I have a video with the word "bomb" in the title, and it has the code for profanity. The video is silent and there's no swears in the description.
:thinking:
I just want to say, IMO there's nothing wrong with youtube trying to decide whether videos are actually 'ad friendly', it's what the advertisers demand. look at it from the advertisers perspective: if you paid good money for a series of ads, do you want them shown over an ISIS beheading video?
also, prioritising monetised content over demonetised stuff makes perfect sense too. youtube is a business after all, and wasting impressions and bandwidth on a video that doesn't make money is really hard on the platform - remember that youtube's profit margins are razor-thin right now, if they're even breaking even
that said, the en masse demonetisation of popular youtubers is seriously over the top. either the algorithm is broken, or whoever put it in place is seriously out of touch with the modern youtube audience, if they think swearing or slightly risque content is going to harm the ad impressions whatsoever
[QUOTE=Quark:;52933246]that's because YouTube wants you to watch videos with advertisements instead of videos without advertisements :v:[/QUOTE]
... and also bullying creators into becoming advertisers, since placing ads is shunned by many, especially since patreon is an option.
[QUOTE=Cock Boner;52934517]I have a video with the word "bomb" in the title, and it has the code for profanity. The video is silent and there's no swears in the description.
:thinking:[/QUOTE]
Only thing I can think of that the shitty AI might be relating "bomb" to swearing would be the term "f bomb"
I got a 102 (Profanity and rough language) on a video that just went live today, I'm guessing it got picked up because the word "drunk" was in the original video file's name because there's no other "swear" words in the title, tags, thumbnail or description.
[editline]30th November 2017[/editline]
Curiously I have a video cued up next week with the word "Guns" in the title but that's still green.
All this shit just makes me never want to make videos, honestly.
Why spend any effort at all when it can just be pissed away because a robot saw a poopoo word
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52935220]All this shit just makes me never want to make videos, honestly.
Why spend any effort at all when it can just be pissed away because a robot saw a poopoo word[/QUOTE]
This is mostly why Patreon has started to gain a lot of traction over the last couple of years. My only issue with Patreon is it'll essentially turn your fun, creative hobby into a literal job because actual people (who you will actively engage with) will be giving you ($X/mo) for content. At the very least you'd have to do something once a month every month so people feel like they're getting their money's worth. That's fine, but I don't want to turn my fun, creative hobby into a job. That's when content starts to suffer the most because it's no longer a labor of love, you aren't doing it because you want to. You're doing it because you feel like you have to.
For me I just like sharing cool stuff I make with the world which apparently never actually happens because I don't monetize most of my content anyway. Thanks Susie Jabberwocky.
[QUOTE=haloguy234;52935280]This is mostly why Patreon has started to gain a lot of traction over the last couple of years. My only issue with Patreon is it'll essentially turn your fun, creative hobby into a literal job because actual people (who you will actively engage with) will be giving you ($X/mo) for content. At the very least you'd have to do something once a month every month so people feel like they're getting their money's worth. That's fine, but I don't want to turn my fun, creative hobby into a job. That's when content starts to suffer the most because it's no longer a labor of love, you aren't doing it because you want to. You're doing it because you feel like you have to.
For me I just like sharing cool stuff I make with the world which apparently never actually happens because I don't monetize most of my content anyway. Thanks Susie Jabberwocky.[/QUOTE]
Don't forget there's a "X amount per creation" payment creators can enable rather than monthly
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52935220]All this shit just makes me never want to make videos, honestly.
Why spend any effort at all when it can just be pissed away because a robot saw a poopoo word[/QUOTE]
I've done youtube stuff for almost ten years now, I only got a popularity spike in the past couple of them because I did a lot of stuff for a very niche game with more production value than most other people at the time and because I shilled the shit out of it on Reddit. It's not impossible to start a channel, but you really need somewhere to start pulling in viewers because YouTube doesn't want to help.
[QUOTE=haloguy234;52935280]This is mostly why Patreon has started to gain a lot of traction over the last couple of years. My only issue with Patreon is it'll essentially turn your fun, creative hobby into a literal job because actual people (who you will actively engage with) will be giving you ($X/mo) for content. At the very least you'd have to do something once a month every month so people feel like they're getting their money's worth. That's fine, but I don't want to turn my fun, creative hobby into a job. That's when content starts to suffer the most because it's no longer a labor of love, you aren't doing it because you want to. You're doing it because you feel like you have to.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily, it depends a lot on the specifics of what you're doing.
For projects that take time, in my experience, a lot of people are perfectly satisfied with WIPs if you don't have any finished projects for them.
The thing about Patreon is there's two kinds of supporters: those who consider it as buying a product, and those who consider it as supporting an artist.
You're talking about the former, when the latter is a very real and substantive audience: see the comments of people who upload videos rarely, such as JonTron, as an example of how real this audience is; there is a sizeable portion of people who are huge fans of the work, but at the same time are more than willing to wait - they recognize and respect the fact that certain types of work take time.
The latter audience support their favorite artists, because they want them to keep doing what they do, the way they do it. Anyone whose been on the Internet any real amount of time has probably had at least one of their favorite artists stop what they do, and in a great many cases, it's financially related. These audience members want their favorite artists to keep making what they make, and find contributing to their financial situation to be a worthy investment - they'd rather be out five bucks a month and have their favorite artist making things once a year, than not be out any but having their favorite artist folding and calling it quits.
There are people who sacrifice quality in that pursuit for righteous dollar bills (see: GradeAUnderA), but that isn't a necessary consequence of Patreon. That's a conscious decision made by greedy artists. It absolutely doesn't have to go that route.
PewDiePie made a video about this
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8piA_MQ5gQQ[/media]
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52938295]PewDiePie made a video about this
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8piA_MQ5gQQ[/media][/QUOTE]
The more this gets attention the better, just recently saw this a few hours ago too on Nerd City's video.
[quote]UPDATE, Dec 1: YouTube appears to have removed the “excluded_ads” tag, but without denying the conclusions of the report. This seems to indicate the censorship and suppression is real and YouTube would prefer to hide it.•[/quote]
Same here, even videos with titles that which would be demonetized are monetized now.
A few hours late, but here's Youtube's response:
[media]https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/936729402607419392[/media]
[media]https://twitter.com/thenerdcity/status/936738393492516864[/media]
Oh hey my demonetized video is green again, and an ad did run on it when I viewed it.
[QUOTE=Vilusia;52932557]I honestly wish pornhub would just make a not porn version of their site. It would be really good competition to them.[/QUOTE]
Tbh I wouldn't want a website that still has uses the word "shemale" for one of its categories and has other categories for race fetishes to be the one that usurps YouTube. I understand "that's how the industry is," but they're definitely big enough to just not do that and still stay on top.
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52939806]Tbh I wouldn't want a website that still has uses the word "shemale" for one of its categories and has other categories for race fetishes to be the one that usurps YouTube. I understand "that's how the industry is," but they're definitely big enough to just not do that and still stay on top.[/QUOTE]
That's literally an industry term with a specifically defined meaning though. And I don't see why they wouldn't have categories for races, I don't really find that offensive in context seeing the other way worse ultra-specific tags you can find.
Frankly, there are [i]far[/i] worse websites that could dethrone YouTube, why not one that actually does good for the world in a number of ways.
[QUOTE=DeVotchKa;52939976]That's literally an industry term with a specifically defined meaning though. And I don't see why they wouldn't have categories for races, I don't really find that offensive in context seeing the other way worse ultra-specific tags you can find.
Frankly, there are [i]far[/i] worse websites that could dethrone YouTube, why not one that actually does good for the world in a number of ways.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/wipt8Mp.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52939806]has other categories for race fetishes to be the one that usurps YouTube.[/QUOTE]
Its a porn site, my dude.
why not just put ads on every video, but not all of them make money for the uploader? Then it's a fair playing field again.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52940093]Its a porn site, my dude.[/QUOTE]
At that point, he's only a few logical steps away from complaining about why PornHub has porn videos on it.
"Tbh I wouldn't want a website that still has videos that sexualize women (and men). I understand 'that's how the industry is', but they're definitely big enough to not do that and still stay on top."
:v:
[QUOTE=DeVotchKa;52939976]That's literally an industry term with a specifically defined meaning though. And I don't see why they wouldn't have categories for races, I don't really find that offensive in context seeing the other way worse ultra-specific tags you can find.
Frankly, there are [i]far[/i] worse websites that could dethrone YouTube, why not one that actually does good for the world in a number of ways.[/QUOTE]
Just because it's an industry term doesn't mean it's okay. The industry isn't exactly trans-friendly. "Shemale" is a slur and most transwomen I know/have seen say "yeah please don't ever say that."
And I've heard plenty of people say "wanting someone just because they're a certain race is kind of fetishizing?" I feel like having "ebony" and "Indian" categories kind of help that fetishizing.
[editline]2nd December 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=AaronM202;52940093]Its a porn site, my dude.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52940302]At that point, he's only a few logical steps away from complaining about why PornHub has porn videos on it.
"Tbh I wouldn't want a website that still has videos that sexualize women (and men). I understand 'that's how the industry is', but they're definitely big enough to not do that and still stay on top."
:v:[/QUOTE]
Except I'm really not. I'm talking about calling them "shemales." That's so far away from saying "they're sexualizing women," when it's actually "they're calling women a slur that I keep hearing over and over is not okay."
You can be a porn site without making a category with a name like that.
[QUOTE=ThePanther;52940206]why not just put ads on every video, but not all of them make money for the uploader? Then it's a fair playing field again.[/QUOTE]
Because the advertisers don't want their ads running on videos with "sensitive material," because of idiot journalists trying to make a quick click-bait buck running articles saying "COKE SUPPORTING RACISM?"
I think that a disclaimer before/after an ad stating "this video is not endorsed by (advertiser), opinions expressed may not reflect our own" should be enough. But there's too many reactionists out there for that to work properly, and the AI will still mark everything unmonetizable, so all the money will go to YouTube even if the content is clean enough for the ads.
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52940701]Except I'm really not. I'm talking about calling them "shemales." That's so far away from saying "they're sexualizing women," when it's actually "they're calling women a slur that I keep hearing over and over is not okay."
You can be a porn site without making a category with a name like that.[/QUOTE]
What name would you suggest that would then not become a slur?
Because literally anything you put in its place will most likely just become another slur because people who use slurs don't care if a word is the "appropriate" one or not.
[QUOTE=Bernie Buddy;52940748]What name would you suggest that would then not become a slur?
Because literally anything you put in its place will most likely just become another slur because people who use slurs don't care if a word is the "appropriate" one or not.[/QUOTE]
"Trans Women?"
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;52940756]"Trans Women?"[/QUOTE]
Thats sounds super boring and official
Besides, it may not even be accurate in many cases. What if someone isn't transgendered in real life but still stars in shemale porn? It would be awkward both for them and the transgendered people.
[QUOTE=WhyNott;52940811]Thats sounds super boring and official
Besides, it may not even be accurate in many cases. What if someone isn't transgendered in real life but still stars in shemale porn? It would be awkward both for them and the transgendered people.[/QUOTE]
"Herm"/"Herma" from hermaphrodite? Meaning 'has sexual features of both female and male sexes' which is accurate. Plus it works for actors with flat chests, narrow hips, and vaginas.
[QUOTE=WhyNott;52940811]Thats sounds super boring and official
Besides, it may not even be accurate in many cases. What if someone isn't transgendered in real life but still stars in shemale porn? It would be awkward both for them and the transgendered people.[/QUOTE]
"Sounds boring?" I'm sorry, but that's what they're called? It's not supposed to sound "entertaining," it's supposed to be what they are. "Nah, that's boring, I'mma keep calling them shemales" is basically a disregard for how they feel.
[QUOTE=DiscoInferno;52940846]Plus it works for actors with flat chests, narrow hips, and vaginas.[/QUOTE]
Well "shemales" is supposed to only designate women with dicks/men with tits isn't it?
[QUOTE=_Axel;52941001]Well "shemales" is supposed to only designate women with dicks/men with tits isn't it?[/QUOTE]
I've only seen it used exclusively on pre-op transwomen.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.