YouTube can Delete Accounts 'no Longer Commercially Viable'

Monday, November 11, 2019

Terminations by YouTube for Service Changes ... YouTube may terminate your access, or your Google account's access to all or part of the Service if YouTube believes, in its sole discretion, that provision of the Service to you is no longer commercially viable.

Posted by J_Tremain at 02:31 PM | 21 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

It should be also noted that the terms specifically state the company can terminate a user's Google account as well. As written, a YouTuber can lose their Gmail, Google Photos, Documents, and more just for "no longer being commercially viable" on the video platform.

#1 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2019-11-11 07:14 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Per the article ...

YouTube viewers aren't in the clear either.

Notice the terms are worded to cover anyone who has an account, not just its content creators.

The language used can mean that a user who looks at lots of content but doesn't necessarily monetize can also have their account removed.

This is what corporate censorship looks like.

#2 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-11-11 07:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Strange standards, first they demonetize content they don't like, now they are going to remove content that doesn't make money.

#3 | Posted by docnjo at 2019-11-11 08:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I think they're using this language to justify kicking out content providers that become unnecessarily controversial. What they mean by "not commercially viable" is any content that causes them to have to pay attention to it. It means that even if attacks on a content provider are unjustified they would still be allowed to terminate the account anyway because it's just not worth their time to defend or even really investigate. Of course the language is more broad than this, so it puts viewers and providers on notice, but I think the end result, if this policy is enforced enthusiastically, is that youtube will become devoid of much content that isn't particularly engaging unless it is backed by corporate support.

#4 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-11-11 08:17 AM | Reply

Edit: "... will become mostly full of content that isn't particularly engaging unless it is backed by corporate support."

#5 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-11-11 08:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is what corporate censorship looks like.

#2 | POSTED BY PINCHALOAF

This is what a privately owned platform looks like.

#6 | Posted by jpw at 2019-11-11 08:40 AM | Reply

This is what a privately owned platform looks like.

#6 | POSTED BY JPW

YouTube has become so big and pervasively ubiquitous in all aspects of society, the correct answer is that YouTube should be treated as a public utility -- along with Google and Facebook.

Corporatists don't get to rig the system in deciding what information the public gets to see or provide.

#7 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-11-11 08:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The internet itself is being classified as a public utility...but not individual websites.

How do you get that Facebook be a public utility?

#8 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-11 09:02 AM | Reply

How do you get that Facebook be a public utility?

#8 | POSTED BY EBERLY

For the same reason YouTube should be a public utility.

#9 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2019-11-11 09:22 AM | Reply

how much do you pay to access Facebook and Youtube?

$0...right? I'm sure there are premium services you can pay for but it's free for subscribers?

how do you make a free service a public utility?

#10 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-11 11:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"how much do you pay to access Facebook"

Many hours of your free time, too much of your privacy, and your soul.

#11 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-11 02:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"how do you make a free service a public utility?"

You don't. You just put it in a position where government controls the content.

"For the same reason YouTube should be a public utility."

Should all social media outlets be placed under government control? I feel like you'd like a say in what content was permitted.

Anyway, it's an ignorant comment. Once upon a time, Sony elected to remain proprietary with it's Betamax video cassette recording system. Victor decided to open it up. So, despite being a better product, Betamax lost the videocassette war. I see this as being more like this, only you don't need a lot of capital investment to create an alternative for YouTube. Any smart computer nerd could do it for very little money, and will do so if the demand is there.

#12 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-11 03:05 PM | Reply

-Should all social media outlets be placed under government control?

why stop there? How about every single app in existence?

#13 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-11 03:23 PM | Reply

"YouTube has become so big and pervasively ubiquitous in all aspects of society, the correct answer is that YouTube should be treated as a public utility -- along with Google and Facebook"

Disagree here, and I'm liberal. Before YouTube people hosted their own videos. YouTube just made it easy. If you want to share, get an address, hosting service, website, and go for it.

There is a barrier to entry to be sure. It's not impossibly high.

#14 | Posted by dibblda at 2019-11-11 09:43 PM | Reply

It's not even a particularly high barrier. There are many streaming APIs to build a site off of. The hurdle is having funding for bandwidth before income, so if you are fundraising you'd have to make the case you're a growth company. There are no grounds for Youtube being a monopoly, Vimeo has almost 18% of the market. Drop 500k on a Kendall Jenner tweet and you're off and running.

#15 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-11-12 08:07 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If I'm not mistaken, YouTube wants to become a paywall site. I've been using an account that has no Channel to upload content to.
The other day, I wanted to comment to a video but as I pushed the Reply button, up popped this message:

- By clicking "Create channel", you agree to YouTube's Terms of Service. Learn more
Changes you make here may show up across Google services with content you create and share, and to people you interact with. Learn more -

This means that unless I join the club, I'm not allowed to Reply to any content that I'm looking at. Worse, if I log out of YouTube and by virtue of the fact that I'm already logged into Google Maps, Gmail etc. that now I'll be "automatically" logged back into YouTube if I so much as look at content. This is very Facebookish and I know these programmers roar up and down 101 selling their wares but I'm about to become a LiveLeak watcher if I can't gain control. Oh, that's right I can't because YouGoogle IS in control.

#16 | Posted by LesWit at 2019-11-12 07:28 PM | Reply

www.youtube.com

#17 | Posted by willowby at 2019-11-12 07:42 PM | Reply

This means that unless I join the club, I'm not allowed to Reply to any content that I'm looking at. Worse

#16 | POSTED BY LESWIT AT 2019-11-12 07:28 PM | REPLY

That's not a bad thing. You have to login here to comment too.

#18 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-11-13 08:19 AM | Reply

No, I was already logged in. YouTube is layering hidden participation requirements by slamming users that are already logged in with a pop-up request to start a Channel which goes on to require hidden and ambiguous threshold requirements for monetization goals.

#19 | Posted by LesWit at 2019-11-13 10:08 AM | Reply

You don't have to post anything though, ever, so unless they start forcing content creation I don't see the complaint.

The monetization point is fair though. It is hidden, ambiguous, and prone to no-explanation de-monetizations.

#20 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-11-13 11:09 AM | Reply

The mandatory opening of a content Channel IS forced content creation because the clock starts when the Channel is created by means of tracking.
Of course I wouldn't Have To post anything but the tracking of how I Thumbs Up/Down, listing of content I watch and Replied to is all up for grabs once
that Channel is created (with no content in it).
When I see content listings of videos that I've just watched a day or so ago I begin to lose confidence. That's why I recently deleted my channel in order to view a main screen that isn't based on tracking me but is about what is trending and popular around me. A year or so ago I watched several videos about engine rebuilds but all I saw listed afterward were more videos about engine rebuilds. This is not the internet I connected to 25 years ago with a 28.8 modem through Pacific Bell and I'm sad. When AOL began providing a browser they didn't realize that they had begun to un-create themselves.

#21 | Posted by LesWit at 2019-11-13 01:45 PM | Reply