Camaro45th
.357 mag
Is it true the black ones are bigger?
YouTube Now announces the will shut down any gun content
- Thread starter BR3ND0
- Start date
Is it true the black ones are bigger?
Deplorable Me
.700 Nitro Express
Camaro45th
.357 mag
Lol, I think I use those liners for my trash bin.
minderasr
6.5 Creedmoor
New look condoms? Less offensive to the snowflakes than the old look?
Glenn B
.308 Win
I am sorry but maybe I missed it. Where is there any evidence presented saying or otherwise indicating that YouTube is eliminating all firearms content? Lately, some online gun friendly sites seem to be a little skewed toward making up balderdash reference how others are doing anti-gun stuff and there is enough anti-gun sentiment out there not to need to do so. To me this seems to be a perfect example of that.
First of all: YouTube's owners and administrators can restrict or allow whatever they want to on their own site within the law.
Secondly: The article at Truth About Guns seems to be one heck of a stretch of the truth if in regards to those emails/letters about certain content having been removed. Nowhere does that written material state that YouTube is removing all firearms related content yet that is what the article implies as I read it.
Third: The first video, the one about the AR pistol, contains what seems to me to be a clear violation of YouTubes terms, at 56 seconds, by way of the person in the video giving out the dealer's website address (effectively a link). Ditto for the second video, it contains a link to the dealer's site at 17-19 seconds. The YouTube terms, with regards to prohibited firearms content, read as follow:
YouTube prohibits certain kinds of content featuring firearms. Specifically, we don’t allow content that:
Note the part mentioning links to sites that sell these items. Yet, the author of The Truth About Guns article seems to imply his videos were removed for promoting gun sales but he mentions nothing about the links having been forbidden in YouTuebs policies. Is that maybe because he never bothered to read or stay updated as to YouTube's policies but used the site regardless?
Fourth: The statement that YouTube has given itself carte blanche to remove firearms content is the authors opinion, and from what I read of it, is not based upon hard cold fact but mostly on his opinion and in my estimation probably because his butt is all twisted because they removed a couple of his videos.
It's funny to me, that I do not recall The Truth About Guns having done a piece praising YouTube for the firearms content it allows (maybe they did and I missed it) but they certainly jumped on the band wagon as soon as YouTube does something they do not like. I have to wonder did they contact YouTube and give their side and ask to have the videos restored or did they just piss and moan.
I'm all for sites like YouTube allowing firearms content, I like it that they do so. I am not for them censoring firearms content regards to legal uses of firearms, accessories and ammo but am willing to live with their terms up to a point because it is their site and if I want to, I can go elsewhere to post content they do not accept. Oddly enough, so too can the guys at The Truth About Guns. So, if they detest YouTube's firearms related policies as much as they seem to, why post there at all?
All the best,
Glenn B
gun_slinger_boy
.338 Win Mag
Let's be honest here. The reason we're upset about this is because of the convenience of going to one place to get all your content. This along with the fact that competition right now is dog shit slow. It will be annoying to have to go to one place for firearms content and to youtube for the rest. It's nice to be able to go from what is the newest and coolest gun to how to fix my leaking toilet with a few keystrokes. I think youtube also does a good job of suggesting things that you are into. With something like full30 it's nothing but guns. Even that gets boring after a while.
ManrisFrack
6.5 Creedmoor
First of all, at least some creators did talk directly to YouTube when this policy change was made. They were specifically told that positive reviews were NOT considered 'intent to sell' and that saying a website was okay so long as there was no link. See below:
Second, it's about money. YouTube has a huge stable of advertisers and it is very easy to 'monetize' your videos. This attaches adds to the video and allows the creators to generate income from these adds. Alternatives to YouTube are in their infancy and do not have the advertising infrastructure to compete for content. I've heard that YouTube was operated at a loss until the last few years. Competitors to YouTube will have a tough road.
Yes, YouTube is within their rights to censor any content that they desire (assuming you can't prove they're violating discrimination laws). It's also with our rights for any and all of us to bitch about it. Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone is calling on .gov to step in on this.
The reason it was such a big deal back in April is precisely because the wording was so broad and could be interpreted so that even mentioning a manufacturer might violate the policy. YouTube clarified that this was not the case (see above). Unfortunately, it appears that YouTube's enforcement is moving incrementally toward the most restrictive interpretation of their firearms content policy. Yes, this is a prediction, an opinion if you will. But this and other incidents do suggest that such a prediction has merit.
Second, it's about money. YouTube has a huge stable of advertisers and it is very easy to 'monetize' your videos. This attaches adds to the video and allows the creators to generate income from these adds. Alternatives to YouTube are in their infancy and do not have the advertising infrastructure to compete for content. I've heard that YouTube was operated at a loss until the last few years. Competitors to YouTube will have a tough road.
Yes, YouTube is within their rights to censor any content that they desire (assuming you can't prove they're violating discrimination laws). It's also with our rights for any and all of us to bitch about it. Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anyone is calling on .gov to step in on this.
The reason it was such a big deal back in April is precisely because the wording was so broad and could be interpreted so that even mentioning a manufacturer might violate the policy. YouTube clarified that this was not the case (see above). Unfortunately, it appears that YouTube's enforcement is moving incrementally toward the most restrictive interpretation of their firearms content policy. Yes, this is a prediction, an opinion if you will. But this and other incidents do suggest that such a prediction has merit.
MuttCat
.223 Rem
FUYT
gun_slinger_boy
.338 Win Mag
This is the problem. And I'm more annoyed on the channels' parts than youtube. This was NEVER supposed to be a way to make money/a business of. I don't feel that anyone should have ever tried to make video production on a public media platform their full time job/living. If you did then it was a risk and this is what happened. You can't realistically be mad a YT for it as I'm sure you never signed a contract with them about them changing their business practices. People used to make videos just to make videos. Until the last few years you never saw people bitching about monetization and begging people to go to their patreon etc etc.
One channel that I just happened to come across is MattV2099. This guy just straight up quit because of the monetization issue. But at least he was honest about being in it just for the money. If you look back he has videos as early 2012 when the monetization thing was still fairly unknown waters. I doubt he was even thinking about making money off of videos back then. He had (and actually still does) plenty of subscribers but apparently the money he made off of it never amounted to enough. Anymore people will start up a brand new channel with the sole purpose (and hope) that it will take off and make them loads of money. If it happens great. But if that is your only purpose then don't even bother. And certainly don't expect people to pay for something that is free otherwise.
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Why? Some people put serious effort into content creation. As a result: People watch. Advertisers want to get their message out, so they pay to be seen on popular channels with watched content. Pure capitalism at work: Company creates a service, people use the service, company makes money from advertisers, content creators make money from advertisers, and advertisers get their message out to the public. Win-Win-Win.
That said, content providers need to be mindful of just who runs the platform that they use to make a living. They are certainly at the whim of private corporate decisions.
No government intervention is required here. Period.
Currently, I watch many YouTube channels fairly regularly. Mostly, niche topics like: "Bad" movies, tech reviews, woodworking, power tools, movie reviews, retro gaming, and comics.
gun_slinger_boy
.338 Win Mag
I agree with everything you said.
ManrisFrack
6.5 Creedmoor
Nothing with any value stays 'free' for very long and this includes entertainment and information. If you watch a video for 'free,' you're also a product that's being sold to someone else. Even if YT was originally created just as an altruistic project, I can guarantee that Google saw the potential to make boatloads of money off of all the videos that would come from everyone carrying a video camera in their pocket.
YouTube was a brilliant gamble in that it was able to tap into the enormous resource that is home movies, essentially without paying for that content. Nobody else thought those home movies were worth anything but YT/Google realized the lack of worth was mostly from the lack of a giant and efficient distribution platform. But that ship has sailed. YT had to make money off that content to continue existing as a business venture (servers and bandwidth aren't free). People saw that, did some simple math and realized their content had value. If YT cuts them off completely, the creators and their content will leave - especially if there is a competitor that does share ad revenue. Sure, some people will go back to doing it without the ad revenue but it won't be enough - just like it wasn't enough in the beginning when YT had to operate at a loss for nearly a decade.
Media is in the middle of a huge shift. Some guy in his garage can spend $100 on a video in his garage and have people spend free time watching it that they would have spent watching TV or reading the paper in years past. Traditionally media will spend thousands to produce same length content. In the near future massive numbers of people will be making a living from content that is made for and is accessible only through online platforms like YT. Looking back, this seems like a very natural progression.
YouTube was a brilliant gamble in that it was able to tap into the enormous resource that is home movies, essentially without paying for that content. Nobody else thought those home movies were worth anything but YT/Google realized the lack of worth was mostly from the lack of a giant and efficient distribution platform. But that ship has sailed. YT had to make money off that content to continue existing as a business venture (servers and bandwidth aren't free). People saw that, did some simple math and realized their content had value. If YT cuts them off completely, the creators and their content will leave - especially if there is a competitor that does share ad revenue. Sure, some people will go back to doing it without the ad revenue but it won't be enough - just like it wasn't enough in the beginning when YT had to operate at a loss for nearly a decade.
Media is in the middle of a huge shift. Some guy in his garage can spend $100 on a video in his garage and have people spend free time watching it that they would have spent watching TV or reading the paper in years past. Traditionally media will spend thousands to produce same length content. In the near future massive numbers of people will be making a living from content that is made for and is accessible only through online platforms like YT. Looking back, this seems like a very natural progression.