YouTube Demonetization Screenshot Leaks + Secret YouTube Meeting

[A3r0Sp1k3]

Sources (original leak): https://twitter.com/dog_tower/status/939575388962947073 http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqbsph

 

Allegedly, YouTube outsourced the demonetization process to an unnamed company who were given guidelines to follow when reviewing a video. But if they didn't find a specific guideline that the video had broken, they could demonetize it anyway of they just didn't like or agree with it.

 

Quote

One of the most important things to take away from this is that if the person reviewing the video wouldn’t feel comfortable watching the video in public, it should automatically be demonetized. My contact stated that the company told them that if they were on the fence about a video and didn’t really know if it violated any of YouTube’s new “rules,” to demonetize the video anyway. Also, if the reviewer doesn’t find anything listed that’s wrong with the video, they are allowed to insert their own personal belief on something that is sensitive or inappropriate and can have the video demonetized that way, as well.

 

There was also a meeting in mid 2016 between high ranking YouTube officials and select creators. The purpose was to find a solution to the "unwanted creators" on the platform.

 

Quote

Some unwanted channel names that were mentioned were Leafyishere, GradeAUnderA, Keemstar/DramaAlert, Scarce, and Onision.

 

YouTube guidelines: https://imgur.com/a/uTLTS

The email invite sent out to the creators in the meeting: https://twitter.com/dog_tower/status/940725726239707141

 

Edit: mild clarification

[Eduard the weeb]

that is actual bull letting personal opinion decide if someone is getting payed is BS

Also actively trying to stop channels from being successful is against everything that YouTube of old and Google could make mess a lot of peoples lives up messing with this shit and I think this may be why leafy declined because he wasn't put in suggested pages anymore.

 

I hate were YouTube is currently going tbh 

[A3r0Sp1k3]

2 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

GradeA?? I haven't been watching for a few years (fell off my mind), but what happened to warrant that? o_o

No idea, I've never watched any of those channels.

[ItsMitch]

This is very interesting to say the least

[NumLock21]

So that basically says if that viewer is butthurt over something minor, the video can still be demonetized. Time to find a real job instead of relying on YouTube for the rest of your life.

[Matt_Lefebvre]

3 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

So that basically says if that viewer is butthurt over something minor, the video can still be demonetized. Time to find a real job instead of relying on YouTube for the rest of your life.

Youtube is a real job man....

 

Its creating a product - that thousands if not millions of people consume.

Its like saying producing a TV show isn't a real job. YouTubers, successful ones, put in just as much work, time and energy as people in broadcast, but at a smaller scale and frankly larger audiences.

 

-IMO-

Alphabet/Google/Youtube is just responding to advertiser demands here - because they obviously do not want to fix their adsense and reserve media (the nonskip 15sec spots) allocation setup - because they make like 70% margin on those products, they would rather work to censor content - which is completely lazy but ensures that there is a negligible impact to the bottom line.

 

This all stems from YT's decision to do something called YT premium for advertisers - where basically they decided to charge brands like Coke, Pepsi, etc, that wanted to spend on the network a significant premium to air their spots on the top 5% of YouTubes content based on 30 day views, subs etc - and filtered them into categories (tech, lifestyle). The kicker here is that advertisers never got to hand select the content they aired in, and boom they're in content about Nazi's or Child exploitation = Adpocolypse.

 

So instead of fixing the revenue model, they decided to fix the content.

-------------------------

Backup for above - I was a Digital media buyer in ad agencies for 6 years and a Youtuber for 5 years....

-------------------------

 

[NumLock21]

13 minutes ago, Matt_Lefebvre said:

Spoiler

Youtube is a real job man....

 

Its creating a product - that thousands if not millions of people consume.

Its like saying producing a TV show isn't a real job. YouTubers, successful ones, put in just as much work, time and energy as people in broadcast, but at a smaller scale and frankly larger audiences.

 

-IMO-

Alphabet/Google/Youtube is just responding to advertiser demands here - because they obviously do not want to fix their adsense and reserve media (the nonskip 15sec spots) allocation setup - because they make like 70% margin on those products, they would rather work to censor content - which is completely lazy but ensures that there is a negligible impact to the bottom line.

 

This all stems from YT's decision to do something called YT premium for advertisers - where basically they decided to charge brands like Coke, Pepsi, etc, that wanted to spend on the network a significant premium to air their spots on the top 5% of YouTubes content based on 30 day views, subs etc - and filtered them into categories (tech, lifestyle). The kicker here is that advertisers never got to hand select the content they aired in, and boom they're in content about Nazi's or Child exploitation = Adpocolypse.

 

So instead of fixing the revenue model, they decided to fix the content.

-------------------------

Backup for above - I was a Digital media buyer in ad agencies for 6 years and a Youtuber for 5 years....

-------------------------

 

Well with movies, they don't have some people judging and then determine if they will get money or not. They still get money for their work, through ticket sales, merchandise, advertisement, etc.  With YouTube, the creators instead of guarantee of getting money for their videos, will now have to pass the personal feeling stage. When their video is watch by a snowflake person who gets butthurt easily, it will be extremely difficult for them to make any money out of their videos, even when they follow the guidelines.

 

Imagine a snowflake person judging a LTT video

• LTT video follow all guidelines
• *Linus accidentally drops something*
• Viewer butthurt
• No money for LTT

 

 

[TidaLWaveZ]

1 hour ago, NumLock21 said:

So that basically says if that viewer is butthurt over something minor, the video can still be demonetized. Time to find a real job instead of relying on YouTube for the rest of your life.

Unless you're just a garbage streamer, it is a real job.

 

Making quality content that many people truly enjoy takes a lot of time and effort. Sure, there are people who rely on popularity and make money off stupid unboxings, reaction videos, lets play's, etc. but there are many, many people who put a lot of time, effort, and money into producing good content.

[Matt_Lefebvre]

29 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Well with movies, they don't have some people judging and then determine if they will get money or not. They still get money for their work, through ticket sales, merchandise, advertisement, etc.  With YouTube, the creators instead of guarantee of getting money for their videos, will now have to pass the personal feeling stage. When their video is watch by a snowflake person who gets butthurt easily, it will be extremely difficult for them to make any money out of their videos, even when they follow the guidelines.

 

Imagine a snowflake person judging a LTT video

• LTT video follow all guidelines
• *Linus accidentally drops something*
• Viewer butthurt
• No money for LTT

 

 

Actually, that's not true.

Outside of major blockbusters with massive financial backing, a lot of these studios will produce on spec (from their own pockets or with modest investment), in hopes that the film gets picked up - its why we have major film festivals like TIFF in Toronto, its so they can sell their work and get a major studio/distribution team to back them.... so technically they always have people judging - TV shows, movies, Always.

 

Its literally the exact same thing as TV and movies - but the key problem here is objectivity and what people expect and understand about their personal relationship with YouTube.

YT is basically working now like they are a TV station/Channel - picking and choosing what they want to "monetize aka air with advertising backing".

 

So if you go to YouTube, or create for YouTube thinking that its a free and open space, you're wrong, its not - its a walled garden and Google owns the keys for who can play inside it.

 

i'm not saying i agree with this at all - just trying to educate everyone about the business side.

[TidaLWaveZ]

This is just youtube's way of eradicating content that they don't like without having to directly take the blame.

[Matu20]

Wasn't the bulk of demonetization done via bot, not the people?

[TheUzu]

Why not whitelist channels that have produced advertiser friendly videos for years without problems, that would lessen the workload.

 

Then again that’s too obvious run it through an algorithm....

[Taf the Ghost]

5 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

Well with movies, they don't have some people judging and then determine if they will get money or not. They still get money for their work, through ticket sales, merchandise, advertisement, etc.  With YouTube, the creators instead of guarantee of getting money for their videos, will now have to pass the personal feeling stage. When their video is watch by a snowflake person who gets butthurt easily, it will be extremely difficult for them to make any money out of their videos, even when they follow the guidelines.

 

Imagine a snowflake person judging a LTT video

• LTT video follow all guidelines
• *Linus accidentally drops something*
• Viewer butthurt
• No money for LTT

 

 

YouTube's management's complete inability to operate Opt-In White Lists is beyond my ability to understand. They've got some really, really slick technology, but they're clearly run by Management that was put in place to get them away from the rest of the company.

 

This was never hard after they got their anti-porn system working.

[Kamina]

SJWs are like a forest fire. They burn everything they touch to the ground.

[Rune]

Who should get to decide what is good or unwanted?

[Misanthrope]

Leafy, Keemstar and Onision...That's an interesting spread indeed. Yeah you can fucking nuke those tbh.

 

EDIT: Ok reading the list of offenses and what they consider as "controversy" and what gets a pass it is painfully evident that they have a clear progressive political leaning (No surprise there: this is true for most large corporations at least outwardly) and probably want to drive out any and all contrarian content from not only the extremist and crazy people (Ethnonationalists, flatout racists, etc) but more moderate yet critical of progressive ideas folk (The so called "Skeptic" community or Anti-SJWs)

 

To that I would say it's their business to proceed like that: while diversity of opinions might have it's value they should be more open about their non-neutral stance and embrace their stances on politics more. This chicanery demonetization and such just gives ammunition to most of this "centrist" and far right trolls anyways.

[AshleyAshes]

11 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

Time to find a real job instead of relying on YouTube for the rest of your life.

@LinusTech, you heard the man.  Go get a real job!

[Not_Sean]

Has anyone seen the reset button, Humanity is seriously at a all time low

[Soonercoop]

Idk why it took so long for publications to get this information but multiple channels I watch have already reached out to youtube and explained most of this system to viewers months ago. It's probably not really what youtube would do if they could decide but considering that they're operating at a loss, I don't think they have a whole ton of choice in the matter. This is why other forms of monetization like crypto scripts are taking off. Ad revenue is a dying business model especially for mature content. Or I mean we can all keep hating on youtube because the ad disappearance wasn't the fault of mainstream media spewing misinformation in the first place or anything.

[Drak3]

2 hours ago, Rune said:

Who should get to decide what is good or unwanted?

Me.

 

 

It's all good, except IRL dismemberment, ISIL/ISIS/Taliban/Al Queda matterial, and Justin Beiber.

[Gullerback]

GradeA doesnt deserve to be in there, hes called the vast majority of these people out and brought most of ti to light

[yian88]

I find many of the people on this forum completely oblivious to the regressive left and their SJW'ist behaviour. I know we shouldnt talk about politics, but look how 'bad' they are winning and ruining everything especially in the tech world. Maybe thats a consequence of "dont talk about politics rule". 

You cant talk about youtube issues without talking about politics really, and the feminist sjw CEO who is in charge at youtube.

 

....

[mynameisjuan]

12 hours ago, Gullerback said:

GradeA doesnt deserve to be in there, hes called the vast majority of these people out and brought most of ti to light

Exactly. GradeAs content is literally to shed light to all the shit going around youtube is a good way. Based off his last video, I dont think this is going to help him mentally either. 

[Inkz]

On 12/14/2017 at 11:57 AM, TidaLWaveZ said:

Unless you're just a garbage streamer, it is a real job.

 

Making quality content that many people truly enjoy takes a lot of time and effort. Sure, there are people who rely on popularity and make money off stupid unboxings, reaction videos, lets play's, etc. but there are many, many people who put a lot of time, effort, and money into producing good content.

Even then if people enjoy things like let's plays then they shouldn't be have a bias to only certain creators.  I only wish they would crackdown on the people like Jake and Logan Paul when they openly break  laws in their videos and sometimes even acknowledge it to millions of people and YT is cool with that. Or like how Casey NIestat made a video about the Vegas Shooting to donate money and was demonetized while others who profited from talking about were allowed. 

[ItsMitch]

When I seen him tagging in Keemstar and Leafy I just disregarded the story completely, not fan of clickbait cancer hidden under the veil of "News"