Is the S**t about to hit the you tube fan

[SiliconWizard]

Imagine the extreme situation in which a channel would consist almost exclusively of videos bashing Youtube. Not sure it would last for very long.

They don´t have to delete it (that might get them into problems with free speech, depending on country), but they can set the value of it and not recommend it to viewers.

Interesting point, but I'm not completely sure free speech could be invoked here.

Actively using the services of a private company solely, or mainly to bash said company is dubious (and hypocritical!) It's very obvious that it's bound to harm the company's business, and as such, the company could take measures to save its business. Free speech has limits. Now limits include of course saying things that could be unlawful, such again as false claims.

As an example, and as has been discussed in this thread, we could reasonably consider that claiming Youtube is using the creators as hidden employees IS a false claim.

[SiliconWizard]

Now just an extra question for people owning a company and making money off Youtube (I have no Youtube channel): how is the revenue from Youtube considered from an accounting point of view? What category is it and how is Youtube considered relative to your company?

[SparkyFX]

Interesting point, but I'm not completely sure free speech could be invoked here.

There are some things different in the US, i am not fully knowledgeable about exact differences, but as far as i understood it, it is far reaching, so that even a private platform has no absolute power if they start to discriminate certain content that can be seen as opinion or comedy in a certain context. Hard to tell, some articles indicate it has been interpreted this way, some don´t. It´s too vague for me and it´s often represented in legalese.

I would summarize the situation in Germany that the platform is seen as a publisher and does not need to publish everything a user uploads, there is no right to have everything you send them to be published - as a privately held platform. It is also possible to retract something afterwards. Free speech is considered once someone does actually publish something, additional protection if it is a publicly held space, other possible infringements left aside. Now as publisher you can be made responsible, so if a report on experience or such can be disproven you might run into problems for doing harm to a business or personal rights (e.g. smearing), so this is rather conservative.

So I´ve read about the free speech argument used in a nonexistent context quite a lot in forums, but this is something else of course, there are incomes depending on administrative actions and it seems this is not about a legal requirement per se or about the publishing, as this would not lead to demonetization, but to deletion or unavailability in certain countries. In such cases a platform needs to react in a short time to reports.

Actively using the services of a private company solely, or mainly to bash said company is dubious (and hypocritical!) It's very obvious that it's bound to harm the company's business, and as such, the company could take measures to save its business. Free speech has limits. Now limits include of course saying things that could be unlawful, such again as false claims.

Yes, on the platform this would be a problem for everyone involved in taking decisions, given anyone has his/her bias, but until such content needs to be sorted out externally it is more or less just opinion. Most bashing attempts so far seem to just try to hype the topic, jump the hypetrain and gather views this way, instead of reasonable criticism. I think those do realistic approaches to these problems a disservice.

As an example, and as has been discussed in this thread, we could reasonably consider that claiming Youtube is using the creators as hidden employees IS a false claim.

Given that what is called a hidden employee often comes in the form of freelancing, it is at least dubiously close to that - however the schedule is what the creator makes of it, not all boxes are ticked. They might not need to be.
Would Youtube function without creators? I guess not, as this can mean anything from huge media companies to occasionally sharing videos.
So it might run down to some form of discrimination or one sided termination/withholding of contract agreements?
There is something to these claims.

[EEVblog]

Actively using the services of a private company solely, or mainly to bash said company is dubious (and hypocritical!) It's very obvious that it's bound to harm the company's business, and as such, the company could take measures to save its business. Free speech has limits. Now limits include of course saying things that could be unlawful, such again as false claims.

I'd support Youtube's right to boot off someone for just continually bad mouthing them every video.
In fact I kinda support Youtube's right to boot off anyone they see fit for whatever reason they want, all I ask is that they are consistent, the rules are crystal clear, and they have allowance for otherwise good long time creators.

Youtube isn't really the "public square" in the same way Twitter has become which I think has become a defacto free speech public platform because it's used by government services and politicians. Evene the US supreme court seem to be agreeing with that position now.

[EEVblog]

Now just an extra question for people owning a company and making money off Youtube (I have no Youtube channel): how is the revenue from Youtube considered from an accounting point of view? What category is it and how is Youtube considered relative to your company?

Depends on your country and circumstances.
Often the income can be classified under "hobby income" and no tax is payable.
For me being a Pty Ltd company obviously the Youtube income is now considered business revenue for tax purposes.

[MyHeadHz]

Here is an interesting development for monetization/advertising on Youtube.  It may or may not be a result of the union, but it is relevant to the idea.   The new details may offer insight into how youtube works now or how it may work in the future. 

(Note: This happens to be a 'gun channel', but it is mostly about what appears to be a new low-key monetization trial at Youtube. He does have a small rant a little about politics, so sorry about that.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pid_RtqeC2c?t=0

edit: just noticed your second channel vid about it. Ohh, well   Below is the link for that:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHJGUTc43kg?t=0

[SiliconWizard]

Now just an extra question for people owning a company and making money off Youtube (I have no Youtube channel): how is the revenue from Youtube considered from an accounting point of view? What category is it and how is Youtube considered relative to your company?

Depends on your country and circumstances.
Often the income can be classified under "hobby income" and no tax is payable.
For me being a Pty Ltd company obviously the Youtube income is now considered business revenue for tax purposes.

Yes that would depend a lot on countries. I am curious to see how it's handled in various countries.

Over here, "hobby income" is not really called that, and you're supposed to declare almost anything you make. In practice of course, the rule of thumb is that any source of revenue that is only a small fraction of your main income source doesn't have to be declared. Now if it becomes a significant part of your overall income and someone notices, it'll be considered professional practice and you will get in trouble if a/ you didn't declare it and b/ you don't have an established official pro status, which over here is always in the form of a company (even for freelancers). You can't freelance without creating a small company first.

That said, since it's very close to artistic work, I think over here, this income could be considered in the same category as artists' royalties, which have a very different status from other sources of income, and are easier to deal with.

As for an established company, I was curious about the exact category of revenue. "business revenue" is pretty vague. There's a myriad of accounting categories for revenue and expenses. I'm certainly no acocountant so that eludes me a little, but I know it's not that simple. For instance, what's the status of Youtube relative to the company? It's not a regular "customer" you can bill stuff to IMO. So what is it? How is revenue without bills accounted? Is VAT involved? Many questions. I guess this would depend on the country and would probably require an experienced accountant to answer those.

[EEVblog]

Now just an extra question for people owning a company and making money off Youtube (I have no Youtube channel): how is the revenue from Youtube considered from an accounting point of view? What category is it and how is Youtube considered relative to your company?

Depends on your country and circumstances.
Often the income can be classified under "hobby income" and no tax is payable.
For me being a Pty Ltd company obviously the Youtube income is now considered business revenue for tax purposes.

Yes that would depend a lot on countries. I am curious to see how it's handled in various countries.

Over here, "hobby income" is not really called that, and you're supposed to declare almost anything you make. In practice of course, the rule of thumb is that any source of revenue that is only a small fraction of your main income source doesn't have to be declared. Now if it becomes a significant part of your overall income and someone notices, it'll be considered professional practice and you will get in trouble if a/ you didn't declare it and b/ you don't have an established official pro status, which over here is always in the form of a company (even for freelancers). You can't freelance without creating a small company first.

That said, since it's very close to artistic work, I think over here, this income could be considered in the same category as artists' royalties, which have a very different status from other sources of income, and are easier to deal with.

As for an established company, I was curious about the exact category of revenue. "business revenue" is pretty vague. There's a myriad of accounting categories for revenue and expenses. I'm certainly no acocountant so that eludes me a little, but I know it's not that simple. For instance, what's the status of Youtube relative to the company? It's not a regular "customer" you can bill stuff to IMO. So what is it? How is revenue without bills accounted? Is VAT involved? Many questions. I guess this would depend on the country and would probably require an experienced accountant to answer those.

In Australia the definition of "hobby income" is whether or there is a "reasonable expectation to make a profit".
So not hard to argue that spending say 20 hours a week on making Youtube videos on some hobby oriented subject for say $10k income if you are professional that could charge your time at $50-$100/hr or whatever is "hobby income".
You could argue even more hours based on having to read and respond to comments and emails etc.
When it becomes you sole or primary source of income that's when it's no longer easy to argue that.

[SparkyFX]

In fact I kinda support Youtube's right to boot off anyone they see fit for whatever reason they want, all I ask is that they are consistent, the rules are crystal clear, and they have allowance for otherwise good long time creators.

I wonder how they might see channel sponsorships that bypass YT by being part of the video (e.g. Skillshare, NordVPN and whatnot), in the wake of the YT premium move. That directly affects their business model and kind of routes around it... i assume. Using Monetization as a moderation tool means problems and would be ineffective in such cases.

Then there is also: Some "influencers" have been cease-and-desist-ed in Germany for not declaring product placement, otoh the regulations for cease-and-desist have been hardened recently (how competitors have to prove their business being harmed by it before being able to ask for money or sue).

Youtube isn't really the "public square" in the same way Twitter has become which I think has become a defacto free speech public platform because it's used by government services and politicians. Evene the US supreme court seem to be agreeing with that position now.

That´s kind of the point, no one stops them from seeing YT that way one day. And if so, which government´s platform it is...

[MyHeadHz]

Well, it hit the fan big time...

At least one upset Google employee leaked ~300MB of internal documents detailing everything from bias, politics (election influence), policies, censorship, monetization, and so on.  The file served on the website keeps getting modified and continually shrinks for some reason (redactions?), but the original file is an active torrent atm called "Don't Be Evil.zip".  A great deal of it apparently involves censorship and monetization.

https://www.projectveritas.com/google-document-dump/

[Deodand2014]

Here's an interesting discussion from the hosts of two firearms related YouTube channel, I've never watched the first channel, but the second has been doing a good history/context & mechanics coverage of firearms used in WWI. The discussion covers the YouTube Union and other related issues.

Part 1

https://youtu.be/JzaK3kJVOEI

Part 2

https://youtu.be/dLjIbDY-1J8

[MyHeadHz]

Update from JoergSprave:

https://youtu.be/CMFqwCx7tnQ

Youtube has suddenly had a change of heart about some major issues lately.  They have unbanned prominent conservatives, and reduced "shadow banning" and censorship.

In addition to potential EU litigation like with the youtubers union, there is growing criticism about the legal status of social media companies and potential legislation in the US.  Already the courts have ruled (pending appeal) that Twitter is a "public forum," and politicians can't block users on the platforms in some situations.  Potential knock-on effects could go as far as courts therefore ruling that such companies lose their "platform" status if they are biased (censor), thus losing DMCA and other protections.  It is quite a can of worms, and I imagine such cases will go to the US Supreme court before anyone really knows what to do.  Members of both major parties have been hit with these cases, including Trump.

[David Hess]

Youtube has suddenly had a change of heart about some major issues lately.  They have unbanned prominent conservatives, and reduced "shadow banning" and censorship.

You mean the banning, shadow banning, and censorship they insist never happened?  Yea, right.  I just checked and none of the channels I regularly watch are any less restricted.

Taking some token actions and negotiating with Joerg Sprave is just for delay until they can get a bigger stick.

[SparkyFX]

A great deal of it apparently involves censorship and monetization.

But no big surprises in there, it seems. It basically contains internal guides how to deal with legal requirements, approach to fake news/ads that look like articles, how it affected search in a few case studies.

Youtube has suddenly had a change of heart about some major issues lately.  They have unbanned prominent conservatives, and reduced "shadow banning" and censorship.

Which is not what FairTube is about, it is about transparency. So even "unbanning" without transparency would not be a step forward.

[EEVblog]

Youtube has suddenly had a change of heart about some major issues lately.  They have unbanned prominent conservatives, and reduced "shadow banning" and censorship.

Who?

[Bud]

Update from JoergSprave:

Was he wearing a pyjamas or something, to ridicule YT perhaps   

[SparkyFX]

Somewhat related to the question if Youtube creators are employees or should have stable contract agreements:
California Bill Makes App-Based Companies Treat Workers as Employees

Best quote:

“Today the so-called gig companies present themselves as the innovative future of tomorrow, a future where companies don’t pay Social Security or Medicare,” said State Senator Maria Elena Durazo, a Democrat. “Let’s be clear: there is nothing innovative about underpaying someone for their labor.”

There are things moving for the so called gig economy.

[Deodand2014]

This is a recent video (Dated; 13th of September, 2019) from a history channel, does a good job covering things that 'should be remembered' including some less than flattering stories about the US, but they've been hit with demonitization as well. To quote the description of the video:

Viewers, this video has been demonetized by YouTube, meaning that it gets limited or no ad revenue.  That flag has been upheld on review, meaning that a live member of the YouTube team decided that it represents "Controversial issues or sensitive events" that are "not appropriate for all advertisers."   I do not see what is in here except history- no graphic display of violence, nothing political, just education.  I would think that YT would embrace such content, but instead YT has decided to drive history off their platform.  We are actively looking to alternative platforms, and hope that our viewers will stay with us when we find a better place than YouTube.  In the mean time, if you wish to complain to YT and try to change their thinking n the subject, we do appreciate it.

After all they have to appease the members of 'Comfort Culture', a worldview that holds that an individuals mental comfort is the most important thing, transcending all else. Or in other words 'All creatures be merry on pain of social death.'

[SparkyFX]

After all they have to appease the members of 'Comfort Culture', a worldview that holds that an individuals mental comfort is the most important thing, transcending all else.

Naah, they got a huge problem to differ what is political content and what isn´t, at the same time they are under scrutiny by advertisers and governments to sort misinformation out. I guess that ended in conflicting guidelines for content moderators, which now hits the creators.

[Deodand2014]

Another dissatisfied YouTuber...



After all those of 'Modern Sensitivities' need to be protected from that which might cause them to suffer the effects of PTSD, even if they were never subjected to the stimulus that would cause it in the first place.

[coppice]

Another dissatisfied YouTuber...



After all those of 'Modern Sensitivities' need to be protected from that which might cause them to suffer the effects of PTSD, even if they were never subjected to the stimulus that would cause it in the first place.

Try using Google to search for quite a wide range of historical topics and you will get some bizarre results these days. If that is how the want to rewrite history it doesn't surprise me that they want to suppress other people presenting historical topics.

[EEVblog]

This is a recent video (Dated; 13th of September, 2019) from a history channel, does a good job covering things that 'should be remembered' including some less than flattering stories about the US, but they've been hit with demonitization as well. To quote the description of the video:

Viewers, this video has been demonetized by YouTube, meaning that it gets limited or no ad revenue.  That flag has been upheld on review, meaning that a live member of the YouTube team decided that it represents "Controversial issues or sensitive events" that are "not appropriate for all advertisers."   I do not see what is in here except history- no graphic display of violence, nothing political, just education.  I would think that YT would embrace such content, but instead YT has decided to drive history off their platform.  We are actively looking to alternative platforms, and hope that our viewers will stay with us when we find a better place than YouTube.  In the mean time, if you wish to complain to YT and try to change their thinking n the subject, we do appreciate it.

I see no such thing in the description, did they re-monetise?

[RoGeorge]

I think he's talking about the highlighted column at 1:20 in the video.

[EEVblog]

I think he's talking about the highlighted column at 1:20 in the video.

You must be talking about the other guy, I'm talking about The History Guy

[MT]

Basically any YT channel who discuses financing gold v.s dollar, politics in general are demonetized particularly if
the channel is conservative but surprise, surprise progressives nowadays start to find them being demonetized,
when liberal globalists cant take an argument they throw the "racist label boomerang" at you.

As far as im concerned YT, FB, Amazon, Google, has to be made public domain while their founders CIA have to be closed down.