891
Some veteran YouTube staff think Shorts might ruin YouTube
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
891 points (97.5% liked)
Technology
60101 readers
2454 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
"Demonetization" is just what YouTube's promises to advertisers look like when they affect video creators.
Money on YouTube flows from advertisers. The revenue from charging advertisers to show ads is split between YouTube/Google and the video creator. If your video is not shown with ads, then there is no revenue to split.
YouTube gives advertisers a very small control over what videos their ads are shown on. They have a few different classifications of videos, and advertisers can choose which ones they want to be seen with. Advertisers are paying for the service of YouTube putting their ads on videos — but only the videos that YouTube thinks the advertiser does want to be seen with.
If your video is fully "demonetized", that means YouTube has decided that no advertisers want to be seen with it; or that they are not willing to take revenue from showing ads on that video. But they're still hosting it, making it available to viewers.
Video creators' revenue is a share of the ad income from YouTube showing the video (and accompanying ads). A "demonetized" video is one that doesn't show any ads — so there is no revenue to split. It's not that YouTube is taking all the revenue and leaving none to the video creator. They're not making any, because they don't think the advertisers would be okay with being charged to be seen alongside that video.
However, the creator of a "demonetized" video is still receiving value from YouTube. It is not free to host that video — especially if it is popular. Network bandwidth, data storage, and transcoding of video for viewers' browsers are not free; YouTube covers the cost of these. YouTube is willing to host a lot of videos that they make zero money from, at their expense, rather than censoring those videos by taking them down.
That's just not true...they're hosting it because they data-farm the living shit out of both the creator and anyone that gets tangentially close to their site. More content = more people visit = more data on these people = more money...They make a lot of money on this data, even if no ads are shown on a video, and are by no means doing it out of the goodness of their heart.
Yeah, but they aren't making nearly the amount of money on the video as they would with the ads, and no where near enough to compensate the creators beyond free hosting.
You can still publish demonetized content, just don't expect to make money from it on YouTube.
They use that data to sell ads at you across the entire internet. Google is making plenty of cash off those “demonitized” videos.
I didn't say it's charity. I said the video creator (who wants people to see their video) is receiving a service from the video host for no charge, which otherwise the creator would have to pay for. Hosting your own video on your own storage and network bill is not free. If you don't believe me, go try doing it yourself.
If the creator didn't think they were receiving any benefit, they would just take that video down. They sometimes do, but usually they don't.
Publishing a book costs money. Someone has to buy the paper from the paper makers, and the ink from the ink makers. Someone has to line up the print on the page. Those people have to get paid, so they can go buy a sandwich and pay their rent. So, publishers exercise some judgment in not printing books that they don't expect to sell, because they've gotta pay their bills, including parts and labor.
Same goes for video. Hosting a video costs money. Servers cost money. Power costs money. Network connectivity costs money. The people who run those services need to get paid so they can buy a sandwich and pay their rent. If YouTube is hosting your video, even if they're not paying you a share of any ad revenue (because they're not getting any), they're paying bills that otherwise you would have to pay.
I'm not saying you've gotta be grateful or something. I'm saying if you want to understand what's going on in the world, you can't do that without understanding the actual bills that people are actually paying.
To put it simply: The hosting costs of demonetized videos are paid for by the hosting of monetized videos.
Don't believe me? Take your video and store it on a server that you pay for, with network connectivity you pay for. That's a thing you can do. You can even do it with Fediverse technology. However, it will in fact cost you some amount of money.
I know this is true but why do I see so many people on lemmy pushing for self-hosting and even talking about it like its some low rent hobby?
It's not exactly an expensive hobby, but it's also not free.
YouTube hosts a lot of videos.
And — by the fundamental theorem of financial calculus that I just made up — "not free" times "a lot" equals "big bucks".
Finally, someone who gets my idea of math.