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

[QUOTE=Matrix374;50993200]My only problem with this controversy is that this has somehow become a "censorship" problem when Youtube is well within its right to enforce this because their advertisers are the ones paying the youtubers in the first place. You want to get paid, you play by the rules of the person paying you. Hopefully,everyone manages to transition to other revenue streams because its a shame if these youtubers cant really do what they do anymore[/QUOTE] Censorship is still censorship even if it's not governments doing it

[QUOTE=phygon;50993242]Censorship is still censorship even if it's not governments doing it[/QUOTE] Can you specifically say how this is censorship? People are still free to upload what they used to be uploading. The only thing different is the fact that less advertisers are putting up ads for videos that has been flagged according to their system. Monetization is still happening, people are still getting money for the flagged videos (see:H3H3) but now they're earning way less because the big advertisers don't want to put their brands on these videos

[QUOTE=phygon;50993242]Censorship is still censorship even if it's not governments doing it[/QUOTE] Wrong literally by definition

[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50993484]Wrong literally by definition[/QUOTE] When a company has a monopoly on remunerated video creation the result is basically the same. When countries like North Korea have television channels restricted by the government it's usually called censorship. If a company were to enforce it instead the result would be identical. It may be different semantically but it causes the same problem.

[QUOTE=_Axel;50993501]When a company has a monopoly on remunerated video creation the result is basically the same. When countries like North Korea have television channels restricted by the government it's usually called censorship. If a company were to enforce it instead the result would be identical. It may be different semantically but it causes the same problem.[/QUOTE] But no videos are being removed over this? Advertisers pulling away ads from videos that they do not want to be associated with is not the same as forcibly removing videos

[QUOTE=Matrix374;50993518]But no videos are being removed over this? Advertisers pulling away ads from videos that they do not want to be associated with is not the same as forcibly removing videos[/QUOTE] The result is the same, quality content costs money and time to make so people who were able to produce it before won't be able to keep doing it. I'd be fine with corporate censorship if it were to suppress actually harmful content but these TOS are just way too restrictive.

[QUOTE=_Axel;50993536]The result is the same, quality content costs money and time to make so people who were able to produce it before won't be able to keep doing it. I'd be fine with corporate censorship if it were to suppress actually harmful content but these TOS are just way too restrictive.[/QUOTE] And where is this money going to come from? If you were an artist who made paintings and everyone liked it, you're not entitled to get money if nobody is willing to pay for it. If Advertisers dont want to pay you for your work,you either need to pack up or find other ways to make money.

So far it just have been automated system that tags "bad" videos with "bad" tags. I mean you could probably literally have video where you literally maim someone to death and have it monetized if there is no bad tags. After that it would depend if someone would bother to report it and then if someone would bother to take look at it at the Youtube's staff.

[QUOTE=Combine 177;50993547]So far it just have been automated system that tags "bad" videos with "bad" tags. I mean you could probably literally have video where you literally maim someone to death and have it monetized if there is no bad tags. After that it would depend if someone would bother to report it and then if someone would bother to take look at it at the Youtube's staff.[/QUOTE] Yeah that's a big problem with the system currently. I hope that they will fix this quickly but Youtube is shit at cleaning up their own mess

[QUOTE=hoodoo456;50993484]Wrong literally by definition[/QUOTE] I want to know where this argument comes from. From the top of google we get, [quote] the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts. "details of the visit were subject to military censorship" [/quote] Is it the officially part? Because most businesses, clubs, or any discrete group is usually also capable of wielding the title, "official," like the "Official Ford Motor Company," and so on. From Merriam-Webster, arguably one of the authorities on definitions, we get [quote] the system or practice of censoring books, movies, letters, etc. [/quote] for the simple definition, and the elaborate definition is [quote] 1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively 2 : the office, power, or term of a Roman censor 3 : exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censor [/quote] Just so we aren't recursive, let's also examine MW's definition of the noun [I]censor[/I] as in [I]one who censors[/I]. [quote] a person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc. [/quote] Again, the simple definition lacks any substantive appeal to a government. A church or a social group could censor their reading lists, for instance. [quote] 1 : a person who supervises conduct and morals: as a : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful 2 : one of two magistrates of early Rome acting as census takers, assessors, and inspectors of morals and conduct 3 : a hypothetical psychic agency that represses unacceptable notions before they reach consciousness [/quote] And again the complex definition fails to render up a government agency, [I]with the exception of Ancient Rome.[/I] Are we talking about Ancient Roman Censors, wandering the internet on the power invested in them by Emperor Agustus-Shitpost The Meme'd? I don't think so. So, where is this 'by definition' argument coming from? Your own set of definitions? Alright, what if mine are in line with those black and white paper definitions? Am I right, and are you right too? Can we literally contradict eachother and both be right, or would you like to [I]censor my opinion?[/I]

So if I pay for youtube red why should channels I like not be making money off their videos? I'm not an advertiser

[QUOTE=zakedodead;50993577]So if I pay for youtube red why should channels I like not be making money off their videos? I'm not an advertiser[/QUOTE] Thats a completely valid point. I have no idea where youtubered money goes so hopefully we get to see more info as time goes on

There are two pretty big problems with the system imo: 1. It doesn't seem to be granular. Either your video is either advertiser-friendly or it isn't. Like I can understand an advertiser not wanting to be associated with rape-related videos for instance, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily going to mind swearing or videos about war. 2. The guidelines are very vague which means that Youtube can just selectively demonetise what they want. It's already happening right now in a way considering that there's a lot of content that's technically breaking the guidelines but is still monetised afaik.

garry and his forum team has taken over youtube...

[QUOTE=tomatmann;50993697]garry and his forum team has taken over youtube...[/QUOTE] If that happened it would probably be for the better

one of the few youtubers ive seen talking about this in a sensible manner [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g1tJzTgJAE[/url] its basically youtube finally being honest about stuff theyve been doing more then a year already.

[QUOTE=Matrix374;50993200]My only problem with this controversy is that this has somehow become a "censorship" problem when Youtube is well within its right to enforce this because their advertisers are the ones paying the youtubers in the first place. You want to get paid, you play by the rules of the person paying you. Hopefully,everyone manages to transition to other revenue streams because its a shame if these youtubers cant really do what they do anymore[/QUOTE] Nobody is claiming that youtube isn't allowed to make their own rules. People are annoyed because the rules are petty and patronizing, making the smallest of infractions like saying "hell" as a complete shutdown of monetization because it's deemed not ad-friendly, while also stripping advertisers of rights to decide themselves who they want to advertise. If walmart started spraying every customer with a water bottle if they don't put the item back in the right spot, then people wouldn't complain that they aren't allowed to. People would complain that it's fucking stupid.

[QUOTE=Punchy;50995831]Nobody is claiming that youtube isn't allowed to make their own rules. People are annoyed because the rules are petty and patronizing, making the smallest of infractions like saying "hell" as a complete shutdown of monetization because it's deemed not ad-friendly, while also stripping advertisers of rights to decide themselves who they want to advertise. If walmart started spraying every customer with a water bottle if they don't put the item back in the right spot, then people wouldn't complain that they aren't allowed to. People would complain that it's fucking stupid.[/QUOTE] I actually feel youtube should not have carte blanche on their rules... i feel free speech should apply to every place free and open to join on the internet.

See, from what i can tell, they apparently lump in all of this potentially iffy content into one category. So you have things like just blacklisting videos for the word "fuck" being lumped in with videos about/with tags about rape and child porn. [editline]3rd September 2016[/editline] If they're going to pull shit like this, atleast do it properly and set up a gradient so you dont immediately fuck everyone over. Its why Movies have G > PG > PG-13 > R > NC-17. Its why TV has TV-Y > TV-Y7 > TV-G > TV-PG > TV-14 > TV-MA, with various additional mini-ratings for specific content (D for suggestive language, L for crude language, S for sexual situations, V for violence, FV for fantasy violence) Its why Games have EC > E > E10 > T > M > AO. Even comics do it, Marvel for example has All Ages > A (9+) > T+ (13+) > Parental Advisory (15+) > MAX (18+) What Youtube is doing now is essentially categorizing videos as either G or NC-17. They insist on using bots, so ideally they should classify certain keywords tagged by their intensity, having varying levels of video intensity (Considering the service Youtube provides, you could easily use the TV-[BLANK] rating model as a stand in to imagine how this would work, for example your average H3H3 video would be a TV-PG-DL level while your average Filthy Frank video would be TV-MA-DLSV), so the advertisers can correctly assess what they're fine with and what they're not fine with in a manner that is both easy to understand by them and by the userbase. How hard could that possibly be.