
YouTube faces creator backlash - hhs
https://www.axios.com/youtube-faces-creator-backlash-30b7e425-ec93-4f02-aec3-6f418e009b56.html
======
jedberg
YouTube's problem is their allergy towards using humans. AI technology isn't
advanced enough to replace empathy yet. They simply need to add more humans
into their processes.

Copyright claims is a perfect example. That system is abused by large
companies who know how to exploit their algorithms and they know it is worth
it because there will be no humans in the loop to stop them.

If YouTube wants to remain viable, they just need to bite the bullet and hire
a whole bunch of people.

~~~
nickjj
> Copyright claims is a perfect example.

Yep.

One of my favorite subscribers to watch is some guy (Harald Baldr[0]) who
travels around remote areas of the world and vlogs it.

But he's said a number of times how even 10 seconds of background music can
cause his video to get demonetized and then all ad revenue for the video goes
to the record label who owns the copyright and there's absolutely nothing he
can do to combat it.

This happens even if his video is 30 minutes long and has nothing to do with
the music at all -- it just so happens he's walking past a store or hotel
lobby that has music on.

[0]:
[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKr68ZJ4vv6VloNdnS2hjhA/vid...](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKr68ZJ4vv6VloNdnS2hjhA/videos)

~~~
ridaj
Why blame YouTube? They're doing it at the request of the right holders, who
would otherwise have a claim to pull the whole video down. They also provide
an automated tool to scrub claimed music from already-uploaded videos
([https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2902117?hl=en](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2902117?hl=en))
You might say the music rights holders lack empathy though...

~~~
belorn
Issuing a real legally binding DMCA takedown holds legal liability. Youtube id
claims are _not_ dmca takedown claims, and youtube is very clear on this
distinction. You can not counter-sue a company for issuing a false id claim.

Issuing a DMCA takedown that is both false and meant in bad faith is an act of
perjury. In theory the copyright holder could get jail time.

A interesting case is the video of a toddler dancing on youtube, 29s long, to
a song. The Ninth Circuit held that copyright owners must consider fair use
before issuing take-down notices. The case got settled afterwards.

This difference between DMCA takedown and ID claim is often discussed by
youtube creators as both a boon and a curse. The good thing is that id claim
does not impact any future standing with google or legal punishment beyond the
loss of revenue from the video that get claimed. The bad side is that they get
abused.

~~~
autoexec
> Issuing a real legally binding DMCA takedown holds legal liability.

I've seen several documented cases of DMCA abuse but I haven't seen a single
case where a major company was punished for it, and I doubt they'd face any
consequences substantial enough to overshadow the profits they've made abusing
the process. If you've got examples though I'd love to see them.

~~~
naniwaduni
There can be a lot fewer cases if they don't have to go through the process!

------
bad_user
YouTube faces no competition for creators.

There's Vimeo, but you either keep paying a monthly fee, or they drop your
content due to the 5 GB maximum limit for free accounts. So if you want to
publish stuff and no longer worry about it, you need to make sure that you
have a subscription going with a valid credit card.

Vimeo is only worth it if you're looking to host video content behind a
paywall.

Also for website owners Vimeo drops tracking cookies with no way to turn the
behavior off, whereas YouTube has a -nocookies mode that doesn't drop any
cookies. On the other hand YouTube has started to serve ads on embedded
content as well and in the -nocookies mode they can't notice Premium accounts
either.

These are technical issues that could be solved by alternatives, but aren't.
We aren't even talking about the lockin effect of YouTube having the huge
audience that it has. Nowadays it's more lucrative to host videos on YouTube
even if they are meant for embedding it on your website.

Also TikTok is cool, but it's very niche and it's in no way competition for
YouTube. There's also the issue that if you're worried about privacy and ads,
the fact that TikTok is free (and therefore ads or data driven) and owned by a
Chinese company ... is a problem.

~~~
root_axis
> _So if you want to publish stuff and no longer worry about it, you need to
> make sure that you have a subscription going with a valid credit card._

Also known as "paying for hosting". Seems pretty reasonable. If creators want
to upload and broadcast unlimited hours of HD video onto the internet for free
they need to accept the consequences of this arrangement (i.e. they aren't
entitled to anything). The rest of us have to invest capital into our projects
so that we can ensure a stable digital foundation in-line with our own
prerogatives.

~~~
bad_user
I understand the rationale, the problem is that I don't want to pay for video
hosting indefinitely, unless it's a service that's included in a package for
something else I'm paying for.

So if the solution is Vimeo versus not hosting video at all, I might go for
the later. Therefore free to host services like YouTube win.

~~~
root_axis
> _the problem is that I don 't want to pay for video hosting indefinitely_

That's fine, YouTube offers the service for free, but it's not reasonable to
have any particular expectations of quality or service from a free offering.

------
SmellyGeekBoy
TikTok is a mobile-only vertical video platform consisting of memes and kids
dancing to popular music. YouTube is a platform where long-form, high
definition, well produced content is becoming increasingly more prevalent. I
genuinely don't see how the two are even remotely alike.

I appreciate that TikTok is the "new hotness" but I don't see its relevance to
this conversation about YouTube or why the author felt the need to shoehorn it
into every paragraph.

~~~
rchaud
A lot of the most popular content is "long-form" for no other reson than
Youtube's 10-minute minimum length requirement for monetizing via ads. Video
makers have responded to this arbitrary requirement in exactly how you would
expect, by padding out the video length with dull filler material.

Think of the amount of writing that goes into a single 20-minute TV sitcom
episode. The most popular ones have 24 episodes a year. Youtubers are expected
to come up with 10-minute episodes 1x/week if not more frequently. The quality
of the videos take a nosedive, the creators burn out, and subscriptions and
views fall as a result.

TikTok's shorter videos can arguably be more entertaining as there's no
arbitrary length requirement that incentivizes filler.

~~~
ryeights
>Youtube's 10-minute minimum length requirement for monetizing via ads.

This is inaccurate. It is suspected, but not confirmed, that the YouTube
recommendation algorithm favors videos longer than 10 minutes because they
increase the amount of time users spend on the platform. Videos need not be 10
minutes long to be monetized.

~~~
faissaloo
The distinction is largely irrelevant, since creators generally believe such a
thing to exist, which raises more questions of algorithm transparency.

------
munmaek
It's obvious youtube is for mainstream media now, with content creators being
a leftover wart, minuscule on youtube's radar.

Content creators deal with an opaque algorithm that demonetizes videos based
on how the wind is blowing, or it would appear. Weeks or months of work can be
wiped out by an arbitrary demonetization preventing content creators from
getting paid for their video's views.

JonTron discusses this [1]. It's very easy to violate the "advertiser-
friendly" guidelines. They're vague: "violence", "harmful content",
"controversial or sensitive issues". Under profanity: "strong profanity used
in video _even if bleeped for comedy, documentary, news, or educational
purposes_ ". ??!

It has been obvious for a long time that daily content uploads are better for
the algorithm than longer, quality videos uploaded less frequently. If you
look at the LinusTechTips network of channels, they produce at least 5-7
videos per week.

[0]: An analysis of 7 months worth of trending tab videos, or roughly ~40k
videos that reached the trending tab.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDqBeXJ8Zx8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDqBeXJ8Zx8)

[1]: [https://youtu.be/TZ31u3vI934?t=364](https://youtu.be/TZ31u3vI934?t=364)

~~~
swebs
>So yeah, now R. Kelly somehow owns the rights to JonTron's Buying Things
Online

Wow, the whole Youtube system is a mess. I had no idea it was that bad

------
lucaspottersky
I have compiled a few videos from youtuber music educators that I follow. The
current situation is worse than most of us think. One of them, Paul Davis,
even had a copyright strike for playing HIS OWN music. LOL! So ludicrous!

\- Craziest COPYRIGHT STRIKE from YouTube ever?! (Paul Davis) \-
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvH77m_3MVU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvH77m_3MVU)

\- What I want to teach, but can't, thanks to Universal Music Group. (Adam
Neely) \-
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nryFmUjtwEY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nryFmUjtwEY)

\- Why Record Labels STILL Suck! (Rick Beato) \-
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoTl9V8cjH0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoTl9V8cjH0)

~~~
Eiriksmal
More recently than Adam's October 2017 video, he had another copyright strike
for, presumably, showing a repeating clip of the _Single Ladies_ music video
_without playing even one second of the music itself_. He recreated the song
with a chintzy MIDI soundfont.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rRKBXQotnA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rRKBXQotnA)

His comments:

[https://twitter.com/adamneelybass/status/1124722129495306240](https://twitter.com/adamneelybass/status/1124722129495306240)

[https://twitter.com/adamneelybass/status/1124840588543713285](https://twitter.com/adamneelybass/status/1124840588543713285)

~~~
cabaalis
"To learn more about copyright, you may visit..." It must be nice to have such
a dominant position that you can patronize your "partners" in such a way.

I'm constantly amazed that this company does not invest more in human
copyright legal reviews when their product is pretty much just obtaining
rights to share copies of other people's work.

------
devenblake
Here's why YouTube can go fuck itself:

I have a YouTube channel. My first video will be five years old on September
14. I kept putting out content for a number of years, content which I thought
was funny and would surely be well-received.

But people never watched my videos! I get 20ish views per video. They never
get recommended to anyone because I'm a smaller channel, and then I never
become big for that reason. (Or maybe my videos just suck. Some of them
definitely do, but I've made some that I'm proud of.)

I joined TikTok, YouTube's 60-second-max competitor. Out of boredom I made a
video synced to one of those songs. Fifty views on my first one. Eventually I
started making more content. I've clocked around 150K views on my videos
combined, 40K likes, and 1200 followers. I made my first video around February
and my second around June.

While YouTube discourages small creators, non-celebrities, and those that
don't have massive amounts of cash to throw around on sets, TikTok lets
whoever's talented become at least relatively popular.

TikTok's algorithm is pretty well-documented by its community: When you post a
video, TikTok shows it to a certain amount of people. If enough people who see
it "like" it, it moves to a larger amount of people, and so on until everyone
on the app sees it. This is easy, straightforward, and transparent (for the
most part, there are special cases and such).

YouTube's algorithm is: [redacted]. It's amusing to me that a Chinese company
would be more transparent about this. YouTube doesn't understand its community
and it's probably too late to save it, it got a monopoly and stagnated. My
story is one of many others.

~~~
unmole
Doesn't this have more to do with the fact that YouTube content is far more
diverse with thousands of niches of varying sizes? YouTube's algorithmic
recommendations are terrible but TikTok's model if applied to YouTube would
just make it completely useless. I don't want to be shown a video that's
generally popular, I want to be shown a video that is related to my interests.

Off Topic but from what little I saw, the content on TikTok is pure cancer.

~~~
zrobotics
Agreed:for all its faults, I can't see the Tiktok algorithm working for
YouTube style content. For instance, I like watching long-form electronics &
machining videos. I have no interest in gaming channels, but they are
incredibly popular. And by the same token, most average people would be
incredibly annoyed to get reccomended a video from 'thesignalpath'.

That is understandable, but the diversity of content makes it so that YouTube
can't just reccomend videos to everyone. I just hope that a place remains
online for the weird niche stuff that is avaliable there, but Tiktok
definitely isn't a place for that. It's fine for memes, but that's about it.

~~~
orloffm
The idea is that their presumably clever AI/machine learning whatever should
be able to show you some interesting video about game mechanics. But it's
never the case, everyone sees very shallow selections.

------
fareesh
Imagine you work hard editing for a day / days, and put out a video and go to
bed. You wake up the next morning and find that after the first 3,000 views,
the video was de-monetized and the remaining 500,000 views went generated no
revenue. You complain to YouTube, they manually review it, and your video is
re-monetized. Your views for that video barely increase for the rest of
eternity. That bug just cost you X revenue. Multiply for the entire month.

At the very least, YouTube can offer a service your video can go into limbo
before it's sent out to your subscribers, where all of these "mistakes" can be
ironed out.

Perhaps the platform is de-monetizing video based on mass reporting - leaving
the system open to be gamed by anyone who is okay with the ethics of
brigading/report bombing. This is a VERY common thing these days.

The other possibility is that the AI is generating false positives and de-
monetizing as a result of it.

Whichever the case may be, it ought to be possible for content creators to
publish a video that is not mistakenly de-monetized for the vast majority of
their viewers.

~~~
ramijames
I think de-monetizing is part of Google's profit plan. They provide content
for no cost, but can still show ads and earn revenues. It's a giant scam.

~~~
warent
This is a little too cynical for my taste. Google isn't exactly a monument of
ethical business, but I seriously doubt that Google would intentionally
demonetize videos for the purpose of stealing from content creators.

~~~
senorjazz
Often used to hear the same accusations when adsense was a bigger thing.
Accounts with expected big payouts would always get banned a few days before
payout. They would accept all traffic you send them for the month, then just
before paying out, banned.

Perhaps a coincidence sure, but when accusations keep getting made about
underhanded tactics, maybe there is somethig there

<takes_off_hat_made_of_tinfoil>

~~~
bduerst
Except demonetized channel videos don't show ads.

This whole conspiracy falls flat when Google doesn't generate revenue off of
demonetized video ads.

~~~
jessaustin
The hypothesis is that the channel was only demonetized after a long period
during which it generated ad revenue. Flipping the demonetization switch
doesn't make that revenue disappear. Rather, that causes the revenue to stay
in Google's pocket instead of being distributed to the channel owner.

~~~
bduerst
The channel still gets the previous revenue leading up to the demonitization
switch, so no, Google doesn't gain anything. In fact, they lose because
they're now hosting videos that no longer generate revenue.

------
FillardMillmore
I think one of the problems that YouTube has is their three-strikes policy and
how they interact with said offending user.

When a video gets flagged, it supposedly is queued up for manual review. Upon
manual review, if the YouTube employee deems that the video has broken one of
its rules, it will take the video down and it will notify the uploader that
they have received a strike.

That's all fine, but the problem is really in how they handle this
interaction. They tell the user which "set of rules" they've broken (e.g.
"Hate speech, discrimination or other forms of bigotry based on race, gender
or religion"), but they get no more specific than that. They do not offer a
timestamp for the exact moment in which you violated their rules. The result
is as you'd expect. I'm sure many terrible videos are rightly taken down this
way, but there are plenty of people who don't believe their video violated any
rules and are seeking clarification on what they did wrong.

It would also be beneficial for the relationship between YouTube and its
creators if there was an opportunity for restitution. For example, maybe
YouTube informs the user that their video has violated a rule and if they
don't take it down within some period of time, they will receive a strike and
it will be taken down automatically (of course, with the knowledge that some
types of videos should be taken down immediately). Maybe when YouTube takes a
video down, they could timestamp it and tell the user that they can re-upload
the video without that specific part.

As it is now, there are people who make their livings on YouTube, and these
somewhat vague rules and the nebulous enforcement of them does not instill
creators (I'm talking about creators who post about divisive or controversial
things - could be something as simple as viewpoints on modern political news)
with a feeling of security and the end-result may be that they simply move to
a different platform.

If YouTube listens to the complaints of this 'FairTube' group and engages
them, I think that'd be best for everyone.

~~~
zamalek
Not to mention the stories of creators losing money to false claims. YouTube
should should the money is escrow until copyright strikes are resolved one way
or another because, as it stands, creators don't have the resources to fight
the rampant safe harbor fraud.

~~~
pluma
It's even worse than that. Sure, a chunk of the video's initial ad revenue
will be lost over illegitimate claims but if the video is restricted, the
video is basically dead. Most videos get the lion share of their views in the
time immediately after they're uploaded (i.e. the first day or week). If the
video gets stuck in limbo, not only isn't the creator making any money but
also the video will underperform and any cost of producing that video will
have virtually no return on investment.

So in other words, smaller channels can easily get stuck producing worse
content because the risk of investing significant amounts of time into a
single video is too great. And even when channels don't rely on monetisation,
lost exposure can limit their reach and harm their growth.

------
cfv
Disney, Sony and their many tentacles randomly steal from youtubers ALL THE
TIME, then are expected to review claims of wrongdoing by themselves on good
faith, and this is about as "creator friendly" Google will ever get. Those
rules suck. It's time to leave for greener pastures.

~~~
mullen
YouTubers are getting flagged by big media companies because YouTubers are
using their music or other media without getting a media license. This is not
a mystery unknown rule. YouTubers know to not use music they don't have the
rights to.

~~~
Karunamon
They are also getting flagged for things that are obviously _fair use_. The
idea that a travel vlogger loses their entire video's monetization because
they walked by a restaurant playing music is absurd. The music isn't even a
substantial part of the video.

------
TrackerFF
Youtube is kinda like Ebay.

Ebay used to be a great garage sale / thrift-store place where individuals
could sell their stuff, no hassle. Then they started catering to Ebay stores,
and then finally they wanted to become Amazon 2.0, almost pushing individual
sellers away. They're now basically geared toward large stores that act and
operate like any big amazon store - you're pretty much expected to eat any
losses that may come up, and write it off as "cost of doing business".

Same with Youtube. Used to be a great place for small individual creators, but
now it's basically just a stream of memes and high-production vids that are
the equivalent to visual fast-food.

Sure, you can still post as a small-timer, but there will be no help, and
you're at the mercy of the big companies and their relentless search for
copyrighted material. Or if you're not in the creative space, there's still a
chance you'll get screwed by arbitrary tripping the controversial content-
wire.

All that kinda narrows down the scope of what one can create, and thus we see
the rise of low-effort content farms .

(It's not that there's no good content - there's a ton of good high-quality
content, but as we've seen the past years, even the good channels with a
decent amount of followers can get demonetized at the drop of a hat)

~~~
spookthesunset
> Same with Youtube. Used to be a great place for small individual creators,
> but now it's basically just a stream of memes and high-production vids that
> are the equivalent to visual fast-food.

What are you talking about? Youtube is full of great high quality content from
individual creators. So much so, I'd wager youtube gives "real tv" a serious
run for their money. Almost all my video-based content consumption is youtube
these days.

------
komali2
TikTok is popular because of the insane decision to shut down Vine. Other apps
are filling in that void, now.

~~~
sergiotapia
I still can't believe they shut that app down. It was so massively popular.
Was it just because it wasn't making any money?

~~~
morcutt
This might have had played a role.

[https://www.mic.com/articles/157977/inside-the-secret-
meetin...](https://www.mic.com/articles/157977/inside-the-secret-meeting-that-
changed-the-fate-of-vine-forever)

~~~
sergiotapia
This is why I like tiktok more, I rarely see the same people twice. Kills the
whole "celebrity" aspect entirely for casual users like me. It's comfy to sit
just before bed for about 15 and laugh a bit with tiktok.

------
rackforms
It's been absolutely fascinating to watch the YouTube v. community drama play
out. I think many forget the _exact_ same situation has been and continues to
play out for Alphabets other major community, website owners.

The difference of course is we don't really have active and vocal "followers"
in the way YouTube creators do, so for the most part, when a website owner
like myself gets penalized for some abstract and out of my hand reason, or a
algorithm change destroys your business overnight, it happens silently, beyond
the headlines.

I can't stress this enough -- Google has been a powerful, often positive force
for the wider Internet. But they're also a cruel, heartless, and often
maniacal source of pain and sorrow.

------
Max-q
On YouTube, if you make a 10 minutes long video, but include 10 seconds of
copyrighted material, the copyright owner gets 100% of the revenue, the
creator 0%. I think this is YouTube creators main objection to the plattform.

------
vincengomes
2 years back, i uploaded a wildlife video which surprisingly became popular. A
year back i noticed im now eligible for monetization as i had crossed the
minimum required numbers for Subscribers and Views. One month after applying i
got rejected saying the content was duplicate. I thought it was a mistake and
applied again and again to no avail. My guess is, someone has content-ID'd the
video and monetizing it. The video now sits at 7M+ views and it occassionaly
irks me knowing somewhere someone is making money out of that video.

~~~
busymom0
I am surprised there isn't any way similar to Google reverse image search or
TinyEye which can do the reverse search for videos. Have you looked into it if
that's possible?

------
not_a_cop75
Why is this surprising? Youtube has become the gatekeeper, not the facilitator
of new and exciting video tech.

~~~
xfitm3
I'm glad to see backlash – we need neutral platforms where controversial
content will not be punished because of advertiser driven guidelines.

~~~
jrockway
I am pretty sure you can upload a video to your favorite web host and publish
as much controversial content as you want.

People want YouTube's captive audience of billions and the pre-existing
monetization network. But they are upset that there are arbitrary rules for
accessing that audience/money. I am pretty sure that 99.9% of Youtubers
wouldn't exist if there were no possibility of ever making money from their
videos.

Wherever YouTube stands right now, it's still better than the situation 20
years ago where a few network executives controlled what sort of video
programming would be produced. It might not be perfect, but there are plenty
of people who started from nothing that are making money from their creative
work; something that wouldn't have even been possible just a few years ago. So
maybe it's not all bad.

------
manishsharan
The amount of advertisements youtube forces upon viewers is also insane.
Sometimes they force 2 consecutive ads for one 5 minute video.

~~~
tinus_hn
The uploader chooses the amount of ads.

------
ajnin
Youtube is a monumental money-making machine for Google because of the large
amount of ads. Creative content is only incidental, it is not the primary
purpose of Youtube to foster creation, only to gather ad revenue. It shows in
the way they treat creators and viewers vs advertisers and rights holding
companies. So this backlash is justified, but for what, TikTok, another closed
garden controlled by another media comany ?

I'd personally want to see rise an alternative made of peertube and micro
donations, where users would chose to pay for infrastructure and content
creation, but I don't know how to make this happen.

~~~
Synaesthesia
We have to all make it happen. You won’t get it done on your own, and neither
will I. But collectively we can.

------
jjcm
I'm working on a side project right now that tries to address the issues we
have with monetizing content and creatives at the moment. Ad revenue as we've
seen with Youtube and countless other platforms simply isn't viable at scale.
You have to play too safe to not associate your brand with any controversy, it
degrades the user experience, and it means creatives have to walk on a
tightrope not to get demonetized.

Patreon is probably the best current system that's out there, but it doesn't
provide a good way to get eyes on the content. I'm trying to create an open
source reddit meets patreon system, with the model described by this
interactive prototype:
[https://syd.jjcm.org/soci/](https://syd.jjcm.org/soci/)

I've got the frontend sorted, an API fully specced out, and some rough backend
code created, but I'll be honest in that I'm not a backend guy so I could use
some help. If anyone is interested in trying to solve the problem send me a
message at j@jjcm.org. I've got an active job ad in the who's hiring page with
more details:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20331491](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20331491)

I'd also be open to just paying someone remote to help out. At the end of the
day I just want there to be a better system available for creatives.

------
ancorevard
Google's decision to be the arbiter of acceptable speech will be its undoing.

~~~
tinus_hn
How exactly is that scenario going to play out?

~~~
Karunamon
Generate enough outrage and laws can change. While current law recognizes the
difference between a publisher and a platform, recent activities could very
well cause pressure for publisher-like liability when these platforms begin
exercising a high degree of editorial control.

The social media giants' problem is that they want to have their cake and eat
it too. They want the editorial control, _and_ they want to be absolved of any
liability when they host terrorist propaganda (think ISIL), pedo bait, and
other garbage.

There's also the recent court decisions regarding politicians' usage of
blocking. That ruling creeps right up to the line of recognizing "private"
social media providers as a public square of sorts. The situation we're in is
not tenable for much longer.

~~~
Nasrudith
That wouldn't work how you want it to and wouldn't be a good idea - especially
if expecting outrage to be in your service.

The end result would be a choice between a troll and spam storm or precurated
everything.

~~~
Karunamon
I always thought a great idea for stepping over this whole problem is a robust
tagging/categorizing system, and then make certain tags opt-in to view. That
would be the least amount of work and least likely to be upsetting to
reasonable people.

That aside, the one worry I share is that the outrage is going to drive a
legislative solution that ends up splitting the baby and sucking for all
parties concerned. I was entirely serious when I said this situation wasn't
tenable, though. Too much emotion/polarization/etc for something to not give
soon.

------
ilikehurdles
Long, long overdue, but it seems like Vimeo is starting to pick up steam in
response. I'm really not sure if their policies around DMCA claims are (or
would be) any better, but I've noticed folks gravitating toward it as an
alternative.

------
webbrahmin
Youtube creator here. I am running a Youtube channel for the last few years
and it is my full-time job. About a year back I criticized youtube on twitter.
Soon afterward my views started dropping. Though it cannot be concluded that
my tweets were responsible it is difficult to explain how a channel which was
very popular in its niche will suddenly fall off the cliff?

I am over 40 years old and I am unable to find regular employment. For the
last 6 months, I am learning to program and trying developing 3 web apps. I am
hoping that one of them will reach ramen profitability.

~~~
busymom0
What is your channel? What type of web apps are you working on?

~~~
webbrahmin
Directory apps. My self-education is still underway. I hope to build a SaaS
product soon.

------
JDiculous
YouTube is always facing creator backlash. I don't see anything new in this
article.

For example, I'm not a fan of how the algorithm seems to prioritize clickbait
(clickbait is the cancer of the internet) and longer videos. This leads people
to load up their videos with filler to hit that 10 minutes length, and then
sensationalize their titles, often into "questions" that the video will then
fail to subsequently answer. I've had a video get a false copyright claim - it
sucked, and it steered me away from making the kind of political videos that
use news clips.

But there are no viable competitors, I guess because hosting video content is
expensive and network effects. Facebook is probably the closest competitor,
but there's too much noise and it's not really much of a search engine for
videos. Tik-Tok is not a competitor - it serves an entirely different market
(the one formerly served by Vine and Music.ly) of short mobile clips.

Until Youtube starts shadowbanning channels and playing a "Big Brother"
censorship role, I'll continue to post there. (I've heard rumours of Youtube
shadowbanning channels, but I'm not convinced that they're legitimate, though
I haven't really looked into it)

------
dba7dba
One of my favorite youtube channel by 'Indy Neidell' on WW2 has been
demonetized. He and his team cover WW2 week by week, one video with historical
analysis/story for every week. They recently completed a series for WW1 and it
was amazing.

Even as a semi serious history buff, I learn new stuff. But they have been
demonetized, seriously hurting their ability to put up videos.

He put up an extensive view on this and states there is no rhythm or rhyme on
what gets restricted or not.

------
Quequau
I am a big fan of machining and metal working videos. Whatever changes YouTube
did last year basically gutted that niche, with many channels simply abruptly
giving up mid project.

I have no idea what exactly they changed but from my perspective as a casual
viewer it had a large and negative impact.

~~~
Rebelgecko
According to anecdotes I've seen online (so take this with a _massive_ grain
of salt), some videos showing how to use tools like drill presses and CNC
machines have been demonetized due to youtube's policy against educational
gunsmithing videos
([https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6162278?hl=en))

------
DoubleGlazing
I ageee that YouTube sucks for many reasons. They have a weird undocumented
algorithm that defines what gets popular and as a result creators are
constantly playing games to bait it. Their monetization/demonetization
policies are just bonkers. Their copyright enforcement system is Kafkaesque.
Plus, as a consumer they seem to be going down the facebook route of trying to
curate my viewing choices in a way that suits them.

But they can do that as they are a private company. They don't owe anyone
anything. If you rely on YouTube for a living without a backup plan then you
are dumb.

YouTube is no longer the only player in online video. If you don't like what
YouTube is doing then look at alternative platforms.

------
intreego
There is definitely a wave that is happening on other video sharing platforms
but I suspect that it won't be a big sea change as the content on YouTube is
deep and embedded so the YouTube still casts the widest net. Tik Tok and
Astronaut.io are interesting but as I type this post word from a 15 year old
teenager says that the alternatives are boring so the attention span required
is short. The alternatives are entertaining but will really only be a threat
when learning takes place on them. The demographic is different and learning
will need to take place it 15 seconds or less. It might also be interesting to
note that there are approx 200 variables Google looks for when deciding who
rides the wave or not.

------
dbg31415
I hate that the YouTube ads aren't at all targeted to the video that you're
watching, or even your profile. Google has like every bit of data they could
possibly want on me... and I literally have never seen an ad for anything I
would care about.

Worse, like I'm trying to sleep, and I turn on some ASMR or meditation video,
and if I forget to turn off the "auto play" feature (it's annoying to turn off
from the TV interface), then I'm hit with what can only be described as used-
car-guy-volume ads. "BUY NOW! LOW LOW PRICES!"

Now I just use a video scraper to download the videos I like so I can watch
them while I sleep. Nobody wins when they don't tie ads to content, or ads to
users.

------
nfoz
Unpopular opinion, but this whole career choice of "YouTube content creator"
seems like a frightful gamble in the first place. You've intrinsically tied
yourself into a particular company's product. I guess I don't see YouTube's
website as a public space and I don't see how anyone is "entitled" to
monetization.

But to be more sympathetic, in this case it just sounds like YouTube should
have done most of its automated content scans before posting the video in the
first place.

~~~
larrydag
The Platform vs Publisher debate.

[https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-
publisher-1588...](https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-
publisher-15888.html)

Note this article is more about speech but you get the idea.

I don't think it's entitlement but the creators want to know the "rules".

~~~
hitpointdrew
> The Platform vs Publisher debate.

Not really. If the discussion was about weather a video should be allowed to
exist, or be taken down, then yes it would be publisher vs platform. But this
is a case of monetization vs non-monetization. I think YouTube, Twitter, ect.
should be treated as "Platforms" and that nothing should ever be
deleted/banned/taken down unless it is strictly illegal. That said,
monetization is entirely a different beast, YouTube as a business can pick and
choose which videos to monetize and which ones not to. Restricting content is
a violation of the 1st amendment, refusing to pay creators is a business
decision.

~~~
fareesh
Let's say YouTube's parent company invests in a new cosmetics company that's
doing make-up tutorials on YouTube. Is it fair for YouTube to then de-monetize
the independent content creators who are creating make-up tutorials and
therefore hurt their revenue stream? Let's say their algorithm does it by
"mistake" all the time, what can be done about it?

Over time, the independent creators have less YouTube ad revenue share. Their
competitor (in which Alphabet has a stake), is "coincidentally" given higher
search ranking and more visibility in the recommendations as well.

What happens to the independent content creators over time?

What is the legal remedy for the above scenario?

How would one even prove this case in court?

~~~
hitpointdrew
>Is it fair for YouTube to then de-monetize the independent content creators
who are creating make-up tutorials

Fair, no. Legal? Yes.

> Over time, the independent creators have less YouTube ad revenue share.

OK, and? There is no fundamental right to YouTube monetization.

>Their competitor (in which Alphabet has a stake), is "coincidentally" given
higher search ranking and more visibility in the recommendations as well.

Ranking is a problem, if you are platform then everyone has equal voice then
the ranking system needs to be 100% equal and transparent, which it is current
neither.

> What happens to the independent content creators over time?

They find other ways to make $$ or they find another career. Lots of YT's are
now pushing things like pateron membership. There is also nothing stopping any
YT from going out and securing their own advertisers and doing their own ads
in their videos.

>What is the legal remedy for the above scenario?

Legal remedy is simple, YT can't ban/restrict/bury content. YT can decide who,
if anyone, they want to monetize.

>How would one even prove this case in court?

It is obvious when a video is taken down, and if the ranking system was 100%
transparent it would also be easy to verify if there was tampering ("My video
had 1mil views in the first 24 hours, this other video had 200k views the
first 24 hours, the other video was trending, mine wasn't.")

------
jrobn
Sounds like a symptom of centralized silo services, period. This wouldn’t be a
problem if each of those creators had a website with their content on it. The
copyright holders would have to issue a DMCA to for that 10 second of radio
music, which, while not perfect, is better than this YouTube content claim
garbage completely controlled by claimants.

Then maybe copyright law would be molded into a better system. Which is
exactly what these copyright cartels DON’T want. They want to avoid any
judicial review whatsoever of their actions.

------
lone_haxx0r
The one thing I dislike about Youtube and no one talks about is their
aggresive lossy compression.

My monitor is only 1080p but I set the quality to 1440p or 4K if the video
supports it, as those resolutions allow a higher bitrate and I can enjoy
videos without noticeable distortion. I prefer my computer to downscale the
image instead of Youtube butchering the whole thing by limiting the bitrate to
an extreme.

I understand that Youtube has to optimize their storage and bandwidth, but
still, if I see a video with too many compression artifacts I just close it.

~~~
burfog
If you close a video with too many compression artifacts, then you'll miss out
on internet history. For example, Numa Numa:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqd1Gvq-
RBY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqd1Gvq-RBY)

------
bla3
YouTube has been facing some form of creator backlash for years now.

------
abledon
is the youtube trending page algorithmically generated or human-curated? Its
complete garbage. If the first 20 videos are really what most people want to
watch... god help us lol

------
minimaxir
I want to make programming/data science/AI videos again on YouTube, but given
the current state of YouTube I'm _very_ unmotivated to do so.

~~~
edgarvaldes
I wish every content creator was aware of the importance of having a backup
plan. It's sad to read so many stories about creators losing not only the
audience and revenue, but alse the content itself after YT shut them down.

~~~
Scoundreller
Having a backup plan to YT is kinda like my backup plan if my house burns
down: a rough time.

It’s not insta-death, but it’s not going to be like it was for a while.

~~~
majewsky
The backup plan defines how long "for a while" will last. Anywhere between a
few months and the rest of your life.

~~~
Scoundreller
> the rest of your life

Hey, I wouldn’t have drawn Mickey Mouse if I didn’t care about the success of
my heirs I never met

-Wally D.

------
a0-prw
Unless Youtube enters into a serious dialog concerning Fairtube's demands, IG
metal's lawyers will be challenging Youtube in court over "false self
employment". Could get _very_ expensive for YT:

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=oZZ5Kouj_hQ](https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=oZZ5Kouj_hQ)

------
peteretep
Wonder if the creators will get organized enough to create a co-op company to
run a video sharing site where they get all the pie.

~~~
moate
Narrator: No, they will not.

------
NKCSS
The whole ContentID/de-monetization thing sucks. YouTube made a video about it
themselves to explain how it works, which is pretty informative:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYurafmTwcw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYurafmTwcw)

------
Causality1
Does YouTube mistreat and exploit its creators in a myriad of ways?
Absolutely. Is it a fair platform and does it behave in reasonable ways?
Absolutely not.

That said, I feel that a reminder about the nature of YouTube monetization,
AKA the YouTube Partner Program is in order. The YPP puts ads in and around
your video and gives you part of the profit from running those ads, but what
does that mean? It means YouTube is: >Finding advertisers >Persuading them it
can pick content (yours) that is profitable to advertise on >Handling the
entire negotiation and payment work behind implementing that advertising
>Handling the entire technical aspect of adding those advertisements to your
video

That is an enormous amount of work YouTube is doing for its content creators
for free. You are not in any way entitled to YouTube doing that work for you.
Having your videos categorized as not eligible for the YPP is not in any way
depriving you of the ability to make money from them, just the ability to
automatically make money from them with no effort on your part. Without access
to the YPP, you are still free to find sponsors, find advertisers and run your
own ads, receive donations, or rely on patronage services like Patreon. That
means you have every single avenue of revenue generation (aside from
paywalling your content) available to you that you'd have if you were hosting
the videos yourself on a personal server. Hell you can even do that if you
want to set up some kind of script that uploads your videos as Private and
only adds viewer usernames to the whitelist after they pay you.

It would be a terrible idea, but YouTube would be entirely within its rights
to charge content creators for the bandwidth consumed by their viewers and
offer no assistance at all for making money off your content. YouTube owes you
nothing.

------
NeoBasilisk
Youtube's copyright claims system is absolutely abysmal. I didn't know that
TikTok is owned by a Chinese company, so I assume that they are much more
resistant to copyright trolls?

------
jdlyga
The copystriking system is totally ridiculous. The person who claimed the
video should not be the one to decide appeals if they incorrectly claimed your
video.

------
annadane
Can we also fix the recommended videos so it's actually related to what you're
watching and not the most reactionary garbage?

~~~
Causality1
I miss the days when you could watch "Bill Cooking Chicken part 1" and the
related videos would be "Bill Cooking Chicken part 2" and "Bill Cooking fish
part 1" instead of "I wasted $200 on Wish.com" and "More Adventures in
Replying to Spam" and "Ten Flaws of the Borg Collective".

------
mycall
I welcome someone at axios to make a dynamic mind map of all their
compilations. It would make for an interesting journey.

------
blueboo
It’s not gonna be much of a backlash when content creators have so little
leverage.

------
rehemiau
I hope Floatplane succeeds and we have a nice subscription-based platform for
creators

------
Hitton
Although Youtube sucks in many regards (namely handling copyright claims and
deleting/demonetizing videos for wrongthink), one thing I really like about it
is their terms of use. I come very rarely upon so creator right friendly
service.

You give rights to your content to Youtube only for purposes of operating and
promoting Youtube, which means that it won't eventually become remixed by
third party and put behind paywall without you having anything to say about
it. And this license which you grant to Youtube ends if you remove your
videos. Also it doesn't have indemnification clause. Compare it to virtually
all other services which request irrevocable right to do pretty much anything
with your content and also demand indemnification.

------
thoughtstheseus
Do what ally law did and make your own site.

------
techrich
well when you attack good channels like mark dice, sargon of akkad etc then
there will be backlash

