6 ms·

> No idea why they don't have a whitelist for channels with 10 years of a spotless record. Give it 30 seconds of thought, and it'll be blindingly obvious. "Go

> No idea why they don't have a whitelist for channels with 10 years of a spotless record. Give it 30 seconds of thought, and it'll be blindingly obvious. "Google/Alphabet doesnt have to pay them for the content now." My question, why do they keep using a platform that's screwing them over? Yippee: -3. Evidently stating the emperors new clothes are his birthday suit is bad/wrong.

mdwrigh2 9y ago
> "Google/Alphabet doesnt have to pay them for the content now." When a video is demonetized, only a small subset of advertisers or no advertisers can be shown on that video. If no ads are being shown then neither Google nor the creator are making money (and Google is spending money to host and serve the content), so really this is a lose/lose for both of them.
- crankylinuxuser 9y ago
  Yes, and demonetized also de-indexes from search and hides the video unless directly shared. AvE has been dealing with this very issue, where he'd upload a new vid, and within an hour, demonetized. It would within 1 day go unindexed. And for those who don't know, the first 48 hours is when most views come in. So, no ads = no money. He figured out if you make the video unindexed, then it would be demonet'ed. Then he would argue, and monet would be turned on. And then he'd make it public. AvE got sick of that, and moved to Patreon, and then releases videos telling people to install Adblocks to stop youtube ads. (Pateron's had its own recent scandal https://blog.patreon.com/updating-patreons-fee-structure/ https://blog.patreon.com/updating-patreons-fee-structure/ - Ive been seeing quite a few artists and customers move away from that platform. Where will they go? Who knows.. I digress.) But to a larger point, storage space is near-zero cost. Bandwidth over a video that's unindexed is ~=0. And if unindexed stale video happens to go away, aww gee shucks. Google keeps the mindshare as being the only videosite in town, and starves any upstarts with their monopoly of videosite/ad/search proficiency. Tl;Dr: Google is a very bad actor here.
  - jacksmith21006 9y ago
    There is nothing in your post that suggest Google is a bad actor. They do not benefit in anyway when fine content is demonetized. It actually cost them.
simion314 9y ago
I think the way you responded caused your downvotes not the point you made. Google is not paying the creators for uploading a video, then you can upload 100 videos a day and get money, the creator gets payed only if ads run on the video but if the video runs ads then Google also gets payed, so me creating a popular video and running ads on it will make Google money. I suspect Google is afraid of detailing why a video was flagged because bad people could adapt and not use those words but other equivalent, but this hits hard on good creators and frustrates them. Why are not creators moving to other providers? Because the consumers are on youtube for now, but I noticed a few youtubers moving on Twitch completly so if a few more youtube alternatives would show up then with the bad karma youtube is getting now google may not be able to reverse the migration to new platforms. Google should admit that their AI is dumb, colaborate with creators in finding a solution, maybe have a reputation system like if this channel has a good reputation and our AI is confused then assume AI is dumb until proven that creator is bad.
- pixl97 9y ago
  > because bad people could adapt and not use those words but other equivalent, but this hits hard on good creators and frustrates them A bad actor will try to find the limits to your system 10,000 times. A good actor will give up and go elsewhere. When everybody loses the bad actor will gain more perspectively.
jacksmith21006 9y ago
Wrong. Google still has the expense of serving the video without the ad revenue. They do not benefit but instead the exact opposite.
- Tarq0n 9y ago
  Google might still incur a net benefit from keeping viewers on their platform where they'll also watch monetized videos.
  - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
    That's precisely it. "Social Media", be it facebook empire, twitter, twitch, google empire, amazon empire... They want mindshare. They want people to keep using it, millions of people. Because the bigger the number, the more they can use various ways to entrap people into those platforms. People keep saying that a demonetized video costs - the trivial bandwidth and storage of a deindexed video is miniscule. Yet, making people think they're the only game in town is all encompassing. You deal with them and their games and give them content, or you go away. And not only that, but when people put up videos, they're also giving Google/Alphabet free machine vision content. Which that is actually worth quite a bit because content's hard to just generate.

mdwrigh2 9y ago

> "Google/Alphabet doesnt have to pay them for the content now." When a video is demonetized, only a small subset of advertisers or no advertisers can be shown on that video. If no ads are being shown then neither Google nor the creator are making money (and Google is spending money to host and serve the content), so really this is a lose/lose for both of them.

crankylinuxuser 9y ago
Yes, and demonetized also de-indexes from search and hides the video unless directly shared. AvE has been dealing with this very issue, where he'd upload a new vid, and within an hour, demonetized. It would within 1 day go unindexed. And for those who don't know, the first 48 hours is when most views come in. So, no ads = no money. He figured out if you make the video unindexed, then it would be demonet'ed. Then he would argue, and monet would be turned on. And then he'd make it public. AvE got sick of that, and moved to Patreon, and then releases videos telling people to install Adblocks to stop youtube ads. (Pateron's had its own recent scandal https://blog.patreon.com/updating-patreons-fee-structure/ https://blog.patreon.com/updating-patreons-fee-structure/ - Ive been seeing quite a few artists and customers move away from that platform. Where will they go? Who knows.. I digress.) But to a larger point, storage space is near-zero cost. Bandwidth over a video that's unindexed is ~=0. And if unindexed stale video happens to go away, aww gee shucks. Google keeps the mindshare as being the only videosite in town, and starves any upstarts with their monopoly of videosite/ad/search proficiency. Tl;Dr: Google is a very bad actor here.
- jacksmith21006 9y ago
  There is nothing in your post that suggest Google is a bad actor. They do not benefit in anyway when fine content is demonetized. It actually cost them.

simion314 9y ago

I think the way you responded caused your downvotes not the point you made. Google is not paying the creators for uploading a video, then you can upload 100 videos a day and get money, the creator gets payed only if ads run on the video but if the video runs ads then Google also gets payed, so me creating a popular video and running ads on it will make Google money. I suspect Google is afraid of detailing why a video was flagged because bad people could adapt and not use those words but other equivalent, but this hits hard on good creators and frustrates them. Why are not creators moving to other providers? Because the consumers are on youtube for now, but I noticed a few youtubers moving on Twitch completly so if a few more youtube alternatives would show up then with the bad karma youtube is getting now google may not be able to reverse the migration to new platforms. Google should admit that their AI is dumb, colaborate with creators in finding a solution, maybe have a reputation system like if this channel has a good reputation and our AI is confused then assume AI is dumb until proven that creator is bad.

pixl97 9y ago
> because bad people could adapt and not use those words but other equivalent, but this hits hard on good creators and frustrates them A bad actor will try to find the limits to your system 10,000 times. A good actor will give up and go elsewhere. When everybody loses the bad actor will gain more perspectively.

jacksmith21006 9y ago

Wrong. Google still has the expense of serving the video without the ad revenue. They do not benefit but instead the exact opposite.

Tarq0n 9y ago
Google might still incur a net benefit from keeping viewers on their platform where they'll also watch monetized videos.
- crankylinuxuser 9y ago
  That's precisely it. "Social Media", be it facebook empire, twitter, twitch, google empire, amazon empire... They want mindshare. They want people to keep using it, millions of people. Because the bigger the number, the more they can use various ways to entrap people into those platforms. People keep saying that a demonetized video costs - the trivial bandwidth and storage of a deindexed video is miniscule. Yet, making people think they're the only game in town is all encompassing. You deal with them and their games and give them content, or you go away. And not only that, but when people put up videos, they're also giving Google/Alphabet free machine vision content. Which that is actually worth quite a bit because content's hard to just generate.