5 ms·

Wait, am I reading this right? If you're a particularly popular channel, you're required to monetize and YT will block you if you don't? That's ridiculous, and

Wait, am I reading this right? If you're a particularly popular channel, you're required to monetize and YT will block you if you don't? That's ridiculous, and it's totally shooting yourself in the foot. The vast majority of creators with many views do want to monetize, YouTube is losing almost nothing by allowing people not to if they choose. They must be really be desparate for revenue over there.

quadrangle 8y ago
If I skipped Hanlon's Razor and jumped to assuming your speculations are right, then I'd say Google wants to head off a future where people specifically donate to those who aren't doing ad-monetizing (i.e. the only ones who actually deserve donations!!) Google wants creators funded, but they want the system to push their ad-focused approach. The last thing Google wants is a future where the (unethical, horrible, destructive) surveillance-capitalism-ad-tech economy goes away…
- stcredzero 8y ago
  > The last thing Google wants is a future where the (unethical, horrible, destructive) surveillance-capitalism-ad-tech economy goes away… Because the corporate culture of Google/YouTube has changed into one of authoritarian adherence. This is the natural result.
  - vkou 8y ago
    > Because the corporate culture of Google/YouTube has changed into one of authoritarian adherence. This is the natural result. Really? Is that what you've taken away from the Maven debate? There's a couple simpler, far more plausible explanations.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Really? Is that what you've taken away from the Maven debate? It's a number of observations. It's only natural that a company like YouTube would seek to monetize and shift towards the mainstream. It's what they are doing with the long tail and the creative margins which is suspect.
- notriddle 8y ago
  They should set up a way for viewers to fund creators through YouTube itself instead of through a third-party crowdfunding service. That way, they can take their cut for keeping the lights on. Since they know what videos you watch, they could automatically distribute teh monies the same way they already do, but just not show you an ad. What would be really nice, from a viewer standpoint, would be if it was done on a flat subscription rate, like Sirius XM and the BBC do it. Basically make a premium version of YouTube, but I'm sure their marketing department will try to give it a cooler, but less useful, name than YouTube Premium. And they shouldn't freaking block videos because the creators flipped a switch. That's just stupid. If they're not willing to offer the videos without ads, then offer the videos with ads.
  - Sabinus 8y ago
    They're actually trialing this feature. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6304294 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6304294
  - quadrangle 8y ago
    They are happy enough to get into that world if it's part of keeping everyone on YouTube where they still get to be the dominant ad system overall. Google's strategy as they offer patronage options will be to make it a ransom that removes ads. That way, the ads are still there for non-patrons and Google gets to keep their primary business model. What I'm saying is that patronage should go to those who treat the public better by not showing ads to anyone. We shouldn't reward bad behavior through ransoms that make the bad stuff go away just for those who pay up. http://mimiandeunice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ME_486_PokeBlocker.png http://mimiandeunice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ME_486_P...
simion314 8y ago
There are channels that have direct sponsors, I think sometimes the deal with the sponsor is to not monetize the video, so if I get sponsored by Intel I would have to turn off the ads in case an AMD ad would show up. This is a speculation of mine from what I observed on some tech channels I am not familiar with YT Terms and Conditions. If you get third party sponsors and not allow monetization is YT getting nothing? If yes then we can see what they are trying to make here.
falcolas 8y ago
If its not monetized, then YouTube has no way to make money off the views; no way to recoup the costs associated with hosting those videos. History, morality, and good will aside, its in their financial best interest to not allow videos which are not monetized.
- zelon88 8y ago
  Then they run the risk of ostracizing creators. Creators bring viewers to YouTube. In many ways YT is like Pandora. The "product" of YouTube is other people's creativity. YT is free to block whatever content they want for whatever reason. However, creators will follow the path of least resistance and viewers will follow creators. Push the creators away and there will be no viewers to show ads to.
- atrus 8y ago
  Sure, but YouTube gives the option to not monetize your videos. You can't give your users and option and then be upset when some users pick that option. If people picking that option is causing problems for your business, you take that option away.
  - jkchu 8y ago
    But isn't that what YouTube was essentially trying to do here?
- UncleEntity 8y ago
  Other than using them as loss-leaders, people watch a blender foundation video then deep dive into the multitude of monetized tutorials on the YouTubes. I'd venture to say most people learning blender will spend a significant time on YouTube, blender isn't the easiest thing to learn by a long shot.
- mistercow 8y ago
  That's kind of like saying it's in a restaurant's financial best interest not to give free refills. Running a profitable business is not simply a matter of directly reclaiming every dollar you spend.
ucaetano 8y ago
Wait, a company wants to make money on its free service? Shocking.
- DanBC 8y ago
  The company could realise the goodwill generated by allowing some limited channels to run video without ads, and the badwill generated by blocking those videos.
- a888 8y ago
  'free' service
ajross 8y ago
More like if you're a particularly popular channel with revenue and a budget. YouTube isn't a service for nonprofits to use to offload their bandwidth costs. If you have money to pay for your other expenses, it's not reasonable to expect this one supplier to do it for free. Morally, Google deserves some kind of reimbursement here. Advertising is certainly one way to square that. Honestly I don't see what the big deal is here.
- ng12 8y ago
  Aside from the fact that Blender is a non-profit backing a free, open-source application -- you're right. YouTube does have that right. And I have the right to think holding the dissemination of free educational material hostage to make a quick buck is reprehensible. Also don't forget that YouTube gave them the option to not advertise on those videos. It's so arbitrarily capricious I was convinced it was a technical mishap when the news first broke.
  - ajross 8y ago
    > Aside from the fact that Blender is a non-profit backing a free, open-source application The Blender Foundation isn't "Blender", though. It's a financial entity with income (there's literally a giant "donate" link on their home page) and expenses. They pay for all sorts of stuff that they need (obviously I have no clue what their balance sheet looks like). And no one whines that they don't get free conference admission or airline tickets or printer paper or whatever. Why is their video hosting any different?
    - ng12 8y ago
      > And no one whines that they don't get free conference admission or airline tickets or printer paper or whatever Those are terrible analogies. YouTube offers free hosting with the ability to opt out of monetizing your videos -- features that they will apparently punish you for using. That is absurdly user-hostile.
      - ajross 8y ago
stcredzero 8y ago
Wait, am I reading this right? If you're a particularly popular channel, you're required to monetize and YT will block you if you don't? That's ridiculous, and it's totally shooting yourself in the foot. People using power over the private YouTube platform to push political agendas through censorship crossed the "ridiculous, and it's totally shooting yourself in the foot" threshold awhile back. It's just that it's leaking into the monetization realm. This is what happens when you let authoritarian mindsets take over your company's culture. You wind up with a company that can't keep its hands off the ecosystem it's supposedly fostering.
taneq 8y ago
Yeah, I don't get it. Publish something YT doesn't like, and we'll demonetize you! Publish something YT likes, and... we'll force you to monetize?
lostsock 8y ago
I can't see anything in the linked contract that says YT is forcing them to monetize it. Other than one email months ago that hasn't been confirmed I see nothing to suggest this is a policy change YT have actually made.

Wait, am I reading this right? If you're a particularly popular channel, you're required to monetize and YT will block you if you don't? That's ridiculous, and it's totally shooting yourself in the foot. The vast majority of creators with many views do want to monetize, YouTube is losing almost nothing by allowing people not to if they choose. They must be really be desparate for revenue over there.

quadrangle 8y ago

If I skipped Hanlon's Razor and jumped to assuming your speculations are right, then I'd say Google wants to head off a future where people specifically donate to those who aren't doing ad-monetizing (i.e. the only ones who actually deserve donations!!) Google wants creators funded, but they want the system to push their ad-focused approach. The last thing Google wants is a future where the (unethical, horrible, destructive) surveillance-capitalism-ad-tech economy goes away…

stcredzero 8y ago
> The last thing Google wants is a future where the (unethical, horrible, destructive) surveillance-capitalism-ad-tech economy goes away… Because the corporate culture of Google/YouTube has changed into one of authoritarian adherence. This is the natural result.
- vkou 8y ago
  > Because the corporate culture of Google/YouTube has changed into one of authoritarian adherence. This is the natural result. Really? Is that what you've taken away from the Maven debate? There's a couple simpler, far more plausible explanations.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Really? Is that what you've taken away from the Maven debate? It's a number of observations. It's only natural that a company like YouTube would seek to monetize and shift towards the mainstream. It's what they are doing with the long tail and the creative margins which is suspect.
notriddle 8y ago
They should set up a way for viewers to fund creators through YouTube itself instead of through a third-party crowdfunding service. That way, they can take their cut for keeping the lights on. Since they know what videos you watch, they could automatically distribute teh monies the same way they already do, but just not show you an ad. What would be really nice, from a viewer standpoint, would be if it was done on a flat subscription rate, like Sirius XM and the BBC do it. Basically make a premium version of YouTube, but I'm sure their marketing department will try to give it a cooler, but less useful, name than YouTube Premium. And they shouldn't freaking block videos because the creators flipped a switch. That's just stupid. If they're not willing to offer the videos without ads, then offer the videos with ads.
- Sabinus 8y ago
  They're actually trialing this feature. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6304294 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6304294
- quadrangle 8y ago
  They are happy enough to get into that world if it's part of keeping everyone on YouTube where they still get to be the dominant ad system overall. Google's strategy as they offer patronage options will be to make it a ransom that removes ads. That way, the ads are still there for non-patrons and Google gets to keep their primary business model. What I'm saying is that patronage should go to those who treat the public better by not showing ads to anyone. We shouldn't reward bad behavior through ransoms that make the bad stuff go away just for those who pay up. http://mimiandeunice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ME_486_PokeBlocker.png http://mimiandeunice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ME_486_P...

simion314 8y ago

There are channels that have direct sponsors, I think sometimes the deal with the sponsor is to not monetize the video, so if I get sponsored by Intel I would have to turn off the ads in case an AMD ad would show up. This is a speculation of mine from what I observed on some tech channels I am not familiar with YT Terms and Conditions. If you get third party sponsors and not allow monetization is YT getting nothing? If yes then we can see what they are trying to make here.

falcolas 8y ago

If its not monetized, then YouTube has no way to make money off the views; no way to recoup the costs associated with hosting those videos. History, morality, and good will aside, its in their financial best interest to not allow videos which are not monetized.

zelon88 8y ago
Then they run the risk of ostracizing creators. Creators bring viewers to YouTube. In many ways YT is like Pandora. The "product" of YouTube is other people's creativity. YT is free to block whatever content they want for whatever reason. However, creators will follow the path of least resistance and viewers will follow creators. Push the creators away and there will be no viewers to show ads to.
atrus 8y ago
Sure, but YouTube gives the option to not monetize your videos. You can't give your users and option and then be upset when some users pick that option. If people picking that option is causing problems for your business, you take that option away.
- jkchu 8y ago
  But isn't that what YouTube was essentially trying to do here?
UncleEntity 8y ago
Other than using them as loss-leaders, people watch a blender foundation video then deep dive into the multitude of monetized tutorials on the YouTubes. I'd venture to say most people learning blender will spend a significant time on YouTube, blender isn't the easiest thing to learn by a long shot.
mistercow 8y ago
That's kind of like saying it's in a restaurant's financial best interest not to give free refills. Running a profitable business is not simply a matter of directly reclaiming every dollar you spend.

ucaetano 8y ago

Wait, a company wants to make money on its free service? Shocking.

DanBC 8y ago
The company could realise the goodwill generated by allowing some limited channels to run video without ads, and the badwill generated by blocking those videos.
a888 8y ago
'free' service

ajross 8y ago

More like if you're a particularly popular channel with revenue and a budget. YouTube isn't a service for nonprofits to use to offload their bandwidth costs. If you have money to pay for your other expenses, it's not reasonable to expect this one supplier to do it for free. Morally, Google deserves some kind of reimbursement here. Advertising is certainly one way to square that. Honestly I don't see what the big deal is here.

ng12 8y ago
Aside from the fact that Blender is a non-profit backing a free, open-source application -- you're right. YouTube does have that right. And I have the right to think holding the dissemination of free educational material hostage to make a quick buck is reprehensible. Also don't forget that YouTube gave them the option to not advertise on those videos. It's so arbitrarily capricious I was convinced it was a technical mishap when the news first broke.
- ajross 8y ago
  > Aside from the fact that Blender is a non-profit backing a free, open-source application The Blender Foundation isn't "Blender", though. It's a financial entity with income (there's literally a giant "donate" link on their home page) and expenses. They pay for all sorts of stuff that they need (obviously I have no clue what their balance sheet looks like). And no one whines that they don't get free conference admission or airline tickets or printer paper or whatever. Why is their video hosting any different?
  - ng12 8y ago
    > And no one whines that they don't get free conference admission or airline tickets or printer paper or whatever Those are terrible analogies. YouTube offers free hosting with the ability to opt out of monetizing your videos -- features that they will apparently punish you for using. That is absurdly user-hostile.
    - ajross 8y ago

stcredzero 8y ago

Wait, am I reading this right? If you're a particularly popular channel, you're required to monetize and YT will block you if you don't? That's ridiculous, and it's totally shooting yourself in the foot. People using power over the private YouTube platform to push political agendas through censorship crossed the "ridiculous, and it's totally shooting yourself in the foot" threshold awhile back. It's just that it's leaking into the monetization realm. This is what happens when you let authoritarian mindsets take over your company's culture. You wind up with a company that can't keep its hands off the ecosystem it's supposedly fostering.

taneq 8y ago

Yeah, I don't get it. Publish something YT doesn't like, and we'll demonetize you! Publish something YT likes, and... we'll force you to monetize?

lostsock 8y ago

I can't see anything in the linked contract that says YT is forcing them to monetize it. Other than one email months ago that hasn't been confirmed I see nothing to suggest this is a policy change YT have actually made.