YouTube adds new details of tougher monetization policy

[KiddieToysReview]

Inappropriate use of family entertainment characters: Content that depicts family entertainment characters engaged in violent, sexual, vile, or otherwise inappropriate behavior, even if done for comedic or satirical purposes.

I think this rule is meant to cover the following types of videos:



I imagine very few parents of 2 year old's are happy to find their little kids watching a beloved character like Peppa Pig engaging in vile conduct.
Clearly the videos are seo optimized to ride on the back of original Peppa content, the idea being to auto-run M15+ content to little kids as part of auto-suggest. So the question begs - are these videos done for "artistic" and "creative" and "satirical" purposes out of the love of creating, or as a blatant cash grab with shocking content? I would be leaning to the latter....
I also image the owners of the Peppa Pig franchise would not be very happy with their characters being depicted in this way. With that BBC article about that kids channel with shocking content aimed at 2 year olds, this move by Yt is more than expected.
The thing is, will Yt apply this rule with a fine paint brush, or in broad strokes?
Once monetization is disabled, I wonder how many will still make these videos? I would guess almost zero. Which will answer the "love of creating" or the "love of money" question.

 

[PopsLetsPlay]

People actually do these things in their videos? that's low... they should be de-monitized. find another way or get off youtube

 

[Idec Sdawkminn]

I'm fine with these rules. I was a little concerned with the family entertainment characters one since I make "horror versions" of family TV show intros, but I don't make them do or say anything they didn't already, I just make what they already do and say seem creepy. Also, I get a fair amount of people complaining that I didn't make them kill each other and add blood and stuff. Now I can use this as an additional reason why I don't. Lastly, the more restrictions on what can be monetized, the more ads to go around for my videos, so it's all good to me.

 

[pioneer1]

I think this rule is meant to cover the following types of videos:

View attachment 40441

I imagine very few parents of 2 year old's are happy to find their little kids watching a beloved character like Peppa Pig engaging in vile conduct.
Clearly the videos are seo optimized to ride on the back of original Peppa content, the idea being to auto-run M15+ content to little kids as part of auto-suggest. So the question begs - are these videos done for "artistic" and "creative" and "satirical" purposes out of the love of creating, or as a blatant cash grab with shocking content? I would be leaning to the latter....

I agree with you.

There are lots of spiderman, elsa, superher etc. vile videos. That is not suitable for toddlers. It is not for creativity, but quick money making.

You can see on socialblade how webs and tiaras channel views and subscribers dropping.

 

[Gaijillionaire]

Good. Clean it up. Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's anything goes