26 votes

YouTube Terms of Service updated with the “right to monetize”

29 comments

  1. CommonDreads
    Link
    Dick move by Google if you ask me. Now imagine milions of small content creators trying to build an audience.. they are not eligible for the youtube monetization program yet google will show ads...

    Dick move by Google if you ask me.

    "YouTube ads generated $15.15 billion in revenue in 2019" Link

    Now imagine milions of small content creators trying to build an audience.. they are not eligible for the youtube monetization program yet google will show ads on their content anyway. I'm sure this will drive a lot of people away from those channels without them earning a single penny.

    18 votes
  2. [7]
    admicos
    Link
    So if I understand the changes correctly, does this mean YouTube will still run ads on videos that explicitly opt-out of monetization, like what happened to Blender? I know of a few channels that...

    So if I understand the changes correctly, does this mean YouTube will still run ads on videos that explicitly opt-out of monetization, like what happened to Blender?

    I know of a few channels that intentionally don't run YouTube ads, this will be interesting to follow...

    14 votes
    1. [3]
      cfabbro
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      Yeah, I am super curious about this as well. And if that's the case, then all the firearms related channels I watch that intentionally don't monetize any of their videos to avoid complications...

      Yeah, I am super curious about this as well. And if that's the case, then all the firearms related channels I watch that intentionally don't monetize any of their videos to avoid complications (e.g. Forgotten Weapons, C&Rsenal, InRangeTV, Demolition Ranch, etc) are going to be in a really awkward position now... as are the advertisers that wind up having their ads run on them. I really hope this doesn't lead to all those channels being restricted even more than they already are, or (even worse) getting shut down. :(

      5 votes
      1. [2]
        skybrian
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        Google's ad policy bans firearm ads, so I'd guess that even though the terms say they could, they wouldn't actually do that. Maybe these channels are worried about other kinds of ads, though?...

        Google's ad policy bans firearm ads, so I'd guess that even though the terms say they could, they wouldn't actually do that. Maybe these channels are worried about other kinds of ads, though?

        There is a general tendency to make terms of service vague so they don't need to change them too often, even if the internal policy is more restrictive. Of course that only helps Google. It means you can't really judge their current intentions by their terms of service and that they could more easily change their minds later.

        3 votes
        1. cfabbro
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          I know. That's not what I meant. Yeah that's what I was getting at, and what I suspect most firearms related channels would be concerned about upon hearing this news, since I doubt most...

          Google's ad policy bans firearm ads ... they wouldn't actually do that.

          I know. That's not what I meant.

          Maybe these channels are worried about other kinds of ads, though?

          Yeah that's what I was getting at, and what I suspect most firearms related channels would be concerned about upon hearing this news, since I doubt most advertisers would want their product associated with said firearms content. And with this change, potentially putting ads on everything now, might also come increased scrutiny on channels and their content, and pressure from YouTube to make all content on the site even more ad-friendly... which would likely be impossible for a lot of those firearms channels.

          10 votes
    2. [3]
      p4t44
      Link Parent
      Couldn't channels just include 2 seconds of gore or something and get their videos demonitised intentionally?

      Couldn't channels just include 2 seconds of gore or something and get their videos demonitised intentionally?

      1 vote
      1. [2]
        cfabbro
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        Sure, they can do that... but I doubt they would want to risk the potential community strikes that might result from that. Showing gore violates the YouTube community guidelines:...

        Sure, they can do that... but I doubt they would want to risk the potential community strikes that might result from that. Showing gore violates the YouTube community guidelines: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802008

        4 votes
        1. p4t44
          Link Parent
          Surely there's something that is allowed but is not monetisable? Looking at the YouTube guidelines content with firearms or tobacco is considered not safe for advertisers so maybe a channel could...

          Surely there's something that is allowed but is not monetisable? Looking at the YouTube guidelines content with firearms or tobacco is considered not safe for advertisers so maybe a channel could include a few seconds of guns and tobacco at the end of a video? Or even something like Jimquisition's copyright deadlock?

          1 vote
  3. sron
    Link
    Google will start running ads on non-Partner videos, who will not receive a share of the revenue.

    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. Starting November 18, 2020, any payments you may be entitled to receive from YouTube under any other agreement between you and YouTube (including for example payments ​under the YouTube Partner Program, Channel memberships or Super Chat) will be treated as royalties. If required by law, Google will withhold taxes from such payments.

    Google will start running ads on non-Partner videos, who will not receive a share of the revenue.

    13 votes
  4. [2]
    MetArtScroll
    (edited )
    Link
    The emphasis is mine: Earning money off users' content without sharing is one thing (especially if the channel is really small, but doing so is still wrong). However, erecting a paywall without...

    The emphasis is mine:

    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).

    Earning money off users' content without sharing is one thing (especially if the channel is really small, but doing so is still wrong). However, erecting a paywall without the creator's consent is IMHO unacceptable, even if the creator gets to receive a share. Of course, this does not apply in case the creator does want to have a paywall.

    13 votes
    1. Weldawadyathink
      Link Parent
      IANAL but is this maybe just about YouTube premium? Is it possible that googles lawyers thought someone paying for premium is “charging users a fee to access” even if it can be accessed by non...

      IANAL but is this maybe just about YouTube premium? Is it possible that googles lawyers thought someone paying for premium is “charging users a fee to access” even if it can be accessed by non premium users? Maybe they are just worried about that. I really hope I am right, but I am worried that I am not.

      8 votes
  5. tindall
    Link
    Wow, this blows. I used to have a small but fairly well-received YouTube channel with a couple of thousand subscribers where I made videos about programming and open source software, antenna...

    Wow, this blows. I used to have a small but fairly well-received YouTube channel with a couple of thousand subscribers where I made videos about programming and open source software, antenna design, video game reviews, and other random things. I made a few dozen dollars a week before I was kicked off of the YPP for not having enough subscribers, at which point I stopped making videos.

    I pulled all my videos when I got doxxed, but if I hadn't, I certainly would now.

    8 votes
  6. [9]
    suspended
    Link
    Why don't we start talking about some solutions to this problem? I don't believe there will be any viable solutions if content creators continue to use YouTube. Are there any other platforms for...

    Why don't we start talking about some solutions to this problem? I don't believe there will be any viable solutions if content creators continue to use YouTube.

    Are there any other platforms for content creators, for example?

    5 votes
    1. tindall
      Link Parent
      My current go-to for video content is DiodeZone and other Peertube instances, but I'm aware that most people are instantly turned off when I mention federation. Fundamentally, sharing video is...

      My current go-to for video content is DiodeZone and other Peertube instances, but I'm aware that most people are instantly turned off when I mention federation. Fundamentally, sharing video is very expensive. I doubt truly replacing YouTube is possible under a more sustainable business model.

      6 votes
    2. [6]
      Weldawadyathink
      Link Parent
      Floatplane and Nebula are the best alternatives I have heard of. I personally subscribe to nebula, but I often watch on YouTube anyway because it is all in one place.

      Floatplane and Nebula are the best alternatives I have heard of. I personally subscribe to nebula, but I often watch on YouTube anyway because it is all in one place.

      3 votes
      1. [5]
        cfabbro
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        Floatplane is great and I use it to back a few of the creators already on it... but it's not a YouTube alternative (as they are very vocal in pointing out) and is unlikely to ever be. It's more...

        Floatplane is great and I use it to back a few of the creators already on it... but it's not a YouTube alternative (as they are very vocal in pointing out) and is unlikely to ever be. It's more like a Patreon alternative that also provides video hosting and livestreaming. Unlike YouTube you can't access any of the content on it for free; It all requires a subscription to watch, and AFAIK they have no intention of changing their model.

        3 votes
        1. [3]
          stu2b50
          Link Parent
          Nebula is also similar to floatplane. Honestly, for a platform like YouTube, I don't see any grassroots challengers, at least in the same space. Video hosting, especially if you offer the quality...

          Nebula is also similar to floatplane.

          Honestly, for a platform like YouTube, I don't see any grassroots challengers, at least in the same space. Video hosting, especially if you offer the quality options YouTube does, is so mind bogglingly expensive to host and serve that without the economies of scale of YouTube you're not going to get very far.

          So you need one of the big tech companies willing to loss lead for like a decade, but none of them seem very interested. Closest would be Twitch... Not really the same thing, though.

          3 votes
          1. Greg
            Link Parent
            Vimeo seems like a good middle ground in the hosting space - paid, but with a low cost point of entry and unlimited bandwidth at all tiers. It doesn't come with the built-in audience that YouTube...

            Vimeo seems like a good middle ground in the hosting space - paid, but with a low cost point of entry and unlimited bandwidth at all tiers.

            It doesn't come with the built-in audience that YouTube does, which definitely changes the dynamic, but it takes away a lot of the technical and cost hurdles involved in distributing video across other sites or apps.

            4 votes
          2. cfabbro
            Link Parent
            Yeah, I don't see any grassroots players standing much of a chance either, at least if video content creators still want to make a living at it anyways. And sadly, Twitch, the only other player...

            Yeah, I don't see any grassroots players standing much of a chance either, at least if video content creators still want to make a living at it anyways. And sadly, Twitch, the only other player big enough to succeed at it seems completely uninterested in directly competing with YouTube, as evidenced by their decision a few years ago to no longer store VODs past 14 days (60 days for partners).

            2 votes
        2. Weldawadyathink
          Link Parent
          They do often say that, and I did think about that before I made my comment. I think that while floatplane and nebula may not be direct YouTube competitors, they are competitors for people like...

          They do often say that, and I did think about that before I made my comment. I think that while floatplane and nebula may not be direct YouTube competitors, they are competitors for people like me. Neither provide a good discovery section, but that is not what I use YouTube for. I use YouTube to watch videos posted by creators that I subscribe to. In that aspect, they are very much competitors. I know I am willing to pay money to someone to not deal with the bullshit YouTube does, and I hope others are as well. I don’t care one bit about (almost) any of the features of YouTube besides watching videos from certain creators.

          2 votes
    3. ohyran
      Link Parent
      Any peertube instance and a social media sharing account of some sort (twitter etc).

      Any peertube instance and a social media sharing account of some sort (twitter etc).

      2 votes
  7. [8]
    heady
    Link
    Just yesterday a friend of mine discovered that the ability to export subscriptions has been removed. While it was never a truly open platform they do seem to be aggressively, lets say...

    Just yesterday a friend of mine discovered that the ability to export subscriptions has been removed. While it was never a truly open platform they do seem to be aggressively, lets say "diggifying" the site.

    5 votes
    1. [7]
      Wes
      Link Parent
      I just checked Google Takeout, and it lists these items as available for export: channel-memberships children history music-library-songs music-uploads my-comments my-live-chat-messages my-posts...

      I just checked Google Takeout, and it lists these items as available for export:

      • channel-memberships
      • children
      • history
      • music-library-songs
      • music-uploads
      • my-comments
      • my-live-chat-messages
      • my-posts
      • playlists
      • stories
      • subscriptions
      • videos

      So I think you should be able to export subscriptions just fine.

      5 votes
      1. [6]
        heady
        Link Parent
        While possible that is rather byzantine compared to the export button that was previously on the subscription list only a few months ago.

        While possible that is rather byzantine compared to the export button that was previously on the subscription list only a few months ago.

        6 votes
        1. [5]
          cfabbro
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          @Bauke actually shared a script with me a few days ago, that he wrote to allow him to generate the OPML data from the Subscription Feed page, just like you used to be able to do via the Export...
          • Exemplary

          @Bauke actually shared a script with me a few days ago, that he wrote to allow him to generate the OPML data from the Subscription Feed page, just like you used to be able to do via the Export button on the now defunct Subscription Manager page. Hopefully he won't mind me sharing it here. ;)

          {
            const xmlEncode = (input) => {
              return input
                .replace(/&/g, '&')
                .replace(/</g, '&lt;')
                .replace(/>/g, '&gt;')
                .replace(/"/g, '&quot;')
                .replace(/'/g, '&apos;');
            };
          
            const isObject = (value) => {
              const type = typeof value;
              return type === 'function' || type === 'object' && !!value;
            };
          
            const feeds = [];
          
            const recurse = (obj) => {
              if (obj !== undefined) {
                for (const value of Object.values(obj)) {
                  if (value === undefined) {
                    continue;
                  }
            
                  if (value.hasOwnProperty('channelId')) {
                    feeds.push({
                      id: value.channelId,
                      title: value.title.simpleText
                    });
                  } else if (isObject(value)) {
                    try {
                      recurse(value);
                    } catch (error) {
                      console.error(error);
                      console.error(obj, value);
                      continue;
                    }
                  }
                }
              }
            };
          
            recurse(window.ytInitialData);
          
            const outlines = feeds.map(({id, title}) => {
              const url = `https://www.youtube.com/feeds/videos.xml?channel_id=${id}`;
              return `<outline text="${xmlEncode(title)}" xmlUrl="${xmlEncode(url)}"/>`;
            });
          
            console.log(`<opml version="2.0">\n<body>\n${outlines.join('\n')}\n</body>\n</opml>\n`);
          }
          

          To use: scroll all the way to the bottom on this page https://www.youtube.com/feed/channels (hold the End key until you get there, easy)

          CTRL+SHIFT+K to open the console, paste and run the script, right click the OPML string and click "Copy object"

          Boom you now have the OPML

          p.s. If it's your first time running a script in the Firefox web console, you may also have to switch to multi-line editor mode in the console page (CTRL+SHIFT+B) then manually type allow paste + ENTER in the "run" tab before pasting the above script will be allowed there. Delete the allow paste line afterwards, then you will be able to click ▷Run and copy the OPML data in the "output" tab.

          6 votes
          1. [4]
            ruspaceni
            Link Parent
            Thanks a bunch for bringing this to my attention. Idk if it's a sitewide thing or just my account, but once i hit 1000 subscriptions it just refused to count any higher. Some of my subs just...

            Thanks a bunch for bringing this to my attention. Idk if it's a sitewide thing or just my account, but once i hit 1000 subscriptions it just refused to count any higher. Some of my subs just wouldn't show up in the sidebar when looking for them, but going to their channel showed I was subscribed (but this took a year-ish to discover as its hard to notice an inactive missing channel). It would always just show some livestreams and then "plus 995 more".

            The export feature @heady mentions also had this soft-cap. No matter how many times I unsubbed from channels or subbed to new ones, the number didn't budge past 1000. So I wouldn't be surprised if that contributed to the export buttons removal. I'm not sure how I didn't notice the feed/channels page, but since I was still getting steady uploads I knew there had to be an accurate list out there somewhere.

            I swear I've subscribed to more than 450 channels since hitting the 1k cap 3 years ago, but then again 450 is still a fair amount and i just tested it with a fresh subscription and it's showing 1451 vs 1450, so I'm no longer paranoid about things going mysteriously missing anymore. Thanks again for highlighting this !

            2 votes
            1. [2]
              heady
              Link Parent
              You might find freetube useful. You can group channels into profiles and quickly toggle between those profiles. So if you made a profile for high volume channels and one for low volume you could...

              You might find freetube useful. You can group channels into profiles and quickly toggle between those profiles. So if you made a profile for high volume channels and one for low volume you could make it less likely to lose videos in the noise. I have not personally tested it with that high a number of channels though.

              2 votes
              1. ruspaceni
                Link Parent
                ah, that's really cool! Yeah losing videos in the noise is a bit annoying, although since using fraidyc.at/ I've been relaxing quite a bit about that too. I'll have to give freetube a go and see...

                ah, that's really cool! Yeah losing videos in the noise is a bit annoying, although since using fraidyc.at/ I've been relaxing quite a bit about that too. I'll have to give freetube a go and see how it compares, because right now the only channels I'm following with fraidycat are the 'meaty' but infrequent videos.

                Going through and categorizing everything is daunting though but needs doing eventually

                1 vote
            2. cfabbro
              Link Parent
              NP! Also, damn... I thought I had a lot of subscriptions at 715, but you put me to shame. ;)

              NP! Also, damn... I thought I had a lot of subscriptions at 715, but you put me to shame. ;)

              1 vote