3 ms·

An important note here, if you cannot enable monetize videos, YouTube will not allow you to link to patreon or other sites. https://i.imgur.com/byCxnAj.jpg htt

by throwaway2048 9y ago

An important note here, if you cannot enable monetize videos, YouTube will not allow you to link to patreon or other sites. https://i.imgur.com/byCxnAj.jpg https://i.imgur.com/byCxnAj.jpg Its not enough for Google to ban you from ads, they have decided to cut off any other funding source aswell...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
noitsnot 9y ago
I really don't understand how they have made it to this point.
- lovich 9y ago
  The government doesn't try to prevent monopolies anymore, and once you're a monopoly you have more than enough power to stop competitors if you pay even a modicum of attention to them
  - colejohnson66 9y ago
    The problem is that YouTube isn’t a monopoly. There’s other video sharing sites available such as Vimeo. Also, everyone uses YouTube and private companies don’t have to respect the freedom of speech ideal.
    - lovich 9y ago
      The colliqual usage of monopoly does not mean that the group described as a monoply has 100% of the market as seen here[1]. Having nearly all of the market is sufficient to be described as a monopoly. Once you are able to unialterally affect the market as you wish, because you control such a large portion of it, you are exercising monoply power. As an example Microsoft didn't control 100% of operating systems when the US government went after them, but they were still found to have been absuing their monoply power. Google putting their reviews above the search results when you search for a restaurant, which always made them appear before Yelp's, is pretty much the exact same situation as Microsoft forcing IE to be the default browser on Windows but you don't hear anyone in the government even hint at going after Google nowadays [1]http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp
anyfoo 9y ago
That is absolutely disgusting, and may actually threaten any niche channel which is not mainstream enough to generate a significant amount of clicks, but which so far has been able to keep alive using Patreon and other donations. That was my favorite thing about YouTube: Unlike Cable TV, not all content was converging towards the lowest common denominator, because creators of e.g. advanced science and engineering topics could keep afloat with the dedicated support of a small community. At least (I hope) creators can still mention their Patreon in their videos.
glogla 9y ago
Yep. This move is about removing "advertiser unfriendly" content from YT, nothing else.
- delroth 9y ago
  My understanding is that demonetization for "advertiser unfriendliness" is per-video. It doesn't influence the capability of linking to external websites, since this is an account wide capability.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

noitsnot 9y ago

I really don't understand how they have made it to this point.

lovich 9y ago
The government doesn't try to prevent monopolies anymore, and once you're a monopoly you have more than enough power to stop competitors if you pay even a modicum of attention to them
- colejohnson66 9y ago
  The problem is that YouTube isn’t a monopoly. There’s other video sharing sites available such as Vimeo. Also, everyone uses YouTube and private companies don’t have to respect the freedom of speech ideal.
  - lovich 9y ago
    The colliqual usage of monopoly does not mean that the group described as a monoply has 100% of the market as seen here[1]. Having nearly all of the market is sufficient to be described as a monopoly. Once you are able to unialterally affect the market as you wish, because you control such a large portion of it, you are exercising monoply power. As an example Microsoft didn't control 100% of operating systems when the US government went after them, but they were still found to have been absuing their monoply power. Google putting their reviews above the search results when you search for a restaurant, which always made them appear before Yelp's, is pretty much the exact same situation as Microsoft forcing IE to be the default browser on Windows but you don't hear anyone in the government even hint at going after Google nowadays [1]http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopoly.asp

anyfoo 9y ago

That is absolutely disgusting, and may actually threaten any niche channel which is not mainstream enough to generate a significant amount of clicks, but which so far has been able to keep alive using Patreon and other donations. That was my favorite thing about YouTube: Unlike Cable TV, not all content was converging towards the lowest common denominator, because creators of e.g. advanced science and engineering topics could keep afloat with the dedicated support of a small community. At least (I hope) creators can still mention their Patreon in their videos.

glogla 9y ago

Yep. This move is about removing "advertiser unfriendly" content from YT, nothing else.

delroth 9y ago
My understanding is that demonetization for "advertiser unfriendliness" is per-video. It doesn't influence the capability of linking to external websites, since this is an account wide capability.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]