RTGame YouTube channel posts video, "Youtube is Restricting My Content", after numerous videos get retroactively age restricted without recourse.

[theCambunctious]

 

Summary

   The YouTube channel RTGame posted a video on January 7th, 2023 entitled "Youtube is Restricting My Content", outlining a situation where YouTube has been retroactively age-restricting and demonetizing numerous videos of his. His "Best of RTGame 2022" video was age restricted with no reason given, and his appeal/request for a manual review was rejected after only 10 minutes. The "Best of" video was a compilation of all his videos from the year; none of which had been flagged or age-restricted. This situation had also happened with his "Best of RTGame 2021" video the year before, and after escalating that situation the head of YouTube Support personal apologized to RT and said that the automatic and manual review were incorrect. This time, however, RT had numerous of his other videos flagged as age-restricted or demonetized, and an email from the YouTube Outreach Team providing even worse news. The email provided RT with specific citations of which videos (with timestamps) caused his "Best of" video to be age restricted, as well as specific reasons for his other flagged videos as well. This information had not been provided to RT at the time of the initial flagging or the manual review of these videos, and he was informed that even if he was to go back and fix these videos with the YouTube video editor, that because he had already appealed them once, the videos would stay age restricted and demonetized. The videos had been flagged because of recently updated community guidelines, and RT expressed concerns that it feels like creators have to successfully guess why a video has been flagged and fix it before submitting an appeal, and if they're wrong, the video essentially dies on the platform. He goes on to further talk about his concerns, challenges, and experiences during this situation, and his uncertainty with staying on YouTube as a result of this.

 

Quotes

Quote

"Because I reported my issue, I triggered a mass flagging of my content. A second video was immediately age-restricted, followed by twelve more videos being demonetized with limited ads. No reason was given for any of these, and the manual reviews for all of these videos were immediately rejected once again."

Quote

"This has a lot of implications for creators' livelihoods. Think of it in the video game sphere. Any game with an 18 age-rating, which is by very definition not appropriate for children, should be age-restricted and demonetized. Elden Ring, Skyrim, The Witcher 3, Grand Theft Auto: none of these should exist on YouTube according to this policy. If you consider how many creators' careers actually depend on these games, the precedent being set here is insane. If you post content that cannot be consumed by a child, you should not earn money."

Quote

"The problem is vagueness more than anything. This is way too vague a stance for YouTube to take for flagging content or arguing for policy, and it highlights how it can be abused by different interpretations."

 

My thoughts

 This seems to add to the ongoing narrative that YouTube is not being transparent with creators and isn't supporting them in important ways. The fact that YouTube didn't provide RT with the information on his flagged videos in the first place, even though they seemingly had the exact reasons and timestamps for each video, is ridiculous. How can they expect creators to fix these issues if they're not told what they are? Sure, they could religiously read the updated Community Guidelines, but it's entirely unreasonable to expect a creator to go back to dozens or hundreds of videos spanning numerous years to fix every little part that doesn't adhere to a brand new rule. Even if that information wasn't available at the time his video was automatically flagged, it should have been available and provided after the appeal and the manual review. In addition, not allowing a fixed video to be unflagged or unrestricted if it's already been appealed means there's essentially no reason for a creator to actually make those edits to adhere to the Community Guidelines. The whole situation seems unnecessarily harsh towards creators and I'm curious if it's going to be just RT who this happens to or if YouTube is going to start flagging other creators for this as well. 

 

Sources

 

 

 

 

 

[Fasterthannothing]

YouTuber says inappropriate things for kids on video gets video age restricted

 

 

 

 

[theCambunctious]

18 minutes ago, Fasterthannothing said:

YouTuber says inappropriate things for kids on video gets video age restricted

 

 

 

 

A big part of this video talked about how he acknowledges his videos aren’t for kids. He flags every single video as “Not for children” (you have to do this anytime you upload a video). That’s not the issue here at all.
 

It seems like you’re missing a lot of context about this. I linked the video in my original post if you’re interested in what actually happened as opposed to making assumptions.

[Fasterthannothing]

1 hour ago, theCambunctious said:

A big part of this video talked about how he acknowledges his videos aren’t for kids. He flags every single video as “Not for children” (you have to do this anytime you upload a video). That’s not the issue here at all.
 

It is actually the issue YT has decided if the content you are filming is rated for mature people (ie M rating on video game they are play) it has to be rated as such. YT is just creating a rating system like in the real world E/E10+ content= fine for kids content that would be T = not for children but also not age restricted. Content that would get rated M or R if it was in a normal form of media = age restricted. It's actually extremely simple. Don't post stuff that ESRB wouldn't rate M and your fine plain and simple.

[theCambunctious]

25 minutes ago, Fasterthannothing said:

It is actually the issue YT has decided if the content you are filming is rated for mature people (ie M rating on video game they are play) it has to be rated as such. YT is just creating a rating system like in the real world E/E10+ content= fine for kids content that would be T = not for children but also not age restricted. Content that would get rated M or R if it was in a normal form of media = age restricted. It's actually extremely simple. Don't post stuff that ESRB wouldn't rate M and your fine plain and simple.

You’re still missing the point. The primary issue is the way that YouTube support handled the situation and the vagueness of some of these policies.
 

In addition, saying that sort of content just shouldn’t be on the platform has some massive implications. That would imply that any kind of content from many mainstream games (Skyrim, Cyberpunk, GTA, etc) shouldn’t be on the platform, and that’s a BIG deal. YouTube would be destroying tons of channels and the livelihoods of the creators behind them. 
 

Again, if you’re interested in the actual situation the video is linked above. It’d be easier to have a conversation about this if you know what’s going on.

[CarlBar]

1 hour ago, theCambunctious said:

You’re still missing the point. The primary issue is the way that YouTube support handled the situation and the vagueness of some of these policies.
 

In addition, saying that sort of content just shouldn’t be on the platform has some massive implications. That would imply that any kind of content from many mainstream games (Skyrim, Cyberpunk, GTA, etc) shouldn’t be on the platform, and that’s a BIG deal. YouTube would be destroying tons of channels and the livelihoods of the creators behind them. 
 

Again, if you’re interested in the actual situation the video is linked above. It’d be easier to have a conversation about this if you know what’s going on.

 

This. The vast majority of visual media content that people might do a video on or use in videos falls outside "child safe" range. If you ban non-child safe content, (and thats what this amounts to in practise), your basically banning the majority of possibble content from youtube.

[Donut417]

1 hour ago, theCambunctious said:

In addition, saying that sort of content just shouldn’t be on the platform has some massive implications. That would imply that any kind of content from many mainstream games (Skyrim, Cyberpunk, GTA, etc) shouldn’t be on the platform, and that’s a BIG deal. YouTube would be destroying tons of channels and the livelihoods of the creators behind them. 

If this were movies or TV shows they would have a rating attached to the content. Online services like Youtube dont do this. The rules are different for them then other media types because its the internet. Youtube knows that its days are numbered. One day either regulator's like the FCC or congress will come for them. Remember the only reason the ESRB exists was due to pressure and threats from several senators. 

 

The other thing is that videos that are monetized are done so by selling ad space on those videos. Youtube is beholden to advertisers. There is a good possibility that advertisers had issues with the content in question. While Youtube doesnt do its self any favors by being vague, the fact is the internet is still kinda the Wild West and these companies are becoming targets as things change quickly. 

 

 

[CarlBar]

6 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

If this were movies or TV shows they would have a rating attached to the content. Online services like Youtube dont do this. The rules are different for them then other media types because its the internet. Youtube knows that its days are numbered. One day either regulator's like the FCC or congress will come for them. Remember the only reason the ESRB exists was due to pressure and threats from several senators. 

 

The other thing is that videos that are monetized are done so by selling ad space on those videos. Youtube is beholden to advertisers. There is a good possibility that advertisers had issues with the content in question. While Youtube doesnt do its self any favors by being vague, the fact is the internet is still kinda the Wild West and these companies are becoming targets as things change quickly. 

 

 

 

It's the monetisation side of things thats the issue, not the idea of creating a ratings system. And no the advertisers really don;t have that level of power. If they did regular TV stations would never be able to show anything not kid safe.I don't really buy the whole Google is too cowardly reasoning though. I suspect it would require a significant change in how Google runs their advertising department and that would be a huge pain they don't want to deal with however. 

 

But in the long run i suspect they're going to have to change or watch as the amount of content on the platform, (and thus adds being watched), plumments.the issue is how much damage is going to happen before then.

[theCambunctious]

7 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

If this were movies or TV shows they would have a rating attached to the content. Online services like Youtube dont do this. The rules are different for them then other media types because its the internet. Youtube knows that its days are numbered. One day either regulator's like the FCC or congress will come for them. Remember the only reason the ESRB exists was due to pressure and threats from several senators. 

 

The other thing is that videos that are monetized are done so by selling ad space on those videos. Youtube is beholden to advertisers. There is a good possibility that advertisers had issues with the content in question. While Youtube doesnt do its self any favors by being vague, the fact is the internet is still kinda the Wild West and these companies are becoming targets as things change quickly. 

 

 

The advertisement portion of your comment actually does come up in the video and is a valid point. RT says that his primary concern isn’t the limited ad revenue and is primarily that he’s frustrated with his content reach getting so limited (though he acknowledges he’s happy getting paid for the work he does). Take that for what you will.
 

And yeah, I get that YouTube doesn’t have all the same regulations and content ratings as other forms of media, but if this does represent a new precedent it’s going to impact a ton of creators.

[Donut417]

5 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

no the advertisers really don;t have that level of power.

They do if they pull their fucking money off the platform. Rememberer Youtube shares the ad revenue with creators, but they take a good chunk of it. If that revenue falls, Youtube makes even less money. I dont think Youtube has ever turned a profit and Google is not happy with that. 

 

7 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

If they did regular TV stations would never be able to show anything not kid safe.I

Regular TV stations have ratings on content. Thats the difference. If Cartoon Network got caught showing XXX porn, you best believe advertisers would threaten to pull their ads off the platform. 

 

Also its not all about advertisers. Its about regulators and the government as a whole. Youtube slips thru the cracks due to it being an internet service which doesnt have to follow the rules of TV broadcasters and movie studios. Thats becoming the concern. In 1996 an idea was proposed to provide ratings for TV content, because public was concerned over the content being shown on TV. As a result a industry created panel started to rate TV shows. This is similar that happened to video games in 1994. 

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

If this were movies or TV shows they would have a rating attached to the content. Online services like Youtube dont do this. The rules are different for them then other media types because its the internet. Youtube knows that its days are numbered. One day either regulator's like the FCC or congress will come for them. Remember the only reason the ESRB exists was due to pressure and threats from several senators. 

 

The other thing is that videos that are monetized are done so by selling ad space on those videos. Youtube is beholden to advertisers. There is a good possibility that advertisers had issues with the content in question. While Youtube doesnt do its self any favors by being vague, the fact is the internet is still kinda the Wild West and these companies are becoming targets as things change quickly. 

 

 

Youtube has some of the best engineers on the planet and the generally most blatantly moronic management in all of Big Tech. It was clear a while ago that Google dumped the people they couldn't really fire on them. Then they reorganized and made them more independent. So much of the issues with YT are down to very dumb management.

 

RTGame's (and others) recent issues is due to YT rolling out brand new rules in the last few weeks. After the COPPA disaster with Youtube, they basically said to everyone on the platform "Make Teen rated content if you want to make any money here". Which is what everyone did. It actually increased the amount of swearing in most popular videos. Then, completely out of the blue, they changed the rules on what is "too far" when it comes to gaming content. RT's Best Of video got fully Age Restricted for a 2 min clip from a video that had been up for several months & fully monetized.

 

Like most things with YT, massive, categorical changes are put in a blog post and sent into the wild.  Which wouldn't be as much of an issue if they had any sort of network-connecting information distribution system, give a warning or not ruin channels for Age Restricted videos. That's another aspect to this. YT punishes a channel's reach for anything outside of giving them something they can easily put ads on. 

 

On an unrelated topic, Google has a case going before the US Supreme Court (oral arguments) soon. Suddenly gotten a lot of pro-Google's position videos in the feed on it. Huh. Strange.

 

This is all driven by money and the mountains that YT losses. Yes. Loses. They have to protect all of the ads they're serving to Kids, while also finding ways to jack up the Ad Rates as well. Just to keep the revenue high.  Which is something they could do better if they understood how to communicate the framework for video content to the relatively small amount of creators (compared to accounts) that drive the vast majority of their revenue.

[Donut417]

8 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

This is all driven by money and the mountains that YT losses.

Part of it is driven by fear. Big tech has a big ass target on their back. I recall Zuckerberg testifying before congress. Thats some serious shit, and if people involved in big tech are testifying before congress that means there are concerns. Google is just as bad as Facebook in terms of exploiting peoples privacy for monetary gains. These companies are afraid that they will be regulated in some way or giving an ultimatum that will force change. The latter is what happened to the video game industry, they were told to standardize a rating system or the government would do it for them. 

 

Furthermore Youtube is one of many platforms. Creators do have an option to move to a different one if they dont like the terms of the current one. While it would hurt financially it is possible. OR you read between the lines and figure out what Youtube wants. 

 

16 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Which is something they could do better if they understood how to communicate the framework for video content to the relatively small amount of creators (compared to accounts) that drive the vast majority of their revenue.

I agree, Youtube needs to make themselves clear, but I think they are still trying to figure out what they are trying to do. The other thing to consider, is if one content creator goes down, there are many others to take their place. Youtube probably doesnt care enough about these creators which is why they just play fast and loose with polices. 

 

18 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Google has a case going before the US Supreme Court (oral arguments) soon. Suddenly gotten a lot of pro-Google's position videos in the feed on it. Huh. Strange.

Well they want to sway public opinion due to the fact they distributed videos from a terrorist organization. While the law might protect them, its only going to protect them for so long. Because regulations and laws can always change. 

[Roswell]

I don’t watch this channel, never seen a single video from them.

 

That said, they’re pushing 3 million subscribers. If he’s diversified monetization even a little, this is hardly catastrophic. AdSense should be a small slice of a 3 million sub channel’s income.

 

All of this “losing my livelihood on a whim” stuff isn’t applicable to him and just sounds silly.

[suicidalfranco]

Time for musk to buy YouTube and fix it

[Taf the Ghost]

@Donut417bringing up the SCOTUS case had a couple of layers. Fundamentally because Pro-Google videos being pushed de facto means they are a Publisher, but also brings to light that Google doesn't want to happen to them exactly what they do to the people that make their platform continue to exist.

 

As for the creator economy and YT in general, there's two really important contexts that can never be forgotten. Firstly, the Google-Viacom deal of 2014's details are still completely unknown. A case that Viacom had won in the first several rounds was settled for zero money changing hands.  A good portion of the "big picture" terrible aspects of YT management may have more to do with that than anything else. Thus, YT will likely always be terrible at the communication & management side. Someone on the platform has to understand that at all times.

 

Secondly, YT might be the single greatest business failure in history. The lifetime loss to Google is 12 figures. How far into 12 figures is something only a couple of people would know. And the only reason YT isn't a complete black hole destroying money is that ads on Mobile are a lot cheaper in bandwidth costs & harder to avoid. But the gravitational pull of the money pit causes large distortions in everything else in the video market.

 

I bring these up because YT's audience is actually a lot thinner I feel people realize. That's what is driving the "first 15 seconds" changes. It's a massive red flag from YT that everyone clicks off videos really quickly and that there is something else going on that they're responding to. I don't know the "what", but the effect is pretty obvious. They're very concerned about losing Clear Net traffic and Ad Fills that go with it.  Which is weird, because that's probably as much Bot traffic as human traffic.

 

Now, it could be as simple as YT only makes money off selling Ads on Finances and Kids content, so they're going to throttle basically everything else. It's also entirely possible that their algos, being rebalanced to favor only profitable content, ended up basically eliminating 90% of the previous monetizable content in their testing. As a result, they've just started a long term, multi-stage squeeze to basically make this super small section that is profitable larger at the expense of everything else on the platform. If we suddenly get a big blow up around the book "Nudge" emanating from Silicon Valley, then we'd actually know a whole lot more about the future plans.

 

Segment to keep an eye on is Animation. It generally isn't profitable on YT to do, but they've been in a years long process of making it only event monetizable if it's basically Kid Friendly. However, you can't make it "for kids", then it gets destroyed by the YT Kids effect. YT is rapidly becoming "what's trendy with 14 year olds in California? Make that." 

 

As for regulatory fears, you have Cause & Effect mostly reversed. "Moral Panics" are manufactured events built upon pre-existing tensions. Some of them are simple shakedowns, while others can be industry players gaining leverage over other parts via political means. The American Dog & Pony show version has a lot to do with distributed power structures, but it should generally be viewed as the other power factions making Big Tech remember who keeps them a float. Mind you, there can be actual, popular displays of anger at groups via political committees. It's just fairly rare.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, Roswell said:

I don’t watch this channel, never seen a single video from them.

 

That said, they’re pushing 3 million subscribers. If he’s diversified monetization even a little, this is hardly catastrophic. AdSense should be a small slice of a 3 million sub channel’s income.

 

All of this “losing my livelihood on a whim” stuff isn’t applicable to him and just sounds silly.

RT is a good chap and the YT content is mostly highlights from his streams on Twitch. He'll survive financially, but his YT channel is at severe risk because YT never actually thinks through the way their policies interact. For being a streamer & content creator, the issue is primarily what YT does when you have Age Restricted content or everything is demonized. Your channel gets sent to the shadow realm and your subscribers won't even be regularly shown your content. 

[CarlBar]

8 hours ago, Donut417 said:

They do if they pull their fucking money off the platform. Rememberer Youtube shares the ad revenue with creators, but they take a good chunk of it. If that revenue falls, Youtube makes even less money. I dont think Youtube has ever turned a profit and Google is not happy with that. 

 

Regular TV stations have ratings on content. Thats the difference. If Cartoon Network got caught showing XXX porn, you best believe advertisers would threaten to pull their ads off the platform. 

 

Also its not all about advertisers. Its about regulators and the government as a whole. Youtube slips thru the cracks due to it being an internet service which doesnt have to follow the rules of TV broadcasters and movie studios. Thats becoming the concern. In 1996 an idea was proposed to provide ratings for TV content, because public was concerned over the content being shown on TV. As a result a industry created panel started to rate TV shows. This is similar that happened to video games in 1994. 

 

There is nothing stopping youtube selling add slots with different ratings. How do you think TV stations sold adds for later evening slots that would be shown alongside mature content. Reality is TV has sold add space alongside mature content successfully for years and google has been age rating stuff for years now.

 

And no threatening to pull their adds isn;.t the leverage you think it is. Google is huge in the add space online, they'd hurt themselves as much or more by pulling off google as they would google. Individual TV stations where far smaller in effect on advertisers and they where still able to deal with this issue. The problem is google would have to completely change how it sells online add space to do it. Thats a huge change for them and they're naturally going to resist it for as long as they can.

[hollyh88]

my main problem with this is that videos still get demonetized in which the content creators explicitly state that they are not for kids. In my opinion content creators should be able to say the f word. the hell word and other swear words that kids of literally 10+ use anyway and it doesnt hurt them what so ever. But aside from that, those videos were clearly flagged as not for kids. and thus swearing shouldnt be an issue anymore. So this is not on him but on youtube themselves. they should just state very obvious in a text on your screen around the video that this is flagged as not for kids. simple as that.

Its just youtube doing stupid youtube things. 

This especially is very dumb to me as you have people like asmangold who still get ads regardless of the swearing. same with other creators. its so dumb