "is not okay"
I feel like the issue lies in the fact that there's no way I feel to create a viable alternative. The amount of hardware you'd need to keep this sort of site going, as well as the people you'd need to pay to keep development going, run the latest and greatest, and deal with everything is crazy.
Plus you'd have to have people actually using it, and handle everything on the legal side as well.
[QUOTE=Nookyava;51001783]I feel like the issue lies in the fact that there's no way I feel to create a viable alternative. The amount of hardware you'd need to keep this sort of site going, as well as the people you'd need to pay to keep development going, run the latest and greatest, and deal with everything is crazy.
Plus you'd have to have people actually using it, and handle everything on the legal side as well.[/QUOTE]
Which is why you don't make it centralized.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.