[erikpukinskis]

The policy wasn't universally mocked. Maybe you're in some specific subcommunity, but browse around a little. The opinion I heard most was that the policy is understandable (there is such a thing as advertiser-unfriendly content) but people want more transparency from YouTube so they can work the system effectively.

[qwertyuiop924]

That's true, but the point that many made (and is correct) is that many forms of content cannot be advertised upon under the new policy. In fact, depending upon how YouTube interprets the policy, they can probably block monetization on any video they want, and still claim to be merely enforcing the policy. Finally, it's quite unlikely that this policy will be implemented fairly. If you want evidence, merely know that one of the most viewed videos on YouTube is Nicky Minaj's "Anaconda," which is rife with policy violations, but is on a VEVO channel, and thus technically published by part of YouTube itself.

Do you think they'll be blocking monetization on that?

No, it's not evidence, but until serious enforcing happens, it's the best I can do, and I think it's a reasonable assumption to make.

[angry-hacker]

That always amazes me how pop music passes it.

Search for rap song Coco. It's about being love with cocaine and violence and it shows me Kia car ads with families before the video. And some semi amateur authors who TALKED about true crime events were banned from the YouTube adsense partnership.

[flashman]

I don't see that as inconsistent. The term is 'advertiser friendly'. Plenty of advertisers are happy to be associated with popular artists because their popularity gives the advertiser cover. Equally, they might not want to be associated with a small-time true crime channel.

[angry-hacker]

The term is not really advertiser friendly. Adsense (also YouTube) TOS makes it very clear ALL the content needs to be family friendly to begin with. Of course, I understand big labels are given an exception but it doesn't make it less hypocritical.

[MichaelBurge]

Why is it hypocritical to cut a deal with certain important clients? Even Stallman recommends selling license exceptions to GPL'd code.

Generally speaking, any startup on this site will give preferential treatment to a $50,000/month customer than to a $5/month customer.

Even your bank will treat you differently if you want to open an account with a deposit of $2 million than if you want to deposit $25.

I don't think "hypocritical" is the right word, since Youtube isn't making a moral judgment. They'd take any money they could if their partners would let them.

[angry-hacker]

I understand how world and business work, no problem. I just lined out this is the reason they claim for banning those YT accounts from revenue. I have personally no problem understanding it, but it doesn't make it any less hypocritical.

The same with Google best the practices on showing content first, ads after, same time their search is covered with ads and the content is below fold.

[eumoria]

This is a direct avenue for advertisers to control what content is actually available on YouTube. If you want to make money on YouTube you need to make content that advertisers like first and foremost or you get to make no money at all. It's exactly the control they had during the television era. Smells like weak reason as a guise to gain control over the content presented on the site entirely.

[qwertyuiop924]

That's always been true, it's just now moreso. This is why creators of content that is offensive (The Jimquisition), niche (Longer videos from people like CGPGrey), or that just want less strings attached are flocking en masse to direct sponsorship (a very old idea, common in the podcasting world, and perhaps most famously enacted by Rhett and Link), or more often to a donation/membership model à la NPR (typically through Vessel or Patreon, this is most successfully done by Crash Course, a show that has a massive budget and is largely payed for by viewers), or to other websites and networks (NormalBoots, HiddenBlock, Channel Awesome (formerly TGWTG) - anywhere that can get other advertisers, or pay the bills somehow).

[angry-hacker]

If I use Google display network to show my ads, there is no category to exclude videos promoting violence and gang life. There is no way I can exclude that specific video.

[qwertyuiop924]

It's because YouTube has a partnership with the record labels.

[Ph0X]

What do they gain from removing advertising from any video? Any money you make is money they make.

Another thing you need to realize is that this is all automated, they don't come and manually remove monetization from your video. Yes, the algorithm could potentially be wonky, but again, it's in their best interest for it to be good.

Everything that has been spouted so far has been senseless propaganda and none of it is backed by any actual facts.

[qwertyuiop924]

They would gain more advertisers paying them money to advertise with them.

Yes, it's automated, but there's some degree of oversight. Once again, there's no way they didn't realize that videos uploaded by one of their departments violated their monetization agreements.

And it's not senseless propaganda. It's already starting to happen, or is likely to happen.

Have you been paying attention to the YouTube scene? Like, at all?

[rpcastagna]

>> What do they gain from removing advertising from any video? Any money you make is money they make.

> They would gain more advertisers paying them money to advertise with them.

I don't really understand what you're saying here. Why would more advertisers pay them money if less videos had advertisements?

[lmm]

Advertisers will pay them more money if they can be confident their adverts won't be placed on videos where they would negatively impact the advertiser's brand.

[Ph0X]

So you're telling me that this probably significant percentage of Youtube creators whose videos fully adhere to the rules and have never had any problems could potentially gain a lot more money for their hard work if these few rare cases decides to clean up their videos a bit to follow rules that have been there for years and that they've agreed to when signing up?

Sounds like a fantastic deal to me, and I don't see why all those other creators should be punished just so that a few can gain money making content that is against the stated rules.

And again, this isn't censorship, if that content is really important to you, it will still be there for everyone to see, just not monetized.