YouTube says it will crack down on bizarre videos targeting children

[Switchbox]

As much as I agree with that, this is one of the few times I'm actually on YouTube's side. The reason why they had to come out with this was because of these sexual videos appearing on the YouTube Kids App. Kids were being exposed to Spiderman and Elsa getting it on, and parents were, understandably, upset about that. They're age-restricting it because it's sexual. That's nothing new. They've age-restricted Shrek is Love, Shrek is Life and other sexual videos for a while now. Spiderman x Elsa was able to avoid that because they market it like it's for kids.

That being said, though, YouTube actually even acknowledged using family friendly characters for edgy content. To quote an article I read about this " It doesn’t want to outright ban the use of family-friendly characters by creators who aren’t the original copyright holders across all of YouTube. There is a place, the company is arguing, for satire about Peppa Pig drinking bleach, however distasteful you might find it. But YouTube is acknowledging that YouTube Kids requires even more moderation."

This specific instance is actually a good thing for YouTube, in my honest opinion. But they ARE definitely hindering creative freedom in general, and I've noticed that firsthand.

They should have a team that approves videos for the YouTube Kids app, then this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[TYTD]

well I have two major thoughts on this really...

My first is that while I completely understand that some creators on here will be very worried and troubled at the thought of youtube cracking down on specific types of video (You only have to look at Content ID to see how ridiculously bad youtube is at telling the difference between legitimate infringement and fair use) I also think that; if it's implemented correctly, this could really save a lot of kids a lot of issues and therapy sessions...Youtubes a totally different beast to when I was a kid. when I was growing up the worst thing you'd find on youtube would be the odd bit of p**n and screamer videos. now due to people clamoring for optimization and also wanting to purposefully cause distress we've got a situation where disturbing content is being slipped through the net under the guise of being kid friendly. they're a lot more psychologically damaging than just a jumpscare and can cause serious problems...am I saying we should outright ban this kind of material? No not at all! and quite a lot of this should be levied against the parents who really should keep a closer eye on what kind of content there children are watching...that being said I equally understand that parents cant monitor there kids 24 hours a day because that way madness lies. I think stricter regulation on what material kids can access is important. but equally I think the only way this is going to work is with good old fashioned human intervention. Google are going to need to hire staff to manually check these videos because the automated system just cant be trusted to keep a good watch over what content is acceptable and what content could otherwise be described as nightmare fuel. They could maybe offer a strike rule on channels that upload multiple disturbing videos a day aimed at kids...like a community guidance strike or something... Do I think this is going to be the end of creative freedom on youtube as we know it? no. Do I think this will be a bumpy road to get to an answer we already know needs to happen?...most probably.

My second thought is how this new form of regulation will effect the algorithm and further still viewer interests and digests...there are clearly millions of people (Or bots) watching this fake content...where does that audience go when the videos stop? will it dissipate back into other "Genuine" youtube creators content or will the tags change and the wheels of fear continue to turn?...if the algorithm is tweaked to remove these kind of videos from suggestions or searches...what fills the void? will it be quickly filled with the 2nd most watched type of video on the site or will it allow new types of content creator or personalities to flourish? Im not going to lie. the idea of millions of views being diverted to new and exciting mediums is quite a nice idea. even the idea of the Algorithm beginning to favour new content over the cut and paste style stuff some of these kids channels upload sounds like a bit of a fresh beginning...which I know will only further add to the uncertainty established content creators are feeling since the Ad-pocalypse happened...but im ever the optimist xD

to be honest...it's early days...I hope they take an active lead in working to make the site the best it can be...but I equally know that the lazy (Automated) route is often the preferred one...

 

[KiddieToysReview]

Funnily enough, this is exactly what I discussed with our Yt manager a few days ago. It was supposed to be a 30 minute channel review, but instead the whole demonetization and age restriction is so fascinating, we just wagged chins on it for the whole slot.

Here's the main takeaways:

- using copyrighted characters will most likely have your video demonetized, unless the video is very clearly innocent, light-hearted and fun
- if using syringes (injections, doc visits), one must make it fun and happy for the video to be monetized, anything resembling "real" will be demonetized
- pee, poo, vomit and other bodily functions are no longer monetizable, whether it's copyrighted characters or not
- the algo looks across t/t/d, thumbnail and content - so it is content aware of what's in the video - you can't get around by faking innocent t/t/d and a cutes thumbnail then have offensive content - anything objectionable in the video (objects, actions, sounds, dialog) will be flagged

So, what's the future? Our manager had some interesting comments:

- the platform is saturated, especially the kids vertical
- standing out is incredibly hard
- Yt does not want to restrict creativity, so you can still make "edgy" content and drive traffic to your channel, you just can't monetize it and kids will be prevented from seeing it
- there is no channel wide "blacklist" or "greylist" with respect to demonetization and kid-friendly status (not sure I believe this one though)
- it is recommended to follow current leading safe trends, but also try to branch out on your own trend if possible
- a good way to see what content is safe is run videos with no ad blocker and see against what t/t/d/tn ads can run, use that to guide your content
- there is a convergence of the top channels following (copying) each other due to the above point, and more of this is expected in the future

I have noticed that many videos from top channels are now using identical tags and titles and descriptions. This is because they have used the above process to identify "safe" tags. What happens though is hundreds, if not thousands, of videos converge to the same tags, making it much more difficult to get a suggested slot. This is unavoidable, because as soon as you go out on a limb with more edgy stuff, you are hit with demonetization. Will certainly be interesting to see how this progresses forward. The Yt manager said that tags need to be accurate to reflect what's in the video. but if tags are general in nature (like kids, toys, games, fun, etc), they still reflect the video content at the highest level, while being safe.

A few slides that she shared:

 

[Weebster]

"- Yt does not want to restrict creativity, so you can still make "edgy" content and drive traffic to your channel, you just can't monetize it and kids will be prevented from seeing it"

I haven't read anything more hilarious in recent months, it reminds of that EA comment on Reddit concerning character hidden behind paywall in Battlefront 2. This whole thing heavily restricts animators that make parodies out of those characters, and you say that they can still do it;but without monetization without realizing that this monetization keeps them fed as YT is they full time job. Also "edgy content" really? You sound like stuck-up old man/woman that calls everything edgy out of his/her comfort zone. Creators can take serious take on those shows, or just analyze them for dirty jokes (a lot of kids shows have them) You can do a lot of things with characters from shows/movies/cartoons etc. that isn't "clearly innocent, light-hearted and fun" and be very insightful. Not everything has to be a safe space.

 

[MentallyGames]

I haven't read anything more hilarious in recent months, it reminds of that EA comment on Reddit concerning character hidden behind paywall in Battlefront 2. This whole thing heavily restricts animators that make parodies out of those characters, and you say that they can still do it;but without monetization without realizing that this monetization keeps them fed as YT is they full time job. Also "edgy content" really? You sound like stuck-up old man/woman that calls everything edgy out of his/her comfort zone. Creators can take serious take on those shows, or just analyze them for dirty jokes (a lot of kids shows have them) You can do a lot of things with characters from shows/movies/cartoons etc. that isn't "clearly innocent, light-hearted and fun" and be very insightful. Not everything has to be a safe space.

There are many content creators that use Patreon or other similar sites to make up for that loss of income and they are doing just fine, if not even better than they were before. Money is not a valid argument if you want to claim that Youtube is restricting anything.

 

[Weebster]

There are many content creators that use Patreon or other similar sites to make up for that loss of income and they are doing just fine, if not even better than they were before. Money is not a valid argument if you want to claim that Youtube is restricting anything.

I do realize that. I do realize that many creators were screwed by adpocalypse and while Patreon allowed them to continue recording , they lost a lot, some of them had to fire they editors ,and now it's harder for them to make stuff. So no, money is valid argument. With money you pay taxes , you pay mortgage , you buy food etc. Patreon isn't a messiah , it helps , but it doesn't solve the problem. And now this thing. In most cases they earn a lot less , even with Patreon and what little ads they have. "Money is not a valid argument if you want to claim that YouTube is restricting any" For many Youtubers it's full time job, they can commit themselves to do what they do because they earn money, without that they cannot, they have to find a different job, and while they still can continue YT , they cannot fully commit to it. So in that sense, yes YouTube is restricting them

 

[MentallyGames]

I do realize that. I do realize that many creators were screwed by adpocalypse and while Patreon allowed them to continue recording , they lost a lot, some of them had to fire they editors ,and now it's harder for them to make stuff. So no, money is valid argument. With money you pay taxes , you pay mortgage , you buy food etc. Patreon isn't a messiah , it helps , but it doesn't solve the problem. And now this thing. In most cases they earn a lot less , even with Patreon and what little ads they have. "Money is not a valid argument if you want to claim that YouTube is restricting any" For many Youtubers it's full time job, they can commit themselves to do what they do because they earn money, without that they cannot, they have to find a different job, and while they still can continue YT , they cannot fully commit to it. So in that sense, yes YouTube is restricting them

Again: there are many alternatives to replace the add revenue that you are talking about. Also, most fulltimers have stuff like merch shops, sponsorships and all kinds of other stuff, so is add revenue really that relevant anymore? I think it was Ethan from H3H3 that stated that they went from fully focused on add revenue to seeing it as a ''bonus'' after adapting to the whole addpocalypse thing. I don't think H3H3 even uploads that much anymore, yet the brand is strong as ever.

There really is no problem to solve here. You can still make content and share it on Youtube. You can still grow your audience and make money of them by selling merch and stuff. You just need to finance your initial content differently, because Youtube (or better said: the companies that buy the adds that make Youtube exist) does not want their adds on your content.

TLDR: It's not Youtube that is restricting creators. It is the creator restricting themselves by not being able or willing to find alternative revenue sources.

 

[pioneer1]

Funnily enough, this is exactly what I discussed with our Yt manager a few days ago. It was supposed to be a 30 minute channel review, but instead the whole demonetization and age restriction is so fascinating, we just wagged chins on it for the whole slot.

Here's the main takeaways:

- using copyrighted characters will most likely have your video demonetized, unless the video is very clearly innocent, light-hearted and fun
- if using syringes (injections, doc visits), one must make it fun and happy for the video to be monetized, anything resembling "real" will be demonetized

Thank you KiddieToysReview for your explanation.

Very insightful info.

Very interesting that the kids vertical is saturated.

 

[KiddieToysReview]

Thank you KiddieToysReview for your explanation.

Very insightful info.

Very interesting that the kids vertical is saturated.

I was surprised too, hearing that from a Youtube employee. But it's the truth, love it or hate it, it's the environment we operate in.

 

[Weebster]

Again: there are many alternatives to replace the add revenue that you are talking about. Also, most fulltimers have stuff like merch shops, sponsorships and all kinds of other stuff, so is add revenue really that relevant anymore? I think it was Ethan from H3H3 that stated that they went from fully focused on add revenue to seeing it as a ''bonus'' after adapting to the whole addpocalypse thing. I don't think H3H3 even uploads that much anymore, yet the brand is strong as ever.

There really is no problem to solve here. You can still make content and share it on Youtube. You can still grow your audience and make money of them by selling merch and stuff. You just need to finance your initial content differently, because Youtube (or better said: the companies that buy the adds that make Youtube exist) does not want their adds on your content.

TLDR: It's not Youtube that is restricting creators. It is the creator restricting themselves by not being able or willing to find alternative revenue sources.

H3H3 is a big brand with over 5m subscribers, they can sustain themselves from other sources. What about smaller YouTubers? What about YouTubers who already have Patreon and merchandise and still they barely get by because of adpocalypse, and now YouTube tries to screw creators even more. YouTube is restricting creators, don't blame creators for that. It's like blaming a victim of murder for not protecting themselves ,not the murderer. While the victim could potentially protect themselves better and maybe survive, in the end it's the murderer's fault that they are dead.