3 ms·
Well they actually host a bunch of videos that they wont allow people to monetize. Is that an issue too? Is monetization a right of a user, TOS be damned? I fo
by nickthegreek 3y ago
Well they actually host a bunch of videos that they wont allow people to monetize. Is that an issue too? Is monetization a right of a user, TOS be damned?
I found a page of other unfair practices that google is using to steal our cash:
https://fliki.ai/blog/new-youtube-monetization-requirements https://fliki.ai/blog/new-youtube-monetization-requirements
Russel Brand is still allowed to view youtubes, even post videos. The company that has built, maintained and spent to allow all that has removed the ability from a user user to monetize his videos, but hasn't even silenced him.
I don't know if shutting down his channel and removing all the videos (which Google has a legal right to do) would be better.
- jahsome 3y ago> Well they actually host a bunch of videos that they wont allow people to monetize. Is that an issue too? Personally, I say absolutely yes. Particularly because they'll still platform questionable content, sell ad space against it, and take the payout all for themselves.
- djur 3y agoMonetization is not a moral judgment of the content, it's a business judgment of what high-paying advertisers are willing to be associated with. There are plenty of criteria for monetization that don't have anything to do with the moral value of the content.
- jahsome 3y agoBut they're still running ads on the content, associating the content with advertisers. It's not "saving" their customers (advertisers). It's denying wages to the producer. I can't see it as anything other than virtue signaling, coupled with a profit.
- djur 3y agoAdvertisers get to choose whether their ads run on "limited ads" videos or not.