December 10th YouTube Wipe

[Lady Fitzgerald]

2 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

...Google would also never lie to you...

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

Blitzchung

Bethesda & Fallout 76

Lootboxes & Microtransactions

EA/Star Wars BF2

The Adpocalypse

Ok,  outside of the Blitz thing (which I expected you to say) this isn't really comparable or good examples imo. Lootboxes are still very much a thing,  and people aren't up in arms over it,  many embrace them,  they're very much successful. 

 

People still love Bethesda, and a failed game is comparable to YouTube allegedly closing accounts, how?  I don't see it. 

 

 

EA? Highly successful,  still highly scummy with their lootboxes (FIFA)  I don't see the connection or how "the Internet" changed anything?

 

 

It's funny you bring up Adpocalypse when that is exactly what triggered youtube here,  they don't want to lose ad money - understandably,   but saying they will delete accounts over not bringing in enough cash goes a little over what youtube always has been seen as, a platform to simply share videos -   not necessarily to make money - and why can't both approaches coexist anyway? 

 

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

If YouTube start deleting accounts of creators

I, like many other people who upload videos to youtube aren't "creators",  I just record my gameplay,  that isn't my "creation" in the sense of "own content" at all,  and it seems that's exactly what they're going for - unless I make them money with it,  then it's suddenly OK of course! 

 

I think somewhere here is where our disagreement lies,  not sure,  but yes,  it's likely they'll delete content and channels,  and most people won't even notice because it wasn't big channels anyway.  You'll see this will happen,  we'll hear about it occasionally,  and no one really will care about it,  just as the majority doesn't care about EA lootboxes, etc,  outside a vocal minority maybe. 

 

 

45 minutes ago, Spotty said:

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?

I'm not quite sure where this is coming from,  but that's a good example of what I'm saying,  what if I do not wish to have any subscribers?  No place for me on YouTube then I suppose? 

 

You know the whole thing changed completely from what it used to be - which is of course Googles prerogative,  but then they should just outright say it, "if you don't make money we don't want you here" and not some wishy-washy "TOS changes" with accompanying announcement "we won't do it though!" 

 

Honestly I don't even want to be on YouTube anymore,  I just don't want to lose my emails over this bs... 

 

There are a few alternatives to yt,  but none of them seem so great either,  or they're difficult to get in. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Liquid_Z]

If anyone's content is not appropriate for YouTube, it likely won't be appropriate for Floatplane. Floatplane may be better towards creators is certain respects, but that doesn't mean their standards for content is lower.

[Rolling2405]

9 hours ago, HowToMarryAPolishGirl said:

In the states, there's a law of implicit powers that can hold anyone responsible for the loss of revenues of other organizations. 

That is a very interesting law. I have never heard of it before.

[Mark Kaine]

35 minutes ago, Thomas001 said:

That is a very interesting law. I have never heard of it before.

Germany has very similar laws iirc. 

 

[RonnieOP]

10 hours ago, HowToMarryAPolishGirl said:

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."

Idk why you bring up the oprah lawsuit when it has literally nothing in comparison to youtube deleting a channel. 

 

You really couldnt of had a worse argument here. 

[RonnieOP]

7 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

Ok,  outside of the Blitz thing (which I expected you to say) this isn't really comparable or good examples imo. Lootboxes are still very much a thing,  and people aren't up in arms over it,  many embrace them,  they're very much successful. 

 

People still love Bethesda, and a failed game is comparable to YouTube allegedly closing accounts, how?  I don't see it. 

 

 

EA? Highly successful,  still highly scummy with their lootboxes (FIFA)  I don't see the connection or how "the Internet" changed anything?

 

 

It's funny you bring up Adpocalypse when that is exactly what triggered youtube here,  they don't want to lose ad money - understandably,   but saying they will delete accounts over not bringing in enough cash goes a little over what youtube always has been seen as, a platform to simply share videos -   not necessarily to make money - and why can't both approaches coexist anyway? 

 

I, like many other people who upload videos to youtube aren't "creators",  I just record my gameplay,  that isn't my "creation" in the sense of "own content" at all,  and it seems that's exactly what they're going for - unless I make them money with it,  then it's suddenly OK of course! 

 

I think somewhere here is where our disagreement lies,  not sure,  but yes,  it's likely they'll delete content and channels,  and most people won't even notice because it wasn't big channels anyway.  You'll see this will happen,  we'll hear about it occasionally,  and no one really will care about it,  just as the majority doesn't care about EA lootboxes, etc,  outside a vocal minority maybe. 

 

 

I'm not quite sure where this is coming from,  but that's a good example of what I'm saying,  what if I do not wish to have any subscribers?  No place for me on YouTube then I suppose? 

 

You know the whole thing changed completely from what it used to be - which is of course Googles prerogative,  but then they should just outright say it, "if you don't make money we don't want you here" and not some wishy-washy "TOS changes" with accompanying announcement "we won't do it though!" 

 

Honestly I don't even want to be on YouTube anymore,  I just don't want to lose my emails over this bs... 

 

There are a few alternatives to yt,  but none of them seem so great either,  or they're difficult to get in. 

 

 

 

 

 

Look at it from googles side.

 

They are spending a shit load every day to host videos that nobody watches and makes them no money.

 

I dont blame them if they dont wanna lose money if i wanna upload videos of my big toes talking to my dog.

 

Theres no "right" to upload to youtube. 

 

I personally hate googles politics and alot of what they do as a whole. But i cant really blame them on this one.

[Kisai]

10 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.

This is just the over-reaction.

 

Now first, "not commercially viable" has to be taken into context with other changes made to the terms of service.

 

Basically go look at https://www.youtube.com/about/policies/#community-guidelines

 

Applies to videos AND comments.

 

- Nudity or Sexual content (no porn)

- Harmful or dangerous content ( no risky pranks/stunts)

- Hateful content ( anything promoting violence towards a group of people)

- Violent or Graphic content (nothing intended to be gratuitous)

- Harassment and cyberbullying (which youtube has a serious problem with already)

- Spam, Misleading metadata, and scams ( basically mislabeling content in order to draw attention away from the actual content/artist)

- Threats (need I be more specific?)

- Copyright

- Privacy (don't post personal information of other people without their consent)

- Impersonation (don't make fake accounts)

- Child Safety (No pranking your kids or putting them in harms way)

- Additional Policies basically a blanket we can remove anything at anytime for any reason, we just haven't made a policy for it

 

So Youtube may really remove content that is actively causing them losses due to the policing of the channel. That doesn't mean that any and every channel is potentially at risk, just the ones that are "creating too much work" to profit from.

 

So a lot of conservative channels tend to double-down on the hateful rhetoric, and thus they are very easy targets for removing under those guidelines.

 

Don't like (Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu)? Did you post a video about her at any point? Your channel may be a target for deletion if you have an obsession with blaming any of them for everything wrong with gaming. 

 

And this is the point. Youtube seems to have realized how much of a hate echo-chamber they are curating by allowing these actions to continue, and advertisers do not want to be associated with toxic brands. 

 

So the changes being blamed on COPPA, are really just an excuse to exercise enforcement of some guidelines that they've content to ignore due to the "but muh free speech" trolls.

 

 

It costs youtube nothing but storage space to keep a video online. So it's unlikely Youtube would just delete channels that "don't make any money", it's far more likely that certain channels attract negative media attention or lawsuits (such as with the "elsagate" situation or the "momo challenge" hoax.)

 

[X-System]

I did a seach and I found the answer from YouTube team on Twitter for "no commercially viable" :

So, it's OK for the channels who don't make the money

[X-System]

-

Edited November 16, 2019 by X-System
duplicate

[Noizie]

11 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.

I remember an episode on the wanshow where they discussed the monetization part. That is the part that you(and me) should be affraid of.

I would not be affraid of the delete content part but off the "no monetization" for us starters wich is there right

[RonnieOP]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

This is just the over-reaction.

 

Now first, "not commercially viable" has to be taken into context with other changes made to the terms of service.

 

Basically go look at https://www.youtube.com/about/policies/#community-guidelines

 

Applies to videos AND comments.

 

- Nudity or Sexual content (no porn)

- Harmful or dangerous content ( no risky pranks/stunts)

- Hateful content ( anything promoting violence towards a group of people)

- Violent or Graphic content (nothing intended to be gratuitous)

- Harassment and cyberbullying (which youtube has a serious problem with already)

- Spam, Misleading metadata, and scams ( basically mislabeling content in order to draw attention away from the actual content/artist)

- Threats (need I be more specific?)

- Copyright

- Privacy (don't post personal information of other people without their consent)

- Impersonation (don't make fake accounts)

- Child Safety (No pranking your kids or putting them in harms way)

- Additional Policies basically a blanket we can remove anything at anytime for any reason, we just haven't made a policy for it

 

So Youtube may really remove content that is actively causing them losses due to the policing of the channel. That doesn't mean that any and every channel is potentially at risk, just the ones that are "creating too much work" to profit from.

 

So a lot of conservative channels tend to double-down on the hateful rhetoric, and thus they are very easy targets for removing under those guidelines.

 

Don't like (Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu)? Did you post a video about her at any point? Your channel may be a target for deletion if you have an obsession with blaming any of them for everything wrong with gaming. 

 

And this is the point. Youtube seems to have realized how much of a hate echo-chamber they are curating by allowing these actions to continue, and advertisers do not want to be associated with toxic brands. 

 

So the changes being blamed on COPPA, are really just an excuse to exercise enforcement of some guidelines that they've content to ignore due to the "but muh free speech" trolls.

 

 

It costs youtube nothing but storage space to keep a video online. So it's unlikely Youtube would just delete channels that "don't make any money", it's far more likely that certain channels attract negative media attention or lawsuits (such as with the "elsagate" situation or the "momo challenge" hoax.)

 

You basically just proved why people are nervous about youtubes change in policies.

 

You have a very biased point of view so you think creators with a different point of view are hateful.

 

People shouldnt feel that way. Its not hateful to disagree with people..esp when it comes to pretty controversial opinions.

 

[Mark Kaine]

58 minutes ago, X-System said:

I did a seach and I found the answer from YouTube team on Twitter for "no commercially viable" :

So, it's OK for the channels who don't make the money

"Anonymous twitter account says it ain't so..." 

 

14 minutes ago, RonnieOP said:

You basically just proved why people are nervous about youtubes change in policies.

Also was a whole lot of nothing since youtube always could delete content however they would see fit,  that didn't change, only the wording did. 

 

Basically just a friendly reminder from Google they can fuck your shit up if they feel like it.

 

They got way too powerful,  like a shadow government or something... No one can stop them (well except in China and Russia perhaps lol)

[dalekphalm]

11 hours ago, HowToMarryAPolishGirl said:

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."

What?

 

You're talking about this lawsuit, right?

Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#Texas_Beef_Group_v._Winfrey

 

The lawsuit that Operah Won? The one that has to do with Food Libel Laws, and therefore are not related to what's going on on YouTube (that is, unless you're making statements that might be classified as "food libel" anyway.

 

Operah won the lawsuit. She didn't pay anyone shit.

Quote

The jury in the case found that the statements by Winfrey and Lyman did not constitute libel against the cattlemen

Additionally, why do you think that your channel will be shut down? What is your channel about? (I've never seen it, and likely won't watch any videos, give me the TL;DW) Is it a comedy or parody channel? Or are you legit making advice videos on how to marry a Polish girl? Or does your content have anything at all to do with your title?

 

9 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

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

I mean... no. Not really.

9 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

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

Yes.

9 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

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".

What you think doesn't really matter against the law. YouTube is a private service that they voluntarily allow others to access. It's hosted on private servers.

 

In this context "private" means not-government-owned.

9 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

Internet based companies are starting to use "well, it's my property" as an excuse to violate basic human rights principles.

What basic human rights principles are they violating? Please don't say free speech, because if you do, you don't understand what free speech means.

9 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

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.

 

9 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

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?

Yes, of course we want to allow themselves the ability to decide how their private business is run. Want a say? Buy GOOGL shares and become a shareholder.

9 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

Or do we rather want to treat these services as public forums where basic human rights such as freedom of speech are enforced?

No. Because they aren't a public forum.

Free Speech means the government can't arrest you or fine you for saying what you want. It doesn't mean you can force a private entity to give you a platform to say what you want.

 

That would be like me being forced to let you come into my home, and spout things that I don't agree with - and not letting me shut you up (aka: kick you out) because of your "free speech".

[TechyBen]

11 hours 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!  

The amount of money a Youtuber makes is different to the amount Youtube make,

[mr moose]

12 hours ago, HowToMarryAPolishGirl said:

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."

 

that example, while not exactly the same thing, actually adds weight to the idea that google wouldn't mass delete accounts for fear of backlash.  If someone can be sued 3M for saying wait on eating something amid a health concern then google can be sued for deleting channels that may or not may not make money for the content creator.  Remember not all channels make money through youtube, some help business make money by providing a way for them to demo products without actually having to host videos on their website.

 

[dizmo]

12 hours ago, HowToMarryAPolishGirl said:

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."

You couldn't be more wrong...

10 hours 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?

Nor could you be more wrong. It doesn't matter what you want to treat them as. What matters is what they are.

3 hours ago, Thomas001 said:

That is a very interesting law. I have never heard of it before.

You haven't heard about it, because it's not true.

18 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

What?

 

You're talking about this lawsuit, right?

Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws#Texas_Beef_Group_v._Winfrey

 

The lawsuit that Operah Won? The one that has to do with Food Libel Laws, and therefore are not related to what's going on on YouTube (that is, unless you're making statements that might be classified as "food libel" anyway.

-snip-

Well said, sir. You beat me to it (yet again). The law he claims on this wouldn't even have anything to do with revenue, but libel laws or defamation at best.

Saved me from having to go into it

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

You basically just proved why people are nervous about youtubes change in policies.

 

You have a very biased point of view so you think creators with a different point of view are hateful.

 

People shouldnt feel that way. Its not hateful to disagree with people..esp when it comes to pretty controversial opinions.

 

It's youtube's platform, not yours. If they decide that rubbish like Infowars is peddling harmful products, then they should lock it down.

 

 

[RonnieOP]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

It's youtube's platform, not yours. If they decide that rubbish like Infowars is peddling harmful products, then they should lock it down.

 

Yes. I didnt say otherwise did i?

 

I said the reason why people are nervous is because the bias rubbish you just said.

 

"Conservatives double down on hateful rhetoric" Factual that statement is false. Sure there are probably some conservative nuts on youtube. And you can bet theres just as many liberal nuts as well. Youll see conservative channels such as Crowder who fight for everyone to have a voice and be heard. 

"If you made videos against gamergate girls your channel may be deleted" well why? Why should youtube want to shut down debate and opposite ideas? What does that accomplish? Why would anyone think that just because someone else doesnt see the world the same as them that the opposition is hateful? 

 

 

[Founders]

My take away from this thread...

1. You can bitch all you want but at the end of the day Google owns YouTube and reserves the right to do with it as it pleases
2. I still hate Oprah with every fiber of my being.  

[Tsuki]

15 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

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

sonic movie rework.

done, next question!

 

 

youtube isnt gonna mass purge anything. They would lose so much money. not including the PR nightmare that it would be, even channels that dont rake in views, still have the potential to bring people to the platform. shit, channels that have videos with 0 views is still good, because it increases the number of "creators" on the platform, which looks great for advertising.

This new policy change will be used to as enforcement to remove channels that dont deserve a platform to begin with(think elsa-gate kinda shit)

[TheKDub]

17 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.

Consider this:

Every big YouTuber was once small. Even PewDiePie had less than 100 subscribers at one point.

 

YouTube would have to be beyond brain dead to just go around deleting every channel that doesn't bring in money.

 

I'd imagine that if anything, they'll just use that to go after the people that create non-advertiser-friendly content. If they can't run ads on your videos, they can't make money off them, and that means you're just eating up bandwidth and storage, aka you're an expense.

[Kisai]

3 hours ago, RonnieOP said:

Yes. I didnt say otherwise did i?

 

I said the reason why people are nervous is because the bias rubbish you just said.

 

"Conservatives double down on hateful rhetoric" Factual that statement is false. Sure there are probably some conservative nuts on youtube. And you can bet theres just as many liberal nuts as well. Youll see conservative channels such as Crowder who fight for everyone to have a voice and be heard. 

"If you made videos against gamergate girls your channel may be deleted" well why? Why should youtube want to shut down debate and opposite ideas? What does that accomplish? Why would anyone think that just because someone else doesnt see the world the same as them that the opposition is hateful? 

 

 

Because Advertisers don't want to advertise on this cruel nasty garbage. That's the point.

 

They want to advertise on the channels that are nothing but cat videos.

 

[atxcyclist]

3 hours ago, TheKDub said:

Consider this:

Every big YouTuber was once small. Even PewDiePie had less than 100 subscribers at one point.

 

YouTube would have to be beyond brain dead to just go around deleting every channel that doesn't bring in money.

 

I'd imagine that if anything, they'll just use that to go after the people that create non-advertiser-friendly content. If they can't run ads on your videos, they can't make money off them, and that means you're just eating up bandwidth and storage, aka you're an expense.

YouTube has a monopoly on video streaming though, so if they're going to drop channels due to not having content that their hand-picked advertisers want, that quickly stifles everything but the most popular ideas both socially and politically. These days it's expected that any company doing business will have a social media presence if they want to stay afloat, so there's a real discussion to be had regarding social media platforms forbidding huge groups of people from using their services due to political or ideological differences. If certain companies or people operating otherwise within the law cannot participate in what is now the basis of modern advertising, there's a problem. 

 

I managed both sales and advertising for a gun store for a while, and can tell you from first hand experience that the rules instituted by large social media companies are daunting. The scrutiny we were under in terms of content posted was significant, basically one arbitrary goof on our end and we'd lose our page/representation. We were federally licensed to do business, insured, had a physical storefront, complied with all laws, and etc., so it wasn't for the legality of the business, it was the type of business and the perceived political and ideological group we were put into that was a problem for those social media platforms. Unfortunately though, without social media access we'd be relegated to ads on the last page of the Sunday paper. Even at that point in time a few years ago, it was expected that we'd be advertising on common platforms. Just something to think about when you're considering advertiser-friendliness and the rules instituted by social media platforms regarding content that they disagree with, but is otherwise completely within the confines of the law. 

[Master Disaster]

9 hours ago, Tsuki said:

sonic movie rework.

done, next question!

 

 

youtube isnt gonna mass purge anything. They would lose so much money. not including the PR nightmare that it would be, even channels that dont rake in views, still have the potential to bring people to the platform. shit, channels that have videos with 0 views is still good, because it increases the number of "creators" on the platform, which looks great for advertising.

This new policy change will be used to as enforcement to remove channels that dont deserve a platform to begin with(think elsa-gate kinda shit)

Interesting because everything I've seen on the Sonic rework has said its better but still bad.