Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/22/18 in all areas

  1. 7 points
    They call themselves an advertising company, not a tech company. Their biz model is built on selling ads. They don't allow me to sell my own ads. They are calling me a "partner" and "creator". And now I should be the one who is responsible to please THEIR customers? Come on, just stop celebrating everything YouTube does. This is clearly a bad change in policies. They simply caved in to the pressure from the advertisers, which was easy as the creators are small and have no common voice. The YouTubers Union wants to change that, wants to unite us creators and fight for our rights with a strong voice. Your arguments are quite close to the statements the establishment gave when the first unions formed, way back during the industrial revolution. Then it wasn't the employers job to take care of the health of the workers. It wasn't the employers job to give people security. Well, guess what, unions did get a few changes through.
  2. 5 points
    Dude if your strategy is to ignore people's arguments than go ahead. But it shows how you chose to hide in fear of being wrong. Your own ignorance of others arguments speaks volumes on who is right. Firstly the size of YouTube doesn't matter. What matters is that they need to be fixed. YouTube needs to fix themselves in the point that they need to follow their own rulles. In many situations they chose to do what is, "best for business." If that means reviewing a video with a dead body and saying it's okay then they will do it. They have shown that. They have also shown to strike videos for no reason at all. A guy kicking a pick of PewDiePie getting a strike for hate speach? And Logan Paul's vid being checked and reviewed and said to be fine. There are some clear issues here that YouTube needs to fix. Advertisers shouldn't be able to decide where their ads are shown. I mean after all they are posting ads on YouTube. They don't own YouTube. I'm not saying that there should be videos of people being beheaded. I am saying that YouTube should have better bots. Their bots don't know what "advertiser friendly" means. It seems clear that YouTube is bending to the big advertisers. When ultimately they have the power. There should be bots that allow creators to post videos that are harmless. Zombie Go Boom post videos testing weapons and doing similar work as Myth busters have. But Myth busters are fine and ZGB never get ads. At the very least there should be videos that can be age restricted yet they can get ads. In conclusion YouTube needs to fix their bots. They need to give fair treatment to all creators and they should not care about money. They also shouldn't allow advertisers to bully them.
  3. 5 points
    Yes, I am all for "educating" advertisers to spend more money on my channel. But that is YouTube's job, not mine. My job is to make videos that PEOPLE (consumers) watch and like. I am doing that job every day. Now I want YouTube to do their job as well.
  4. 5 points
    Strange, I've worked closely with unions in my life and I can tell you that conducting a strike is not the be all and end all of a union at all. If you are going to say someone doesn't know something about unions, make sure you know what unions are about yourself. As unions grow, so too do their goals, where and what they're active on and who they aim to help and represent. You'll find that the very basic function of a union is to REPRESENT the members, in this case they are creators and users of youtube, and your idea of 'oh you can't strike, I win' is a complete strawman argument. The actions a union can take are limited only to what they can come up with. There's a lot you can do with a large community of people who believe in a cause, right? You are missing the networking, collaboration and momentum that comes from an organized union with a goal. You really think the proposals and demands are the only thing the union will do? You seem to have simply brushed over what the union has been up to and then you've had to go back and actually look at what's been done. If you don't recognise that a growing 10,000+ strong community who are actively working on voicing discontent among youtube users could potentially have sway or an impact then I would say it's you who 'fundamentally did not understand' the point. After all, youtube are responding to the Union directly already.
  5. 4 points
    @Leo Wattenberg Regarding the nonsense you said about Logan Paul you realize the video he had with a dead body was looked at by YouTube themselves. And they said that there wasn't anything wrong with it. It made it onto trending. Yes they have taken him off Google preferred and have taken ads from his channel but that is only temporary. YouTube doesn't care about the guidelines that much to give fair treatment. A smaller channel was given a strike for a guy kicking a wall that had a pic of PewDiePie on it. YouTube isn't going out of their way to punish Logan Paul. They only care about how much money they make from him. The bots on YouTube as well, are broken. These news YouTube channels can report on tragic news but not other YouTubers? And people can't test weapons on fruit without their videos getting demonitized? Things aren't fair like you try to paint them out to be. YouTube doesn't give fair treatment.
  6. 4 points
    um yer how big is your YouTube channel agean? not as big as the YouTubers union I know that.
  7. 4 points
    I think a lot of people miss the point(s) here. First of all, when you give money to someone for the content of their labor, that implies that you have entered into a labor agreement of some kind w/that creator. Whether YouTube's creators can be considered actual employees or rather independent contractors is beside the point, the point is that YouTube makes money off of these creators and then pays them for their labor, i.e. a employer/employee relationship. YouTube and Google also contract w/many governments, and for the sake of our argument here, the most important one of those gov'ts is the U.S. Gov't. YouTube/Google/ABC may not have noticed, but when a private business entity contracts w/the U.S.Gov't, they agree to certain protections for their workforce, the freedom to organize, and the right to have, to hold, and to express political affiliations, viewpoints, and beliefs that are different from those of the employer. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, at this point, Google and YouTube are both operating as monopolies in much more of a sense than Microsoft ever did. It is not difficult to understand that the American Public and its Gov't., as well as the public/gov'ts of many other countries around the world have allowed this monopoly mostly because Google and YouTube were both seen as fair places for the entire world to meet, converse, and express themselves and their beliefs, and the fact that, without the data gleaned from this public use, neither business entity could exist or profit had kept these companies honest and fair to all. Lastly, in a country SO rabid over alleged political manipulations by "the Russians" I find it amazing that no one has said a single friggin' word about Google/YouTube. You want to talk about manipulation of the election? Really? When one is the biggest search engine in the country, and yet one has an EXTREME bias towards the goals and policies over one party, and is willing to manipute allegedly fair data and results so that this data benefits one candidate/platform/party and damages another candidate/platform/party, THAT is "manipulating the results of an election." At this point, Google's and YouTube's continued obvious biases, and the way that they continue to express those biases basically spits in the face of our nation's (and other nations') people, parties, and governments. It would be good for Google/YouTube to immediately mend the error of their ways and to hope and pray that the people don't get wise and begin demanding their treasonous heads. That being said, I think that this article is written by someone who doesn't understand that, even if one pretends that Google/YouTube "has a right", these companies operate dangerously close to the "Government decides to step in" line, and would not exist if it were not for contributors. All contributors. If they refuse to allow certain viewpoints, their search engine ceases to be useful to anyone who doesn't live in an echo chamber, and they stumble ever closer to being provably, charge-ably guilty of manipulation of the elections and operations of nations. Most countries have real issues with this type of behavior. Having this union, at the very least, allows "we the people" to show our anger and distaste at being treated this way, and also a way to show our (continuously growing) strength in numbers.
  8. 4 points
    Here in europe the "We only provide the infrastructure" bs is no longer accepted. Youtube decides who get listed first and as such also decides on which content people see. If that doesn't convince you.. how does "remove content" relate to "providing infrastructure"?. Youtube crosses that line all the time, so do not give me that bs.
  9. 4 points
    Those brainwashing all-smiles nonsense clips YouTube made? Come on, you can't be serious. I believe that none, I repeat none, of my questions are answered in those goofy pieces. But I admit I could not make myself watching them all. Please be so kind and identify those videos to me that clearly answer my questions. Then I will stand corrected. My demands are just a start, we have an own forum and will change/update those demands as we go along. You did not really watch my video, or you simply chose to interpret them wrongly. When I say all channels should be monetized, of course I am ONLY speaking about the channels that WANT to monetize the content. And I clearly stated that I don't want to see ISIS beheading videos either. Same goes for stolen videos. I want clear rules, easy to understand and with plenty of examples. If a video does not comply to these rules, then it must be deleted. But right now, the rules are deliberately soft and YouTube can hide between them. How else is it possible that a friend of mine got a strike and a take down because he interviewed the manufacturer of airguns for Olympic tournaments at a trade show? His entire channel is gone because he received three strikes in a very short time. Those videos were years old, by the way. Videos that contain critical elements may not be ideal for some advertisers. That is OK. But they still have value as they bring people to the platform. Eventually those people will watch videos with ads too. I simply want that the "cake" is split three ways, not two ways. As for the "influencer" part, I have a total of eight channels that I know of that have more than 1 million subs and are now members. I have a nice collection of press coverage already, including web and radio interviews. Today, a piece will be aired on rbb24, and also the BR in Germany. I admit my fans gave the thing a good push, but now I am getting new members from many other sources as well. As for the communication, appeals aren't falling in that category. They are one sided. You file an appeal and then you get the result back in automatized form. Yes or no. No explanations, just the typical standard messages. You can NOT talk to the decision maker. And yes, of course I have a partner manager. She is a good person and really tries to help. But she is very low on the YT hierarchy ladder and basically powerless. She is clearly told what she can say and what not. She can deliver messages from "content", but nothing is ever firm or in written form. She can be helpful, but that is NOT the transparency I want. @Derrick Schommer: YouTube is NOT a "renting an apartment" platform, at least not if you are a creator. It is a house I helped building, with my own hands and years of work. I am officially a "partner", not a "user" or "tenant". Google built the YouTube platform together with the creators. That is what partners do. I won't give up the platform I helped building, not without a fight.
  10. 3 points
    Well Leo Not sure if it was you I was debating in the discord or just someone sharing your content so i'll argue the point here too. Lets talk about monetize everyone. Channels that exist solely to steal content and re-upload is already against the terms of use. Demonetization is not the issue there. Properly banning users that should already be banned is the issue there. Monetization shouldn't apply to those channels anyway. The only reason it does is because of a failing elsewhere so how about we fix that before we create another issue of false positives from this category. So what about ISIS and terrorist videos. Well many of those will fall into categories that shoudl already see them removed from Youtube, the others fall into categories of giving political and social opinions that are distasteful to western audiences. Advertisers should (and do) have the option to not be shown on them but the more agressive videos should already be removed, again muting the monetization argument for those, and non agressive ones that simply show disagreeable politicall opinions should be left up for freedom of speech reasons. Finally Elsagate. Some of these should already be banned and removed for violating the sexual content guidelines, others should be banned simply for targeting adult content at children. So what about the rest, well it SHOULD be age gated, and Youtube needs to do better at filtering content for vulnerable viewers, but that is not the same issue as monetization. If its not violating the sexual content guidelines and its age gated (effectively) there should not be an issue with the content being left up and monetized. I think the whole checking for suspicious activity is a terrible thing for youtube to require anyway. Small creators do not know how to tell if activity is suspicious anyway, a lot of large creators don't. If I suddenly got half a dozen clicks from another county I woudl assume someone was just watching my playlist. If its not super obvious how do we even tell. If it is obvious Youtube should be the ones policing that anyway. They have far more data and access to do this effectively, and via automated means. I don't know anyone who has had an issue with click bombing, granted small sample size there. Click bombing is something that is super easy to detect via automated means. My channel was monetized for years, not even close to 1000 views a day, never had an issue. This is the seccond knee jerk comment I've seen from you, I skipped the first. If you had actually watched the video Jörg made, you would know this does not refer to Youtube's actual content department but to the department responsible for deciding which content gets censored. I can see how it would easily be mistaken from the wording if you didn't bother taking the time to watch the video. This is not just about discussing policy with youtube. This is about whenever a video is taken down/demonetized etc Youtube needs to be Transparent as to reasons WHY the content has been demonetized or taken down. I know it can be hard to understand a summary list if you didn't bother to read/watch the content it is summarizing. Having been watching youtube for over a decade now (see we can both use the word decade to make it sound longer, and your account was made on May 2nd 2013 which actually puts you under half a decade for the next 2 months) its clear to me that the reason Youtube does not put strikes on deleted posts is becasue punishing someone for recognising their video had an issue and self correcting it is not something that should get a strike. In Logan Paul's case it was most likely because his pattern of behaviour showed he was not self correcting, he was just dodging strikes. Matt Patt of game theory made an excellent point about those guys a while ago, Youtube's algorthim promotes those channels, it promotes that behaviours and until Youtube stops encouraging that sort of behaviour by promoting it then more videos of that sort will pop up again and again. Case by case judgement is what should be happening with any strike, AS WELL AS clear guidelines. You cannot expect someone to follow rules they have to guess. Your fair use example shows a lack of understanding of the clear difference here. Whenever something that is in the grey area of fair use comes up then it has to go through legal action in order to be removed. In Youtube's case things in the grey area get removed or strikes. This is like saying you can go to jail without trial, or knowing why and that is ok as long as you can appeal. That is an extreme example but it's the same principal. Youtube wants to apply standards to its content, literally the first step in achieving that in a productive manner is to clearly communicate what those standards are. if you had used youtube at all in the past 12 months you would already know that it isn't just channels at extremes getting videos demonetized and banned, in fact if you had spent more than 30 seconds on the forum of the union, or watched Jörg's video, or browsed the news feed on teh website, or looked at teh facebook comments, or spend 10 min on teh discord, or checked the reddit, you would know that too. Lots of channels, edgy or not are getting strikes. Again if you had watched the video you would not have misunderstood here. This is not asking to not promote demonetized videos. The point here is that even a video that does not contain adverts brings users to the platform, or keeps them on the platform longer. These videos benefit the platform, even if they are not directly monettized. This is not asking that everything is force monetized. It is asking that every channel had the ability to moneize and get paid for their work, regardless of size or controversial nature. Putting everyone on equal footing encourages them to be creative becasue they do not have to pander to trends or algorithms. No, and it shouldn't be up to Youtube either. It should be up to the advertisers. Advertisers need better tools to filter their adds but it should be them making the decision. There are always advertisers that will want to advertise on controversial content, take sexually suggestive content for example. Perfect place to put adverts for sexy underwear. The Youtubers union has scheduled their first official meeting with a Youtube representative, it took less than 2 weeks to arrange. I think you are downplaying effectiveness here due to personal bias, or simply a complete lack of information. Information which is available on at least 6 different mediums. This does not mean someone is wrong. It is a pointless point. You are figuratively saying, "People agree with you so you must be wrong" You are taking the idiots approach to assuming you are right and basing it soleley on you wanting to be right. At least put some effort in, share an opinion, a vaguely supported fact. Maybe tell us about your 4 years ( oh yeah over half a decade) on youtube making a total of 13 videos and tell us how that gives you an expert's pedegree to assume you are correct. I have been involed in a movement that gained over a quarter million members in just a couple of months, I have launched a website that got 40k hits less than an hour after launch. I have spent thousands of hours watching youtube videos, and hundreds of hours making them on multiple channels. Yet I consider myself a small creator who is far from having the right to "assume I am right". Perhaps you should gain some experience of the source material, or at least look up what you are arguing properly before you go assuming you are right. It is at the bottom of the article which appears at the top of the home page, it is mentioned and referenced frequently on other pages and linked in the resources section. It is on the Forum's stickied FAQ section as well as several other places and for most of the past 2 weeks it has been top 3 in a google search for "Youtubers union" (It is number 3 AND 4 as I write this) Its very clear you didn't even look into the Youtubers union at all before you wrote the above post. You just jerked your knee. Funny that. You cannot live in a free society where people you do not like are not allowed to share their opinion. I do not like Nazis but censoring all content to only allow my own political opinion leads down a very dark road, much like the road the Nazis went down.
  11. 3 points
    Lets go through this point by point. 1. Monetieze everyone: Youre right that Elsagate content should not be monetized. Channels that just scrape content off other channels should not be monetized (but right now they do and the bots often don`t get them). ISIS shouldn't get monetized. No questions about that. But this really is more of an issue of what is ok and what is not ok. So you missed the point here it`s about monetizing everyone that followes the rules (and maybe enogh views i personally don`t think you should be able to monetize your channel under 1000 subs). And yes this can be difficult to review but maybe there have to be new and better ways to do this. Maybe something like community based review for small channels. 2. Disable the bots- At least verified partners have the right to speak to a real person if you plan to remove their channel.: Yes and a channel should not be removed without a human overlooking it. Maybe bots can priorites channels to review again or something like that but don`t delet channels that exsist longer than a few days without someone checking that it is necesarry. 3. Transparent content decisions - Open up direct communication between the censors ("content department") and the Creators.: Seems you didn`t understand this point. Its about not getting any information when a problem comes up about why and how to solve it. Starting with open Guidlines for Videos and Monetization. Ending with open communication between the creators and youtube when problems occur. 4. Clarify the rules - Bring out clear rules with clear examples about what is OK and what is a No-No.: And again yes clarify the rules maybe even make them a little bit harsher. And it`s always much easier to dance around some lose rules that really strict rules as long as they are clear. 5. Pay for the views - Stop using demonetized channels as "bait" to advertise monetized videos.: Really how can you turn this in your head to "Stop featuring channels and videos that don't show ads"??? It`s about using channels with controversial context that dosen`t get monetized or did get demonetized to promote other channels that get monetized. Meaning youtube gets a lot of its traffic through channels that are not monetized but only features channels that are so they get a lot of views from people brought in through channels that are not monetized. What you could solve by "monetizing everyone" or at least make it way easier again. 6. Stop demonetization as a whole - If a video is in line with your rules, allow ads on an even scale./ Equal treatment for all partners - Stop preferring some creators over others. No more “YouTube Preferred”.: You say "It's not up to the creators to decide where the advertisers have to spend their money." Youre right to some degree but looking back to other forms of media advertisers could only choose where (tv station xy or newspaper xy) and when (day or time) they advertise not really what content exactly gets shown before and after it. So why not let them choose categorys to advertise in and spreed the adss from them equal between the content in that category or something like that. 7. You don't have to pay any money and you have zero obligations. You can join us simply be becoming a member of our Facebook group and/or by joining our forum.: Look up Unions and then think about this bullshit you wrote again. A union is an association of workers to represent their economic, social and cultural interests. And usually grounded within the laws of a country wich in this case is not really possible. What on it`s own is a good reason for this union because it`s another step in the right direction when it comes workers rights in regards to the internet. My personal opinion is that the YouTubers Union of course has it`s flaws right now but they are new and still just getting started and it is overall a good thing that seems to be grwoing fast.
  12. 3 points
    Moin. This is a summary about what has happened on YouTube in the last month. Official blog posts Preventing harm to the broader YouTube community: Also known as Lex Logan, or Logan Paulicy. These are a set of punishments YouTube can apply to (especially: large) creators if they intentionally do things that don't quite violate the community guidelines, but damage the reputation of YouTube creators. The punishments are in particular: 1) Removal from Google Preferred, cancellation of YouTube Originals, 2) Loss of monetization and partner support, 3) videos no longer get recommended. Updates to YouTube live streaming: Live chat replay now exists (well, it's rolling out), automatic captions are coming to live streams, and mobile live streams get location tags, and super chat supports IFTTT. Other news Channels below 1000 subs/4000 watch hours in the past 12 months now got kicked out of the partner program. Channels above this threshold, wanting to apply for the partner program are currently stuck in queue. ETA for a monetization review to happen is end of April. YouTube has been toughening up restrictions for MCNs, basically requiring them to have a personal relationship with each partner. This means that large MCNs have been kicking out channels that they don't think are worth keeping - which also tend to be smaller creators. YouTube Reels got renamed to stories, and are rolling out to more creators. The rollout likely is from top to bottom, ie large creators get it first. YouTube Studio has been rolling out for more creators. Demographics data has been restricted, in order to protect the viewer's privacy. New tracks have been added to the YouTube Audio Library There is a new YouTube app for AppleTV Manual quality selection has been bought back to game consoles. I think that's about it. Let me know if I missed anything.
  13. 3 points
    First, watch this short video: A bit of back story, I've been watching Gary V for 12 years, since he started Wine Library TV. It inspired me to do something similar, but instead of wine I was going to do cocktails. Ten years later I'm still doing it and almost at 100k subscribers. TEN years later. So many people want a short cut to success. And, in the end, I still don't consider what I've done from a growth perspective success. But, where I do see success is in the lives that I've changed. Over the years I've had a number of people write to me telling me how I inspired them to become professional bartenders. And, they did it. They became professional bartenders. One guy in the Boston area saw my show and it inspired him to get out of his dead end job and learn about cocktails. He's since then been the regional manager for many brands around the Boston area from Hendrick's Gin, a stint at Anheuser Busch and now Fernet Branca...because I sparked an interest he didn't know he really had. And, we've become friends as we only live 40 minutes apart; he's been on our show educating our audience on spirit history and cocktails. If it wasn't for Gary Vaynerchuck sparking an idea in me, there would be a two dozen fewer professional craft bartenders in this world right now. Fernet Branca wouldn't have a guy running their brand in the Boston area right now...all because of this guy in his little camera and wine show. Two Take-Aways: It takes years before you're going to reach a level where you can feel some level of success. You never know how success is going to be defined for you years later. I created my channel hoping to inspire spirit brands to sponsor me and give me money. I thought money would be my success. A few years later I realized I'm literally changing lives. People who had no direction in life are now making a living doing something they love. Granted, I'm still chasing the money hoping to make some...but along the way I've made a pretty neat impact on people around the world. But, it didn't happen overnight.
  14. 2 points
    Moin. If you are doing some research on how to become a YouTuber, you'll quite quickly find a lot of information that leave you standing like a deer in headlights. Which inspired this post: A quick guide with the absolute basics you need to get started. Love being creative. Just like all other arts, a YouTube carrer demands that you love creativity. If you have trouble coming up with creative ideas, you may want to approach the topic from an "Let's see if I can make something creative" angle, rather than "I want to be successful quickly" one. Just Do It. If you have an idea for a video, execute it. There's no use in having the perfect plan if you never execute it. You don't need to buy any expensive equipment if you have a smartphone to be able to execute most things. Practice makes perfect. The first video you make will suck badly. Your second video probably will be slightly better, your third one even more, and so on. This however is only true if you look actively and self-critically at your videos, try to find any flaws and work out a plan to fix them next time. If you don't, it's easy to fall into a routine where you grind away video after video, not get anywhere, and blame other people ("Big YouTubers! Society!") or things ("The Algorithm!") for your lack of success - which also won't get you anywhere. Follow laws. In the creative process, it may occur that you do something illegal, possibly unaware of the legal situation and suddenly find yourself in a situation where you have to pay hefty fines, get strikes on YouTube or face other consequences. This entire thing is a complex topic which is covered a bit more in-depth here: The following is only relevant if you are out for success Define your audience. Who do you want to reach? Are the formats you have suitable to reach your audience? Pick the best formats. If you notice that a certain format or series of yours isn't as popular as your other stuff, don't be afraid to kill it. If you have a format that performs way better than your other stuff, perhaps consider making your other formats a bit more similar to the successful one. Check the market. Is someone else basically making your formats and saturating the market? Is there still a market niche you can fill? Is there a YouTuber with a similar audience to yours that you could collaborate with? What new innovations are there in the video industry, and how can you use them? These, and basically all other questions entrepreneurs have to ask themselves, are also valid for people who have "being a full-time YouTuber" as goal. This was part 1 on the topic. Part 2 can be found below.
  15. 2 points
    I think this is a very childish response. No one has harassed you. People have come here to tell you that you are wrong, that is not the same thing as harassment. If you are going to insult people in a very public way yo uneed to expect people to tell you when you are talking crap. No being a student in a relevant field does not qualify you to assume you know more that creators that have been making videos since before Youtube existed. Even if your qualification makes you feel smart I think yo uneed a reassessment of what that qualificaiton means. It does not mean you know more than everyone else in the field. It means you have a bare minimum knowledge to enter that field. You may well know more than a lot of the smaller creators, that is far from makign you the smartest guy in the room so stop acting like it. It was quite clear from your post that you arrogantly assumed you knew what was going on and didnt even spend 5 min to look up the subject of your post. There have been several commentors that disagreed with what the Union has done, in a reespectful and productive manner. Youtuber Law is one example of someone who raised some issues in a meaningful way. You on the other hand just spouted nonsense that you can't back up.
  16. 2 points
    I am one of the hundreds of thousands - perhaps millions - of YouTube Channel owners who watched in horror a year ago, when over a few months, our Channel revenue dropped by circa 80%. This is an emotive debate and one that has affected our livelihoods. So, I have a question for @Leo Wattenberg I ask it respectfully and politely. Some of us have Subscriber lists into 6-figures, some even 7. My own totals 5-figures. We have years behind us on YouTube, operating our Channels. Leo has a Channel with just 96 (yes, ninety-six) Subscribers. Leo, please, tell us why in view of this you feel you have the requisite experience and necessary credibility for anything you contribute to this debate to have any relevance or vailidity.
  17. 2 points
    I don't want to sell my own ads. I want YouTube to stick to the original deal. I produce videos. They get the ads. We share the income. Now they want to tell me what kind of content I need to produce so they will give me ads. I don't like that one bit. My content (home made muscle powered weapons) is put into the same "drawer" as, for example, abortion videos. So if an advertiser decides to avoid abortion videos, bam, he has just also decided to avoid my Oreo shooting rubber powered pump gun. Does that sound fair to you?
  18. 2 points
    In my opinion it is sign of bad business practice to ignore in such a way the total half of partnership. Creators are more than the backbone of that media plattform. They are the salt and the soup. There is a lack of respect and appreciation in various ways which has led to false decisions YT made. Dont underestimate that union, and the legacy of root grown, organized movements. Willing people, walking and working in the same direction and for each other. YT contacted Jorg even before we made our point offical. I think they are starting to get an idea of the wave which is just rollin. United we stand!
  19. 2 points
    Sick and tired of private corporations deciding what is appropriate content for me to consume. Any system that favors one group of producers over another is oppressive, anybody who cares about freedom of choice should be getting behind Jörg Sprave and his movement for a union.
  20. 2 points
    Speaking of paid reviews, are you being paid Leo to talk nonsense?! I imagine you are, otherwise you would understand that this "union" comes after thousands (if not more) of youtubers expressing them being unhappy with youtube's actions. Now there are no voices scattered across youtube anymore because we united under one voice. This will allow youtube to talk easier with us and it will benefit to us and youtube as well. The cool thing is that there aren't just creators, but also viewers that love youtube, love the creators on this platform and they don't like seeing creators being discouraged just because a bot decided so. The bad thing is that you are posting misleading information, although even viewers seem to understand easily what is about...do you think you're gonna be rewarded for this? :))) "Trusted Flagger"??? That's really low dude! Get to 1k subs like everyone else....work hard instead of playing like a puppy!
  21. 2 points
    You have no idea what this union (and unions in general) are standing for. Go look into history. The people don't want to watch the stupid all-smiles superficial so called "advertiser friendly" nonsense! Here are a few citations that express my feelings well: "Censorship is telling a man, he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it." -Mark Twain "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then you win." "What is freedom of expression? Whithout the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist. Free societies...are societies in motion, and with motion comes tension, dissent, friction. Free people strike sparks, and those sparks are the best evidence of freedom's existence.” ― Salman Rushdie
  22. 2 points
    First, I think the guy in the video is lying. So many reports from colleagues that say no more monetization, no more trending, no more viral hits. It is not a random thing that this started at the same time as the lona policy started. Ah, now we are getting closer to the core. You want to censor even harder than YouTube does. YOU want to decide what is proper and what isn't. But rules are for everyone. If those "Nazis" are OK for YouTube, then they generate views for YOUR videos as well. So you are in fact making money from the Nazis. You just don't want to share it with them.
  23. 2 points
    I think the TS didn't understand what the YouTubers Union is all about. But that is no surprise to me. Last time we met he was all for giving rewards to mass flaggers. Now he believes demonetizing half of YouTube is a good move. Seems like many people disagree, myself (and more than 10,000 members of the Union) included. YouTube caved in to the pressure from the advertisers. Now YouTube controls the content and prefers certain content ("friendly", "non controversial" videos) over other content that deals with more critical aspects. YouTube used to be a place where you could do things you could not do on TV. Now this has turned around. No Mythbusters episode would have a chance to make money on YouTube. Baaad explosions, guns, how shocking! I think the relation between advertisers, YouTube and the creators is out of balance. The union (which really is more like a community based movement) wants to correct that. And YouTube has noticed us. A guy named Brady Clegg, "Global Head of Monetization" @YouTube wants to talk to me this coming Tuesday. Here is my list of questions. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JGY5m6hBynWdcHRyrj5R6SKtXbZVqxXq/view We shall see how he responds. But wait, I am sure Leo can answer them all probably better than the YouTube chap, and right soon too. And Leo, if you believe an online Union needs money to put pressure on the employers, you are mistaken. We aren't "just a glorified petition". If YouTube won't negotiate, we will take action. We already have an estimated 100 million subscribers between the members. We could simply upload our full videos to other platforms for a while, posting teasers with the link on YouTube. That would drive people away from the platform, which is what YouTube hates the most. An online union does not need picket fences.
  24. 2 points
    Moin. If your channel got demonetized because you don't meet the new criteria of 4000 watch hours in a year and 1000 subs, but you still want to make money, you may want to do the following: Focus on growing your channel. Making videos is one thing. But you need to market them, too. CMC collected some marketing tips here. In short: SEO, branding, collaborations, and clickable thumbnails. Look for alternate revenue streams. Whether this is a tip jar service like Patreon or Streamlabs, paid promotion like product placement or endorsements, affiliate marketing, merchandise or commissions for other people - a lack of YouTube monetization doesn't have to affect the rest of these things. DON'T CLOSE YOUR ADSENSE ACCOUNT YET. Your February earnings will be finalized and transferred to AdSense on March 15. If you close your AdSense account before that date, you'll lose the money. If you are >10 USD, you can close your AdSense account afterwards if you want to get your money out of it, or leave it in there until you do meet the requirements again. Re-consider your goals. If your goal is to be a full-time YouTuber, but 1000 subs and 4000 watch hours feel like way out of your reach, and not even the other suggestions make it more reachable, you may need to reconsider what your goal is. After all: Even if you are willing to live in relative poverty at 12000 USD per year, with an average CPM of 1 USD per 1000 views and an average view duration of 5 minutes, you'd need 1 million watch hours per year if you did it full time. Note: This post was about the initial demonetization wave in January/February. If your monetization application got rejected, go to this thread instead:
  25. 2 points
    Moin. Making a let's play is easy: You sit down, hit record, play a game, talk a bit, stop the recording and upload the video, basically no pre- or post-production required. But this is is exactly why it's hard to make a good one: You get only one shot at what you're doing. If you say something stupid, fall silent, or run out of stuff to say, there's nothing to save you. If you are in a repetitive section, you may choose to cut or use time lapses, but that's about it. You have a split attention on talking well and playing well, as opposed to just focusing or immersing in your role in typical acting situations. It's somewhat difficult to plan ahead – you never know whether or not you will make that next jump or fall into the pit until one of the two happened. This leads to... Reactionary commentary. "Let's go here, let's do that, oh, that didn't work, ---" this kind of commentary is the natural style when talking while playing. It coincidentally also is the most boring style as the viewer can see quite well what you're doing. You are tied to the format. A Let's Play is a Let's Play. You can chose on whether or not you want to have a facecam, whether or not you want to edit stuff in afterwards, but at the end of the day, you're just wrapping the package in a slightly different way compared to anyone else: You still are playing from start to finish, you still are reacting to what's happening on screen, you still are going to call your videos "Let's Play <game title> part <number>" or some minor variation to it. Because of all this, it's hard to even make a good Let's Play series, and even if you make a good one, it's hard to get anywhere with it: Because it's so easy to make a Let's Play, your attempt at it will likely drown under the flood of other Let's Plays that do exactly the same as you do. So, how do you solve this? Creativity. Break out of the format and do something else that either nobody else does, — if you can think of a new and fresh format that hasn't been tried before, you may just have found yourself a market gap — or nobody else does well, — if someone else has thought of the format, but their series sucks and you can do better — or someone else does well, but without any competition — if there is a particularly successful niche that has little competition for one reason or another (eg. because it requires expensive equipment or skills that cannot be found in ordinary people), and you think you can establish yourself in it — and you'll have a much better shot at getting successful, building a brand and reputation, and doing something in which you have a higher degree of creative freedom, keeping your job much more interesting over long periods of time.
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?

    Sign Up
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. You can find our privacy policy here Privacy Policy and our terms of service available here Terms of Use