December 10th YouTube Wipe

[TheNPCShow]

Some of us may already be aware that YouTube is implementing a new policy where they would be allowed to delete any channel that they deem "not commercially viable".  I'm expecting my channel, "How To Marry A Polish Girl", to be one of them.  I messaged Float Plane in hopes to become their first non-tech creator but haven't gotten a response.  Anybody know a better way I can get a hold of Luke?  Many of us on YouTube are expecting to be kicked off and are having to result to BitChute because it's the least glitchiest one.  It sucks, it's glitchy, but sadly it's the best public one other than YouTube.

[Skiiwee29]

A) its a private platform, YT can do what they want. B) they would never do a mass purge because of the optics behind it and the backlash they would receive world wide. C) Floatplane is 100% invite only, so unless they contact you and invite you, you wont get onto floatplane any time soon. 

[Master Disaster]

9 minutes ago, Skiiwee29 said:

A) its a private platform, YT can do what they want. B) they would never do a mass purge because of the optics behind it and the backlash they would receive world wide. C) Floatplane is 100% invite only, so unless they contact you and invite you, you wont get onto floatplane any time soon. 

And D) Google have already said that the terms are only being updated, there will be no active policy change once the new terms come into affect.

[TheNPCShow]

14 minutes ago, Skiiwee29 said:

A) its a private platform, YT can do what they want. B) they would never do a mass purge because of the optics behind it and the backlash they would receive world wide. C) Floatplane is 100% invite only, so unless they contact you and invite you, you wont get onto floatplane any time soon. 

Thanks for your response but "A" is incorrect.  Look into the lawsuit Oprah lost to the Texas cattle industry and you'll understand why 50 attorney generals opened an investigation of Google.  In the states, there's a law of implicit powers that can hold anyone responsible for the loss of revenues of other organizations.  Oprah had to pay $3M just for saying, "Perhaps we should hold off on eating beef until all this "Mad Cow" disease subsides."

[TheNPCShow]

4 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

And D) Google have already said that the terms are only being updated, there will be no active policy change once the new terms come into affect.

Oh I'm aware.  I'm just scouting refuge.  =D

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, HowToMarryAPolishGirl said:

Oh I'm aware.  I'm just scouting refuge.  =D

Vimeo... I hear WorldStarHipHop is pretty open too.

[NineEyeRon]

So my channel will go? It has made $0 since I started it and I want that success to continue.

[Mark Kaine]

28 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

And D) Google have already said that the terms are only being updated, there will be no active policy change once the new terms come into affect.

E) Google would also never lie to you and this totally "not a policy change" won't be used to purge all channels that make no $$$ slowly and steadily. 

F) under no circumstances! 

G) 

21 minutes ago, NineEyeRon said:

So my channel will go? It has made $0 since I started it and I want that success to continue.

I don't get it either,  I have all my videos set to "unlisted" so it's impossible to make any money with them.  Did they remove this option? 

 

Otherwise it seems really a bit malicious.  Just a tiny little bit!  

[TheNPCShow]

6 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

E) Google would also never lie to you and this totally "not a policy change" won't be used to purge all channels that make no $$$ slowly and steadily. 

F) under no circumstances! 

G:

I don't get it either,  I have all my videos set to "unlisted" so it's impossible to make any money with them.  Did they remove this option? 

 

Otherwise it seems really a bit malicious.  Just a tiny little bit!  

To my understanding, they're only concerned with "Public" videos.  In fact, the views and watch time you get for private or unlisted videos don't even count towards your 4000 watch hours to qualify for monitization.

[TheNPCShow]

24 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Vimeo... I hear WorldStarHipHop is pretty open too.

Damn, I don't think my demographic is on WorldStarHipHop though.  Haven't looked into Vimeo much.  Don't they require fees to upload to them?

[Mark Kaine]

5 minutes ago, HowToMarryAPolishGirl said:

To my understanding, they're only concerned with "Public" videos.  In fact, the views and watch time you get for private or unlisted videos don't even count towards your 4000 watch hours to qualify for monitization.

Hmm,  I'm not doubting you,  but doesn't that make very little sense? 

 

Unlisted video,  makes no money = Fine! 

 

Public video,  makes no money = Best delete the whole account, including Emails,  Google Drive and everything else associated! 

 

 

Either they went completely insane or just full on 1984 

 

 

Too bad no government of the world cares, because that shit should be illegal - or at least they'd need to be held accountable for the damage they've done.  (theoretically speaking) 

 

 

[Master Disaster]

20 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

E) Google would also never lie to you and this totally "not a policy change" won't be used to purge all channels that make no $$$ slowly and steadily. 

F) under no circumstances! 

G) 

I don't get it either,  I have all my videos set to "unlisted" so it's impossible to make any money with them.  Did they remove this option? 

 

Otherwise it seems really a bit malicious.  Just a tiny little bit!  

And when they do the entire community goes mental and they make themselves look like idiots.

 

Listen, if they hadn't have said what they did I'd probably agree with you but in this day in age no large, public facing corporation makes an absolute public statement then goes back on it.

 

The consequences are too well known at this point.

[Mark Kaine]

35 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

The consequences

 

What will happen is the *community* will praise them for whatever they're doing "These channels didn't make youtube money,  it's good they deleted them!  They should go somewhere else when they want to use youtube only for uploading private videos they maybe only want to share with their friends,  and not with strangers!" 

 

 

Also seriously,  they will never "mass purge" anything,  it will be slowly and steady - it's the only reason for that "TOS change",  which is of course also and foremost a "policy change".  There's no reason to otherwise have this particular change about monetization and deleting channels at all. 

 

 

[Master Disaster]

2 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

 

What will happen is the *community* will praise them for whatever they're doing "These channels didn't make youtube money,  it's good they deleted them!  They should go somewhere else when they want to use youtube only for uploading private videos they maybe only want to share with their friends,  and not with strangers!" 

 

 

Also seriously,  they will never "mass purge" anything,  it will be slowly and steady - it's the only reason for that "TOS change",  which is of course also and foremost a "policy change".  There's no reason to otherwise have this particular change about monetization and deleting channels at all. 

 

 

Do you even internet? Like at all?

 

Can you give me one example where the internet has ever mass praised anything?

 

The old 'I don't understand it therefore it must be wrong' argument.

[Mark Kaine]

4 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Do you even internet? Like at all?

So you have nothing....?  Ok 

 

 

[Master Disaster]

29 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

So you have nothing....?  Ok

Again, I don't understand your argument therefore it must be wrong.

 

My rebuttal had a point unlike this one....

[Mark Kaine]

6 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

I don't understand your argument therefore it must be wrong.

I understood your argument.  I said you are completely wrong if you think people will mass boycott YouTube over a couple of YouTube channels that didn't make money and therfore weren't important anyways. 

So it seems you indeed didn't understand what I'm saying,  and now give me a few good examples of why you think I'm wrong without resorting to memes or just stop it - I won't respond to any " lol do you even Internet" meme style posts from you anymore.  

[straight_stewie]

2 hours ago, Skiiwee29 said:

its a private platform, YT can do what they want.

I believe that "private" can become a relative term when we are talking about internet companies.

Is it really a "private" platform if nearly every human with free (as in freedom) or mostly free internet access uses the service?
 

I think that it is no longer private in the sense that the service should be able to enact any policy, whether constitutional or not, under the guise of "well, it's the companies private property".

Internet based companies are starting to use "well, it's my property" as an excuse to violate basic human rights principles. When those decisions can affect such vast portions of the worlds population, that's not a path I think we should go down. Sites like Youtube, Google, and Facebook have a profound impact on the topics that people discuss, what they think about, and how they think about them. That necessarily begs the question: Do we really want these services to decide what is and is not allowed to be shared based entirely on what is profitable or the political affiliations or opinions or any other private thoughts of the companies leaders? Or do we rather want to treat these services as public forums where basic human rights such as freedom of speech are enforced?

[lewdicrous]

4 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

I believe that "private" can become a relative term when we are talking about internet companies.

Is it really a "private" platform if nearly every human with free (as in freedom) or mostly free internet access uses the service?

I believe they meant private as in not owned by the government.

[Teddy07]

2 hours ago, HowToMarryAPolishGirl said:

Some of us may already be aware that YouTube is implementing a new policy where they would be allowed to delete any channel that they deem "not commercially viable".  I'm expecting my channel, "How To Marry A Polish Girl", to be one of them.  I messaged Float Plane in hopes to become their first non-tech creator but haven't gotten a response.  Anybody know a better way I can get a hold of Luke?  Many of us on YouTube are expecting to be kicked off and are having to result to BitChute because it's the least glitchiest one.  It sucks, it's glitchy, but sadly it's the best public one other than YouTube.

Please stop fearmongering and spreading bullshit!

It is just there to protect youtube from lawsuits. You know Americans can sue for anything...

[Skiiwee29]

4 minutes ago, Teddy07 said:

Please stop fearmongering and spreading bullshit!

It is just there to protect youtube from lawsuits. You know Americans can sue for anything...

and do... 

[Master Disaster]

9 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

I understood your argument.  I said you are completely wrong if you think people will mass boycott YouTube over a couple of YouTube channels that didn't make money and therfore weren't important anyways. 

So it seems you indeed didn't understand what I'm saying,  and now give me a few good examples of why you think I'm wrong without resorting to memes or just stop it - I won't respond to any " lol do you even Internet" meme style posts from you anymore.  

Nobody said anybody will boycott anything but examples of the internet getting triggered...

 

Blitzchung

Bethesda & Fallout 76

Lootboxes & Microtransactions

EA/Star Wars BF2

The Adpocalypse

 

There's literally hundreds of example from just the last few years alone, basically if Jim Sterling has made a video about it then it counts.

 

If YouTube start deleting accounts of creators after publicly saying they wouldn't then it will be everywhere in minutes, I know it, you know it & they know it.

 

People love to shout about things hey disagree with but rarely do they shout about things they agree with, that's just the nature of us as a species.

[Murasaki]

6 minutes ago, Teddy07 said:

Please stop fearmongering and spreading bullshit!

Glad to see someone finally say it, its getting ridiculous.

[Master Disaster]

39 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

I believe that "private" can become a relative term when we are talking about internet companies.

Is it really a "private" platform if nearly every human with free (as in freedom) or mostly free internet access uses the service?
 

I think that it is no longer private in the sense that the service should be able to enact any policy, whether constitutional or not, under the guise of "well, it's the companies private property".

Internet based companies are starting to use "well, it's my property" as an excuse to violate basic human rights principles. When those decisions can affect such vast portions of the worlds population, that's not a path I think we should go down. Sites like Youtube, Google, and Facebook have a profound impact on the topics that people discuss, what they think about, and how they think about them. That necessarily begs the question: Do we really want these services to decide what is and is not allowed to be shared based entirely on what is profitable or the political affiliations or opinions or any other private thoughts of the companies leaders? Or do we rather want to treat these services as public forums where basic human rights such as freedom of speech are enforced?

A website isn't a public space, its a purchased privately owned space and must like how a company is free to mandate rules while the public is inside one of its building an internet company is free to mandate for public users of its site.

 

I'm interested to hear what human rights you think you have while on the internet. I'm guessing it would be free speech? You do realise that your right to freedom of expression doesn't imply that anybody else has to give you a platform to express on nor do they have to listen to your thoughts and opinions.

 

Try walking into a courthouse and telling random strangers why you think judges suck, lets see how quickly your right to free speech is revoked.

[Spotty]

Looking at your youtube channel it currently only has 39 subscribers. Your videos seem to have on average maybe 30 views, with the most having around 350 views. I really don't intend for this to be rude, but to put it bluntly your channel just isn't there yet. I don't even think you would be eligible for monetisation on YouTube yet?

 

Floatplane is intended as a way for an already established brand to offer extra features and content to their fan base. As you can see by LinusTechTips still remaining on Youtube, it does not replace YouTube as a platform. It's just an extra subscription that fans can pay for to get benefits like extra content, early access to videos, or ad free* videos. It's basically just a way for fans to say "I love the work you're doing, here's $5 a month so you can keep doing what you're doing".

 

Keep working on your channel and your content and try to build up your catalogue of videos and grow your subscriber base. When you're at the stage that you're doing content creation professionally and have a strong, active fan base, then you can maybe look in to expanding in to services like Floatplane.

 

And no, I don't think Youtube is going to delete your channel due to the new policy.