Honestly, it’s the terrible content moderation policies that are going to kill YouTube, not a certain type of video.
Bingo. I don't find shorts all that appealing (especially since I can't cast them to a TV! Wtf, seems like core function there) but I agree, the REAL problem with YouTube is how much creators have to top toe around demonization.
"Demonetization" is just what YouTube's promises to advertisers look like when they affect video creators.
Money on YouTube flows from advertisers. The revenue from charging advertisers to show ads is split between YouTube/Google and the video creator. If your video is not shown with ads, then there is no revenue to split.
YouTube gives advertisers a very small control over what videos their ads are shown on. They have a few different classifications of videos, and advertisers can choose which ones they want to be seen with. Advertisers are paying for the service of YouTube putting their ads on videos — but only the videos that YouTube thinks the advertiser does want to be seen with.
If your video is fully "demonetized", that means YouTube has decided that no advertisers want to be seen with it; or that they are not willing to take revenue from showing ads on that video. But they're still hosting it, making it available to viewers.
Video creators' revenue is a share of the ad income from YouTube showing the video (and accompanying ads). A "demonetized" video is one that doesn't show any ads — so there is no revenue to split. It's not that YouTube is taking all the revenue and leaving none to the video creator. They're not making any, because they don't think the advertisers would be okay with being charged to be seen alongside that video.
However, the creator of a "demonetized" video is still receiving value from YouTube. It is not free to host that video — especially if it is popular. Network bandwidth, data storage, and transcoding of video for viewers' browsers are not free; YouTube covers the cost of these. YouTube is willing to host a lot of videos that they make zero money from, at their expense, rather than censoring those videos by taking them down.
YouTube is willing to host a lot of videos that they make zero money from, at their expense
That's just not true...they're hosting it because they data-farm the living shit out of both the creator and anyone that gets tangentially close to their site. More content = more people visit = more data on these people = more money...They make a lot of money on this data, even if no ads are shown on a video, and are by no means doing it out of the goodness of their heart.
Yeah, but they aren't making nearly the amount of money on the video as they would with the ads, and no where near enough to compensate the creators beyond free hosting.
You can still publish demonetized content, just don't expect to make money from it on YouTube.
They use that data to sell ads at you across the entire internet. Google is making plenty of cash off those “demonitized” videos.
I didn't say it's charity. I said the video creator (who wants people to see their video) is receiving a service from the video host for no charge, which otherwise the creator would have to pay for. Hosting your own video on your own storage and network bill is not free. If you don't believe me, go try doing it yourself.
If the creator didn't think they were receiving any benefit, they would just take that video down. They sometimes do, but usually they don't.
Publishing a book costs money. Someone has to buy the paper from the paper makers, and the ink from the ink makers. Someone has to line up the print on the page. Those people have to get paid, so they can go buy a sandwich and pay their rent. So, publishers exercise some judgment in not printing books that they don't expect to sell, because they've gotta pay their bills, including parts and labor.
Same goes for video. Hosting a video costs money. Servers cost money. Power costs money. Network connectivity costs money. The people who run those services need to get paid so they can buy a sandwich and pay their rent. If YouTube is hosting your video, even if they're not paying you a share of any ad revenue (because they're not getting any), they're paying bills that otherwise you would have to pay.
I'm not saying you've gotta be grateful or something. I'm saying if you want to understand what's going on in the world, you can't do that without understanding the actual bills that people are actually paying.
To put it simply: The hosting costs of demonetized videos are paid for by the hosting of monetized videos.
Don't believe me? Take your video and store it on a server that you pay for, with network connectivity you pay for. That's a thing you can do. You can even do it with Fediverse technology. However, it will in fact cost you some amount of money.
Hosting your own video on your own storage and network bill is not free. If you don’t believe me, go try doing it yourself.
I know this is true but why do I see so many people on lemmy pushing for self-hosting and even talking about it like its some low rent hobby?
It's not exactly an expensive hobby, but it's also not free.
YouTube hosts a lot of videos.
And — by the fundamental theorem of financial calculus that I just made up — "not free" times "a lot" equals "big bucks".
And — by the fundamental theorem of financial calculus that I just made up — “not free” times “a lot” equals “big bucks”.
Finally, someone who gets my idea of math.
they're all paying the bills by hawking raid shadow legends anyways, may as well not rely on youtube monetization anyways and host elsewhere
The video in question: The Forgotten Disaster of the SS Eastland. It's 43 minutes long, both well done, and respectfully done. Her team did a good job on it then some youtube automated system buried it for "violating community guidelines".
I'm not even sure it is bad policies. I am pretty sure that they just don't have moderators.
I doubt anyone reads 99.9% of reports.
So you get bigotry and hate, you get insane and deadly DIYs, you get 12yo girls being creeped while posting random 5s clips from their lives.
Not to mention just the vast amount of extraordinarily low-quality content YouTube serves up. It's amazing how bad a lot of the videos it thinks you will like are. The algorithm makes no sense.
But hey, here's 16 different Joe Rogan clips with sigma male music in the background.
The algorithm seems like it is optimized for profit, not for actually being a good platform.
That should mean engagement. It serves up such bad videos that I disengage.
Once in a while I'll realize I just spent 20, 30 minutes looking at a streak of pretty decent stuff. Rare enough to be remarkable. Usually after just 3 or 4 consecutive crap clips I'll close it down and get back to work.
I doubt anything disengages a user faster than low-quality content. I bet it does it even faster than the authoritarian politics and bigotry YouTube seems to inexorable serve you.
If that were true, it wouldn't be the way it is.
Just because it causes your disengagement, doesn't mean it causes disengagement with the vast majority of their userbase.
They're also more concerned with ad views and clicks, so if you're not the kind of person who gives a crap about ads... they don't really care that much about you.
This is predicated on the belief that Google/YouTube is run in a 100% hyper-competent way. I don't buy that.
Google does things the easiest way possible to make tons of money. They make unforced errors all the damn time.
They don't have to be 100% competent, but they are very competent at what they want to do... which is monetize the technologies and services they provide. They're not trying to make something that people can use well and enjoy... they're making things to make a shit-ton of money. The two goals are not generally mutually inclusive.
Yours, on the other hand, is predicated on the belief that they're all super-incompetent and have no capability of doing anything right ever... which is confusing considering they're a multi-billion dollar company and not just some guy in a shack banging rocks together to see how they sound.
Yours, on the other hand, is predicated on the belief that they're all super-incompetent and have no capability of doing anything right ever
Nope. It's only this specific thing that I necessarily think they're doing a bad job of. And I'm right; they are. Their algorithm is a struggling baby compared to TikTok and YouTube at large is not a major profit center (and indeed may not be profitable at all -- but they maintain it because abandoning it would be too costly for them).
TikTok is so good at doing this thing that it is a profitable business for them. YouTube is struggling, and we can clearly see why.
What specific thing? The entirety of YouTube? Just the algorithm? Either way their algorithm may not be designed to do promote videos you want to watch, in reality it’s most likely designed to promote stuff that will draw them the most ad revenue and not promote really good stuff all the time. If your content is always great people will expect that and there will never be a great video, on the contrary if there is a great video among mediocre ones at best people will engage more in those (especially if they are longer and even if they have more ads), and additionally will engage more in your platform. This means that even if they aren’t making as much per video they are still making more in the long-term. And that’s really all they care about, your experience means nothing to them.
This is a thread about YouTube shorts and its bad algorithm, dude.
What’s a YouTube short?
The literal subject of this thread.
You're in here arguing with people without even reading the headline of the article.
I read the title, I just don’t. Know what that is. I assumed it was short YouTube videos, and hence the same algorithm information would apply.
The terrible content moderation policies are what keep it alive. No one subscribes to youtube so it's primary customers are the ad agencies. And they want content moderation
This Shorts issue seems to have measurable, constant and immediate effect in ad revenue and therefore platform profitability. Bad content moderation may or may not decrease engagement but in the end Google is a commercial enterprise that's looking at the numbers at hand.
Honestly, it’s the terrible content moderation policies that are going to kill YouTube, not a certain type of video.
Bingo. I don't find shorts all that appealing (especially since I can't cast them to a TV! Wtf, seems like core function there) but I agree, the REAL problem with YouTube is how much creators have to top toe around demonization.
"Demonetization" is just what YouTube's promises to advertisers look like when they affect video creators.
Money on YouTube flows from advertisers. The revenue from charging advertisers to show ads is split between YouTube/Google and the video creator. If your video is not shown with ads, then there is no revenue to split.
YouTube gives advertisers a very small control over what videos their ads are shown on. They have a few different classifications of videos, and advertisers can choose which ones they want to be seen with. Advertisers are paying for the service of YouTube putting their ads on videos — but only the videos that YouTube thinks the advertiser does want to be seen with.
If your video is fully "demonetized", that means YouTube has decided that no advertisers want to be seen with it; or that they are not willing to take revenue from showing ads on that video. But they're still hosting it, making it available to viewers.
Video creators' revenue is a share of the ad income from YouTube showing the video (and accompanying ads). A "demonetized" video is one that doesn't show any ads — so there is no revenue to split. It's not that YouTube is taking all the revenue and leaving none to the video creator. They're not making any, because they don't think the advertisers would be okay with being charged to be seen alongside that video.
However, the creator of a "demonetized" video is still receiving value from YouTube. It is not free to host that video — especially if it is popular. Network bandwidth, data storage, and transcoding of video for viewers' browsers are not free; YouTube covers the cost of these. YouTube is willing to host a lot of videos that they make zero money from, at their expense, rather than censoring those videos by taking them down.
That's just not true...they're hosting it because they data-farm the living shit out of both the creator and anyone that gets tangentially close to their site. More content = more people visit = more data on these people = more money...They make a lot of money on this data, even if no ads are shown on a video, and are by no means doing it out of the goodness of their heart.
Yeah, but they aren't making nearly the amount of money on the video as they would with the ads, and no where near enough to compensate the creators beyond free hosting.
You can still publish demonetized content, just don't expect to make money from it on YouTube.
They use that data to sell ads at you across the entire internet. Google is making plenty of cash off those “demonitized” videos.
I didn't say it's charity. I said the video creator (who wants people to see their video) is receiving a service from the video host for no charge, which otherwise the creator would have to pay for. Hosting your own video on your own storage and network bill is not free. If you don't believe me, go try doing it yourself.
If the creator didn't think they were receiving any benefit, they would just take that video down. They sometimes do, but usually they don't.
Publishing a book costs money. Someone has to buy the paper from the paper makers, and the ink from the ink makers. Someone has to line up the print on the page. Those people have to get paid, so they can go buy a sandwich and pay their rent. So, publishers exercise some judgment in not printing books that they don't expect to sell, because they've gotta pay their bills, including parts and labor.
Same goes for video. Hosting a video costs money. Servers cost money. Power costs money. Network connectivity costs money. The people who run those services need to get paid so they can buy a sandwich and pay their rent. If YouTube is hosting your video, even if they're not paying you a share of any ad revenue (because they're not getting any), they're paying bills that otherwise you would have to pay.
I'm not saying you've gotta be grateful or something. I'm saying if you want to understand what's going on in the world, you can't do that without understanding the actual bills that people are actually paying.
To put it simply: The hosting costs of demonetized videos are paid for by the hosting of monetized videos.
Don't believe me? Take your video and store it on a server that you pay for, with network connectivity you pay for. That's a thing you can do. You can even do it with Fediverse technology. However, it will in fact cost you some amount of money.
I know this is true but why do I see so many people on lemmy pushing for self-hosting and even talking about it like its some low rent hobby?
It's not exactly an expensive hobby, but it's also not free.
YouTube hosts a lot of videos.
And — by the fundamental theorem of financial calculus that I just made up — "not free" times "a lot" equals "big bucks".
Finally, someone who gets my idea of math.
they're all paying the bills by hawking raid shadow legends anyways, may as well not rely on youtube monetization anyways and host elsewhere
Case in point, when youtube buried one of Caitlin Doughty's documentaries from Ask a Mortician.
The video in question: The Forgotten Disaster of the SS Eastland. It's 43 minutes long, both well done, and respectfully done. Her team did a good job on it then some youtube automated system buried it for "violating community guidelines".
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=cN5hNzVqkOk
https://piped.video/watch?v=UCHt2MOVCbg
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I'm not even sure it is bad policies. I am pretty sure that they just don't have moderators.
I doubt anyone reads 99.9% of reports.
So you get bigotry and hate, you get insane and deadly DIYs, you get 12yo girls being creeped while posting random 5s clips from their lives.
Not to mention just the vast amount of extraordinarily low-quality content YouTube serves up. It's amazing how bad a lot of the videos it thinks you will like are. The algorithm makes no sense.
But hey, here's 16 different Joe Rogan clips with sigma male music in the background.
The algorithm seems like it is optimized for profit, not for actually being a good platform.
That should mean engagement. It serves up such bad videos that I disengage.
Once in a while I'll realize I just spent 20, 30 minutes looking at a streak of pretty decent stuff. Rare enough to be remarkable. Usually after just 3 or 4 consecutive crap clips I'll close it down and get back to work.
I doubt anything disengages a user faster than low-quality content. I bet it does it even faster than the authoritarian politics and bigotry YouTube seems to inexorable serve you.
If that were true, it wouldn't be the way it is.
Just because it causes your disengagement, doesn't mean it causes disengagement with the vast majority of their userbase.
They're also more concerned with ad views and clicks, so if you're not the kind of person who gives a crap about ads... they don't really care that much about you.
This is predicated on the belief that Google/YouTube is run in a 100% hyper-competent way. I don't buy that.
Google does things the easiest way possible to make tons of money. They make unforced errors all the damn time.
They don't have to be 100% competent, but they are very competent at what they want to do... which is monetize the technologies and services they provide. They're not trying to make something that people can use well and enjoy... they're making things to make a shit-ton of money. The two goals are not generally mutually inclusive.
Yours, on the other hand, is predicated on the belief that they're all super-incompetent and have no capability of doing anything right ever... which is confusing considering they're a multi-billion dollar company and not just some guy in a shack banging rocks together to see how they sound.
Nope. It's only this specific thing that I necessarily think they're doing a bad job of. And I'm right; they are. Their algorithm is a struggling baby compared to TikTok and YouTube at large is not a major profit center (and indeed may not be profitable at all -- but they maintain it because abandoning it would be too costly for them).
TikTok is so good at doing this thing that it is a profitable business for them. YouTube is struggling, and we can clearly see why.
What specific thing? The entirety of YouTube? Just the algorithm? Either way their algorithm may not be designed to do promote videos you want to watch, in reality it’s most likely designed to promote stuff that will draw them the most ad revenue and not promote really good stuff all the time. If your content is always great people will expect that and there will never be a great video, on the contrary if there is a great video among mediocre ones at best people will engage more in those (especially if they are longer and even if they have more ads), and additionally will engage more in your platform. This means that even if they aren’t making as much per video they are still making more in the long-term. And that’s really all they care about, your experience means nothing to them.
This is a thread about YouTube shorts and its bad algorithm, dude.
What’s a YouTube short?
The literal subject of this thread.
You're in here arguing with people without even reading the headline of the article.
I read the title, I just don’t. Know what that is. I assumed it was short YouTube videos, and hence the same algorithm information would apply.
The terrible content moderation policies are what keep it alive. No one subscribes to youtube so it's primary customers are the ad agencies. And they want content moderation
This Shorts issue seems to have measurable, constant and immediate effect in ad revenue and therefore platform profitability. Bad content moderation may or may not decrease engagement but in the end Google is a commercial enterprise that's looking at the numbers at hand.
Not just terrible, but incredibly hypocritical.