8 ms·
YouTube might terminate your access if not profitable for Google
https://www.youtube.com/t/terms?preview=20191210#main
> Terminations by YouTube for Service Changes
>
> YouTube may terminate your access, or your Google account’s access to all or part of the Service if YouTube believes, in its sole discretion, that provision of the Service to you is no longer commercially viable.
- justforfunhere 7y agoHow does one become "no longer commercially viable" for youtube?
- nissarup 7y agoAdblockers.
- lm28469 7y agoDoes it matter though ? You don't need an account to watch video afaik.
- nissarup 7y agoNo. Not now. But that could change.
- alpaca128 7y agoI don't think this will change. Yes, they already require an account for the YT app. But if they block access altogether without an account then they also break all youtube links for unregistered users, motivating people to find alternatives for sharing accessible video links online. I doubt Google wants to take that risk.
- nissarup 7y agoI hope it won't change. But they can make watching without an account less desirable; less bandwidth, more ads, no access to newly uploaded videos, first 30s. free, etc.
- windexh8er 7y agoThis doesn't make sense. Anyone can watch YouTube without an account. So even if they terminated a consumer using adblocking it wouldn't change anything for Google. This is likely targeted at users publishing a lot of low quality video that get few views. If they enforce this my guess is we see backlash around free speech and the like. This seems like a perfect way for Google to curate "good" content in the eyes of themselves and potentially at the downside of people speaking out against Google, their products or videos promoting a competitive alternative. Google could deem things "not commercially viable" for almost any reason. It appears to have the advantage of being a perfect scapegoat.
- pilif 7y ago> This doesn't make sense. Anyone can watch YouTube without an account. So even if they terminated a consumer using adblocking it wouldn't change anything for Google. there are means to identify (and block) unique users without them needing to have an account. Heck, there's even means to identify the usage of an ad-blocker and/or youtube-dl and to refuse to provide the video for such cases.
- windexh8er 7y agoI see the point but that's a cat and mouse game. Google would invest far more resources to block those users than it was worth.
- thaumasiotes 7y agoI would peg this language as intended to make it clear that they can shut down e.g. Alex Jones for no other reason than that he's Alex Jones and some other people don't like him.
- enimodas 7y agoI've seen channels with 1000's of videos automatically uploaded by someone's dashcam, all with 0 views. I'm certain there are more cases where a user uploads tons of videos that never get watched.
- grenoire 7y agoIs this a recent change? I'm not sure if it's just another 'firing your customers' clause or something more sinister.
- AdrienLemaire 7y agoThese are the new ToS that will take effect on December 10th. I cannot find any related clause in the current ToS https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms
- dooglius 7y agoWell the current ToS say: > YouTube reserves the right to discontinue any aspect of the Service at any time. So this, the notification, and the ability to appeal seem like significant improvements.
- ianai 7y agoWhat does termination of your account mean? Are we talking losing your email/gmail account?
- jowsie 7y agoIf the Markiplier situation is any indication, then your entire google account, gmail and all. https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1193216884197314560 https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1193216884197314560
- alpaca128 7y agoSo in other words it's the Google counterpart of Amazon banning users for too many returns but without disclosing how some algorithm determines what is too many. I can see some unfortunate users learning the hard way why reliance on these huge cloud services can backfire. And some people may just create a lot of secondary accounts so they can continue uploading whatever they want, so I'm not sure Google will actually get improvements from this TOS.
- icebraining 7y agoSeems unlikely that the two situations are comparable. Though I'm sure YouTube will keep banning people for no discernable reason, but internally they're likely marked as "spammers" or some other unwanted group. The unprofitable will probably just have their videos deleted.
- tudorizer 7y agoAs much as I dislike this, they are a business. Running servers and streams is not free. The great conondrum of software...
- pmlnr 7y agoIn that case, maybe, don't advertise it as free.
- icebraining 7y agoYouTube is not advertised as free, at least nowhere I could find.
- palerdot 7y agoIt is considered free by lot of uninformed users. Lot of Youtubers, both budding and established, don't know the real consequence of being at the mercy of Google, that they could be thrown out of YT at the whims of Google.
- baybal2 7y agoAnd yet, Google gets very good prices for servers from OEMs. Instead of terminating people without saying a word, and then stonewalling them, they could've just demanded payment for the service.
- imustbeevil 7y ago> 7 hours ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21502162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21502162 > 14 hours ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21500325 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21500325
- dang 7y agoand https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21506403 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21506403
- Havoc 7y agoI thought basically most channels are duds?
- mic47 7y agoThis might be actually a good thing. Say that you are a user, which uploads a LOT of large videos that almost nobody is watching, apart from your small cabal, and you restrict ads on them (AFAIK was possible in past, not sure if it is now). In such case, you get quite good service for free, and you cost YouTube quite a lot of money for storage. I see that YouTube have following options: 1.) Show more ads elsewhere (so other people will pay the price). 2.) Terminate your account. 3.) Charge you money. From those, actually 2/3 seems like the best (and being able to do #2 will give them leverage for you to pay #3).
- joosters 7y agoI doubt these kind of users cost YouTube all that much. What I guess they are worried about are people who upload controversial videos who then run adverts alongside them, and those advertisers get very upset about the content that they are being associated with. That's the kind of thing that can really cost YouTube money & effort (they might have to have a real person take phone calls from the annoyed advertiser, shock horror!)
- varelaz 7y agoI think as everywhere 90% of money Youtube gets from 3-10% of content. That looks like cost optimization. They spend money for requests (displaying video) and storage. Even if storage is 30% of their cost and they can remove 10% of biggest never displayed videos they can save 3% of overall costs, which is huge improvement on very concurrent market. Video ads right now the most expensive and most fast growing market.
- Retric 7y agoI doubt storage of extremely unpopular videos is a significant cost for YT. Their revenue is ~25 billion per year. Assuming with redundancy they are paying say ~1,000$ per 8TB added per year. People are uploading 500+ Hours of video every minute. Assuming that’s mostly 30fps 4K video we are talking 50 Mbps * 60 * 500 * 1 year ~= 0.75 Billion per year or ~3.3% of revenues. (50 Mbps seems like an overly generous average.) Not free, but cutting off say 10% of uploads to save ~0.3% is not going to help their bottom line much as they would lose out on some viral videos and future stars in the process. Plus, there are minimum view requirements before revenue sharing. Worse they could easily lose their spot as the default location for video uploads long term.
- Cannibusted 7y agoI'm sorry but you missed one. You lose. Please try harder.
- TheSpiceIsLife 7y agoDoesn’t this just mean that if YouTube becomes commercial non-viable they’re not obligated to continue providing a service?
- vbezhenar 7y agoOf course they are not obligated to provide a service.
- madiathomas 7y agoI skip all YouTube adverts that are longer than 15 seconds and never click on any advert when searching. I am probably considered "commercially unviable", even though a company I own 100%, pays Google thousands of dollars every year to use Google Suite and Google Cloud Engine. I don't see a reason for my personal account to be commercially viable.
- varelaz 7y agoGoogle uses CPM or even kind of vCPM model for videos mostly AFAIK, so if you see more than 5 seconds of the ad, advertisers will pay for it.
- madiathomas 7y agoThen I am a profitable user then.
- PuffinBlue 7y agoPretty sure it's 30 seconds before it's counted as an add view. Those un-skippable under 30 seconds are always paid.
- madiathomas 7y agoWhen I encounter an unskippable advert, I refresh the browser or report it as inapprporiate. I don't want to be forced to watch an advert.
- vkizl 7y agoI haven't watched an ad on youtube in like ten years. They are probably very upset at me.
- madiathomas 7y agoUnfortunately I watch YouTube on a smart TV. I have no way of blocking their adverts. I can only wait for skip button and skip.
- sornaensis 7y agoGood, maybe this signals the leveling off and impending implosion of ad revenue. Internet 3.0 cannot arrive fast enough... I am tired of all these giant sites de facto controlling information repositories and communications channels because they have ad-sponsored inertia.
- blisterpeanuts 7y agoWhat do you envision internet 3.0 to look like? Some kind of shared, distributed blockchain thing with no centralized repositories and control, with micro-revenue flowing to each provider?
- chii 7y agoMore likely a completely closed off, proprietary protocol garden that only authorized partners can post content on. Costs 10$ per month, and you get clean, sanitary and non-controvertial, commercial content.
- esotericn 7y agoPresumably this is to prevent silly abuse, like me uploading terabytes of steganographic videos that no-one ever watches except my backup service? Having said that, obviously YT can ban you for any reason whatsoever.
- coldtea 7y ago>YouTube might terminate your access if not profitable for Google Well, DUH!
- RenRav 7y agoI don't even know what google or youtube ads look like anymore. Maybe I can finally ditch Google once and for all if they just terminate my account for me.
- nickjj 7y agoThis is a weird rule for people uploading videos. You can't just decide to show ads on your videos. Youtube requires you to meet certain guidelines. The last time I checked you need 4,000+ hours of view time each year and 1,000+ subscribers to be allowed to show ads on your videos. That means smaller channels who have limited audiences would have no way to avoid termination because Youtube is blocking themselves from generating revenue from that channel due to their own monetization rules.
- alexeichemenda 7y agoIt's very likely that if the said small channels are indeed too small to be allowed to monetize, then they would fall under the not profitable accounts even if they were allowed to monetize.
- nickjj 7y ago> It's very likely that if the said small channels are indeed too small to be allowed to monetize, then they would fall under the not profitable accounts even if they were allowed to monetize. It might take 6 months or even a year+ of dedicated uploading to meet those guidelines for most content (unless it's a really popular / trending niche like a new game, etc.). If Youtube starts banning those accounts then they are effectively not allowing anyone else to join their platform because they would be terminated before they have a chance to get popular enough to enable ads so that Youtube can make money.
- alexeichemenda 7y ago>If Youtube starts banning those accounts then they are effectively not allowing anyone else to join their platform That's a huge if - one that Youtube probably is not going to enforce on new customers. The same principle applies to most businesses I know - a new account/client has X months to be profitable until they get dropped. On the flip side, i've often stumbled (in the days where I was parsing youtube for side projects) on projects with hours long videos with 3 views - for years. My best guess would be that those accounts / uploads are what youtube is targeting, not preventing their new account sign up / new DAU drop.
- pingyong 7y agoContrary to what some people seem to believe I really don't think this has anything to do with trying to ban people who use adblock or the like. YouTube actively allows for adblock, if they didn't want people blocking ads they could just splice the ads directly into the video and stop transmission of the actual video content. This is most likely just a random change that gets blown way out of proportion, it's not like Google hasn't banned people for any BS reason they could come up with before.
- thejackgoode 7y agoIt's funny as I was just thinking that this makes sense for YouTube in my case. I am using it mostly via mobile browser and current page refresh behavior removes advertising from the video. I do it all the time. I am expecting something like "pay for subscription or else" feature proposal in the observable future.
- utf985 7y agoSo let's say you have an old YT account that you don't use anymore tied you your gmail account and there a few dozen family holiday videos you uploaded years ago to show friends (which was kinda the original purpose of YouTube) and completely forgot about. Does this mean that one day you might wake up with access to your gmail completely blocked off because an algorithm on YT decided that your channel is not profitable?
- IGotThroughIt 7y agoI think they're considered to be isolated services. You can have a gmail account without having a youtube account.
- ralonso 7y agoNot entirely true. Take the recent controversy around YouTuber Markiplier having users' accounts shut down (including both YouTube and Gmail) for spamming his YouTube livestream chatroom.[1] I also did a quick search and it's been a while since both Gmail/Google accounts and YouTube accounts are tied to one another.[2][3] [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/markiplier-youtube-fans-heist-lost-access-google-accounts-spamming-emotes-2019-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/markiplier-youtube-fans-heis... [2] https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/1692/how-do-i-unlink-my-youtube-account-from-my-gmail-account https://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/1692/how-do-i-un... [3] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/69961?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/69961?hl=en
- IGotThroughIt 7y agoWow. So not good.
- PeterStuer 7y agoI have a family YouTube Premium sub. I think advertising is a horrible monetization model. I also heard that a YouTube Premium view counts something like 6-7 times in terms of monetization for content creators as compared to an ad monetized view.
- aabbcc1241 7y agoYouTube and all other centralized/walled (hosted) services of course has their own rights to terminate their services in any ways they prefer to. And the internet users also always have lots of alternatives. e.g. using their own web server, p2p network or other centralized/walled (hosted) services.
- 19870213 7y agoLet's hope that if I view too many video's as a YouTube Premium subscriber I will at some point get ads. And not that all my Google accounts get terminated.
- SamReidHughes 7y agoThat's just standard "any reason, no reason, or all these explicit reasons we've thought of" legalese.
- TheCapeGreek 7y agoI've seen 3 different interpretations of the same line now: - "If the service becomes too expensive for us, we'll close shop" - "If you block ads, we'll close your account" - "If you upload too much, we'll close your account"