YouTube Bans Sexual Humor, Profanity, Political Conflict, etc in Partner Content
reason.com
reason.com
I can't imagine an educational channel deserving this treatment - it makes me so sad for everyone involved.
“The results were certainly surprising, if not startling,” said Kerrie Anne Loyd of the University of Georgia, who was the lead author of the study. “In Athens-Clarke County, we found that about 30 percent of the sampled cats were successful in capturing and killing prey, and that those cats averaged about one kill for every 17 hours outdoors or 2.1 kills per week. It was also surprising to learn that cats only brought 23 percent of their kills back to a residence. We found that house cats will kill a wide variety of animals, including: lizards, voles, chipmunks, birds, frogs, and small snakes.”
http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/index.php?option=...
As a real comment though, maybe this is Google's way of trying to put the pillow over YouTube's face? It's been costing them money for a long time, maybe this is their way to kill it without just going "yeah iz ded"
Besides, they're only removing monetization, not banning the videos. It's just a way to avoid offending their advertisers by getting them mixed up with uncomfortable content.
Advertisers could be given a choice, if they are fine with controversial content. Maybe use a handful of tags, like politics and swearing are fine, but no sex, violence or cat videos, please! All the pussy companies can then choose to only advertise on reaction videos, for all I care.
citation needed
http://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-fo...
Partners exist to make money for Google, on Google's terms, and in Google's best interests. Monetizing videos is a service Google provides for their advertisers and licensed content owners first, content creators last.
That's the real story here.
While I don't support it, most of the youtubers are spoiled with ad money for no good reason. Same policies apply to adsense and every other ad network too.
That's completely untrue. We reply to such comments asking people not to post those things. We sometimes detach such comments from their parents and mark them off-topic (which lowers them on the page). But removing them is precisely what we don't do.
Where these notions come from is beyond me. You might think that if you scrupulously followed a policy of not doing X, people wouldn't blithely claim that X is your policy. Nope, not so.
You know what, let's just look at the front page right now... Kind of a slow news day. Let's take a look.
Even the Rich Are Being Priced Out of Central London - Housing and Social Safety Net
Ant colony discovered in an abandoned Polish nuclear weapons bunker - Nuclear Proliferation and Arms treaties
FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps - Federal Regulation
Mojave Desert solar plant kills 6,000 birds a year - Renewable Energy Initiatives and Climate Change
Republic – Now everyone can invest in startups - SEC and federal banking regulation
The National Economic Implications of a Taco Truck on Every Corner - Food safety and small business
Canadian surgeons urge people to throw out bristle BBQ brushes - health and safety regulations
I and others who've frequented HN for many years find that the quality of content and discussions has only improved through dang's moderation policies.
It may not be for you - that's OK, it can't be for everyone.
But HN continues to do a better job of being what it sets out to be, and the continuing growth in quality of the content and discussions - and in its traffic[1] - is a testament to that.
The people who are verifiable as having long and distinguished histories contributing to this this community [1] all seem to be appreciative and supportive of dang's work and happy with the site's evolution.
Of course they don't always agree with everything he does, but when they have an objection, they are civil, constructive, and truthful in discussing it.
My notion comes from a direct quote from you, dang. Our discussion on the subject several days ago. I don't mean to impugn you or the moderation of HN in general. I'll just re-iterate what I said then: I understand what you want but I find it sterile and incompatible with my personal values as should others and I encourage you to re-examine the goals you have for discussion on the site.
Evolution is (for some bizarre reason) both controversial and political.
Will videos explaining evolution be de-monetised?
EDIT: YT seem to be doing a boneheaded "search for problem words in titles, and demonetise that video". Hence this channel (which is full of stuff that is possibly against the new terms is mostly monetised apart from one video about preventing veteran suicide. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRo1KI1JC3A )
(Not sure if it counts as political conflict, or if that means more along the lines of Basque Seperatism?)
Why not allow small advertisers a discount on "controversial" videos?
I'm also surprised how much advertisers considers themselves linked to the content they advertise next to. I consider FB and Youtube ads completely user profile based, but maybe I live in my own little tech bubble.
Leaving or boycotting while in some situations is good, I don't think is not a solution in this case - the dynamics of the web / content content creation means there will be someone to replace a creator quickly if they no longer provide (users will just look elsewhere for their needs).
No doubt these policies were pushed anticipating a backlash. This move is a thought-out strategy - it will be interesting to see how this will turn out, or if it follows YouTube's expectations.
Regulated by whom? Alcohol is banned in some countries, so does that mean a video on wine tasting is eligible for monetization if uploaded in the UK but not eligible if uploaded in Saudi Arabia?
It seems like a reactive and overbearing policy change, but I'll admit to being ignorant of their motivations. This kind of soft censorship is a loss to the end user, regardless.
Alcohol isn't regulated in the UK?
If by "dying" you mean "growing up into mass-market, big-money commercial media" then, sure, its been dying.
The comments threads have always been an internet Mos Eisley cess-pit, so I'm unconvinced the social aspect have ever been particularly prevalent, and the competition amongst content creators is obviously intense, but to say nobody goes there is just plain wrong.
Heck, the content glut means the likely hood of hitting relevant content quickly is higher than ever, quality notwithstanding.
Too late to edit and spare my blushes sadly. Still, it got a sheepish chuckle out of me when I finally twigged, so it's not all bad news!
If you can find a way to get the people either providing or consuming the media to pay, that might work (though not so much at eating YouTube's lunch as serving a different market).
If you want to monetize that with advertising, good luck: YouTube's content restrictions follow the general trend of big advertising-supported media, because its what the paying customers for that want.
It's why the walking dead can show gratuitous over the top violence, but they have save "They're fucking with the wrong people" for the blu-ray.
Can't have that swearing. Oh no.