YouTube Terms of Service updated with the “right to monetize”
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Updates to YouTube's Terms of Service (November '20) - YouTube Community
- Jensen - TeamYouTube
- Nov 18 2020
- Word count
- 820 words
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 on their content anyway. I'm sure this will drive a lot of people away from those channels without them earning a single penny.
Google will start running ads on non-Partner videos, who will not receive a share of the revenue.
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...
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. :(
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.
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 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.
Couldn't channels just include 2 seconds of gore or something and get their videos demonitised intentionally?
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
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?
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Any peertube instance and a social media sharing account of some sort (twitter etc).
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.
I just checked Google Takeout, and it lists these items as available for export:
So I think you should be able to export subscriptions just fine.
While possible that is rather byzantine compared to the export button that was previously on the subscription list only a few months ago.
@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. ;)
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 pasteline afterwards, then you will be able to click ▷Run and copy the OPML data in the "output" tab.
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 !
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.
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
NP! Also, damn... I thought I had a lot of subscriptions at 715, but you put me to shame. ;)