Youtube TOS changes, basically allows no one to make money off their channels - Polidicks

If they don't redact this quicker than Microsoft did with XBone's always-online DRM, this'd be the time for things to get litigious. Youtube has operated as an effective monopoly for nearly its entire existence, and as a result, the new nurtured economy of channel ownership practically exists on Youtube alone. Blip died a while back, so damn near everyone HAS to run their service through Youtube, or essentially become irrelevant. This shit would cripple so many thriving channels and communities, and throttle the breadth of content available. I understand having some standards on what kind of videos can be monotized, but fucking cursing? Politics? Sexual humor? If there existed a robust alternate to Youtube, and Youtube wanted to be the squeaky clean FCC-approved service, and everywhere else was an unrated scatological free-for-all, that'd be their right. But there isn't. You fuckers are threatening to crush and castrate an ENTIRE industry, and fuck-over christ knows how many people, at MINIMUM censoring their work. What, you expect Roosterteeth to survive wholly on fucking RWBY? Oh wait, last season a character got her arm cut off. Scratch that. You expect Pewdiepie to keep it PG? Every single motherfucker with a comedy review show, be it Channel Awesome, Normal Boots or I Hate Everything? Fuck this. This, and all the bullshit Youtube's gotten away with in recent years. This needs to culminate in a global lawsuit, with as many channels involved as possible. Either Youtube keeps its policies free, or... I dunno, the site gets imminent domain'd. Would that help, or make things worse? Is that even a thing?

Yeah, if you actually read the guidelines to monetizing your content they only stipulate "Don't use explicit language or imagery in your title or thumbnail." They mention [I]nothing[/I] about explicit language/imagery in the content of the video. This makes effectively no difference to a majority of YouTubers - unless they're Funhaus and title their videos "ORGASM FUCK CASTLE | Portal Gameplay Part 1" or something. All that has to be done is get rid of explicit/inappropriate language in titles and thumbnails. Nothing about explicit or inappropriate language in the actual video content [i]so long as it isn't intended to shock or offend viewers[/i]. And you can still have shock/offensive videos, you just can't monetize them because brands don't want their ads associated with a video where a guy screams racial slurs at the camera in rage for an hour. Toyota doesn't want a video of people cooking a vomit cake to be tied to their brand. That's it.

Hey cool. So now I can legit run a public access tv station and not get dinged because it's based off the most sterile television programming ever.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50981375]I think everyone here is missing a key phrase from the new TOS: [B]If the video does contain inappropriate content, the context is usually newsworthy or comedic and the creator’s intent is to inform or entertain (not offend or shock).[/B] This really isn't banning curse words in your favorite comic's channel. This is a continuation of YouTube's attempts to push away wildly inappropriate content. Porn thumbnails, clickbait offensive titles, shock content - that's what they're preventing from being monetized. iDubbbz's tweets make me think this isn't quite as insane as it sounds - there's a specific stipulation that says [I]inappropriate content in the name of comedy and entertainment is permitted.[/I] Context is important. This isn't [I]that[/I] bad, digging in to it, and the only real, popular YouTuber (and not clickbait trash) I can think of who might have some trouble is Filthy Frank or other "shock" YouTubers.[/QUOTE] where did you find this? i don't see it in the link on the OP

hope my boys Pyro and Leafy don't get fucked over by this

I want YouTube to fuck itself so catastrophically that people are given no choice but to create an alternative that addresses all of its horrible, horrible flaws. But, that will never happen, unfortunately.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50981387]Yeah, if you actually read the guidelines to monetizing your content they only stipulate "Don't use explicit language or imagery in your title or thumbnail." They mention [I]nothing[/I] about explicit language/imagery in the content of the video. This makes effectively no difference to a majority of YouTubers - unless they're Funhaus and title their videos "ORGASM FUCK CASTLE | Portal Gameplay Part 1" or something. All that has to be done is get rid of explicit/inappropriate language in titles and thumbnails. Nothing about explicit or inappropriate language in the actual video content [i]so long as it isn't intended to shock or offend viewers[/i]. And you can still have shock/offensive videos, you just can't monetize them because brands don't want their ads associated with a video where a guy screams racial slurs at the camera in rage for an hour. Toyota doesn't want a video of people cooking a vomit cake to be tied to their brand. That's it.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately, due to Youtube not saying anything before releasing this change, several youtube channels had their monetization revoked due to having swearwords in their descriptions and titles. People see those videos get their money removed, see that youtube updated their TOS, and make assumptions that aren't too far off (except for one major factor). Had they come out and said [I]something[/I], it wouldn't be bad, but they didn't and now are suffering the consequences.

[QUOTE=meppers;50981396]where did you find this? i don't see it in the link on the OP[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/cnCwn65.png[/IMG] Getting to the third sentence of the first paragraph is not this hard. Also, under the "Best practices for creating advertiser-friendly content" section in a list of dos and don'ts, [QUOTE][B]Don't[/B] use explicit language or imagery in your title or thumbnail.[/QUOTE] Translation: We really hate advertisers phoning us up because we send them metrics on which videos have the top clickthroughs and shit for their ads and they really want to know why their ad for their Wii U game, to be played in front of Splatoon-related videos, is most viewed on a video titled "GREENS = FAGGOTS | Gingers are Cunts and Jaredthetwat Splatoon Let's Play #16" and frankly we've always been embarrassed by you but now it's actually interfering with our jobs.

Kurzgesagt got hit too. [media]https://twitter.com/Kurz_Gesagt/status/771139236506591232[/media]

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50981375]I think everyone here is missing a key phrase from the new TOS: [B]If the video does contain inappropriate content, the context is usually newsworthy or comedic and the creator’s intent is to inform or entertain (not offend or shock).[/B] This really isn't banning curse words in your favorite comic's channel. This is a continuation of YouTube's attempts to push away wildly inappropriate content. Porn thumbnails, clickbait offensive titles, shock content - that's what they're preventing from being monetized. iDubbbz's tweets make me think this isn't quite as insane as it sounds - there's a specific stipulation that says [I]inappropriate content in the name of comedy and entertainment is permitted.[/I] Context is important. This isn't [I]that[/I] bad, digging in to it, and the only real, popular YouTuber (and not clickbait trash) I can think of who might have some trouble is Filthy Frank or other "shock" YouTubers.[/QUOTE] It's still fucking retarded and arguably one of the worst ways to go about it. I bet you in less than 15 minutes, a 12 year old with basic LUA experience could create a "Mature Only" filter, which would allow content creators to block their content to younger users. Youtube already does this automatically somewhat, but instead allow users to do it themselves. Also, if it's ~not that bad~ and we're just ~missing a key phrase~, explain why Kursgezagt is getting issues? Why people can get in trouble for talking about natural disasters???

If someone made a viable alternative to youtube they would break the bank

[QUOTE=MILKE;50981441]If someone made a viable alternative to youtube they would break the bank[/QUOTE] Vimeo needs to make a deal to merge with Reddit or something and attach a preexisting community to a video upload CDN with lots of room to eat away at YouTube's market share. Something like that, a merger of an existing network and a media service; it'd be hard for a new site not based on one of the existing titans to rise up alone and challenge YouTube because everyone already uses YouTube. It'd be more likely to see Amazon or Microsoft or something to roll out a straight competitor.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50981426]It'd take almost 0 effort to introduce a "mature audiences" tag.[/QUOTE] DeviantArt is a shining example on how this does not work. I've always thought that when you do shit in YouTube you are doing so on a lenient variant of the [url=http://www.cbsc.ca/codes/]Television and Broadcast Standards and Code of Conduct.[/Url]

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50981438]It's still fucking retarded and arguably one of the worst ways to go about it. I bet you in less than 15 minutes, a 12 year old with basic LUA experience could create a "Mature Only" filter, which would allow content creators to block their content to younger users. Youtube already does this automatically somewhat, but instead allow users to do it themselves. Also, if it's ~not that bad~ and we're just ~missing a key phrase~, explain why Kursgezagt is getting issues? Why people can get in trouble for talking about natural disasters???[/QUOTE] People were over-stating and misinterpreting the actual phrasing. YouTube already has a "mature audiences" label - if you're not logged in or your account is under 18, and a video is flagged (by users or the uploader), you can't watch it. They already have that solution in place. The [URL="https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801981"]YouTube Policy Center[/URL] specifies that using explicit language may [i]age-restrict[/i] your video, but doesn't say shit about monetizing. I'm watching the Kurzgesagt video now and I have no idea why it was demonetized. Maybe the skeleton in the thumbnail? Fuck if I know - could just be a mistake, since it doesn't seem to go against any of the "advertiser-friendly content" guidelines.

Videos are now automatically demonetized if they have swearing in the title, it's in the TOS

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50981426]It'd take almost 0 effort to introduce a "mature audiences" tag.[/QUOTE] [I]They already have one.[/I] It's called "age-restriction" and you won't ever notice it exists unless you're not logged in or you're under 18. Loads of videos cannot be watched unless you're logged in with an account over 18 years old. Adverts are [I]already[/I] different for that kind of content, too. But you could always see, regardless of your age "SEX BOMB GAMEPLAY PART 4" as the [I]title of a video[/I], even if you were age-restricted from watching it. They're restricting that now due to advertiser (and probably parent) complaints.

How to fuck over every single company on your service and every single one of your moneymakers in one simple step by Alphabet.

I am currently donating to RegularCarReviews and ForgottenWeapons' Patreons. No way am I letting my favorite channels go down.

meanwhile [media]https://twitter.com/BroTeamPill/status/771041153412194304[/media] the video was a stream of a reading of the CON logs

Waiting for TotalBiscuit and videogamedunkey to say something about this [editline]31st August 2016[/editline] I look up to videogamedunkey

They've basically screwed over every big channel in one fell swoop. Who the fuck is left after this?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50981533]Not really. There's no viable alternative to youtube, as of right now. And this isn't going to create some sort of push to create one either. The infrastructure needed, as well as the capital needed, are incredibly high. In short: Alphabet can do this because youtube essentially has a monopoly on the casual viewing market, they'll continue to do things like this because no one can afford to create an alternative.[/QUOTE] And this will just push explicit video makers to keep ads off and to push Patreon, meaning YouTube is hosting their content [i]free of charge[/i] and is unable to make any advertising profits off of it. It's very dumb, which is why they'd be very wise to implement it weakly (like they seem to be doing).

You guys realize that even if they aren't going to prance around crusading every non-Orthodox Christian Friendly Minecraft and vlogging youtube channel of their money they are still setting the board up in their favor. If they deem someone or something 'inappropriate' they can instantly take away all the profit content creators achieve from it and horde it for themselves. Also, To simplify to everyone: "Content that is considered "not advertiser-friendly" includes, but is not limited to: -Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor -Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism -Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language -Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items -Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown" I quoted this from the article. And for anyone wondering what exactly is 'advertiser-friendly': "Advertiser-friendly content is content that's appropriate for all audiences. It has little to no inappropriate or mature content in the video stream, thumbnail, or metadata (such as in the video title). If the video does contain inappropriate content, the context is usually newsworthy or comedic and the creator’s intent is to inform or entertain (not offend or shock)." Yep, that means the video has to ALSO be appropriate, not just the thumbnail and MD

Wait won't this also mean that Keemstar is now getting literally 0 money from his videos?

This is also more harm to the "little guy" I don't think it's gonna be easy to start up on YT with only Patreon, since people have to actively pay instead of just viewing

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50981529]meanwhile [media]https://twitter.com/BroTeamPill/status/771041153412194304[/media] the video was a stream of a reading of the CON logs[/QUOTE] This has nothing to do with the TOS change. Nothing changed about takedowns, only monetization. Dumb takedown, but completely irrelevant to the TOS changes.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;50981426]It'd take almost 0 effort to introduce a "mature audiences" tag.[/QUOTE] They used to have one that played before the video, but they removed it for some reason.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50981559]This has nothing to do with the TOS change. Nothing changed about takedowns, only monetization. Dumb takedown, but completely irrelevant to the TOS changes.[/QUOTE] It's about the skewed censorship, similar things are also going on with the demonetization. It's more evidence of their play.

Why the fuck do advertisers care what their adverts are plastered over? You got your ad out isn't that enough? Or am I mistaken?

Doesn't YoutubeRed shows have these things too? I wonder if they're gonna try to push the adult content behind a paywall if you wanna get paid for producing it