YouTube demonetization | IN 60 SECONDS


Some YouTube creators are upset that YouTube is automatically demonetizing certain video game videos with its machine-learning algorithm. The suggested explanation is the depiction of guns, though YouTube denies this. Gamers who previously made money on the platform
now find their revenue drying up. In the big picture, the issue is about how
to fund content and its delivery. Now, gamers or game companies could make their own platform and charge a fee for users to participate, but many prefer advertising-funded content rather than paying out-of-pocket. The trouble is that advertising dollars are increasingly concentrated with a few ad platforms. Unfortunately, this trend has been strengthened in part by the FCC’s Title II net neutrality rules, which block game makers and gamers from finding alternative models for advertising, particularly from their ISP. In the meantime, we should welcome the emergence
of alternative platforms Patreon and Twitch, but we also need more diversity in the business
models to bring competition to the concentrated ad platform market. Removing the FCC’s net neutrality
rules is a step in the right direction. To learn more about my take on tech policy, check the links in the description below. Also, let us know what other topics you want our scholars to cover in 60 seconds, and be sure to subscribe for more research and videos from AEI.

55 thoughts on “YouTube demonetization | IN 60 SECONDS

  1. >Net Neutrality
    No. Demonetization isn't happening because of NN. It's because Youtube wants it's content to be advertiser-friendly. I don't even know what kind of deal you'd think ISPs and Youtube makers ought to have- but it's irrelevant because this is inherently an issue between Youtube's policies and content creators. Terrible video.

  2. Just in case anyone is wondering: Our videos are not demonetized. We just don't run advertisements on our videos.

  3. Removing net neutrality will do no such thing as the gamers and games companies do not have anywhere near the amount of money needed to build the necessary infrastructure

  4. How exactly would removing title two open revenue streams for the people affected by demonization? The entities that would benefit are the ISP oligopolys.

  5. How could you suggest that NN is the problem here? Really???
    Yeah, title two is not the issue. The issue at large is that people have a hard time getting views on alternate sites, and some may not even be aware of the alternatives. Please look up title two before you even consider publishing what I truly hope was accidental misinformation again.

  6. Title 2 NN IS NOT the issue. If you honestly believe that isps won't nickle and dime us all to hell, the. You clearly have never dealt with those oligarchic bastards.

  7. A large portion of this video makes sense, until the solution (removing net neutrality) is shoehorned in out of nowhere.
    I agree that net-neutrality is far from ideal, but it is the best the FCC has been able to come up with to protect consumers.
    One may point to the EU and say: 'Well, they don't have net-neutrality', which is true. What the EU has instead is that practical network (telcos, and in a sense other utilities too) monopolies in a region (which can be a country) have to lease their infrastructure to networkless providers for a fair price, a price determined to ensure the coverage of maintenance, improvements, and profit.
    Perhaps, if you are so against net neutrality, you would like to advocate that AT&T, Verizon, and the Cable Corps have to make their infrastructure available for leasing in order to allow networkless providers to offer services and competition?

  8. I think Ms. Layton haven't seen anything close to the big picture.
    About a month ago, Razorfist (AKA: The Rageaholic) tested the demonetization algorithm by posting a video of himself literally just saying "blah blah blah", generically titled "Upcoming games of 2018", and _set to private_. Within minutes, the video was demonetized, beyond which any person or even an intelligent algorithm can deem anything "offensive", especially because the video was set to private and therefore no one should have able to see it in the first place.
    Recently, Casey Neistat uploaded a video about running a fundraiser for the victims of the Las Vegas shooting. YT demonetizes it, claiming they don’t want to run ads on videos about tragedies. Yet, cut to Jimmy Kimmel's channel, and he still has ads running on his Las Vegas rant, showing YT's hypocrisy.
    Razorfist concludes that this "algorithm" is actually a blacklist. YT's hypocrisy and awful treatment of independent creators, yet hypocritical double standard towards established networks further paints a malevolent image. I have nothing conclusive, and I'd rather not jump the gun. But what I think the conclusion any reasonable person can draw is that whatever system YT has in place, it's shoddy and has no good intentions.

  9. Demonetization has NOTHING to do with Net Neutrality.  Eliminating Net Neutrality may be a step back for internet freedom.  I based my knowledge off of TotalBiscuit, The Cynical Brit's video on Net Neutrality…I admit I don't know much.  Please do your own research and always be weary when a youtube video seems to push an agenda….good or bad.

  10. Yeah, fuck you, with your let media com , and Comcast control the internet content bullshit. How about you let me control your channel so I can tell you pieces of shit what you can and can't do.

  11. BIG WORDS = LOSERS
    Did you (AEI) do this video just to feel smart? How about something useful to help the creators? We need a do-over.

  12. We should not remove net neutrality, we need a new one actually shaped to our modern times instead of an old title 2 broad code.

  13. The demonetization is a form of social engineering to promote right-think and remove wrong-think. The "right-wing" video creators are getting hit the hardest, regardless of how offensive their content is, whereas communist creators are getting mostly a free pass. Tests by Razorfist, Vee, Sargon and others have shown that this is about ideology, not about "advertiser friendliness."

  14. This is complete hog wash. Advertisers can go where they like and so can consumers. Removing net neutrality is the antithesis of free choice.

  15. Maybe this is questions better suited for YouTube directly, but I am curious as to your input: as a YouTube Red subscriber, I pay a monthly fee to remove advertisements from videos, A) because they are annoying, and, B) because my kids watch videos and some of the ads are not suited for children – Ironic that I feel videos are, but not the ads… topic for another day i guess – which leads me to my question; If a video is deem inappropriate for advertisers due to content, but yet I pay to remove those very same ads, shouldn’t the creator still be entitled to that portion of my monthly subscription fee as it is not ad revenue driven?

  16. I'm pretty sure these conglomerate corporate entities came to be what they are with the FCC's rules in place.
    So it's not impossible to become a competitor, I'm sure.
    The playing field is level.

  17. Did you blame net neutrality on ad revenue loss

    Thats the dumbest thing Ive heard all day

    You didnt do a lick of research, did you? Most of these channels lose money because the program that flags them is bugged. Many of them appeal it and get their monetization back. So clearly its not the content in many cases.

  18. The FCC's Net Neutrality rules have ZERO to do with advertising, Nor do ISPs have ANYTHING to do with what websites get advertisements, That's purely an agreement between either Advertiser and Webhost, or Advertiser and Creator, and at NO POINT do ISPs or NET NEUTRALITY ever get involved in this process. Net neutrality ONLY has to do with the speed and volume of data being treated fairly regardless of source, which has NOTHING TO DO with this issue.

  19. Oh no. That title 2 jab really hurt.

    How about you publish a video stating how best to address your problems with Net Neutrality while also placating the fears of the internet user majority? In my mind, the Internet at large has evolved beyond being a "service" and is now a world unto itself.

  20. Going after NN as the issue? How will removing the only mechanism giving all internet platforms and there with alternative business models gamers and content creators a better chance at making money? Remove NN YouTube and Facebook will corner the market and then there are no alternatives.

  21. talk about how youtube's demonetization is targeting conservative channels. that is the real issue. none of this gamer bullshit

  22. What? Wait… WHAT?? "Video game videos"?!?! No, they are demonetizing Conservative and Libertarian videos!!

    This isn't about Net Neutrality, it is about YouTube selectively deciding what is in or outside their "community standards" in a massively biased manner! Hokey Smokes, Bullwinkle! I haven't heard ANYONE complain about "video game videos"!!

  23. Ms. Layton's whole schtick is to pick a random problem, then propose that getting rid of net neutrality will solve that problem. Global warming? Just need to get rid of net neutrality. Genital warts? Net neutrality is your problem. YouTube is using its monopoly power to stifle creative freedom? No problem. Just allow control of the internet to be concentrated in even fewer hands, and watch the freedom flow!

  24. … it's a LOT more than just "gaming channels"… man this was poorly researched to push an unrelated policy point…

  25. So you want ISP's to charge "protection taxes" or else they will drop bandwith to sites that don't pay? You know, like the mafia or local gangs?

  26. Get this shill out of here. Net Neutrality is unrelated and must be upheld. This shill mentions it with no explanation or backing and just expects us to accept this at face value.

  27. Did that just happen? You just picked a problem and used it to snipe NN without any supporting evidence? I see the comments, and I think you didn't put them in the video because it's too easy to pick apart your arguments — especially so in that all the arguments you offer that have a tiny bit of merit have zero to do with the problem mentioned in your video. You fear regulators, but it's the oligarchical system you should fear. You're about to get your way, so in a few years we'll all look back on this moment and laugh about how I was right. Except it won't be laughter. It'll be tears. The destructive potential of losing NN is mind-boggling. Remember this moment, because you are part of the destruction of the American Dream.

    Unsubscribe.

  28. Much much much to centered on games. The real issue is much broader and Game channels are just a tiny speck in the grand scale of social media platforms and media distribution websites. Net neitrality works backwards in compparison to most markets. In order for the market to be free, which i assume we all want, for once you actually do need the Government. The job of the FCC would be not to monitor the contents, but to make sure nobody is messing with the pipes. If the isp's are in control of the traffic they would naturally steer it towards each of their individual services. This is not me saying that profits are evil. On the contrary I know isps will use the pipes and put roadblocks in such a way to increase their profits in eyeballs, precisely because they are good at increasing profits being private companies. In the end you will have a internet that is slow outside your local cluster and isp owned community. Which btw is not necessary bad – it's just that – THERE is the debate and not gamers not getting enough money as the video would make us believe.

    This is a hard topic to be covered in 60s. However this was a misserable attempt to do so.

  29. The step in the right direction is to balance better the power between YouTube creators and advertisers. For this there's the " no youtube ads day" initiative #NOYTADSDAY
    More info at noytadsday do t eu

  30. reads description instead of watching video

    well, that's shit. I happen to enjoy watching streams of those rpgs I can't play ;-;

    especially if I have to buy a $100+ system to play it.

    this will kill a shit ton of channels.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *