4 ms·

> They are an unethical use of the data produced by Youtube creators, who miss out on ad revenue which they worked hard to earn. Substitute "creators" with "co

> They are an unethical use of the data produced by Youtube creators, who miss out on ad revenue which they worked hard to earn. Substitute "creators" with "collaborators" and maybe it'll be more obvious to you why this is a flawed argument. Anyway, I don't think you can even opt out of Youtube inserting advertisements into your uploads anymore, but back when you could it would result in a discoverability penalty.

lstamour 5y ago
That's true, you can't opt out of YouTube ads on your own uploads. YouTube still has documentation on how to turn off monetization: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6332943?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6332943?hl=en but since November 2020 they've updated their terms to now say: > Right to Monetize > You grant to YouTube the right to monetize your Content on the Service (and such monetization may include displaying ads on or within Content or charging users a fee for access). This Agreement does not entitle you to any payments. https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=CA&template=terms https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=CA&template=terms They more clearly state what it means over here: https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/83733719/updates-to-youtube%E2%80%99s-terms-of-service-november-%E2%80%9820?hl=en&msgid=83733719 https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/83733719/updates-t... > For channels not yet in the YouTube Partner Program: > We added this new section to let you know that, starting today we’ll begin slowly rolling out ads on a limited number of videos from channels not in YPP. This means as a creator that’s not in YPP, you may see ads on some of your videos. Since you’re not currently in YPP, you won’t receive a share of the revenue from these ads, though you’ll still have the opportunity to apply for YPP as you normally would...
- sennight 5y ago
  Kinda makes the inevitable conclusion obvious: non-fashion&beauty channels need not apply - non-legacy media will not be permitted much aside from topics that both have: 1) No possibility of generating an objection from the most sensitive of current and potential advertisers. 2) Do not compete with legacy media presently on platform. Makes you wonder about all those outrage mobs that targeted companies with adverts that had the bad luck of randomly appearing in videos that demonstrated wrong-think, and how they've ushered in network television 2.0 while sticking it to all the totally-real-and-definitely-a-threat-to-our-democracy-neo-nazis.
mgraczyk 5y ago
I don't follow. I still think it's unethical to serve monetized content without paying the original "collaborator". If you made a band and sold me a recording on the condition that I not resell it, it would be unethical for me to resell it. I think it would be undesirable and annoying of you to resort to DRM to prevent me from reselling, but I'm still the one violating our agreement. I have no special "human right" to listen to your music (or watch your Youtube videos), but you should have the right to enforce agreements whose nonenforcement would harm only you.
- sennight 5y ago
  huh, guess I'll have to break it down Barny style: you are effectively trying to wave a bloody shirt with the "think of the creators" bit. If your system of morals allows you to deny Youtube advertisement revenue on the basis of an aversion to invasive spying, then the "creators" aren't victims - they're collaborators in the spying. Of course not all of them draw advertising revenue... > I still think it's unethical to serve monetized content without paying the original "collaborator". So you're not even going to seek the refuge of "their payment is the free bandwidth" argument and admit that Youtube is screwing a lot of people over? > ...but you should have the right to enforce agreements whose nonenforcement would harm only you. lol, "harm". Sure, you have a legal right to argue over the definition of "harm" - but you know you've retreated from "ethical" to "legal", right?
  - mgraczyk 5y ago
    I don't see it as a retreat, I'm using a different conceptual framework because we don't agree on the meaning of "ethical". I agree that under your moral system, it's not wrong to deny the creators value, but that's sort of just a restatement of the fact that we disagree on the acceptability of ads in the first place. In general I don't assign the label "unethical" to something unless I'm aware of a convincing case that the thing causes more harm than good, harm without appropriate equity, violates some other axiomatic principal that I agree to, etc. I just haven't heard a convincing case that ads meets any of those criteria.
    - 5y ago

lstamour 5y ago

That's true, you can't opt out of YouTube ads on your own uploads. YouTube still has documentation on how to turn off monetization: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6332943?hl=en https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6332943?hl=en but since November 2020 they've updated their terms to now say: > Right to Monetize > You grant to YouTube the right to monetize your Content on the Service (and such monetization may include displaying ads on or within Content or charging users a fee for access). This Agreement does not entitle you to any payments. https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=CA&template=terms https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=CA&template=terms They more clearly state what it means over here: https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/83733719/updates-to-youtube%E2%80%99s-terms-of-service-november-%E2%80%9820?hl=en&msgid=83733719 https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/83733719/updates-t... > For channels not yet in the YouTube Partner Program: > We added this new section to let you know that, starting today we’ll begin slowly rolling out ads on a limited number of videos from channels not in YPP. This means as a creator that’s not in YPP, you may see ads on some of your videos. Since you’re not currently in YPP, you won’t receive a share of the revenue from these ads, though you’ll still have the opportunity to apply for YPP as you normally would...

sennight 5y ago
Kinda makes the inevitable conclusion obvious: non-fashion&beauty channels need not apply - non-legacy media will not be permitted much aside from topics that both have: 1) No possibility of generating an objection from the most sensitive of current and potential advertisers. 2) Do not compete with legacy media presently on platform. Makes you wonder about all those outrage mobs that targeted companies with adverts that had the bad luck of randomly appearing in videos that demonstrated wrong-think, and how they've ushered in network television 2.0 while sticking it to all the totally-real-and-definitely-a-threat-to-our-democracy-neo-nazis.

mgraczyk 5y ago

I don't follow. I still think it's unethical to serve monetized content without paying the original "collaborator". If you made a band and sold me a recording on the condition that I not resell it, it would be unethical for me to resell it. I think it would be undesirable and annoying of you to resort to DRM to prevent me from reselling, but I'm still the one violating our agreement. I have no special "human right" to listen to your music (or watch your Youtube videos), but you should have the right to enforce agreements whose nonenforcement would harm only you.

sennight 5y ago
huh, guess I'll have to break it down Barny style: you are effectively trying to wave a bloody shirt with the "think of the creators" bit. If your system of morals allows you to deny Youtube advertisement revenue on the basis of an aversion to invasive spying, then the "creators" aren't victims - they're collaborators in the spying. Of course not all of them draw advertising revenue... > I still think it's unethical to serve monetized content without paying the original "collaborator". So you're not even going to seek the refuge of "their payment is the free bandwidth" argument and admit that Youtube is screwing a lot of people over? > ...but you should have the right to enforce agreements whose nonenforcement would harm only you. lol, "harm". Sure, you have a legal right to argue over the definition of "harm" - but you know you've retreated from "ethical" to "legal", right?
- mgraczyk 5y ago
  I don't see it as a retreat, I'm using a different conceptual framework because we don't agree on the meaning of "ethical". I agree that under your moral system, it's not wrong to deny the creators value, but that's sort of just a restatement of the fact that we disagree on the acceptability of ads in the first place. In general I don't assign the label "unethical" to something unless I'm aware of a convincing case that the thing causes more harm than good, harm without appropriate equity, violates some other axiomatic principal that I agree to, etc. I just haven't heard a convincing case that ads meets any of those criteria.
  - 5y ago