7 ms·

Imagine you work hard editing for a day / days, and put out a video and go to bed. You wake up the next morning and find that after the first 3,000 views, the v

Imagine you work hard editing for a day / days, and put out a video and go to bed. You wake up the next morning and find that after the first 3,000 views, the video was de-monetized and the remaining 500,000 views went generated no revenue. You complain to YouTube, they manually review it, and your video is re-monetized. Your views for that video barely increase for the rest of eternity. That bug just cost you X revenue. Multiply for the entire month. At the very least, YouTube can offer a service your video can go into limbo before it's sent out to your subscribers, where all of these "mistakes" can be ironed out. Perhaps the platform is de-monetizing video based on mass reporting - leaving the system open to be gamed by anyone who is okay with the ethics of brigading/report bombing. This is a VERY common thing these days. The other possibility is that the AI is generating false positives and de-monetizing as a result of it. Whichever the case may be, it ought to be possible for content creators to publish a video that is not mistakenly de-monetized for the vast majority of their viewers.

ramijames 7y ago
I think de-monetizing is part of Google's profit plan. They provide content for no cost, but can still show ads and earn revenues. It's a giant scam.
- paxys 7y ago
  > but can still show ads and earn revenues De-monetized videos do not show ads or earn revenue, so that actually hurts Google as well (of course it has indirect effects that are beneficial for Google overall).
  - hinkley 7y ago
    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
- warent 7y ago
  This is a little too cynical for my taste. Google isn't exactly a monument of ethical business, but I seriously doubt that Google would intentionally demonetize videos for the purpose of stealing from content creators.
  - stcredzero 7y ago
    Google isn't exactly a monument of ethical business, but I seriously doubt that Google would intentionally demonetize videos for the purpose of stealing from content creators. Whether it's intentional or accidental, it's readily apparent that their incentive structure doesn't motivate them a bit to correct the situation. Also, this mechanism makes it very easy for lower level employees with a political axe to grind, to punish viewpoints they don't like.
  - la_barba 7y ago
    Yes, whats more likely is that one of the countless bean counters at Google saw the long-tail revenue pie chart/breakdown and thought to themselves "Hmm! Would you look at that!" and just decided to not upset the apple cart..
  - senorjazz 7y ago
    Often used to hear the same accusations when adsense was a bigger thing. Accounts with expected big payouts would always get banned a few days before payout. They would accept all traffic you send them for the month, then just before paying out, banned. Perhaps a coincidence sure, but when accusations keep getting made about underhanded tactics, maybe there is somethig there <takes_off_hat_made_of_tinfoil>
    - drusepth 7y ago
      We're seeing a lot of sentiment similar to this on Quora as well, now that they pay question askers. This is the first time I've been on "the other side" and see what's actually going on, rather than just seeing blog posts about "I made $X and got banned a day before payout!" At least in Quora's case, almost everyone making thousands and getting banned right before a payout are gaming/scamming the system to make those thousands, and just play the "right before I got paid!" card whenever they get caught because, well, there _was_ another payday coming... even though they should have been demonetized a long time prior.
- untog 7y ago
  I thought there were no ads shown against demonetized videos?
- amiga_500 7y ago
  Isn’t this just yet another internet service that is not viable if vetted properly? Same as Facebook.
dev_dull 7y ago
> video based on mass reporting - leaving the system open to be gamed by anyone who is okay with the ethics of brigading/report bombing. This is a VERY common thing these days. I would say the “angry mob” is one of the biggest threats to free speech in our generation. If you can’t get the government to silence those you don’t like, try and get them deplatformed everywhere.
- blueboo 7y ago
  It’s the biggest threat to profiting off of speech, not of free speech. After all, doesn’t the angry mob amplify the message?
SignalsFromBob 7y ago
Why don't they pay for the 500,000 views after the video is re-monitized? This doesn't seem like a hard problem for Youtube to solve.
- lancesells 7y ago
  Those 500,000 views wouldn't have had ads shown on them. Some solutions might be: 1. Being able to automatically unpublish the video if it's de-monitized. 2. Have a monitoring service available that can fight copyright claims in real-time. 3. Don't upload at night and then go to sleep. :)
  - ohithereyou 7y ago
    Or: 4. Google accepts the risk they have to pay you out of pocket the amount you lost while you appealed their demonetization if you win. That risk should feed into how sensitive their automated system is at automatically demonitizing things. The only way Google cares enough to change this is if their demonetization practices cost them money when they get it wrong.
    - fareesh 7y ago
      Maybe they weigh the risk of creators leaving vs advertisers leaving. High profile creators haven't left yet. Advertisers have already bluffed a number of times and Google didn't call them on it.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      It does cost them money when they get it wrong. It's not as if google makes money off the demonetized video, they only make money if the creator does. People act like YouTube wants to demonetize videos, of course they don't, they would monetize every single second of YouTube if the advertisers allowed them to do so.
      - dexen 7y ago
        >It does cost them money when they get it wrong. Does it tho? Google has the problem of too much advertising space vs too few advertising clients. Being able to significantly cut down the advertising space means they get better prices across the board. Demonetizing any singular video (especially if suspect or borderline) is one time loss, long time profit.
mbesto 7y ago
> Imagine you work hard editing for a day / days. That bug just cost you X revenue. Multiply for the entire month. Counterpoint - it didn't cost you anything, it's just lost opportunity. Imagine you work hard editing for a day / days and literally no ones watches the videos you produce. You have no cost, but also no revenue. I understand why people want to criticize YT, but if you are using a service that will gladly pay the costs for your distribution with no upfront obligation and no on-going payment, then what do you expect? I mean this is why unions exist. Not suggesting that unions are the right answer here. In fact, I really don't know what the solution is, but I don't think either side of the table has a solution that will solve everyone's problems unilaterally.
- fareesh 7y ago
  > Counterpoint - it didn't cost you anything, it's just lost opportunity. Imagine you work hard editing for a day / days and literally no ones watches the videos you produce. You have no cost, but also no revenue. Sorry I guess I should have provided the context - the context was you are a YouTube user with a subscriber base of regular viewers. I figured that came across when I quoted the viewership numbers. Monetization is only offered to users who meet some thresholds.
wdr1 7y ago
> At the very least, YouTube can offer a service your video can go into limbo before it's sent out to your subscribers, where all of these "mistakes" can be ironed out. This has existed for some time. You can upload your video as "unlisted" and then later make it "public." (N.B. "unlisted" != "private")
- fareesh 7y ago
  It won't be monetized or de-monetized if unlisted

ramijames 7y ago

I think de-monetizing is part of Google's profit plan. They provide content for no cost, but can still show ads and earn revenues. It's a giant scam.

paxys 7y ago
> but can still show ads and earn revenues De-monetized videos do not show ads or earn revenue, so that actually hurts Google as well (of course it has indirect effects that are beneficial for Google overall).
- hinkley 7y ago
  "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
warent 7y ago
This is a little too cynical for my taste. Google isn't exactly a monument of ethical business, but I seriously doubt that Google would intentionally demonetize videos for the purpose of stealing from content creators.
- stcredzero 7y ago
  Google isn't exactly a monument of ethical business, but I seriously doubt that Google would intentionally demonetize videos for the purpose of stealing from content creators. Whether it's intentional or accidental, it's readily apparent that their incentive structure doesn't motivate them a bit to correct the situation. Also, this mechanism makes it very easy for lower level employees with a political axe to grind, to punish viewpoints they don't like.
- la_barba 7y ago
  Yes, whats more likely is that one of the countless bean counters at Google saw the long-tail revenue pie chart/breakdown and thought to themselves "Hmm! Would you look at that!" and just decided to not upset the apple cart..
- senorjazz 7y ago
  Often used to hear the same accusations when adsense was a bigger thing. Accounts with expected big payouts would always get banned a few days before payout. They would accept all traffic you send them for the month, then just before paying out, banned. Perhaps a coincidence sure, but when accusations keep getting made about underhanded tactics, maybe there is somethig there <takes_off_hat_made_of_tinfoil>
  - drusepth 7y ago
    We're seeing a lot of sentiment similar to this on Quora as well, now that they pay question askers. This is the first time I've been on "the other side" and see what's actually going on, rather than just seeing blog posts about "I made $X and got banned a day before payout!" At least in Quora's case, almost everyone making thousands and getting banned right before a payout are gaming/scamming the system to make those thousands, and just play the "right before I got paid!" card whenever they get caught because, well, there _was_ another payday coming... even though they should have been demonetized a long time prior.
untog 7y ago
I thought there were no ads shown against demonetized videos?
amiga_500 7y ago
Isn’t this just yet another internet service that is not viable if vetted properly? Same as Facebook.

dev_dull 7y ago

> video based on mass reporting - leaving the system open to be gamed by anyone who is okay with the ethics of brigading/report bombing. This is a VERY common thing these days. I would say the “angry mob” is one of the biggest threats to free speech in our generation. If you can’t get the government to silence those you don’t like, try and get them deplatformed everywhere.

blueboo 7y ago
It’s the biggest threat to profiting off of speech, not of free speech. After all, doesn’t the angry mob amplify the message?

SignalsFromBob 7y ago

Why don't they pay for the 500,000 views after the video is re-monitized? This doesn't seem like a hard problem for Youtube to solve.

lancesells 7y ago
Those 500,000 views wouldn't have had ads shown on them. Some solutions might be: 1. Being able to automatically unpublish the video if it's de-monitized. 2. Have a monitoring service available that can fight copyright claims in real-time. 3. Don't upload at night and then go to sleep. :)
- ohithereyou 7y ago
  Or: 4. Google accepts the risk they have to pay you out of pocket the amount you lost while you appealed their demonetization if you win. That risk should feed into how sensitive their automated system is at automatically demonitizing things. The only way Google cares enough to change this is if their demonetization practices cost them money when they get it wrong.
  - fareesh 7y ago
    Maybe they weigh the risk of creators leaving vs advertisers leaving. High profile creators haven't left yet. Advertisers have already bluffed a number of times and Google didn't call them on it.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    It does cost them money when they get it wrong. It's not as if google makes money off the demonetized video, they only make money if the creator does. People act like YouTube wants to demonetize videos, of course they don't, they would monetize every single second of YouTube if the advertisers allowed them to do so.
    - dexen 7y ago
      >It does cost them money when they get it wrong. Does it tho? Google has the problem of too much advertising space vs too few advertising clients. Being able to significantly cut down the advertising space means they get better prices across the board. Demonetizing any singular video (especially if suspect or borderline) is one time loss, long time profit.

mbesto 7y ago

> Imagine you work hard editing for a day / days. That bug just cost you X revenue. Multiply for the entire month. Counterpoint - it didn't cost you anything, it's just lost opportunity. Imagine you work hard editing for a day / days and literally no ones watches the videos you produce. You have no cost, but also no revenue. I understand why people want to criticize YT, but if you are using a service that will gladly pay the costs for your distribution with no upfront obligation and no on-going payment, then what do you expect? I mean this is why unions exist. Not suggesting that unions are the right answer here. In fact, I really don't know what the solution is, but I don't think either side of the table has a solution that will solve everyone's problems unilaterally.

fareesh 7y ago
> Counterpoint - it didn't cost you anything, it's just lost opportunity. Imagine you work hard editing for a day / days and literally no ones watches the videos you produce. You have no cost, but also no revenue. Sorry I guess I should have provided the context - the context was you are a YouTube user with a subscriber base of regular viewers. I figured that came across when I quoted the viewership numbers. Monetization is only offered to users who meet some thresholds.

wdr1 7y ago

> At the very least, YouTube can offer a service your video can go into limbo before it's sent out to your subscribers, where all of these "mistakes" can be ironed out. This has existed for some time. You can upload your video as "unlisted" and then later make it "public." (N.B. "unlisted" != "private")

fareesh 7y ago
It won't be monetized or de-monetized if unlisted