*quality *doublepromote

And if you haven't seen it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaaC57tcci0


Coincidentally, this is one of the sites i used to regular prior to social media and widespread smartphone use. I think taht's why I keep it on my regular loaded tabs. Can't find all of my comments because of siftpocalypse or siftmageddon or whatever we called it when the servers went poof~! Ive lost a hard drive or two in my day. Rough stuff.

Speaking of which, we should make an effort to revive this site and get some more sifters sifting. We do have something unique here, something I miss from record stores and Blockbuster, actual human curators of content.


actual human curators of content
^ we don't have algorythms, we have voting
We don't have bots, we have people

I, for one, am sick of over-monetized-bullshit that all sounds the same constantly being shoved in my face, so i end up here. Maybe some of us are still affected by the crazy propaganda bug, +cough cough+ but the debates look closer to an actual townhall than one infected with too much nonsense for its own good.

Perhaps this would be better in a sift talk post. :-p

I know, right? Even though these videos are a major source of advertising and hype for 40K, GW is notorious for being cease-and-desist happy. But I have to wonder if there is a bit of legal wiggle-room here - is it fair-use? Is it because the authour hasn't monetized the videos?

Hopefully, GW realises how great these are for introducing people to the 40K universe. They could *easily* contract the artist to make a proper series out of these...I'd pay to watch it.

Why can't these assholes opt-out of monetization on YouTube?
I shouldn't have to watch an ad to see an ad.

"oh man, how do I thank him?"
just look down the street for the dude with the camera who's gonna monetize the shit out of this youtube video...
...
Although it looks like YouTube only pays out ~$300 for a million views. So I changed my mind- kudos to him and hope this becomes a trend to make people more giving.

To be honest, I did not expect them to be as open a platform as they were for as long as they were.

Once the platform had enough content that was interesting to enough people out there to make it a noticeable alternative to "old media", it was clear that it's only a matter of time until the corporations buying the ads had to choose between TV and YT, since TV "news" was going down. So they did. Bam, no more business model for news and political/religious commentary on YT. Good luck getting commentary on war crimes in Jemen or apartheid in Israel monetized.

And now that so many content creators get their income through Patreon, it'll be interesting to see how long Patreon remains neutral.

Footnote †: Dollars Per Monetized View

I'm not sure if he's channel is monetized, but sure has a lot of subscribers (2.8mil) considering his channel is relatively new and has only 17 videos.

You can't pretend that all content is good content, though. Youtube needs to weed out the Isis recruitment videos and the kitten crushing, and they need to be able to reliably promise advertisers that their ads won't appear in front of that shit. YT has convinced creators that likes and views are actually what's important, but I bet YT can lose 100 large channels before they are willing to lose one large advertiser.

eric3579's link explains it, but there are options for advertisers who want to advertise on anything, regardless of content, and there are options for those who want to only stick to the approved material. Given the sheer volume of videos on YT, an automated system is necessary, and it's a good thing that they've now given users an option to appeal the non-monetization.

Youtube's advantage is not that they have content that isn't on tv, but that it's an established platform for viewing content on every device in existence. On the whole I think Youtube is still leveraging its significant power to provide a fairly open and unrestricted platform. If my company was being advertised there I'd probably want to have full freedom to choose the videos, and to demand, for example, that comments be turned off on every video with my ads.

The most reasonable counterargument to this I've heard (and I'm not saying they're right, just eminently reasonable) was made yesterday by my favorite Canadian Let's Players:

1. Youtube has always had this content policy. Everyone who signs into the monetization program has always accepted this code of content before joining the monetization program.

2. Youtube has had this content practice for a long time. These videos were demonetized long before this recent 'scandal'. The only thing that has changed is that YT is now letting content creators know which videos were never being monetized in the first place.

3. It's not so much a question of content as it is of tags. The vast majority of content processing is based on the original tags by the uploaders, and you can avoid demonetization easily by having fewer, less controversial tags (that will also limit your viewership).

Obviously Youtube has been opaque and shitty in communicating how and why they make changes. But censorship? I would have a hard time going back in time to Bolshevik dissidents and telling them that censorship in the future means that a corporation that broadcasts your opinion for free won't always force other corporations to also pay you for those opinions.

*Edit: Also, eric3579's already got this shit covered, I just hadn't followed his links yet.

YouTube Demonetization Explained

The "fun" thing, as well: These people are able to monetize their targeting of individuals through YouTube ad share/crowdfunding and have incredibly vitriolic fan base that will wage war against their favorite YouTuber's targets in a myriad of ways... so you get what is, essentially, the "professional victimizer".

http://boingboing.net/2015/01/14/how-crowdfunding-helps-haters.html

I believe this is his full-time jam now. He hasn't monetize the YT videos but he has a Patreon page (https://www.patreon.com/user?u=2945881, which could probably do with being linked in the description here) that says he gets $3,773 for each video he makes. If he makes one a month that's a decent living. It's at least probably enough to support him with food and housing, and if living in the wilderness and building things with bark and mud is what he spends his money on, well, he's golden.

She's risking people's lives and needs to learn or lose her license.

I'm also pleasantly surprised (and surprised at my surprise) that he's not monetizing this video aggressively. For some reason I'm annoyed at this brave new internet where every viral dashcam video has a legal notice ("For licensing and media inquiries, contact..."), so I was happy to see him just tell the world that we can do whatever. This is not something I thought I'd be surprised by.

Hmm. It’s an interesting story – it doesn’t seem that it’s 100% the typical patent troll mold, though it’s obviously still a shitty tale of bullshit patent litigation tactics. It looks like Pappas had his original idea and filed for a patent in 2000, basically trying to create a way to monetize the ad hoc markets that pop up whenever people are in line or reserving places for entertainment (probably based on his own restaurant experience). He filed a single, very broad, multiregion patent on this, and launched a company and online platform around it in 2008 (OptionIt) to provide an online service for trading ticket reservations / places in line. Braxton had a similar but more clearly defined idea in 2011, and filed his own patent.

Like I said – I don’t like this idea, I wish it hadn’t been granted patent protection, and I’m happy if it never reaches the market. However, for all that, I think Pappas original idea was a bit more inventive. Back in 2000 we didn’t have an app economy, and we hadn’t gotten used to these kinds of ad hoc, internet-facilitated temporary market places. When Braxton came up with it, it was pretty dull.

Either way, once Pappas started his business, I guess he instructed his law firm to handle litigation as aggressively as possible, which is fairly standard practice, and which is the unfortunate behavior described in the video. After losing the original suit and then losing the Rule 11 motion, they argued like aggressive assholes in mediation, and got Braxton to back down. I think their threat was fairly hollow – he says that they threatened him with their ‘patent portfolio,’ but this is the only patent family I can find for OptionIt / Smart Option.

I’m not sure I would call this a textbook case of patent trolling – usually patent trolls file or acquire patents for the sole purpose of extorting legitimate businesses, but here it looks like Pappas was actually trying to make a go of this (shitty) app idea, but used intimidation to try to protect that idea. It’s one shitty business trying to intimidate another upstart shitty business, and the courts ruling against the first party. On the whole we all lose – OptionIt wins the mediation through shitty intimidation, and Braxton’s shitty patent gets added to Spangenberg’s portfolio of shitty troll assets to keep the cycle going.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Calvin, Hobbes, Bill Watterson, Art, Monetization' to 'Calvin, Hobbes, Bill Watterson, Art, Monetization, kaptainkristian' - edited by eric3579