4 ms·

I think one of the problems that YouTube has is their three-strikes policy and how they interact with said offending user. When a video gets flagged, it suppos

I think one of the problems that YouTube has is their three-strikes policy and how they interact with said offending user. When a video gets flagged, it supposedly is queued up for manual review. Upon manual review, if the YouTube employee deems that the video has broken one of its rules, it will take the video down and it will notify the uploader that they have received a strike. That's all fine, but the problem is really in how they handle this interaction. They tell the user which "set of rules" they've broken (e.g. "Hate speech, discrimination or other forms of bigotry based on race, gender or religion"), but they get no more specific than that. They do not offer a timestamp for the exact moment in which you violated their rules. The result is as you'd expect. I'm sure many terrible videos are rightly taken down this way, but there are plenty of people who don't believe their video violated any rules and are seeking clarification on what they did wrong. It would also be beneficial for the relationship between YouTube and its creators if there was an opportunity for restitution. For example, maybe YouTube informs the user that their video has violated a rule and if they don't take it down within some period of time, they will receive a strike and it will be taken down automatically (of course, with the knowledge that some types of videos should be taken down immediately). Maybe when YouTube takes a video down, they could timestamp it and tell the user that they can re-upload the video without that specific part. As it is now, there are people who make their livings on YouTube, and these somewhat vague rules and the nebulous enforcement of them does not instill creators (I'm talking about creators who post about divisive or controversial things - could be something as simple as viewpoints on modern political news) with a feeling of security and the end-result may be that they simply move to a different platform. If YouTube listens to the complaints of this 'FairTube' group and engages them, I think that'd be best for everyone.

zamalek 7y ago
Not to mention the stories of creators losing money to false claims. YouTube should should the money is escrow until copyright strikes are resolved one way or another because, as it stands, creators don't have the resources to fight the rampant safe harbor fraud.
- pluma 7y ago
  It's even worse than that. Sure, a chunk of the video's initial ad revenue will be lost over illegitimate claims but if the video is restricted, the video is basically dead. Most videos get the lion share of their views in the time immediately after they're uploaded (i.e. the first day or week). If the video gets stuck in limbo, not only isn't the creator making any money but also the video will underperform and any cost of producing that video will have virtually no return on investment. So in other words, smaller channels can easily get stuck producing worse content because the risk of investing significant amounts of time into a single video is too great. And even when channels don't rely on monetisation, lost exposure can limit their reach and harm their growth.
siffland 7y ago
I wonder what the percentage difference is of people getting copyright strikes vs. copyright ID claims. I do hear far less about strikes themselves, i would assume (big assumption on my part so i might be wrong) if a video had a lot of views one would want to make a copyright ID claim and monetize on the popularity, that would also give the creator a chance to dispute it. Also if you make all your living just being on youtube and no other platforms, in my opinion you are setting yourself up for failure. Youtube is a business with shareholders. They do have a responcibility for creators bringing in the money, but just like facebook, when you are a creator on youtube your ARE the product. One does not have to like someone calling them a product, but it is still the truth.

zamalek 7y ago

Not to mention the stories of creators losing money to false claims. YouTube should should the money is escrow until copyright strikes are resolved one way or another because, as it stands, creators don't have the resources to fight the rampant safe harbor fraud.

pluma 7y ago
It's even worse than that. Sure, a chunk of the video's initial ad revenue will be lost over illegitimate claims but if the video is restricted, the video is basically dead. Most videos get the lion share of their views in the time immediately after they're uploaded (i.e. the first day or week). If the video gets stuck in limbo, not only isn't the creator making any money but also the video will underperform and any cost of producing that video will have virtually no return on investment. So in other words, smaller channels can easily get stuck producing worse content because the risk of investing significant amounts of time into a single video is too great. And even when channels don't rely on monetisation, lost exposure can limit their reach and harm their growth.

siffland 7y ago

I wonder what the percentage difference is of people getting copyright strikes vs. copyright ID claims. I do hear far less about strikes themselves, i would assume (big assumption on my part so i might be wrong) if a video had a lot of views one would want to make a copyright ID claim and monetize on the popularity, that would also give the creator a chance to dispute it. Also if you make all your living just being on youtube and no other platforms, in my opinion you are setting yourself up for failure. Youtube is a business with shareholders. They do have a responcibility for creators bringing in the money, but just like facebook, when you are a creator on youtube your ARE the product. One does not have to like someone calling them a product, but it is still the truth.