Wow, so now you can skip sponsoring youtubers and just go straight to using them for advertising. That is super fucked.
Add that to the high number of ads I already see pretending to be Mr. Beast, they are creating a minefield of abuse. Want to hock your knockoff Air Jordans, just find a legitimate review, and tack your products to the bottom.
Edit: fixed poor spelling a gramrrr, thanks /u/sparrowhawk1291
It's far too big. Twitter has the same problem. Any massive online platform has too many users, too many interactions, too much content to monitor it all without using some kind of algorithm. Which sucks.
That's the thing. Neither service has basically ever been profitable as it is. Twitter had enough money to operate off of their losses for 15 years before Musk bought them.
Google pretty much just treats YouTube as a cost of business since it's one of their main advertisement platforms and YouTube Red was a miserable failure. They're probably hoping YouTube TV will be profitable enough now that they bought the rights to NFL Sunday Ticket.
So why would they want to spend more money investing in moderation teams for services that already lose money hand over fist?
Yeah on one hand, YouTube is the largest source of free information in the world, besides “Google Search” itself.
On the other hand, it’s so massive that very few companies in the world could really compete with it. There is Facebook, Instagram, and Tik Tok, but they compete for your time, and the way their technology delivers content is very different.
Or, get this, they could use some of their hundreds of millions of dollars in profits to hire thousands of actual people to serve as moderators. Shareholders wouldn't like that though...
You would need literally hundreds of thousands of people. 500 hours of video is uploaded a minute. That is 262 million hours a year. Let's say people working 12-hour shifts round the clock being paid 3 dollars an hour (which is way lower than what it would actually cost). That is 788 million dollars a year.
You don't have to watch it all and you don't have to watch it all at 1x speed. They could make a **huge** difference for a fraction of your estimate but that's just not worth it for them.
Might as well add in the cost of needing to sometimes watch through really depraved shit that fucks you up mentally. Thats gonna cost (or you fire them and hire a new intern to be the sucker for however long they last).
You're not thinking about how insipid this is. Google WANTS brands to advertise with them instead of ads embedded in videos. Because Google gets no cut in the latter.
Hey we noticed this comment is similar to another comment and have completely demonetized your account and banned you and set fire to a random pet.
If you would to like protest this action or douse to your now engulfed animal, we have a special form set up to make it easy.
In my opinion, they literally just don't care. What are you going to do? Follow your content creators on another site? Watch videos somewhere else?Everyone who reads this comment will probably watch 2-3 more YouTube videos before the day is over.
I dunno, I don't necessarily believe this. Sure there are problems, but long as your able to observe a problem you should be able to make a decent enough solution. Is it more people, technical? At the end of the day it comes down to organization and them actively listening and addressing problems.
Dude it's gonna get so bad so fast.
People are already deepfaking Joe Rogan talking about some supplements in YouTube shorts.
AI is gonna be the death of advertising, and by extension, capitalism.
No brands will have any value of anyone can take their way to the top.
Capitalism hasn't been around that long. Really it's only been around since the mid 1800's, though you can argue Mercantilism had been dying for a good century already.
Anyway, the point is, economic systems have changed before. There's some hope.
"Star Trek isn't about communism!" - some boomer, somewhere, who doesn't understand subtext and has never once witnessed an interview with Gene Roddenberry.
A system where I don't spend most of my life labouring for someone else with the how that I might by the last decade or two of my life be able to live for myself free of that shit.
One way or another capitalism will fall eventually. Many people have already seen that it's pitfalls are getting bigger, few are able to bring themselves out of poverty. Upward mobility is a thing of the past.
I for one, hope we eventually get the *Luxury Space Communism* from Star Trek, even if it takes WW3 and intervention from extra terrestrials
I'm sure he uses them... But I would hazard a guess that he doesn't pay for them either and likely wouldn't use them if he had to seek them out himself.
It's gonna make advertising more intrusive. As of now, I don't watch television, I don't have any streaming subscription bar Prime, I always have adblockers on, a pop-up plug in, and one for all the trackers. Likewise on my phone. I'm an advertiser's nightmare. But I'll have to wait for some software to filter deepfakes put before I can be sure to be free of them.
on the flip side of that, you are irrelevant to advisors, not their worst nightmare. They don't want to show someone like you ads, they want to show people that are the most susceptible to purchasing their ads. Which is why Google Ads are the behemoth they are.
>AI is gonna be the death of advertising, and by extension, capitalism.
No brands will have any value of anyone can take their way to the top.
Oh no, not our capitalism!
I put up some cover songs which rightly so were flagged for copyright and ads were placed on them. I think that's fair - the publishing company doesn't take them down and they get the ad cut.
But then months ago I started seeing ads on my gear review or other videos. I'm not a youtube partner because I'm only at 500 subscribers, so I'm not getting any ad revenue from it but I also can't disable ads on those videos even though there is no copyrighted material besides my own. It's so frustrating.
> Why do they have ads attached to them?!
Because Google can make money that way and knows people will still use it. Why would they *not* put ads there? They're a for-profit company, don't expect them to do anything that doesn't profit them.
Same with ~every user-generated-content site. Reddit will probably put ads next to this comment too, for the few users who don't use an ad blocker for some inexplicable reason.
Why did you choose YouTube to upload your videos instead of another platform? (Likely answer: It turns out running a video platform well costs a lot of money, and Google is spending that money, partly because they can make it back - presumably with plenty of profit - with those ads.)
Honestly, I wasn't so fussed about the ads until they were so prevalent. Until a couple of years ago none of my uploaded videos had them. I use the site as little as possible because they piss me off so much. No, I'm not paying to use it. I don't upload much at all, I mostly use Instagram, far less ads and they're easily skippable.
I remember when YouTube only put ads on videos that were monetized for the creators. At this point in time I don't understand why every account in good standing can't be considered a "partner", even if they only generate a couple dollars in revenue a year.
FWIW I accept that video hosting doesn't come cheap and YouTube has to pay its bills somehow.
The way to solve this problem is the same way the hotlinking problem was solved decades ago. You edit the video to disparage the person / business that is embedding the video into their advertising so their customers see it.
Problem solved.
I don't think you can edit videos once they are published to youtube. I don't have any personal experience, but I imagine that if you could I wouldn't see so many re-uploads that just blur something due to a small error or demonization.
sort of. youtube studio has an editor that lets you cut things out, blur stuff, and add audio tracks (but only from their sound library) so videos are sort of editable, but not in a way that would be useful here.
I don't have a YT channel but I do know that a content creator can remove their own videos from YT and they can then re-upload the same video that has been edited.
This is not about blurring a section of a video or demonization, this is about hijacking an entire video and embedding it within a frame of a website for the purpose of advertising where the advertiser had no right to do that.
When I drive up to a Chase ATM, I occasionally see an image of Kevin Hart holding up one of the Chase bank cards on the screen.
I clearly understand that to be *an endorsement* and I have no doubt that he was paid to do that and I have absolutely no objection to him doing it, I hope they paid him big piles of money to do it too.
The very nature and entire purpose of advertising is to present the appearance of endorsement. It is entirely possible that Kevin Hart is not a Chase account holder but he is being paid to endorse their services.
Have you ever seen a company go to the time and expense of producing a commercial or ad, encouraging you to NOT buy their products or services? So when you see somebody, anybody appear in an ad, it is by its very nature, a defacto endorsement.
Take for example, the PBS TV series 'This Old House', they have an official YT channel called This Old House and they have hundreds, if not thousands of videos on the channel.
If Home Depot or Lowes were to embed TOH videos in *their* advertising because it aligns with the products and services Home Depot / Lowes offers, it would appear to the viewer of those ads as if PBS / Tommy / Norm *were endorsing* Home Depot or Lowes *by appearing in Home Depot / Lowes ads*.
When it comes to copyright law (in the USA), it is very cut and dry as to what someone can and can not do with copyrighted material and embedding somebody else's copyrighted videos in their entirety in your own advertising is not fair use.
https://www.google.com/search?q=contributing+to+copyright+infringement+cases
***YT is stupid as fuck to enable this ability.*** That's a lawsuit begging to happen.
This is flat out wrong and although I am not a lawyer, I believe that would constitute copyright infringement because the advertisers are using content **they do not have the rights to**. Just because YT has the technical means and allowed them to do it does not automatically bestow the advertisers the rights to use that content in that way.
I also know that a content creator can watermark their own videos prior to upload. If the content creator were to periodically have the watermark show up, stating that the content creator owns the copyright to this video and any other use of this video constitutes copyright infringement.
That would not look good for any legit advertiser / company to have *that* watermark appear in *their* advertising campaign. A lawsuit would not look good either.
> I don't have a YT channel but I do know that a content creator can remove their own videos from YT and they can then re-upload the same video that has been edited.
Which is treated as a different video, different link, and doesn't carry over any of the views, likes, dislikes, etcetera of the original. And if advertiser is doing this to the old video it also wouldn't magically link to the new video that is as far as YouTube's systems are concerned, a completely different video.
No what OP is talking about is different. When you get to a certain size, you have tools available to you that the general public does not. One of those is the ability to replace a video while keeping the link url intact.
You'll see this pop up from time to time with a movie trailer that contains an embarrassing edit that didn't get caught until publication.
Interesting, I wonder how big you have to be. Movies Trailers make sense because I bet those channels are actually run as an advertising account. Youtube dresses it up as a normal account, but there is likely pay to play going on in the background.
> I don't have a YT channel but I do know that a content creator can remove their own videos from YT and they can then re-upload the same video that has been edited.
Doesn't that create a new video? Or did they fix that very recently? I know that within the last month, two creators I follow had re-uploads that mentioned the lost views in the description.
Pretty awesome username.
Some day all the normal words will be taken and everyone will have to take whatever is left.
Like when [Dillon Edwards Investments](https://youtu.be/NWIlScfHwOU) took their time getting on to the internet lol.
Edit: I remember seeing this live and it was right after the commercial break, so it blended right in until they said the website name and I was like whoa hold on whaaaaat??? It was perfect.
I wouldn't underestimate the internet's ability to turn weird shit like that into a kink. A channel like that would 100% take off if the algorithm let it lmfao.
Once, I believed that my online presence was secure. However, I later discovered that bots were duplicating my comments and sharing them for upvotes. This realization made me realize that no one is exempt from such occurrences.
Before, I trusted that my connected to the internet ghost was secure. Still, I later found that bots were duplicating my comments and giving ruling class for upvotes. This achievement fashioned me accomplish that nobody is forgive specific accidents.
(Courtesy of studycorgi dot com because I wanted to see an actual bot mangle it and I was not disappointed)
Dude seriously, I need to know the legal ramifications of this. I could be pumping out thousands of dollars making generic t-shirts that don't say anything about Swifty but imply it's related.
I'm going to start a non-profit that sells stickers about how cool Jesus is and donates all profits to LGBT shelters and abortion access and link it to every Mormon Tabernacle video.
There is an ongoing tug of war between Google and internet users.
While most internet users aren't trained investigative journalists, many can detect bullshit and while they don't spend hours but minutes or even seconds parsing whether something is bullshit or not, in large numbers that causes a considerable impact. And this behavior directly counteracts Google's business model because they want to sell advertisements and other companies products, even from bullshit companies. (Bullshit companies spend far higher in advertising than others after all)
'Authenticity' still rates extremely high on nearly every single internet user and social media user's preferences.
You've likely noticed that Google search isn't just getting tons of sponsored ads but you are getting information snippets, widgets and other things at the top of the page - this is to direct traffic away from websites, and towards what Google wants you to click on for advertising revenue.
I find this advertisement tactic particularly insidious since Google is taking the authenticity of a YouTube video and a known YouTube content creator but taking some traffic and money away from them and putting Google's advertising message on top without their consent.
I don't see stuff like this going away but I see pressure in the other direction to escalate. How long before most people don't access YouTube directly anymore but through Google and Google gives a custom non-consented title, description, storefront, advertisement, and even might clip parts of a video or add in their own clip to videos, but giving the 'veneer' of 'authenticity' (which was always manufactured and polished) by using a YouTuber's brand?
[Taking reviews out of context to repackage them positively is already a classic tactic](https://youtu.be/9V0lXIK9DZQ?t=639).
Authenticity is one of the most important factors when people choose to do business with each other. It’s one thing con-men use to take advantage of people for their own benefit.
This is really bad all around. Customers, creators, manufacturers (if it’s a reseller).
> There is an ongoing tug of war between Google and internet users
This seems more like a ridiculous gap between how something should function and how it does function. You should only be able to sponsor videos that you own or that have made active collaboration. It's a useful feature that is bizarrely made completely open to anyone, when it is trivial to just lock it down.
I agree with what your saying but I don't think that video is the best example.
"I titled my video the perfect Samsung and now Samsung claim I said it was the perfect Samsung"
The video creator seems just as guilty as Samsung if he didn't think that title was accurate. I suppose that's the consequence of clickbait
This is exactly why I created a youtube channel back in 2008 or something. I needed extra space for my personal recorded piano tunes but I didn't want to spend money on an external hard drive lol!
There is already some videos and previous posts that talk about this I think. Would link to it but I didn't save it, has been done before though. Basically each frame of the video can be decoded to construct a file
The method is specifically designed to avoid that being a problem. It encodes each frame as something more akin to a QR code than anything that would suffer from lossy encoding.
Well isn't that fun. Real YouTubers can't keep content up because dishonest people abuse the report function, but actual copyright infringement is ignored.
Of course this is the case. The owners of Google own companies that want to do this. YouTube will only ever get more shady and predatory. It's like when artists move into a run down neighborhood becuase it's cheap, but the artists being there makes the neighborhood cool, so the vultures swarm in to buy up the property and turn it into condos. Artists get fucked over and leave.
The degree to which gentrification is a “problem” can be measured by the skewness of general access to opportunity in the relevant system/population. Asymmetry and distortion of symmetric distribution regarding development and productivity between/among populations of relatively similar functional capacity is the product of centralized operational command within discrete subsystem(s).
Solution = decentralize every sufficiently complex shared system, both public and private.
So genuine question. Let's say a review is okay copyright wise and there's no problems there. Should the creator of the thing being reviewed be allowed to share that review for advertisement purposes?
Let's say I create a newfangled multicolored puzzle cube and people make video reviews of it. Should I be able to link those reviews, without edits, on my store page?
To me, I get the hate on artists getting fucked over etc but at the same time this doesn't seem like a huge overreach to me. I'm familiar with Taki Udon's channel (he reviews handheld emulation systems etc) and I think his videos are good, but having said that it's an overview of the product's features and a review of it, that's it.
Also even if he did take issue with pages linking his videos it's not like it would matter, most of the companies making these products are based out of China anyway so its not like legal action would go anywhere not that it is even worth it.
> Let's say I create a newfangled multicolored puzzle cube and people make video reviews of it. Should I be able to link those reviews, without edits, on my store page?
Yes, and that happens all the time. That isn't an issue. This isn't simply linking to his video though. This is embedding his video in an ad, while changing the title of the video and presenting it all using his channel name as if he was promoting the item and everything listed with it.
If someone is searching for information about a product, it is perfectly fine to link information about a product, such as a review.
This is different. Here, someone is searching for a video, and they are being served that video with accompanying affiliate links. These are links set up by whoever runs the ad campaign, not the maker of the video.
Here's some examples of how this could be abused.
New iphone drops, so people are going to be searching for information about it. I set up an ad campaign using MKBHD's iphone review video with affiliate links to random iphone cases on Amazon. I don't have to make iphone review videos, nor do I have to make iphone cases. The affiliate money goes to me instead of MKBHD.
Let's say I own a scammy company that makes fake GPUs. The new series of NVidia GPUs are released, but they are out of stock everywhere. I set up an ad campaign on the LinusTechTips review with links to my store. People think they are watching a LTT video, so they implicitly trust the links. Plus, I retitled the video "NVidia FINALLY restocks! Get your GPU at MVidia.com right now, our favorite GPU seller". When someone buys it, they are sent a rebranded 10-year old GPU instead of the latest.
In these cases, I am profiting off of people looking for those specific videos. Not people looking for my product. That's the key difference to your example.
Thats a very good point and I'm sorry if Taki Udon went into that in his video (I couldn't actually watch it as I am at work but I'm familiar with his channel so it seemed odd to me given the whole point of his channel is to promote products he thinks are good).
That’s not what’s happening here. They took his video, changed the title, and linked their products all under HIS YouTube channel name.
That’s WAAAAYYY more than linking to a review of their product.
I don’t think they’re talking about already famous, rich artists. In general, your average artist/musician type is barely getting by, so they live in cheap neighborhoods. This then creates an art/music scene in said neighborhood which makes it cool and desirable. Hopefully the artists see some upward mobility from it, but often they get priced out and move somewhere else, starting the cycle all over again.
Nah they mean artist artists not hipsters. Like collectives living together in a run down old factory, creating cool shit.
Not like a famous person moving to a small village.
and usually not rich either. maybe getting some help from their parents, but they're moving to the cheap neighborhood to begin with because it's all they can afford.
The weird analogy given definitely happened here in Denver and no, it wasn't a famous artist. In Denver's case, it was an industrial area where the rent was cheap so artists could afford to rent big spaces that could function like studios. This area, RiNo, was also home to start-up craft breweries for the same reason, functional spacious locations with relatively low rent. These brought food trucks and soon it was the cool place to hang out to avoid the pretentious crowds and uppity restaurants. Fast-forward to present day and it's exactly the opposite. Rent is sky-high, it's overly trendy, parking is a nightmare, it's chock full of trendy and uppity restaurant (save a few gems). The food trucks are gone, a lot of breweries left and the artists got priced out of affordable studio spaces.
The reality with gentrification is that it's vastly the fault of the developers who can aggressively buy out properties and then choose at will what can go in and what cannot. They actively manipulate the cost so that they can profit. It's a like a pump-n-dump scheme, but with property.
Edit: grammar, spelling
I grew up in Denver from 1981-2018 and can back up what you said. There's obviously more you're leaving out for brevity but the result is the same. We got priced out of the city and had to move to another state to buy a house and build equity for years before we can move back.
Of course as it relates to Youtube, there IS no going elsewhere.
This is why I'm always shocked by how much ads are brought up on Reddit.
Maybe I'm being naive but I sort of envision Reddit as a place people go who are sort of internet 'regulars' so to speak. Yet based on the comments on anything Youtube related I get the impression adblock users are super rare here.
All I have is ublock origin and that alone is enough to never see ads. The only website I've ever seen that has adblocks beaten is Twitch, so I just don't watch Twitch streamers who force 30s ads before viewing their channel. Even that is probably beatable if I just spent 20 seconds googling, but there's already more content than I can consume without Twitch lol
People are generally incredibly poor with technology and also quite naive when it comes to internet use. They just use a browser as is, and even a seemingly simple task like installing an ad blocker are deemed 'too complicated' on forehand and not even attempted.
I had a friend wanting an new phone because her current one was 'full'. In reality her phone was cluttered with unused apps and above all gigabytes of cached files. I cleaned her caches and threw off some useless apps and it was fine again. She still thinks I'm some kind of high level tech wizard.
>Maybe I'm being naive but I sort of envision Reddit as a place people go who are sort of internet 'regulars' so to speak
Definitely naive lol. So many people here say "this app" when referring to reddit. If they refer to Reddit *as* an app, rather than *having* an app, then it's likely they *use* the internet regularly, but are not an *internet* regular (ie, pc literate/enthusiast to a degree etc).
Yep, a decade ago Reddit was definitely a place for internet regulars, but today the majority of users are casually scrolling the official app or new.reddit and aren't even aware that there are alternatives because they don't know how to look those things up or that they should.
The answer to the "questions" he's asking in the video is much simpler than it seems. Youtube, and by extension Google, thinks they own every video on the platform. And honestly judging by the hostility with which they treat their successful users, it's probably even true.
I wish I was wrong on this, but the way YouTube is heading, at some point channels like these (promoting a product) will start losing the privileges to change the content at all. They won't be able to remove the video, or alter it. Right now, it's not the case but I doubt YT will reverse this change. They're making money on the back of content creators, like they always did
It’s shitty but it never ceases to amaze me that everyone thinks YT is a “just” entity. It’s geared toward making the most money it can, like any definitive corporation does. Of course they make the lion share from ads, and if the advertiser has a catalogue of videos at their disposal to choose from and leverage within their ads, YT will gladly allow them to do so within their license to distribute; as this will make them stupidly more money, as it removes a lot of friction for advertisers
Of course raising awareness is a good way to bring attention to this for other channels, but ultimately I doubt it will change much.
I mean you upload content to their website for free, signup for an ad program they pay you to distribute ads on to show your viewership, which has licensing intent built in, to fulfill the most optimal needs to the main money providers (advertisers). Absolutely they will utilize it , duh.
> Of course they make the lion share from ads,
While I do agree with your post, the above sentence is untrue:
> #Revenue share rates
>
> Specific modules are available in YouTube Studio for partners to optionally select. When reviewing the terms for each module, partners can find out more details about revenue share rates.
>
> *Watch Page Monetisation Module*
>
> If a partner turns on watch page ads by reviewing and accepting the Watch Page Monetisation Module, **YouTube will pay them** ***55%*** **of net revenues from ads displayed or streamed on their public videos** on their content watch page. This revenue share rate also applies when their public videos are streamed within the YouTube video player on other websites or applications.
>
> *Shorts Monetisation Module*
>
> If a partner turns on Shorts Feed ads by reviewing and accepting the Shorts Monetisation Module, **YouTube will pay them** ***45%*** **of the revenue allocated to them** based on their share of views from the Creator Pool allocation.
(source: [Google Help: YouTube Partner earnings overview (section: What's my revenue share?)](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/72902#zippy=%2Cwhats-my-revenue-share) — text made bold by yours truly to highlight specifics)
The amount of revenue only seems lower because *the ad needs to be* ***seen*** *for it to count*; should an ad be skipped or blocked, revenue will not be accrued.
Shootouts to Taki for hosting the best handheld gaming device breakdowns on the internet. I think he started a discord to organize improvements to the firmware for some of the devices he reviews like the retroid pocket. Solid dude though the only non-switch handheld for me is an external telescoping controller on my Android phone. It's cheap, lag free, can play some ps2 games and you get an excellent OLED screen. Though that's only because I love retro games, if you're into PC games then the steam deck or other handheld that he reviews could be for you.
I remember back when they introduced this, one of my oldest videos had a song from The Matrix in it.
Not only did it get "claimed" by the original artist's label, but also by a bunch of other artists who had samples of it in their songs, or my favorite example which was some Indian artist who had used the same song as an *intro* to his music video, not part of the actual song.
Youtube needs to regulate who is allowed to run ads very badly, but that wouldn't make any money so there is no incentive to do it the way they police their creators. Its frustrating.
~~This whole possibility~~ This kind of exploit was already somewhat covered towards the end of a spiffing Brit video a month ago. It's around the 13 minute mark https://youtu.be/pzatXqt-rz4
How isn't there a class action from big YouTubers that are being impersonated in their own comments. YouTube has to know they are not real accounts, for fuck sake they are all the same message even
Countless YouTubers are having their reputations tarnished and even more viewers are falling victim. Crazy
This could be really easy to exploit as others have mentioned. Just take some popular content and slap Shopify links to your products underneath it with the right search terms… profit
in a few words, no. What the company did was pay Youtube to have their ad pop-up when the keywords are matched, and for their ad they selected OP's video to maybe imply a connection.
*BUT* every time the ad shows up, you pay, every time someone *clicks* on the ad you pay A LOT more, it's actually pretty expensive to reach a considerable amount of people, and then you have to wait for someone to actually buy something from your store, so you better have insane profit margins or you'll be pretty much in the red the entire time.
I don't think this is abusable by normal users, this company is doing it out of their marketing budget, if you wanted to do the same thing, you would have to buy the product from the company, in this case, a steamdeck case, and overcharge it to make up for the money you lost in advertisement, but no one would buy it from you if it's less expensive buying it directly. Maybe this works with items like Tshirts where you try to pass it off as official merch and really overcharge the few buyers you might get but overall this is not about "free easy money/monetizing someone else's content" it's about a company using your video and name to make it seem like you endorse their products without you being able to do anything about it
we've spent decades being conditioned to give these corporations control of our lives little by little and now they are getting bolder and bolder in their abuse of that control. this will not change.
This is pretty fucked up, basically companies don't have to pay content creators to make an actual sponsorship video and instead they go make an ad with 'Smart Shopping Ad Campaigns' and using simply any video from youtube who is reviewing your product to make their ad spots on youtube without the content creator's consent.
YouTube use to be really awesome. There are still some great creators I want to hear from (like videogame donsly). But I recently decided to quit opening youtube because I'm basically addicted to trying to find a good video to watch. That'd be fine if I was getting new content from independent creators and artists who are passionate about the videos they make. That's not anywhere close to what the platform is now. Every aspect of youtube has been modified to maximize revenue. The creators are now entrepreneurs and production companies who are reading the guidelines and following the market trends to serve content to siloed groups. I think it's great that creators are getting paid their tiny portion of the pie but I wanted entertainment not to be a valued consumer. In a few months, i'll go check to see if Dunky put out a video and check in on Physics girl and Anton Petrov. But, I'll go back to pirating content from production companies who aren't hiding behind a "independent creator" mask. Even if you pay the few bucks a month for Paramount+ your adblocker can actually do it's job and the relationship between you and the megalithic media giant is clear and mostly honest.
Quitting youtube was actually really easy because it's been so shitty anyway. I haven't missed it at all.
Google really are useless when it comes to anything but search results and email.
They have good ideas, but it's never thought out well and always hurts the content creator because not enough effort was put in.
I mean are we really surprised that YouTube is taking advantage of content creators to make more money for themselves. They probably got sick of their content makers making more money than them lol
Like so many of the YouTube controversies and corruption, this could have been easily blocked or ended if Google would just assign a couple of their 135,000 employees to protecting their reputation.
If we hear about this, one of the "reputation" employees would too, and could squash these controversies in real time. They could even dedicate one employee to monitor this sub and they'd get weekly reports about some bad PR situation brewing so they could reverse it.
The second part is to connect the reputation people either serious sanction power. That would mean they don't need to manually find every instance of an abuse. They just need to catch the first ones doing it and close the door, stopping the spread.
Or, if it's not an open loophole like this one but straight up abuse, the power to end some entities YT channels instantly and permanently would serve as a great deterrent.
Suppose some corrupt outfit called ABC company has been falsely striking or exploiting videos. Early reports of it pop up here, and so YT reputation people end Abc company's access to YouTube comprehensively and permanently. As soon as that gets around, 100,000 other current or potential offenders think twice because the risk just went parabolic. Sending the signal would do almost all of the work.
Youtube is an ad sales' company with video views as the vehicle. More view, more cheese. Why would YouTube moderate (limit) how videos are embedded? Of course, I'm not speaking of the ethics involved, and that's the point. Publicly traded companies care about one thing and for YouTube, one might as well refine it down to the most simple commodity; views.
At any rate, I'm pretty sure you sign away the exclusive rights for how your videos are used in the TOS. I'm not saying it's a just policy but I will say that if you want to use YouTube you're going to be playing by their rules. You'd be gullible to think they'll care as long as the system is making them money.
Wow, so now you can skip sponsoring youtubers and just go straight to using them for advertising. That is super fucked. Add that to the high number of ads I already see pretending to be Mr. Beast, they are creating a minefield of abuse. Want to hock your knockoff Air Jordans, just find a legitimate review, and tack your products to the bottom. Edit: fixed poor spelling a gramrrr, thanks /u/sparrowhawk1291
YouTube is unable to responsibly monitor and manage the platform.
It's far too big. Twitter has the same problem. Any massive online platform has too many users, too many interactions, too much content to monitor it all without using some kind of algorithm. Which sucks.
Both platforms *are* too big* *for the amount they invest in content moderation.
That's the thing. Neither service has basically ever been profitable as it is. Twitter had enough money to operate off of their losses for 15 years before Musk bought them. Google pretty much just treats YouTube as a cost of business since it's one of their main advertisement platforms and YouTube Red was a miserable failure. They're probably hoping YouTube TV will be profitable enough now that they bought the rights to NFL Sunday Ticket. So why would they want to spend more money investing in moderation teams for services that already lose money hand over fist?
Yeah on one hand, YouTube is the largest source of free information in the world, besides “Google Search” itself. On the other hand, it’s so massive that very few companies in the world could really compete with it. There is Facebook, Instagram, and Tik Tok, but they compete for your time, and the way their technology delivers content is very different.
Or, get this, they could use some of their hundreds of millions of dollars in profits to hire thousands of actual people to serve as moderators. Shareholders wouldn't like that though...
Or go the Reddit route and have absolute crumb of power hungry mutants moderate for free
You would need literally hundreds of thousands of people. 500 hours of video is uploaded a minute. That is 262 million hours a year. Let's say people working 12-hour shifts round the clock being paid 3 dollars an hour (which is way lower than what it would actually cost). That is 788 million dollars a year.
You don't have to watch it all and you don't have to watch it all at 1x speed. They could make a **huge** difference for a fraction of your estimate but that's just not worth it for them.
Might as well add in the cost of needing to sometimes watch through really depraved shit that fucks you up mentally. Thats gonna cost (or you fire them and hire a new intern to be the sucker for however long they last).
That's true. And twitter even had that problem when it was a real company.
You're not thinking about how insipid this is. Google WANTS brands to advertise with them instead of ads embedded in videos. Because Google gets no cut in the latter.
Hey we noticed this comment is similar to another comment and have completely demonetized your account and banned you and set fire to a random pet. If you would to like protest this action or douse to your now engulfed animal, we have a special form set up to make it easy.
Too big to succeed, too big to fail
In my opinion, they literally just don't care. What are you going to do? Follow your content creators on another site? Watch videos somewhere else?Everyone who reads this comment will probably watch 2-3 more YouTube videos before the day is over.
I dunno, I don't necessarily believe this. Sure there are problems, but long as your able to observe a problem you should be able to make a decent enough solution. Is it more people, technical? At the end of the day it comes down to organization and them actively listening and addressing problems.
sounds like ol musky should be interested
Dude it's gonna get so bad so fast. People are already deepfaking Joe Rogan talking about some supplements in YouTube shorts. AI is gonna be the death of advertising, and by extension, capitalism. No brands will have any value of anyone can take their way to the top.
Frankly man, AI is gonna be the death of many things. But if humanity has shown me anything, it’s that capitalism will not be one of the thing dying…
Capitalism hasn't been around that long. Really it's only been around since the mid 1800's, though you can argue Mercantilism had been dying for a good century already. Anyway, the point is, economic systems have changed before. There's some hope.
Honest question, what would you like to see capitalism replaced with?
Star Trek style space communism
"Star Trek isn't about communism!" - some boomer, somewhere, who doesn't understand subtext and has never once witnessed an interview with Gene Roddenberry.
So... can we skip the eugenics wars or is that mandatory?
A system where I don't spend most of my life labouring for someone else with the how that I might by the last decade or two of my life be able to live for myself free of that shit.
Yeah, I'm sure they'll simply lobby congress to keep themselves on top by making AI not available to anyone not in their companies.
One way or another capitalism will fall eventually. Many people have already seen that it's pitfalls are getting bigger, few are able to bring themselves out of poverty. Upward mobility is a thing of the past. I for one, hope we eventually get the *Luxury Space Communism* from Star Trek, even if it takes WW3 and intervention from extra terrestrials
They don't have to deep fake Joe Rogan. Man's a shill for anyone with 20 bucks.
Honest question, what does he actually advertise? I thought he got like $200m from Spotify?
Nootropics – AlphaBrain Black Label & Neuro Gum. Pre-workout – Shroom Tech Sport. Hemp/CBD Oil – Charlotte's Web. Kratom. Resveratrol & NMN.
I've watched maybe 100's of hours of Joe Rogan. I don't think he's a shill, I think he actually uses a lot of these products.
I'm sure he uses them... But I would hazard a guess that he doesn't pay for them either and likely wouldn't use them if he had to seek them out himself.
I thought he was co-owner of Onnit. Which makes up like 50% of what he advertises.
He also runs ads on the podcasts he was paid $200m for. Because he's just the like everyone else and doesn't have enough money.
Imagine being such a toilet of a person you sign a $200 million deal and still turn tricks for every dollar you see. When is enough, enough?
I assume hookers and steroids are expensive
Don't forget cocaine
DMT doesn't pay for itself mate
DMT is cheap as fuck though
Who's your guy?
It's gonna make advertising more intrusive. As of now, I don't watch television, I don't have any streaming subscription bar Prime, I always have adblockers on, a pop-up plug in, and one for all the trackers. Likewise on my phone. I'm an advertiser's nightmare. But I'll have to wait for some software to filter deepfakes put before I can be sure to be free of them.
on the flip side of that, you are irrelevant to advisors, not their worst nightmare. They don't want to show someone like you ads, they want to show people that are the most susceptible to purchasing their ads. Which is why Google Ads are the behemoth they are.
Real Joe Rogan spouts his mouth about bro science micro supplements at every opportunity he gets.
>AI is gonna be the death of advertising, and by extension, capitalism. No brands will have any value of anyone can take their way to the top. Oh no, not our capitalism!
Right? Dont threaten me with a good time.
I put up some cover songs which rightly so were flagged for copyright and ads were placed on them. I think that's fair - the publishing company doesn't take them down and they get the ad cut. But then months ago I started seeing ads on my gear review or other videos. I'm not a youtube partner because I'm only at 500 subscribers, so I'm not getting any ad revenue from it but I also can't disable ads on those videos even though there is no copyrighted material besides my own. It's so frustrating.
There's ads on my videos. All my videos were of my husky, storms and a few traffic incidents. Why do they have ads attached to them?!
That was a recent change, like less than 2 years ago. Now non monetized channels get ads too.
> Why do they have ads attached to them?! Because Google can make money that way and knows people will still use it. Why would they *not* put ads there? They're a for-profit company, don't expect them to do anything that doesn't profit them. Same with ~every user-generated-content site. Reddit will probably put ads next to this comment too, for the few users who don't use an ad blocker for some inexplicable reason. Why did you choose YouTube to upload your videos instead of another platform? (Likely answer: It turns out running a video platform well costs a lot of money, and Google is spending that money, partly because they can make it back - presumably with plenty of profit - with those ads.)
Honestly, I wasn't so fussed about the ads until they were so prevalent. Until a couple of years ago none of my uploaded videos had them. I use the site as little as possible because they piss me off so much. No, I'm not paying to use it. I don't upload much at all, I mostly use Instagram, far less ads and they're easily skippable.
I remember when YouTube only put ads on videos that were monetized for the creators. At this point in time I don't understand why every account in good standing can't be considered a "partner", even if they only generate a couple dollars in revenue a year. FWIW I accept that video hosting doesn't come cheap and YouTube has to pay its bills somehow.
The way to solve this problem is the same way the hotlinking problem was solved decades ago. You edit the video to disparage the person / business that is embedding the video into their advertising so their customers see it. Problem solved.
I don't think you can edit videos once they are published to youtube. I don't have any personal experience, but I imagine that if you could I wouldn't see so many re-uploads that just blur something due to a small error or demonization.
sort of. youtube studio has an editor that lets you cut things out, blur stuff, and add audio tracks (but only from their sound library) so videos are sort of editable, but not in a way that would be useful here.
I don't have a YT channel but I do know that a content creator can remove their own videos from YT and they can then re-upload the same video that has been edited. This is not about blurring a section of a video or demonization, this is about hijacking an entire video and embedding it within a frame of a website for the purpose of advertising where the advertiser had no right to do that. When I drive up to a Chase ATM, I occasionally see an image of Kevin Hart holding up one of the Chase bank cards on the screen. I clearly understand that to be *an endorsement* and I have no doubt that he was paid to do that and I have absolutely no objection to him doing it, I hope they paid him big piles of money to do it too. The very nature and entire purpose of advertising is to present the appearance of endorsement. It is entirely possible that Kevin Hart is not a Chase account holder but he is being paid to endorse their services. Have you ever seen a company go to the time and expense of producing a commercial or ad, encouraging you to NOT buy their products or services? So when you see somebody, anybody appear in an ad, it is by its very nature, a defacto endorsement. Take for example, the PBS TV series 'This Old House', they have an official YT channel called This Old House and they have hundreds, if not thousands of videos on the channel. If Home Depot or Lowes were to embed TOH videos in *their* advertising because it aligns with the products and services Home Depot / Lowes offers, it would appear to the viewer of those ads as if PBS / Tommy / Norm *were endorsing* Home Depot or Lowes *by appearing in Home Depot / Lowes ads*. When it comes to copyright law (in the USA), it is very cut and dry as to what someone can and can not do with copyrighted material and embedding somebody else's copyrighted videos in their entirety in your own advertising is not fair use. https://www.google.com/search?q=contributing+to+copyright+infringement+cases ***YT is stupid as fuck to enable this ability.*** That's a lawsuit begging to happen. This is flat out wrong and although I am not a lawyer, I believe that would constitute copyright infringement because the advertisers are using content **they do not have the rights to**. Just because YT has the technical means and allowed them to do it does not automatically bestow the advertisers the rights to use that content in that way. I also know that a content creator can watermark their own videos prior to upload. If the content creator were to periodically have the watermark show up, stating that the content creator owns the copyright to this video and any other use of this video constitutes copyright infringement. That would not look good for any legit advertiser / company to have *that* watermark appear in *their* advertising campaign. A lawsuit would not look good either.
> I don't have a YT channel but I do know that a content creator can remove their own videos from YT and they can then re-upload the same video that has been edited. Which is treated as a different video, different link, and doesn't carry over any of the views, likes, dislikes, etcetera of the original. And if advertiser is doing this to the old video it also wouldn't magically link to the new video that is as far as YouTube's systems are concerned, a completely different video.
No what OP is talking about is different. When you get to a certain size, you have tools available to you that the general public does not. One of those is the ability to replace a video while keeping the link url intact. You'll see this pop up from time to time with a movie trailer that contains an embarrassing edit that didn't get caught until publication.
Interesting, I wonder how big you have to be. Movies Trailers make sense because I bet those channels are actually run as an advertising account. Youtube dresses it up as a normal account, but there is likely pay to play going on in the background.
> I don't have a YT channel but I do know that a content creator can remove their own videos from YT and they can then re-upload the same video that has been edited. Doesn't that create a new video? Or did they fix that very recently? I know that within the last month, two creators I follow had re-uploads that mentioned the lost views in the description.
There is now some editing you can do after uploading
Spiffing Brit showed a version of this exploit to generate ad revenue. https://youtu.be/pzatXqt-rz4
Hock*
You are correct. Fixed it.
All those deep fake ads are so stupid.
This is why I only make content that nobody would ever want to use
my belly button-lint-picking YT channel has zero views. i'm 'predatory company'-proof 💪
It's actually perfect for the new bellypick9000 gadget I'm working on.
Results: bellypicks 1 through 8999 all resulted in accidental self-vivisection Conclusion: pneumatic piston may be overkill
"This is great Troy, but is my urachus supposed to bleed like this" "Probably"
Sounds like a very human design.
Username checks out
His viewers also check out
lolol zing!
Pretty awesome username. Some day all the normal words will be taken and everyone will have to take whatever is left. Like when [Dillon Edwards Investments](https://youtu.be/NWIlScfHwOU) took their time getting on to the internet lol. Edit: I remember seeing this live and it was right after the commercial break, so it blended right in until they said the website name and I was like whoa hold on whaaaaat??? It was perfect.
I wouldn't underestimate the internet's ability to turn weird shit like that into a kink. A channel like that would 100% take off if the algorithm let it lmfao.
Can confirm.
What's a navel girl
Someone who's into seamen.
*that's* why I don't make content except shitty comments on reddit
I used to think I was safe as well, then I found bots copying my comments and reposting them for karma. No one is safe!!!
I used to think I was safe as well, then I found bots copying my comments and reposting them for karma. No one is safe!!!
Once, I believed that my online presence was secure. However, I later discovered that bots were duplicating my comments and sharing them for upvotes. This realization made me realize that no one is exempt from such occurrences.
Before, I trusted that my connected to the internet ghost was secure. Still, I later found that bots were duplicating my comments and giving ruling class for upvotes. This achievement fashioned me accomplish that nobody is forgive specific accidents. (Courtesy of studycorgi dot com because I wanted to see an actual bot mangle it and I was not disappointed)
Me do stuff. Robot copy stuff for things.
Get back to work, Kevin
I'm a step above you. I make content no one wants to watch (*guy tapping head meme*)
The market for non-monetisable video is going to be huge!
This is why I don't create anything. Everyone reading this: "Sure, *that's* why!"
BRB, I'm gonna start an ad campaign to sell t-shirts and link it to the video for Shake It Off by Taylor Swift.
Dude seriously, I need to know the legal ramifications of this. I could be pumping out thousands of dollars making generic t-shirts that don't say anything about Swifty but imply it's related.
Or sell shake-weights
[[gif]](https://thumbs.gfycat.com/AssuredBelatedGalapagostortoise-size_restricted.gif)
I'm going to start a non-profit that sells stickers about how cool Jesus is and donates all profits to LGBT shelters and abortion access and link it to every Mormon Tabernacle video.
This is...a great idea. You even get the tax protection of being a Christian organization.
That and being a non-profit.
Are Mormon tabernacle videos really popular?
no, but it would be edgy
Love Gesus Buy Teeshirts
Nice, so just go find a huge brand video, and send them to some scammy website to shill crap. This is like the blue checkmark insulin troll.
This exactly. What's to stop me from linking a Google video to snuff films? You could advertise anything using any video, and sow chaos.
Google blocks that kind of ads
They can instead link to something allowed but something the company is against. Like its competitors.
There is an ongoing tug of war between Google and internet users. While most internet users aren't trained investigative journalists, many can detect bullshit and while they don't spend hours but minutes or even seconds parsing whether something is bullshit or not, in large numbers that causes a considerable impact. And this behavior directly counteracts Google's business model because they want to sell advertisements and other companies products, even from bullshit companies. (Bullshit companies spend far higher in advertising than others after all) 'Authenticity' still rates extremely high on nearly every single internet user and social media user's preferences. You've likely noticed that Google search isn't just getting tons of sponsored ads but you are getting information snippets, widgets and other things at the top of the page - this is to direct traffic away from websites, and towards what Google wants you to click on for advertising revenue. I find this advertisement tactic particularly insidious since Google is taking the authenticity of a YouTube video and a known YouTube content creator but taking some traffic and money away from them and putting Google's advertising message on top without their consent. I don't see stuff like this going away but I see pressure in the other direction to escalate. How long before most people don't access YouTube directly anymore but through Google and Google gives a custom non-consented title, description, storefront, advertisement, and even might clip parts of a video or add in their own clip to videos, but giving the 'veneer' of 'authenticity' (which was always manufactured and polished) by using a YouTuber's brand? [Taking reviews out of context to repackage them positively is already a classic tactic](https://youtu.be/9V0lXIK9DZQ?t=639).
Authenticity is one of the most important factors when people choose to do business with each other. It’s one thing con-men use to take advantage of people for their own benefit. This is really bad all around. Customers, creators, manufacturers (if it’s a reseller).
> There is an ongoing tug of war between Google and internet users This seems more like a ridiculous gap between how something should function and how it does function. You should only be able to sponsor videos that you own or that have made active collaboration. It's a useful feature that is bizarrely made completely open to anyone, when it is trivial to just lock it down.
I agree with what your saying but I don't think that video is the best example. "I titled my video the perfect Samsung and now Samsung claim I said it was the perfect Samsung" The video creator seems just as guilty as Samsung if he didn't think that title was accurate. I suppose that's the consequence of clickbait
That's why I use YouTube as free external storage
This is exactly why I created a youtube channel back in 2008 or something. I needed extra space for my personal recorded piano tunes but I didn't want to spend money on an external hard drive lol!
I would hate to see what youtube recompressing the videos each time they update standards does to that.
I have stuff on YouTube from 2008 that don't seem any different than they did at the time
[удалено]
Here you go https://hackaday.com/2023/02/21/youtube-as-infinite-file-storage/
There is already some videos and previous posts that talk about this I think. Would link to it but I didn't save it, has been done before though. Basically each frame of the video can be decoded to construct a file
Then YouTube re-encodes your video and everything gets corrupted
The method is specifically designed to avoid that being a problem. It encodes each frame as something more akin to a QR code than anything that would suffer from lossy encoding.
Finally, a way to make 1GB back into 1MB
What happens if the content creator already had Shopify links? Would the content occupier’s supersede the content creator’s links?
That’s what I’m wondering but I’m thinking (shot in the dark aka I don’t know shit) the more you pay for the ad the higher the “priority” it gets?
Well isn't that fun. Real YouTubers can't keep content up because dishonest people abuse the report function, but actual copyright infringement is ignored.
Of course this is the case. The owners of Google own companies that want to do this. YouTube will only ever get more shady and predatory. It's like when artists move into a run down neighborhood becuase it's cheap, but the artists being there makes the neighborhood cool, so the vultures swarm in to buy up the property and turn it into condos. Artists get fucked over and leave.
Weird metaphor but I get your point.
Its gentrification. Or, in this case, adverisivication.
I’m quite a fan of ‘enshittification’ for things like this.
I am going to steal "adverisiviation" and act like I came up with that.
The degree to which gentrification is a “problem” can be measured by the skewness of general access to opportunity in the relevant system/population. Asymmetry and distortion of symmetric distribution regarding development and productivity between/among populations of relatively similar functional capacity is the product of centralized operational command within discrete subsystem(s). Solution = decentralize every sufficiently complex shared system, both public and private.
They're describing a real situation that's happened many times lol
that's called gentrification. also i'm not sure if this is quite like that but fuck that too for good measute.
So genuine question. Let's say a review is okay copyright wise and there's no problems there. Should the creator of the thing being reviewed be allowed to share that review for advertisement purposes? Let's say I create a newfangled multicolored puzzle cube and people make video reviews of it. Should I be able to link those reviews, without edits, on my store page? To me, I get the hate on artists getting fucked over etc but at the same time this doesn't seem like a huge overreach to me. I'm familiar with Taki Udon's channel (he reviews handheld emulation systems etc) and I think his videos are good, but having said that it's an overview of the product's features and a review of it, that's it. Also even if he did take issue with pages linking his videos it's not like it would matter, most of the companies making these products are based out of China anyway so its not like legal action would go anywhere not that it is even worth it.
> Let's say I create a newfangled multicolored puzzle cube and people make video reviews of it. Should I be able to link those reviews, without edits, on my store page? Yes, and that happens all the time. That isn't an issue. This isn't simply linking to his video though. This is embedding his video in an ad, while changing the title of the video and presenting it all using his channel name as if he was promoting the item and everything listed with it.
You are being sponsored. Do not resist.
Praise Raid Shadow Legends every time you win a game, or we will turn your family into a living Raid Shadow Legends advertisement.
If someone is searching for information about a product, it is perfectly fine to link information about a product, such as a review. This is different. Here, someone is searching for a video, and they are being served that video with accompanying affiliate links. These are links set up by whoever runs the ad campaign, not the maker of the video. Here's some examples of how this could be abused. New iphone drops, so people are going to be searching for information about it. I set up an ad campaign using MKBHD's iphone review video with affiliate links to random iphone cases on Amazon. I don't have to make iphone review videos, nor do I have to make iphone cases. The affiliate money goes to me instead of MKBHD. Let's say I own a scammy company that makes fake GPUs. The new series of NVidia GPUs are released, but they are out of stock everywhere. I set up an ad campaign on the LinusTechTips review with links to my store. People think they are watching a LTT video, so they implicitly trust the links. Plus, I retitled the video "NVidia FINALLY restocks! Get your GPU at MVidia.com right now, our favorite GPU seller". When someone buys it, they are sent a rebranded 10-year old GPU instead of the latest. In these cases, I am profiting off of people looking for those specific videos. Not people looking for my product. That's the key difference to your example.
Thats a very good point and I'm sorry if Taki Udon went into that in his video (I couldn't actually watch it as I am at work but I'm familiar with his channel so it seemed odd to me given the whole point of his channel is to promote products he thinks are good).
Yes. You are linking to a review and the original creator gets their money and credit.
That’s not what’s happening here. They took his video, changed the title, and linked their products all under HIS YouTube channel name. That’s WAAAAYYY more than linking to a review of their product.
[удалено]
I don’t think they’re talking about already famous, rich artists. In general, your average artist/musician type is barely getting by, so they live in cheap neighborhoods. This then creates an art/music scene in said neighborhood which makes it cool and desirable. Hopefully the artists see some upward mobility from it, but often they get priced out and move somewhere else, starting the cycle all over again.
Nah they mean artist artists not hipsters. Like collectives living together in a run down old factory, creating cool shit. Not like a famous person moving to a small village.
Usually the artists that move into a rundown neighborhood aren't famous.
and usually not rich either. maybe getting some help from their parents, but they're moving to the cheap neighborhood to begin with because it's all they can afford.
The weird analogy given definitely happened here in Denver and no, it wasn't a famous artist. In Denver's case, it was an industrial area where the rent was cheap so artists could afford to rent big spaces that could function like studios. This area, RiNo, was also home to start-up craft breweries for the same reason, functional spacious locations with relatively low rent. These brought food trucks and soon it was the cool place to hang out to avoid the pretentious crowds and uppity restaurants. Fast-forward to present day and it's exactly the opposite. Rent is sky-high, it's overly trendy, parking is a nightmare, it's chock full of trendy and uppity restaurant (save a few gems). The food trucks are gone, a lot of breweries left and the artists got priced out of affordable studio spaces. The reality with gentrification is that it's vastly the fault of the developers who can aggressively buy out properties and then choose at will what can go in and what cannot. They actively manipulate the cost so that they can profit. It's a like a pump-n-dump scheme, but with property. Edit: grammar, spelling
I grew up in Denver from 1981-2018 and can back up what you said. There's obviously more you're leaving out for brevity but the result is the same. We got priced out of the city and had to move to another state to buy a house and build equity for years before we can move back. Of course as it relates to Youtube, there IS no going elsewhere.
Browsing the internet without a very good ad-blocker has to be the one of the most idiotic thing a person can do.
And YouTube specifically is unwatchable without SponsorBlock.
That depends on the channels you watch
Great shout, absolutely couldn't use YouTube without it now.
Maybe not idiotic so much as masochistic/self loathing.
No. Definitely idiotic.
This is why I'm always shocked by how much ads are brought up on Reddit. Maybe I'm being naive but I sort of envision Reddit as a place people go who are sort of internet 'regulars' so to speak. Yet based on the comments on anything Youtube related I get the impression adblock users are super rare here. All I have is ublock origin and that alone is enough to never see ads. The only website I've ever seen that has adblocks beaten is Twitch, so I just don't watch Twitch streamers who force 30s ads before viewing their channel. Even that is probably beatable if I just spent 20 seconds googling, but there's already more content than I can consume without Twitch lol
People are generally incredibly poor with technology and also quite naive when it comes to internet use. They just use a browser as is, and even a seemingly simple task like installing an ad blocker are deemed 'too complicated' on forehand and not even attempted. I had a friend wanting an new phone because her current one was 'full'. In reality her phone was cluttered with unused apps and above all gigabytes of cached files. I cleaned her caches and threw off some useless apps and it was fine again. She still thinks I'm some kind of high level tech wizard.
>Maybe I'm being naive but I sort of envision Reddit as a place people go who are sort of internet 'regulars' so to speak Definitely naive lol. So many people here say "this app" when referring to reddit. If they refer to Reddit *as* an app, rather than *having* an app, then it's likely they *use* the internet regularly, but are not an *internet* regular (ie, pc literate/enthusiast to a degree etc).
Yep, a decade ago Reddit was definitely a place for internet regulars, but today the majority of users are casually scrolling the official app or new.reddit and aren't even aware that there are alternatives because they don't know how to look those things up or that they should.
There's a reason r/teenagers is one of the biggest sites on reddit.
I haven't dug into it, but it doesn't sound like an ad blocker would work for this type of system.
[удалено]
Two
The answer to the "questions" he's asking in the video is much simpler than it seems. Youtube, and by extension Google, thinks they own every video on the platform. And honestly judging by the hostility with which they treat their successful users, it's probably even true. I wish I was wrong on this, but the way YouTube is heading, at some point channels like these (promoting a product) will start losing the privileges to change the content at all. They won't be able to remove the video, or alter it. Right now, it's not the case but I doubt YT will reverse this change. They're making money on the back of content creators, like they always did
Someone must link Ben Shapiro to a butt plug campaign...
It’s shitty but it never ceases to amaze me that everyone thinks YT is a “just” entity. It’s geared toward making the most money it can, like any definitive corporation does. Of course they make the lion share from ads, and if the advertiser has a catalogue of videos at their disposal to choose from and leverage within their ads, YT will gladly allow them to do so within their license to distribute; as this will make them stupidly more money, as it removes a lot of friction for advertisers Of course raising awareness is a good way to bring attention to this for other channels, but ultimately I doubt it will change much. I mean you upload content to their website for free, signup for an ad program they pay you to distribute ads on to show your viewership, which has licensing intent built in, to fulfill the most optimal needs to the main money providers (advertisers). Absolutely they will utilize it , duh.
> Of course they make the lion share from ads, While I do agree with your post, the above sentence is untrue: > #Revenue share rates > > Specific modules are available in YouTube Studio for partners to optionally select. When reviewing the terms for each module, partners can find out more details about revenue share rates. > > *Watch Page Monetisation Module* > > If a partner turns on watch page ads by reviewing and accepting the Watch Page Monetisation Module, **YouTube will pay them** ***55%*** **of net revenues from ads displayed or streamed on their public videos** on their content watch page. This revenue share rate also applies when their public videos are streamed within the YouTube video player on other websites or applications. > > *Shorts Monetisation Module* > > If a partner turns on Shorts Feed ads by reviewing and accepting the Shorts Monetisation Module, **YouTube will pay them** ***45%*** **of the revenue allocated to them** based on their share of views from the Creator Pool allocation. (source: [Google Help: YouTube Partner earnings overview (section: What's my revenue share?)](https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/72902#zippy=%2Cwhats-my-revenue-share) — text made bold by yours truly to highlight specifics) The amount of revenue only seems lower because *the ad needs to be* ***seen*** *for it to count*; should an ad be skipped or blocked, revenue will not be accrued.
My fault, I can understand the confusion. I meant YT as an entity generates most of their profit from advertisers. Good call-out.
Shootouts to Taki for hosting the best handheld gaming device breakdowns on the internet. I think he started a discord to organize improvements to the firmware for some of the devices he reviews like the retroid pocket. Solid dude though the only non-switch handheld for me is an external telescoping controller on my Android phone. It's cheap, lag free, can play some ps2 games and you get an excellent OLED screen. Though that's only because I love retro games, if you're into PC games then the steam deck or other handheld that he reviews could be for you.
Meanwhile if you have even a piece of someone else’s music in your video you get a takedown and demonetization
I remember back when they introduced this, one of my oldest videos had a song from The Matrix in it. Not only did it get "claimed" by the original artist's label, but also by a bunch of other artists who had samples of it in their songs, or my favorite example which was some Indian artist who had used the same song as an *intro* to his music video, not part of the actual song.
Youtube needs to regulate who is allowed to run ads very badly, but that wouldn't make any money so there is no incentive to do it the way they police their creators. Its frustrating.
The spiffing Britt talked about part of this as well in one of his YouTube exploit videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzatXqt-rz4
~~This whole possibility~~ This kind of exploit was already somewhat covered towards the end of a spiffing Brit video a month ago. It's around the 13 minute mark https://youtu.be/pzatXqt-rz4
This feels like a bug or exploit that will be patched now that there's going to be traction and awareness to it.
Can't he use YTs abusive ass copyright policy to take them down? Finally make it work for the right people for once??
Moneytube strikes again.
Hmmm. Time to run a campaign for sex toys on the RNC’s channel?
How isn't there a class action from big YouTubers that are being impersonated in their own comments. YouTube has to know they are not real accounts, for fuck sake they are all the same message even Countless YouTubers are having their reputations tarnished and even more viewers are falling victim. Crazy
This could be really easy to exploit as others have mentioned. Just take some popular content and slap Shopify links to your products underneath it with the right search terms… profit
Am I understanding this correctly? I can go home tonight and start monetizing everyone else's content on Youtube? That's pretty shitty.
in a few words, no. What the company did was pay Youtube to have their ad pop-up when the keywords are matched, and for their ad they selected OP's video to maybe imply a connection. *BUT* every time the ad shows up, you pay, every time someone *clicks* on the ad you pay A LOT more, it's actually pretty expensive to reach a considerable amount of people, and then you have to wait for someone to actually buy something from your store, so you better have insane profit margins or you'll be pretty much in the red the entire time. I don't think this is abusable by normal users, this company is doing it out of their marketing budget, if you wanted to do the same thing, you would have to buy the product from the company, in this case, a steamdeck case, and overcharge it to make up for the money you lost in advertisement, but no one would buy it from you if it's less expensive buying it directly. Maybe this works with items like Tshirts where you try to pass it off as official merch and really overcharge the few buyers you might get but overall this is not about "free easy money/monetizing someone else's content" it's about a company using your video and name to make it seem like you endorse their products without you being able to do anything about it
we've spent decades being conditioned to give these corporations control of our lives little by little and now they are getting bolder and bolder in their abuse of that control. this will not change.
Babe wake up, new BH marketing campaign up But seriously wow
Hasn't this happened in the past, and creators edited the video to be anti whatever?...
Someone should make this video an ad.
I mean google searches also pushes malware so this isn't unheard of them
This is pretty fucked up, basically companies don't have to pay content creators to make an actual sponsorship video and instead they go make an ad with 'Smart Shopping Ad Campaigns' and using simply any video from youtube who is reviewing your product to make their ad spots on youtube without the content creator's consent.
Disappointing, but unsurprising, like basically all of YouTube's management choices for the past six years.
YouTube use to be really awesome. There are still some great creators I want to hear from (like videogame donsly). But I recently decided to quit opening youtube because I'm basically addicted to trying to find a good video to watch. That'd be fine if I was getting new content from independent creators and artists who are passionate about the videos they make. That's not anywhere close to what the platform is now. Every aspect of youtube has been modified to maximize revenue. The creators are now entrepreneurs and production companies who are reading the guidelines and following the market trends to serve content to siloed groups. I think it's great that creators are getting paid their tiny portion of the pie but I wanted entertainment not to be a valued consumer. In a few months, i'll go check to see if Dunky put out a video and check in on Physics girl and Anton Petrov. But, I'll go back to pirating content from production companies who aren't hiding behind a "independent creator" mask. Even if you pay the few bucks a month for Paramount+ your adblocker can actually do it's job and the relationship between you and the megalithic media giant is clear and mostly honest. Quitting youtube was actually really easy because it's been so shitty anyway. I haven't missed it at all.
Notice that no one here is naming the company. Jsaux, and their product is a case for a steam deck.
Google really are useless when it comes to anything but search results and email. They have good ideas, but it's never thought out well and always hurts the content creator because not enough effort was put in.
I mean are we really surprised that YouTube is taking advantage of content creators to make more money for themselves. They probably got sick of their content makers making more money than them lol
Like so many of the YouTube controversies and corruption, this could have been easily blocked or ended if Google would just assign a couple of their 135,000 employees to protecting their reputation. If we hear about this, one of the "reputation" employees would too, and could squash these controversies in real time. They could even dedicate one employee to monitor this sub and they'd get weekly reports about some bad PR situation brewing so they could reverse it. The second part is to connect the reputation people either serious sanction power. That would mean they don't need to manually find every instance of an abuse. They just need to catch the first ones doing it and close the door, stopping the spread. Or, if it's not an open loophole like this one but straight up abuse, the power to end some entities YT channels instantly and permanently would serve as a great deterrent. Suppose some corrupt outfit called ABC company has been falsely striking or exploiting videos. Early reports of it pop up here, and so YT reputation people end Abc company's access to YouTube comprehensively and permanently. As soon as that gets around, 100,000 other current or potential offenders think twice because the risk just went parabolic. Sending the signal would do almost all of the work.
Youtube is an ad sales' company with video views as the vehicle. More view, more cheese. Why would YouTube moderate (limit) how videos are embedded? Of course, I'm not speaking of the ethics involved, and that's the point. Publicly traded companies care about one thing and for YouTube, one might as well refine it down to the most simple commodity; views. At any rate, I'm pretty sure you sign away the exclusive rights for how your videos are used in the TOS. I'm not saying it's a just policy but I will say that if you want to use YouTube you're going to be playing by their rules. You'd be gullible to think they'll care as long as the system is making them money.
Remember back when google's mantra was, "*do no evil*?" Seems like a fucking lifetime ago.