3 ms·

It doesn't matter. Youtube videos are a business to some people so anything that has _potential_ to harm revenue will go straight out of the window. "Is it wo

It doesn't matter. Youtube videos are a business to some people so anything that has _potential_ to harm revenue will go straight out of the window. "Is it worth to include this kid in my skit if it will reduce the revenue by 10%?" Combine this with 10s of other already existing hypotheticals and you have yourself a neutered vlog machine that is today's youtube.

Wowfunhappy 8y ago
> "Is it worth to include this kid in my skit if it will reduce the revenue by 10%?" Yeah, that answer is easy—it's not worth it. I'm more interested in what happens if it's accidental. You mention vlogs. If a "vlogger" is recording themselves walking down the street, and a kid passes into the frame, what do they do? Do they need to scrap the clip and start over? Do they attempt to edit out the kid? Do you just never record in public anymore? Actually, that last option seems the most practical, but it robs the whole piece of its intimacy. If Youtube elects to take the stricter approach to this, it's going to have unintended consequences that I'm not seeing anyone else talk about right now. I almost wonder if it would be better to remove public commenting entirely.
- kabacha 8y ago
  My vlogger example was rather lazy. I'm not really sure how to define the current meta youtube content but "creative" is definitely not a word would be using for majority of it. I mean every youtuber thinks about how to avoid being demotized or just in general reduced profits. I think your point about public filming is very valid as well. Even if the risk that your video will get caught in the filter is <5% it's still not a risk worth taking. I watch a lot of skating videos and un-surprisingly enough they feature kids, sometimes as main subjects but often in the background. Filming at skatepark is suddenly a considerable risk because a falling kid might evoke some sexual conotation in extreme minority. This is a lazy solution that unfortunately just be adapted into the collosal folder of other lazy youtube solutions until this medium loses the last bits of creativity it had.

Wowfunhappy 8y ago

> "Is it worth to include this kid in my skit if it will reduce the revenue by 10%?" Yeah, that answer is easy—it's not worth it. I'm more interested in what happens if it's accidental. You mention vlogs. If a "vlogger" is recording themselves walking down the street, and a kid passes into the frame, what do they do? Do they need to scrap the clip and start over? Do they attempt to edit out the kid? Do you just never record in public anymore? Actually, that last option seems the most practical, but it robs the whole piece of its intimacy. If Youtube elects to take the stricter approach to this, it's going to have unintended consequences that I'm not seeing anyone else talk about right now. I almost wonder if it would be better to remove public commenting entirely.

kabacha 8y ago
My vlogger example was rather lazy. I'm not really sure how to define the current meta youtube content but "creative" is definitely not a word would be using for majority of it. I mean every youtuber thinks about how to avoid being demotized or just in general reduced profits. I think your point about public filming is very valid as well. Even if the risk that your video will get caught in the filter is <5% it's still not a risk worth taking. I watch a lot of skating videos and un-surprisingly enough they feature kids, sometimes as main subjects but often in the background. Filming at skatepark is suddenly a considerable risk because a falling kid might evoke some sexual conotation in extreme minority. This is a lazy solution that unfortunately just be adapted into the collosal folder of other lazy youtube solutions until this medium loses the last bits of creativity it had.