YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins
-
YouTube will make Unlisted videos uploaded before 2017 private next month
Similar to a Google Drive change for file-sharing links, YouTube is making it so that Unlisted videos uploaded before 2017 will be made...
Whenever I upload a video to YouTube I always make it unlisted. I can post a link somewhere (here, for example) and everyone here can see it but it doesn't show up in a general search of YouTube. It's a nice middle ground between public and private. But now all older videos becomes private unless I re-upload them.
Oh wait, you can "opt-out" of the change. So what is the point then? How important or necessary is this if people can just opt-out.
Fortunately, this doesn't affect me too much since I only have a few videos uploaded pre-2017 and I'm not a big YouTube user anyway.
As an extra added bonus, YouTube took down one of my videos yesterday and gave me a "warning" for violating their policy regarding "sex and nudity".
There is no sex or nudity in the video.
I appealed the take-down and within 2 minutes, maybe less, I received an e-mail which said "we have carefully reviewed your video and it violates our community guidelines for sex and nudity". And yet, there is no sex or nudity in the video.
Carefully reviewed, my ass.
-
@El_Heffe said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
YouTube will make Unlisted videos uploaded before 2017 private next month
Similar to a Google Drive change for file-sharing links, YouTube is making it so that Unlisted videos uploaded before 2017 will be made...
Whenever I upload a video to YouTube I always make it unlisted. I can post a link somewhere (here, for example) and everyone here can see it but it doesn't show up in a general search of YouTube. It's a nice middle ground between public and private. But now all older videos becomes private unless I re-upload them.
Oh wait, you can "opt-out" of the change. So what is the point then? How important or necessary is this if people can just opt-out.
Fortunately, this doesn't affect me too much since I only have a few videos uploaded pre-2017 and I'm not a big YouTube user anyway.
As an extra added bonus, YouTube took down one of my videos yesterday and gave me a "warning" for violating their policy regarding "sex and nudity".
There is no sex or nudity in the video.
I appealed the take-down and within 2 minutes, maybe less, I received an e-mail which said "we have carefully reviewed your video and it violates our community guidelines for sex and nudity". And yet, there is no sex or nudity in the video.
Carefully reviewed, my ass.
Exactly. You need to put a diaper on the donkey, then all will be well.
-
@El_Heffe said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
Carefully reviewed, my ass.
Kinky.
-
Can you manually set the videos back to unlisted after the change happens? IIRC you could change between private/unlisted/public in the video management before without having to reupload
-
@hungrier said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
Can you manually set the videos back to unlisted after the change happens? IIRC you could change between private/unlisted/public in the video management before without having to reupload
I don't know. According to this article your only choice is opt-out or re-upload.
Apparently, this is related to other changes that Goog made with Google Drive.
-
@El_Heffe said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
As an extra added bonus, YouTube took down one of my videos yesterday and gave me a "warning" for violating their policy regarding "sex and nudity".
There is no sex or nudity in the video.Saw this the other day:
-
@El_Heffe said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
"we have carefully reviewed your video and it violates our community guidelines for sex and nudity". And yet, there is no sex or nudity in the video.
You have failed to meet the minimum of sex or nudity. Please add some.
-
@boomzilla said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
@El_Heffe said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
As an extra added bonus, YouTube took down one of my videos yesterday and gave me a "warning" for violating their policy regarding "sex and nudity".
There is no sex or nudity in the video.Saw this the other day:
That case sort of makes sense. It is stupid, but it sort of makes sense. The person is semi-naked.
And I am 100% in favor of blocking people with big stupid tattoos.
If YouTube just said they were de-monitizing my video I wouldn't even care. Unlike everyone else on YouTube I'm not trying to make money from my stupid videos.
-
@El_Heffe said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
If YouTube just said they were de-monitizing my video I wouldn't even care. Unlike everyone else on YouTube I'm not trying to make money from my stupid videos.
They seem to hate people who don't want to monetize things.
-
@dkf that seems like their predicted course of action, as well. It's just what it sounds like.
-
@dkf And see I read that (or a similar) article and it just confirmed their hatred for backward/forward compatibility since they apparently couldn't figure out a way to do this without forcing a reupload or going entirely inaccessible.
-
@Zenith said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
@dkf And see I read that (or a similar) article and it just confirmed their hatred for backward/forward compatibility since they apparently couldn't figure out a way to do this without forcing a reupload or going entirely inaccessible.
Wouldn't be too hard to make it literally impossible, maybe encrypt using the hash of the current TOS, that'd do it.
-
@Gribnit Google should've changed their slogan to "kindly don't being evil" a long time ago.
-
@Zenith said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
@Gribnit Google should've changed their slogan to "kindly don't being evil" a long time ago.
The original, if interpreted as
discard all morality and ethics, is not at all inconsistent with developments.
-
@El_Heffe said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
Carefully reviewed, my ass.
How did they do that if it wasn’t visible in the video?
-
@marczellm said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
@El_Heffe said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
Carefully reviewed, my ass.
How did they do that if it wasn’t visible in the video?
-
I mean, in fairness to Google, this sort of security key access had to be retrofitted onto Zoom/WebEx/Teams meetings too, and resulted in breaking a bunch of long standing recurring meetings when those happened. Assuming they implement this sanely in such a way that you can revoke/rotate security tokens for public links fairly simply, it's going to be a positive long term change at the cost of regenerating your Drive links or re-uploading your non-public YT videos -- an annoyance, but a far smaller cost than the benefit being gained.
Of course, given that the security tokens were probably implemented Agilely by the lowest bidding sub-sub-contractor, there's not going to be any real benefit either, but you can't have everything, right?
-
@dkf said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
They seem to hate people who don't want to monetize things.
Non-monetised videos are probably more likely to be from people who don't really care what they upload (maybe family-videos stuff, or random 10s clips etc.), so they will likely get less clicks and therefore cost more to Youtube (even if they add ads into it). Monetised ones are more likely to be from creators who care about trying to get many views and therefore curate their content, so it costs less to Youtube (as they obviously keep a share of the ad revenue that the creator gets through monetisation).
:qed:
-
@remi said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
Non-monetised videos are probably more likely to be from people who don't really care what they upload (maybe family-videos stuff, or random 10s clips etc.),
But I know X and Y and they are put very good content and are not monetised. Unless there’s a point I’m missing?
-
@kazitor said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
@remi said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
Non-monetised videos are probably more likely to be from people who don't really care what they upload (maybe family-videos stuff, or random 10s clips etc.),
But I know X and Y and they are put very good content and are not monetised. Unless there’s a point I’m missing?
I can explain that point to you, for some money.
-
@Gribnit said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
@kazitor said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
@remi said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
Non-monetised videos are probably more likely to be from people who don't really care what they upload (maybe family-videos stuff, or random 10s clips etc.),
But I know X and Y and they are put very good content and are not monetised. Unless there’s a point I’m missing?
I can explain that point to you in a 12 minute video, for some money.
-
@kazitor said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
@remi said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
Non-monetised videos are probably more likely to be from people who don't really care what they upload (maybe family-videos stuff, or random 10s clips etc.),
But I know X and Y and they are put very good content and are not monetised. Unless there’s a point I’m missing?
Bullshit, X and Y are a couple of hacks
-
@hungrier Sometimes it's very good; sometimes it's not. Their quality is really variable.
-
@HardwareGeek said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
@hungrier Sometimes it's very good; sometimes it's not. Their quality is really variable.
That's just what it looks like.
-
@hungrier said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
@kazitor said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
@remi said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
Non-monetised videos are probably more likely to be from people who don't really care what they upload (maybe family-videos stuff, or random 10s clips etc.),
But I know X and Y and they are put very good content and are not monetised. Unless there’s a point I’m missing?
Bullshit, X and Y are a couple of hacks
It's a shit album, I know that much
-
@Jaloopa said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
@hungrier said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
@kazitor said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
@remi said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
Non-monetised videos are probably more likely to be from people who don't really care what they upload (maybe family-videos stuff, or random 10s clips etc.),
But I know X and Y and they are put very good content and are not monetised. Unless there’s a point I’m missing?
Bullshit, X and Y are a couple of hacks
It's a shit album, I know that much
Completely derivative, no original content.
-
@HardwareGeek said in YouTube has decided to break things because . . . raisins:
@hungrier Sometimes it's very good; sometimes it's not. Their quality is really variable.
There’s been a real regression in their work, true. I think Y is really dependent on the relationship.
-
i did the thing and youtube said "okay we won't do the thing to you"
it's still stupid, yeah, but i think it's kind of a filter to detect people who don't care about their channels/videos enough to do the thing.
i expect second stage in a year or so to be deleting those private vids from channels that don't care.
