4 ms·
This is a really, really bad idea. Heck, the 'inappropriate language' one alone is ridiculous, since that basically means (if enforced) that the likes of the An
by CM30 10y ago
This is a really, really bad idea. Heck, the 'inappropriate language' one alone is ridiculous, since that basically means (if enforced) that the likes of the Angry Video Game Nerd, Channel Awesome, the Yogscast, Angry Joe and even Pewdiepie couldn't monetise their videos...
In other words, it'd basically drive every 'caustic critic' off of YouTube for good, and with it, probably a very large chunk of the site's traffic.
The political conflicts one basically means amateur journalism and investigative reporting is unsustainable on the platform, since by definition most journalism deals with political subjects that often involve things like war, crimes, terrorism, etc.
The stuff about violence and sexual content could easily be applied to media like video games, and end up driving off whatever gaming channels aren't already annoyed by the swearing prohibitions.
And then there's talk of 'harassment', which can be applied so vaguely it's almost meaningless. Especially in today's age where 'harassment' has basically come to mean 'anything that makes anyone feel uncomfortable or criticises them or their ideas'.
So yeah, they'd better get rid of these guidelines soon, otherwise they could well kill a large percentage of the site's traffic in one foul swoop. They're trying to turn a video platform in network television (well, very watered down network television) and it won't work.
- pdkl95 10y ago> (if enforced) The enforcement already started with Philip DeFranco's videos[1], and quickly spread to various other youtubers. The targets seem to be the usual "controversial" topics and political content in general. Videos about depression seem to be one of the targets[2]? Maybe? There also seems to be inconsistency between hitting certain popular youtubers that produce some form of "news"[3], while allowing blatant clickbait, bullying, and propaganda[4] about the same topics. > so vaguely it's almost meaningless That's vague enough, but their cornerstone of selective enforcement will be the "...but is not limited to..." clause. > otherwise they could well kill a large percentage of the site's traffic I fear that may be the goal. If YouTube isn't profitable for Google, they may want to cut their expenses by encouraging some of their heavier users off the site. [1] https://twitter.com/PhillyD/status/771026030442090496 https://twitter.com/PhillyD/status/771026030442090496 https://twitter.com/PhillyD/status/771054150733803521 https://twitter.com/PhillyD/status/771054150733803521 [2] https://twitter.com/LukeIsNotSexy/status/771124768280043521 https://twitter.com/LukeIsNotSexy/status/771124768280043521 [3] I'm being very generous in what might be called "news". I may not like a lot of it, but even shallow clickbait can contain at least some journalism. [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEUR7xsAtA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKEUR7xsAtA
- CM30 10y agoYeah, the fact they've already started enforcing it for people like Philip DeFranco (whose videos are news content) is worrying. As for trying to lower expenses by doing this... well, perhaps, but if your popular users leave, then your ad revenue will drop far more than the money you'll save. It's like a news station firing all their journalists and presenters to save costs and then thinking 'oh crap, we have no way to get people to use our site/newspaper now'.
- squozzer 10y agoActually, it sounds worse than network news, which has no problem monetizing controversial content, such as crime, war, civil unrest, etc.