Page 1 of [VIDEO] Youtube introduces video rules that will financially cripple 90% of their user base's income

Something called COPPA's just been implemented, whereby every video has to be classified as 'for children' or not. In most cases, this will be an automatic process on everyone's back catalogue, and once a video has been labelled as 'for children', all targeted advertising on those videos will stop, as YT can't collect data on anyone under 13.

I've already seen 2 channels on my subs list that have set up Patreons to make up for lost revenue. I'll let Jake describe the finer points

This item was edited on Saturday, 23rd November 2019, 20:43

Not sure just what is going on with YT at the moment...

---------

Si Wooldridge
Reviewer

http://synth.myreviewer.com

I think the problem in YT land is content providers who don't rely on Patreon or other income, and tbh even if they do, are subject to apparently random algorithm changes, advertising changes, etc.

YT doesn't care, it's there to make money, but it's a dominant platform just like ebay is. The audience anywhere else just isn't big enough to challenge it. :(

And they keep pushing this premium service that sucks! No ads and access to music for more money than all the other streaming providers? How can they think the problem isn't the amount? I'd pay £2-3 a month for no ads, but £11.99???????????????? LOL


Editor
MYREVIEWER.COM

My Flickr Photostream

I've currently got £36 sitting in an Adsense account from my YT channel. I can't withdraw that until it hits £60, but a few years ago they introduced new criteria whereby you had to produce so much material per month, and also gain a certain number of unique hits per video per week. I understood why as there were channels dedicated to churning out absolute garbage that were stuffed with ads so they gained revenue from doing bugger all. These rules more or less stopped that phenomenon, but it also meant people like me who made videos every now and again got nothing in reward.

Now they've finally realised that children (under 13) have free access to virtually everything on their platform, and because of the ad-stuffed environment they've created over time, anyone gaining revenue from embedded or sequenced ads are technically profiting from the direct or indirect actions of 'children'.

I'm a Lego fan (as you may know). There's a channel I follow that specialises in Lego set speedbuilds. This new algorithm has labelled each & every one of his videos as targeted at children, so his revenue stream has all but died. Because he can't use that revenue to purchase new sets, he can't make videos specific to his channel, the reason he created it in the first place.

As Jake said, YT has now shifted responsibility and culpability onto the creators, because although YT makes millions, if not billions p.a. from advertising (a relatively small percentage of which goes to the creators), they can place the blame squarely at the feet of those making their site's content, should any 'kids' watch said content, resulting in the creators getting sued instead of the content hosts.

On the plus side, perhaps we'll start to see less Youtubers being treated as celebrities. Fortnite's aimed at kids, so every video/live stream featuring that game will be instantly de-monetised and the no-effort nobodies will actually have to work to to make money.

============================
Writer`s Release

If you thought it couldn't get worse, it gets worse...
https://mashable.com/article/youtube-livestream-bogus-copyright-strike-warner-bros-cnn/?europe=true

TL;DR version... Someone gets their future-not-even-broadcast-or-even-recorded-yet-live-stream blocked for copyright infringement.

Editor
MYREVIEWER.COM

My Flickr Photostream

Lack of proper processes and relying on automated algorithms...

---------

Si Wooldridge
Reviewer

http://synth.myreviewer.com

Quote:
Si Wooldridge says...
"Lack of proper processes and relying on automated algorithms..."
Or, in this case, an over-zealous jobsworth trained to spot key words and issue claims without actually examining the content, if there's any content to examine, that is

Quote:
That’s right, this wasn’t an algorithm or automated system run amok. An actual person manually submitted a legal claim saying they owned my nonexistent content.

============================
Writer`s Release

Quote:
Pete-MK says...
"Or, in this case, an over-zealous jobsworth trained to spot key words and issue claims without actually examining the content, if there's any content to examine, that is"
He wasn't a YouTube employee though, was he?

Which was what I meant.

---------

Si Wooldridge
Reviewer

http://synth.myreviewer.com

Quote:
Si Wooldridge says...
"He wasn't a YouTube employee though, was he?"
Exactly!

There is too much power in the hands of the complainent. I think any channel with a certain number of views and subscribers should require a manual intervention before there is a strike following a complaint.


Editor
MYREVIEWER.COM

My Flickr Photostream

Quote:
Si Wooldridge says...
"He wasn't a YouTube employee though"
Nope, just someone employed by multi-billion dollar companies to sit at a computer and go after little guys.


============================
Writer`s Release