Saturday, September 30, 2017

Online right fumes after YouTube ad crackdown

UPDATE: Online right fumes after YouTube ad crackdown

In general, I have no idea how YouTube decides to monetize videos.

About ten years ago, I noticed that there was no online video of Groucho singing "Lydia" in "At the Circus," so I loaded one, just because the internet needed one. It became exceedingly popular (nearly two million views and more than seven thousand thumbs up), so YouTube sent me some form letter telling me I could monetize it if I could claim ownership. Of course I could not, and I also hate the friggin' ads on videos. I declined, and explained why in my response to them.

...

Whereupon they added advertising anyway, and (I suppose) simply kept the revenues for themselves. As I understand their terms of service, therefore, it is that they are allowed to make a profit on videos they cannot claim the rights to, but I am not.

Mind you, I'm not complaining about the money. I have no right to it.

But why do they?

Reader response:

Two things. They have rights because they pay a sort of blanket fee to rights holders (kinda, sorta long story) to cover infringement on their service. The thing is, they infringe more than users.

Second, the right has no reason to bitch. Well, no special reason. Everyone is getting demonetized at random. I know a guy who makes videos unboxing Japanese snacks, and he's getting demonetized. Like ramen is shocking. They're trying to build bots to detect stuff advertisers won't like, but they're failing. Miserably. It's not focused on the right. At all.

Scoop's response:

Which is kind of a shame, really. I don't really want entities like Twitter, Google, Facebook and YouTube to be "fair and balanced" or to protect "free speech." They are not the government. I want them to develop a method to nuke hateful vitriol and to weed out bogus posts like fake facts and attributions. If the right posts more of that crap than the left, or vice-versa, then let the chips fall where they may.

If I had my way with Google, the left would probably lose more than the right with that service, because I would also ban bogus search results leading to teasers that advertise the rest of the content behind a paywall. Sometimes I have to go through four links before I find one where I can actually read the article. I love the WaPo and the failing NY Times (I read the Times 3-4 days a week in hard copy, and I have a temporary subscription to WaPo through Amazon), but I don't love Google acting as their sales agent. As far as I'm concerned, a search result should only produce open content. But maybe that's just me.

2 comments:

  1. Two things. They have rights because they pay a sort of blanket fee to rights holders (kinda,sorta long story) to cover infringement on their service. The thing is, they infringe more than users.

    Second, the right has no reason to bitch. Well, no special reason. Everyone is getting demonitized at random. I know a guy who makes videos unboxing Japanese snacks, and he's getting demonitized. Like ramen is shocking. They're trying to build bots to detect stuff advertisers won't like, but they're failing. Miserably. It's not focused on the right. At all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Problem is, you can tell it's google's search bot hitting your site. A lot of sites that have a paywall explicitly let google through, so to google, it looks like an open article, but when *you* come-a-calling, they're hand is out.

    ReplyDelete