[Scoundreller]

ikr?

I met YouTube’s threshold for monetization (10k views I think it was), then they changed it to 1000 subs, demonetized me (my video topics are random, one will be an interesting dashcam clip, another about a MacBook Air repair unpublished elsewhere and therefore not really “subscribable”), then a while later, they put ads on it anyway without paying me a penny.

Another rule about some minimum hours of views, but I’m at a loss since I’ll make useful 2 minute videos that skip my life story.

F that.

Meanwhile on Adsense, I started making $2/month, which motivated me to do better and started making $20/month, then $200, and for a while $2000.

[lofaszvanitt]

Exactly this. What kind of nonsense is this X subscriber and watched hours limit? If it earns you a few bucks that's more than nothing, but creating these artificial limits should be banned outright. Plus their algo needs to be butchered down.

[rpmisms]

It's trying to encourage consistent content creation. Think of it like employee engagement.

[wkat4242]

That's why there's so many videos that have nothing to say. If you have no content to create it's better not to add to the noise.

[rpmisms]

This is why I watch maybe 4 creators total. I have the people I trust and ignore everything else; SNR is far too low.

[ddaalluu2]

Now it's also 3 videos in 90 days you have to publish in order to be eligible for monetization. So you can't have passive income at YouTube, you have to create a new video each month.

3000 watched hours or 3 million shorts views lol.

They want only the cream.

But dethroning the king would need an ad delivery solution, which in turn requires an affordable payment solution.

And you would need to keep it civil, because now, if you're in the EU are liable for what people upload. And then, thanks to the DSA, you have to monitor "wrong speak". How is anyone supposed to bring up a competitor with those blockers?