YouTube is driving me crazy!

[dave61965]

What does that mean?

BTW, I don't see much content in this discussion that qualifies it for an ml forum. I'm not a mod, just my tuppence.

Duelist has a ton of videos on muzzleloaders and cap and ball shooting, some of the best imho, he also has a whole series of vids on muzzleloader building.

 

[arcticap]

What does that mean?
BTW, I don't see much content in this discussion that qualifies it for an ml forum. I'm not a mod, just my tuppence.

Duelist1954 has produced many videos about cap & ball revolvers and muzzle loaders.
He talks about such things as each of their history, their inner workings, making modifications, how to load & shoot them and range performance tests.
He's been making and posting muzzle loader related videos on the youtube media website for many years now.
When someone recently asked about how well the Pietta LeMat revolver works, I referred him to the Duelist1954 in-depth video review about it.
His videos are an educational resource for many people around the world.
Youtube is making it more difficult for people like Duelist1954 to afford to keep producing high quality instructional videos.

 

[Carbon 6]

What does that mean?
.

It means that they are no longer qualify for ads to run on those videos and will not generate any revenue for him.

 

[Waco Kid]

The pen is mightier than the sword or a muzzleloader for that matter.
We have 10 rules that govern us & if ignored there are severe consequences.
They have no rules or consequences.
The posts directly above me represent a tradition being kept alive.
You need to pay to express this sort of opinion here.
(Notice the paying members forum section)

 

[Waco Kid]

The pen is mightier than the sword or a muzzleloader for that matter.
We have 10 rules that govern us & if ignored there are severe consequences.
They have no rules or consequences.
The posts directly above me represent a tradition being kept alive.
You need to pay to express this sort of opinion here.
(Notice the paying members forum section)

The stupidity of some of the people with there videos on guns.

The stupidity of some of the people with their guns. You have just been edited & demonitized.

 

[Darto]

Here is someone's idea of what Hickok45 makes in dollars by being on youtube.

https://naibuzz.com/much-money-hickok45-makes-youtube-net-worth/
-------------------------
By the way Iraqveteran8888 was one of the first roughly 50 channels (of thousands of youtube channels) to have his channel monetized. This was because he had so many viewers subscribed to his channel. And so when Youtube started rewarding popular uploaders Iraqveteran8888 was one of the very few to cash in right from the beginning.

 

[Darto]

By the way, I don't think I could get over 5 million subscribers like Hickok (LOL)!

 

[Jdavis]

Demolition Ranch is another huge YouTube firearms channel hosted by a young Texas veterinarian. He has more subscribers than Hickok45. From the information provided here, I suspect that his veterinary practice is supplemental to his YouTube productions.

 

[Sun City]

Sue 'em....violation of your 1st Amendment Rights!!

 

[Robert an saa fan]

[Sue 'em....violation of your 1st Amendment Rights!![/QUOTE]

The 1st Amendment prevents our government from restricting free speech. Because You Tube is a business they could not be successfully sued for restricting duelist1954's speech.

1st Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Yes they are a private company and so you have no rights with them. They can censor (and have) people because of their political beliefs...

The only recourse would be for Mike to take down ALL of his videos, because while they don't pay him, YouTube generates profit from advertisers for the volume of videos that are seen each day. Not just specific ones.

YouTube wants folks to think when YouTube "demonetizes" videos that it somehow supports the political views of the whackos that call for some action against certain videos, because those videos are "gun" videos, or "conservative" videos, or the videos ridicule leftists, etc.

BUT IF you look at some of the demonetized videos, you get a column of suggested other videos to view...on the right hand side of your screen when not in full screen mode. So IF you choose another such video, the right had column changes, sometimes right when you choose a second video, or sometimes after you've chosen several recommended videos....so after a while you get all sorts of different recommended videos.

For example, I looked for "long range flintlock shooting", and I chose one of Mike's videos. When that came up, to the right were 8 more videos by Mike, BUT there was one from Townsend's on flintlocks, and 8 other videos on something other than flintlocks or shooting..., THOSE 8 other videos, ARE monetized. They would be different for each of us, based on what you may have looked at in the past..., so I get 8 suggestions for (monetized) documentaries on archaeology from the BBC......,

The point is, while the folks at YouTube aren't paying Mike, they use his videos, and a lot of other peoples', to gradually steer the viewer toward the videos which PAY YOUTUBE as ads are connected to those....

Mike should take all of his videos down, and put them on DVD...maybe more than one DVD..., and sell those (IMHO), or maybe find another service that is similar but not as Commie as YouTube...,

LD

 

[Carbon 6]

YouTube creators could always join the YouTuber's Union.

 

[Tb54]

I agree with Hand, YouTube is a private company and can censor what they please. I don’t understand their logic but I don’t understand gun control logic either.

Simple my friend, with all the shootings lately, you wouldn’t want some copycat nut bar building his own flintlock in his garage and going postal with it now, would you?

 

[Treestalker]

As many of you know, YouTube de-monetized over 100 of my videos last week.


Naturally, I requested a manual review of each one. So far, they have reviewed 63 of the videos in question.


For 21 videos, the manual reviewers reversed the original decision, so those videos are now deemed suitable for advertisers.


But for 42 videos, the reviewers upheld the original decision to de-monetize them because they violate YouTube’s weapons related content policy.


I guess I could swallow that if there was any consistency in how YouTube applies its policy. For instance, YouTube prohibits:

“Pages that provide instructions about the assembly, enhancement or acquisition of any firearms including parts or components thereof. This includes, but is not limited to firearm-making instructions, guides, software or equipment for 3D printing of guns or gun parts”


OK…I guess that is their rationale for de-monetizing my flintlock rifle build videos. But there is no consistency in their decisions.

For example, on my Swivel Breech rifle build series, the reviewers decided update 19 was fine, but updates 2, 3, 17, 18, 20, 22 and the series introduction violate their guidelines.

On my current York County rifle build, updates 2 and 7 are just fine, but updates 9,12 and 23 violate their standards…how? If building guns is bad, why aren’t all the videos in the series bad?

YouTube doesn’t allow you to contact them to question decisions, which is a shame, because most of the decisions don’t seem to follow any actual standard. It seems like a whim on the part of each individual reviewer.

Foreign George and his U.S. buddy Bill strike again. Money talks, and the rest of us have to swallow it.

 

[Ironoxide]

As many of you know, YouTube de-monetized over 100 of my videos last week.


Naturally, I requested a manual review of each one. So far, they have reviewed 63 of the videos in question.


For 21 videos, the manual reviewers reversed the original decision, so those videos are now deemed suitable for advertisers.


But for 42 videos, the reviewers upheld the original decision to de-monetize them because they violate YouTube’s weapons related content policy.


I guess I could swallow that if there was any consistency in how YouTube applies its policy. For instance, YouTube prohibits:

“Pages that provide instructions about the assembly, enhancement or acquisition of any firearms including parts or components thereof. This includes, but is not limited to firearm-making instructions, guides, software or equipment for 3D printing of guns or gun parts”


OK…I guess that is their rationale for de-monetizing my flintlock rifle build videos. But there is no consistency in their decisions.

For example, on my Swivel Breech rifle build series, the reviewers decided update 19 was fine, but updates 2, 3, 17, 18, 20, 22 and the series introduction violate their guidelines.

On my current York County rifle build, updates 2 and 7 are just fine, but updates 9,12 and 23 violate their standards…how? If building guns is bad, why aren’t all the videos in the series bad?

YouTube doesn’t allow you to contact them to question decisions, which is a shame, because most of the decisions don’t seem to follow any actual standard. It seems like a whim on the part of each individual reviewer.

Unfortunately, when it comes to customer services from Google (and YouTube), Amazon, Facebook it is all a joke. If I was a content creator like you I would have Patreon (like you do) and use YouTube as purely means of marketing not monetisation.

I absolutely hate what YouTube has became. The fact they now insert ads into the middle of videos. I watch lots of online video. Mostly on my "Smart" (android) TV. When I watch YouTube it is not through the official YouTube app, but an app called "Smart YouTube TV". That app cuts all ads out. Before, I would think of something like that as immoral. Now, since they introduced those hugely intrusive middle of video ads, and so called "youtube premium" to get rid of it, seeing how much Google makes off of YouTube and at the same time they are only passing small scraps to content creators I have no reservation.

It is there site. If they have the right to ban, demonetise and mute anyone I have the right to install whatever ad cutting software on my TV I want. Technically speaking they provide a site which serves content videos and ads. Plus an app that combines the two. There is no law that says one is forced to use their app.

Sooner or later there will be good apps that combine content from YouTube with videos from other sites. YouTube will go downhill from there.