3 ms·

Well, I fall on the side of calling a situation involving a company promoting a service that is monetized and then suddenly (sometimes quietly) removing said mo

Well, I fall on the side of calling a situation involving a company promoting a service that is monetized and then suddenly (sometimes quietly) removing said monetization from people with little or no attempt at justification with strange/vague rules that no one understands nor will the company bother to explain as screwing your clients or customers or creators or whatever we wish to call them. But I admit that could just be me.

Klathmon 8y ago
But Google is explaining their actions here, at least on a macro level. The blog post at [0] as well as an email summarizing the situation was sent to every channel under the new threshold for monetization. And any time a video is demonetized, they are given links to various help articles like [1] that go over what isn't allowed. You are also sent a link on how to appeal the decision at [2] They don't speak to an individual reason or reasons, and likely never will, because it's too easy to game that. You end up with people following the "letter of the law" but not the spirit, then if you decide to ban them anyway, you get called out for applying rules inconsistently. There's a reason why our legal system has judges, lawyers, juries, and takes many years in some cases to come to a conclusion. This shit is extremely difficult to manage at any scale. [0] https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2018/01/additional-changes-to-youtube-partner.html https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2018/01/additional-c... [1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278 [2] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7083671#appeal https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7083671#appeal