This Shorts issue seems to have measurable, constant and immediate effect in ad revenue and therefore platform profitability. Bad content moderation may or may not decrease engagement but in the end Google is a commercial enterprise that’s looking at the numbers at hand.
Bingo. I don't find shorts all that appealing (especially since I can't cast them to a TV! Wtf, seems like core function there) but I agree, the REAL problem with YouTube is how much creators have to top toe around demonization.
“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.
YouTube is willing to host a lot of videos that they make zero money from, at their expense
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.
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'm not even sure it is bad policies. I am pretty sure that they just don't have moderators.
I doubt anyone reads 99.9% of reports.
So you get bigotry and hate, you get insane and deadly DIYs, you get 12yo girls being creeped while posting random 5s clips from their lives.
Not to mention just the vast amount of extraordinarily low-quality content YouTube serves up. It's amazing how bad a lot of the videos it thinks you will like are. The algorithm makes no sense.
But hey, here's 16 different Joe Rogan clips with sigma male music in the background.
That should mean engagement. It serves up such bad videos that I disengage.
Once in a while I'll realize I just spent 20, 30 minutes looking at a streak of pretty decent stuff. Rare enough to be remarkable. Usually after just 3 or 4 consecutive crap clips I'll close it down and get back to work.
I doubt anything disengages a user faster than low-quality content. I bet it does it even faster than the authoritarian politics and bigotry YouTube seems to inexorable serve you.
Just because it causes your disengagement, doesn't mean it causes disengagement with the vast majority of their userbase.
They're also more concerned with ad views and clicks, so if you're not the kind of person who gives a crap about ads... they don't really care that much about you.
They don't have to be 100% competent, but they are very competent at what they want to do... which is monetize the technologies and services they provide. They're not trying to make something that people can use well and enjoy... they're making things to make a shit-ton of money. The two goals are not generally mutually inclusive.
Yours, on the other hand, is predicated on the belief that they're all super-incompetent and have no capability of doing anything right ever... which is confusing considering they're a multi-billion dollar company and not just some guy in a shack banging rocks together to see how they sound.
Yours, on the other hand, is predicated on the belief that they're all super-incompetent and have no capability of doing anything right ever
Nope. It's only this specific thing that I necessarily think they're doing a bad job of. And I'm right; they are. Their algorithm is a struggling baby compared to TikTok and YouTube at large is not a major profit center (and indeed may not be profitable at all -- but they maintain it because abandoning it would be too costly for them).
TikTok is so good at doing this thing that it is a profitable business for them. YouTube is struggling, and we can clearly see why.
What specific thing? The entirety of YouTube? Just the algorithm? Either way their algorithm may not be designed to do promote videos you want to watch, in reality it’s most likely designed to promote stuff that will draw them the most ad revenue and not promote really good stuff all the time. If your content is always great people will expect that and there will never be a great video, on the contrary if there is a great video among mediocre ones at best people will engage more in those (especially if they are longer and even if they have more ads), and additionally will engage more in your platform. This means that even if they aren’t making as much per video they are still making more in the long-term. And that’s really all they care about, your experience means nothing to them.
The terrible content moderation policies are what keep it alive. No one subscribes to youtube so it’s primary customers are the ad agencies. And they want content moderation
The video in question: The Forgotten Disaster of the SS Eastland. It’s 43 minutes long, both well done, and respectfully done. Her team did a good job on it then some youtube automated system buried it for “violating community guidelines”.
Yup, exactly. Some of the creators I’ve seen tell some horror stories about how YouTube work. Videos being demonised for random bullshit, YouTube giving 0 support to them as it’s Googles usual behaviour.
I feel like if some other big tech makes a decent alternative with ad revenue share it might fuck over YouTube. (And you can see how this can apply to X…)
If shorts were simply a separate section of YouTube with all of its functionality, then that’s understandable. But as they stand, shorts are just YouTube with both reduced functionality (forced vertical aspect ratio, no seek bar, time limit) AND all of the existing flaws (bad recommendation algorithm, reposted content, etc. )
Unless you are some kind of tech contrarian hipster, I don’t think there is one thing that YouTube shorts does better than TikTok, or heck, Instagram Reels.
Nope, official app has a seek bar on the bottom (I was using vanced before but had to reset my password which reset the login cookie and I am not trying to delete my downloads of years by trying to sign back in)
P.S. I have too many downloads, so if anyone has a method to extract them, I’ll be thankful.
shorts are just YouTube with both reduced functionality (forced vertical aspect ratio, no seek bar, time limit) AND all of the existing flaws (bad recommendation algorithm, reposted content, etc. )
I simply prefer TikTok for short form videos due to unique community and reasonably entertaining algorithm.
I enjoy YouTube to the point of paying for Premium but I hate that my YouTube subscriptions feed on TV is littered with shorts that I have no way of disabling other than hiding them one by one (which I do to make a point).
Suits at Google will try to shove it into everyone’s throats until they get bored and someone adds it to killedbygoogle.com so why would anyone even bother with it.
In case of Apple TV, it’s the smoothest TV software experience, leaps and bounds above any ad-ridden smart TV or aging Nvidia Shield. I used Android TV and it’s just jank. For a time I had HTPC with Kodi too, it’s been relegated to hosting Plex and downloading stuff from Usenet. I enjoyed freedom to install anything but ultimately this didn’t outweight better audio codec support on Apple TV.
Apple software is obviously ad free and I have no problem with paying for YouTube Premium due to value it provides. Some good soul on Lemmy also recommended me a way to block sponsored content via isponsorblocktv which is a script that runs on my server and skips sponsored segments by reading YouTube app state and sending fast forward commands like a remote would.
I’m not the guy you asked, but I assume they do as I do. My system volume is calibrated for all the various applications I use day to day, including video conferencing. If I have to adjust that, it means everything else is the wrong volume. I’d rather modify YouTube to be the right volume than everything else.
This. My system volume is calibrated to be similar across all applications, games, etc. This means all apps are individually adjusted to reach similar volume level. Why should I have to mess with all of my other volumes just random manager at Youtube decided a volume slider on shorts isn’t necessary despite the site still using volume from regular videos where it can be adjusted? This isn’t an issue with any other app or platform. Maybe the last Youtube video I watched had overly quiet or loud audio compared to the norm and I either have insanely loud audio or I can’t hear a damned thing and I can’t fix it quickly like on any other Youtube page.
Not everyone had a set of dedicated volume buttons, or wheel, etc. on their keyboard, so having to go into Windows settings or reach for a knob or button on the speakers themselves to adjust is a lot more than getting a slider like every other website in the world gives you.
Hopefully desktop PC hardware will become powerful enough to gain the ability to skip around in 30 second videos someday. I think I read that they expect them to be at parity with smartphone hardware in the next decade or two.
You can scrub around in them. Look for the red bar on the bottom after the short starts. You can tap and drag on it and a little red circle will appear that will show briefly after you release.
This is a problem with all of these Tik Tok clones (and even Tik Tok let’s you do it for some videos). It’d so annoying to be watching a 45 second reel but if I miss something, I have to watch the whole thing again
Mind you those are (at least some of) the guys that killed animation and comedy sketches on youtube because they made it necessary for videos to be 10+ minutes long to be relevant.
Which I get a laugh out of, because in the early days youtube would not let you post any video longer than 10 minutes, unless you were a “special” approved account. Now, only 10+ minute videos matter. A complete about face.
I swear to god these dumb social media sites are going to hell faster every day.
I used to like YouTube because I could watch all sorts of interesting things … funny things … informative things … things actually liked
Now my main YouTube recommended feed is filled with clickbait thumbnails of idiots making surprised or shocked faces to try to get your attention to get you to look at their dumb video of nonsense that has zero information and is not entertaining at all.
Because if theres money to be made then theres a few million idiots that are happy to exploit the fuck out of the system and do essentially fuck all to earn cash.
But without money, the platform would have sunk.
It’s a harsh reality that all brilliant internet things have to face.
I don’t mind grabbing my pitchfork and joining the “YouTube is already ruined party”, but two thoughts first:
That headline is so deliberately vague. It could literally be one employee who said “eh, I don’t think YouTube shorts is a good idea”.
The article itself doesn’t really give you any information that isn’t in the headline. It feels like an attempt to stoke anti-YouTube sentiment without providing any useful information.
…okay, with that out of the way…
Yeah, the current YouTube situation is pretty crap.
Yeah honestly these are some great points, and really it’s one of these reasons as to why I just dislike modern journalism today with the headlines as such.
It does cite internal metrics on ad revenues going down for three consecutive quarters due to lower potential to show ads in short videos compared to longer ones. It’s anonymous and doesn’t give solid figures but that’s what this article is about.
You should be able to remove Shorts from your feed. I never watch them and yet they fill my feed up making it jore difficult to find real content. I’m specifically talking about the smart TV app which throws them all in together.
There’s a little hidden button on the Shorts pane that you can see when you hover it. It gives you the ability to hide them for 30 days if you click it.
They’ve started putting them in the recommended videos pane on the right when playing videos in a browser. Worst of all, they put it near the top and in a much larger cell than the rest of the recommended videos.
He’s talking about smart tv app. If those “shorts” are being pulled from some other subdomain then perhaps a block rule on that domain set on the router would help. But best just not to use youtube.
SmartTubeNext is what you want on TV platforms. You can turn shorts off. It blocks ads. And it has sponsorblock so it is configurable to additionally skip sponsor segments, self-promotion, intros, outros.
And as others have pointed out, you can also block them in browser with Ublock Origins and with Revanced which covers the desktop and mobile platforms.
God I hate shorts. Luckily you can disable them. But youtube is so riddled with ads in general, it makes watching without adblock impossible. If they’d go back to one 3 second ad at the very beginning, I might even tolerate it. But the current shitshow? Not on my system.
Doesn’t help that they have a whooping 113 trackers running simultaneously.
None of those apps are the original and official app. Which is pretty obviously what this was about. I used to use Vanced and it never worked as easily as everyone seems to imply, and I never could get it to cast. Vanced is no longer available on the PlayStore btw, and the same can be expected for every app that tries to offer YouTube content, modified.
The solution I used is to pay for the service that removes ads and scroll right past shorts, ignoring it. Let me guess, google should provide you that infrastructure for free?
That’s why I have a Firefox extension that automatically redirects from shorts. Although, if Google’s new Web Environment Integrity goes through I guess I could kiss stuff like that goodbye.
not only is the shorts UI shitty but the shorts themselves are often shitty imo, or at least the “scroll through shorts one at a time” linear format means you see a lot more videos you wouldn’t click on intentionally.
I hate that I get such random shit in my feed when I really only look at art videos - like my scrolling should be nothing but people drawing but random shit like slime videos or some ass hat and his kid.
Yeah YouTube really likes to inject videos you wouldn’t normally watch into your algorithm. It’s pretty annoying. I would never seek out religious videos, and never have on YouTube, yet they keep making their way into my feed. Even voting them down doesn’t seem to change the frequency.
I literally could not understand what half the ones I saw were even supposed to be about last time I went on YouTube. Like they were just random people doing shit with no punchline or point.
YouTube shorts was the dumbest fucking idea. They have a niche: long-form (as in >1min) video content. They are dominant in that niche. Then they saw TikTok was popular and dominating the short-form video scene, and their response was… “we should switch to making more short form”. WTF?! And on top of that, they’ve diverted resources away from their main product (longer videos) as the article says. It just seems like such a catastrophic unforced error.
YouTube have such a stranglehold on the >1m market, that’s why they can afford to stagnate in that area and look into other markets. They don’t have to fear a competitor threatening their core market any time soon.
Add comment