YouTube demonetising videos deemed risqué as content creators begin to self-censor

[Andrew Reid]

Soon, we will all be Pepsi adverts.

Read the full article

[jonpais]

Revenue from ads for some popular YT channels has plummeted to just a few pennies a day. YT may or may not come up with a fix; it could takes weeks or months, or never. But there is something we can all do about it. Think about supporting the sites that create content you enjoy for free everyday. You can choose to pay anywhere from $2.00 to $6.00 or more each month, depending on your budget. Then our favorite programs won't have to rely on YT's idiotic algorithms any longer.

[Orangenz]

Sure looks like corporatism is going to take the freedom and fun entertainment away. Increased revenue only for long videos.. who makes long videos.. oh the mainstream media do... and that guy that wanted the GH5 to be fullframe. It's gone very undemocratic all of a sudden, or rather, anti-capitalistic and the result will be mediocrity instead of the recognition (by the masses) of excellence. 

[Edward]

This is so disappointing and disgusting. 

And all the more reason you must keep EOSHD going Mr. Andrew; last bastion for freedom of expression!

[eleison]

One of my favorite channels got demonetized.  They moved a lot of their content to another website.  It cost $100/year to access their full videos on the new website.  I liked them enough to pay.  Take that youtube.  A lot of youtube content is currently not "mainstream".  There are many alternating view points.  That is how youtube differentiates themselves from cable/OTA TV.  This is why youtube is popular. 

What youtube is doing now is just going to hurt itself.  It's like if Tesla decided 3 years ago (to increase profit) that they wanted to "go main stream" by offering cars that ran on gasoline because Gartner/google ad sense/etc. says most main stream people cannot fathom themselves driving electric.. Or most people have gas cars, and gas cars are still the most popular cars.  If Tesla is going to sell more cars, they need to start selling gasoline cars.  WRONG!!!

Cable tv/ OTA tv is dying.  There is a reason why it's dying.  People want to hear other voices and other sides of the argument.  The time has passed when manufacturer, tv ceo, etc. were able to tell people what to believe.  For example, it used to be important for camera manufactures to have good reviews in print magazines (or even on online "magazines" like dpreview).  Now, not so much since we actually have INDEPENDENT sources of reviews. 

In my opinion, the more youtube stifles it's content creators; more of the good content will go away.  A lot of it will go to places like patreon, or niche places like crtv.com   Youtube will start to be a place where good content is advertised.  A way for content creators to advertise their wares, making "teaser" videos; but ultimately, the viewers will go to paid sites like patreon.

Advertisers will have to follow the eyeballs... Like how they were forced dragging, kicking and screaming to advertise on the internet instead of TV; in the future, they will have to do the same when they will be forced into advertising in places where alternating points of views are expressed.

OR PERHAPS, advertising will slowly die away.  If everything of value becomes a paid service like HBO NOW, SHOWTIME online or like the 1,000lb elephant in the room NETFLIX.  If everything is self supporting by direct viewership via paid membership; we could see the death of online advertising with respect to streaming.  Imagine a time when people pay money to watch most of your content, and they don't see a second of advertisement.  For a lot of people that's a reality NOW.  Something that would blow the mind of many ad executives just a few years ago.  It's already being done for movies.  It's just a simple step for it to be done for independent content especially with the quick rise of patreon and the like.  Youtube, watch your back and stop screwing with content creators.  That is why you exist. 

In the next few months, there will be a test. What is more important - the platform or the content creator?  Can the content creator exist without the platform (in this case youtube).  Can the content creator transcend the platform to the point where the platform doesn't really matter as long as the is one (patreaon, niche website, etc)?   I am willing to say the content creator is more important.  It doesn't matter what platform he/she is on.  To be relate-able, likeable, and have millions of followers;  I think that's talent.  no matter what platform, talent always beat out platform (or 4k, or Arria, or etc... :-)

[Arikhan]

If we were honest, we should admit, years ago our internet generation predicted, newspapers, print magazines and "classic TV" would die soon...because advertizers would spend their money on internet and classic media would lack a source of income. Now, the "online generation" faces the same problems as "old media": not enough income (advertizing spendings going down, demonetization, etc.) for content production...Only some cents for video/text/photo creating, editing and publishing, shadow banning for honest photographers on Instagram, not enough (unpaid) views on Facebook for posts...

I never was convinced, "old media" does everything wrong, and the online generation does everything well. The current situation is for many "know-it-alls" a challenge - because NOW they must prove, how monetization of own work/content should be done to survive. Many of them will soon get the feeling of facing serious problems - like "old media" years ago...Just my 2 cents...

[TARS]

A lot of Youtubers have already found that sponsored content is a better way to earn money than through the Youtube ads anyway. Several channels that I watch are no longer monetised in the traditional sense, but they pause for 30 seconds in the middle of a video to plug something themselves. Film Riot has been doing this for a long time, for instance.

 

It will be interesting to see as time goes on if this becomes more commonplace, and if so, if Youtube will attempt to crack down on it and penalise accounts that run outright advertisements in their videos.

[SuperSet]

YouTube party over? Parties weren't meant to last. 

[actionfrank]

I can't believe it took this long for advertisers to realize that it's risky to serve your ads up next to random, user generated content. Of course there are going to be awkward placements. Advertisers are very sensitive about associations with their brands. Glen Beck was fired from Fox News because he lost all his advertisers, and the same thing is happening to Bill O'Reilly night now. Tune into any number of popular Youtubers and they say stuff waaay more controversial than O'Reilly or Beck. No one should be surprised that Tide Dish Detergent doesn't want anything to do with Pew Die Pie. As an artist, he should be proud of that fact.

There's always been a direct relationship between how much of your business depends on advertising and how bland your content needs to be. Broadcast TV is 100% ad based. That's why it's all sports, bland sitcoms, and boring dramas with no curse words. Cable TV is half and half, so it can be a little more daring. Then there's HBO who's free to do whatever they want.

There are plenty of Youtube channels that fall into the mold of broadcast tv, family friendly content that Oreos or Pampers would be happy to sponsor. Dude Perfect is a great example. They get tons of advertisers because they do fun, super-clean videos. On the other hand, Pew Die Pie, who drops the f-bomb every 5 seconds is probably closer to the HBO end of the spectrum. An ad based model isn't gonna work for him.

The realities of advertising don't change because #DigitalMedia. The fact that Pew Die Pie was able to pull in millions of advertising dollars up to this point was a fluke. If you want to be #controversial, you can't rely on dish detergent companies to pay your bills.

[webrunner5]

Well as many YouTube videos there are there is no way in hell some of them are not going to offend somebody. So unless the people that want to advertise on there don't grow a damned thick skin, I guess UT is dead. I mean there is videos on there from like 10 years ago or more. They Never delete one just like Vimeo doesn't ever either.

No one in their right mind can expect YouTube to go through every video that gets uploaded, I don't care what kind of electronic screening scheme they can come up with.

[SuperSet]

It's not censorship when someone doesn't want to pay you for your opinion. 

[fuzzynormal]

13 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

No one in their right mind can expect YouTube to go through every video that gets uploaded.

True, but it's easy to see why those doing the serious bigger buys should expect that their ad placements get the human curated treatment.  It's really the same crap you see from the TV model.  "Prestige" ads are attached to prime time while the lousy trashy ads get relegated to 3am.

Google in general wants things to be as algorithmic as possible as it's more profitable for them, but as all society becomes so tightly integrated to the internet, I think intelligent human curation is going to have to be a much bigger part of the process; expect services that cater to this need to be the next big luxury in life.

Or, in the distant future AI is developed for such commercial pandering --and our new robot overlords destroy us slowly by indulging our vices.

[webrunner5]

25 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

True, but it's easy to see why those doing the serious bigger buys should expect that their ad placements get the human curated treatment.  It's really the same crap you see from the TV model.  "Prestige" ads are attached to prime time while the lousy trashy ads get relegated to 3am.

Google in general wants things to be as algorithmic as possible as it's more profitable for them, but as all society becomes so tightly integrated to the internet, I think intelligent human curation is going to have to be a much bigger part of the process; expect services that cater to this need to be the next big luxury in life.

Or, in the distant future AI is developed for such commercial pandering --and our new robot overlords destroy us slowly by indulging our vices.

"300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute! Almost 5 billion videos are watched on Youtube every single day. In an average month, 8 out of 10 18-49 year-olds watch YouTube." YouTube quote.

So you really think real PEOPLE are going to review 300 hours of video every minute!! It ain't never going to happen. And even if they could, who determines what is Too Raunchy, too Wicked, too Evil, etc.,etc.

Ad suppliers need to suck it up and face reality that UT is what it is, and not pass up a opportunity to reach 5 Billion people a day. Yeah with a big "B" amount of people. Staggering amount of people.

[fuzzynormal]

1 minute ago, webrunner5 said:

"300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute! Almost 5 billion videos are watched on Youtube every single day. In an average month, 8 out of 10 18-49 year-olds watch YouTube." YouTube quote.

So you really think real PEOPLE are going to review 300 hours video every minute!! It ain't never going to happen.

You don't have to sort through all that to understand where quality content is originating.  Also, algorithms do the heavy lifting, humans then work through the smaller samples.  

As noted, that's why I think human curation will be a luxury service in the near future.  Because it's time consuming and of value.  When everything's an ocean of information, those that offer you a chance to wade into a clean heated pool where you're nice and comfy...well, that has high worth.

[dbp]

4 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

"300 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute! Almost 5 billion videos are watched on Youtube every single day. In an average month, 8 out of 10 18-49 year-olds watch YouTube." YouTube quote.

So you really think real PEOPLE are going to review 300 hours of video every minute!! It ain't never going to happen.

True, but they don't have to watch *everything*, they just have to stop automatically allowing ads once you pass basic viewer number thresholds. Make it a privilege. 

Honestly, part of me is happy about this. Youtube was becoming this junky clickbait, desperate for views cesspole. I feel bad for those working hard to provide genuinely valuable content, but fuck those clowns who are just churning out boring "ohhhh so edgy" nonsense for money. 

 

 

[webrunner5]

Well there is going to be a hell of a lot of unhappy people if YouTube goes away. And with no ads it will happen, bigger than hell. No one else can step up to do it if they go.

I used to buy skids of old servers YouTube used to re sale. They go through them like water. They have Thousands and Thousands of them. They have people Hot Swapping Hard Drives on Roller Skates. Really they do. That is their job ALL day.

So no one could just come in, take over what YouTube handles with that many Gigabits of data servers wise. Ain't happening.

[actionfrank]

2 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

You don't have to sort through all that to understand where quality content is originating.  Also, algorithms do the heavy lifting, humans then work through the smaller samples.  

As noted, that's why I think human curation will be a luxury service in the near future.  Because it's time consuming and of value.  When everything's an ocean of information, those that offer you a chance to wade into a clean heated pool where you're nice and comfy...well, that has high worth.

Also, an overwhelming majority of the views come from a very small percentage of videos. I read somewhere that over 99% of all videos on youtube have fewer than 100 views. In theory, google could easily identify the top 10,000 channels (which would probably cover the majority of views site wide), hire 1,000 employees, assign 10 channels to each employee, and then sell ads against the channels that make sense to sell ads against.

Of course that will never happen, because the whole point of google is to automate human workers out of existence, even if humans could obviously do a better job at it.

[ND64]

Google needs to hire humans to handle human stuff like freedom, culture, content quality, controversies.. etc. AI algorithms that can't even realize jokes shouldn't manage everything. 

[jonpais]

10 minutes ago, Eric Calabros said:

Google needs to hire humans to handle human stuff like freedom, culture, content quality, controversies.. etc. AI algorithms that can't even realize jokes shouldn't manage everything. 

With over a billion users around the world, might be a logistical nightmare.  

[jcs]

Did they pull ALL ads from everything? Even our copyright-flagged content no longer has ads??