Wednesday, November 13, 2019

The next wave of deplatformings

A warning about YouTube's recent Terms of Service change, effective December 10, 2019, from an anonymous on 8kun:
youtube is going full on commie soon if there is anything there you want, grab it now while you can per jim stone

Youtube is going to delete all channels that have been demonitized on Dec 10

'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."

Here's the obvious clincher:

"Commercially viable" is a pretty broad term. Initially, it will wipe out all channels that have been demonetized. But the next step will be all small channels that are not under central control and do not have ads set up, which is 95 percent of Youtube.

A lot of what makes Youtube great is the random stuff from real people, and that will soon be gone. Getting rid of that aspect of Youtube is going to prevent real people from posting what really happened at a Trump rally, or at some other event, or anything else that might go against the establishment and leave only the official corporate feed plus 50,000+ Jew channels that are all monetized but won't step out of line anywhere at all, with that "50.000" remaining to provide the illusion of vastness that is in fact just a bunch of stale oatmeal.

You can damn well bet that if you are not actively working to destroy Western civilization in your personal life you'll be de-monetized even if the only thing you post is cat videos. HEADS UP: 95 PERCENT OF YOUTUBE IS GOING TO BITE THE DUST. They are certainly going to at least try to make it look like it is not so. but just wait.
I understand the concern. It is by no means paranoid or unbased. But the reality is that the change to the terms of service is actually a very small one. YouTube always claimed this right to terminate at will and specifically mentions the phrase "no longer commercially viable" in the terms that are presently effective. The difference is the current terms say "YouTube has reason to believe" instead of "YouTube believes, in its sole discretion", which in my opinion is legally negligible in light of the fact that YouTube itself is not, and has never been, commercially viable.

That's why no one has been able to successfully compete with them. They run at an absolutely massive loss that no one except a company with billions in profits or a mid-sized government could afford. Which is exactly as I describe in Corporate Cancer; only very large or externally-funded organizations can afford to be that converged for long without going out of business. And since YouTube itself is not commercially viable, then it is obvious that none of the free channels it allows to operate on its platform are either.

Anyhow, whether the scale of the planned deplatformings is as big as some suspect it will be or not, this is why it is absolutely vital to subscribe to Unauthorized sooner rather than later. That's precisely why we set it up in the first place.

Labels: ,


Blogger buzzardist November 13, 2019 6:07 AM  

The entirety of Google is commercially unviable, save for one product: AdSense. Google Search, Gmail, Youtube, Maps,'s all nothing more than bait to get people to use services. When people use services, Google collects information about them, which in turn feeds into AdSense.

On its own, Adsense would amount to very little revenue. But with the power of all of Google's "free" services behind it, it's a multi-billion dollar behemoth.

In that respect, I highly doubt YouTube will delete very much content. It's always been in Google's ultimate interests to have huge amounts of content on YouTube. More content means more people watching, which means more data gathered and more eyeballs to see ads. From Google's perspective, even if a channel doesn't have ads enabled, it still gives Google data about the user, which allows them to serve more targeted ads elsewhere. Google may be fine picking off a few undesirable channels, but killing 95 percent of it's content? I can't imagine any scenario in which that would make sense.

Blogger Stilicho November 13, 2019 6:18 AM  

The "reason to believe" change is intended to protect you tube from any challenge that you tube actually knew (or should have known for that matter)a particular channel was making a profit. This allows you tube's lawyers to point to any evidence and claim it gave you tube "a reason to believe" it was not commercially viable even if there is evidence of an objective belief by you tube execs that such a channel was viable.

It is designed to make the you tube lawyers' job easier. Your larger point is valid, but you tube's attorneys don't want to go there unless they have to. It might raise too many questions and could even spark a shareholders' derivative lawsuit against the board. The business judgement rule provides strong protection, but even it can't necessarily protect execs from decisions they knew would lose shareholders' money. Judicial estoppel could potentially prevent Google from backing away from such a position (you tube itself isn't viable) once it successfully used it to avoid liability for you tube deplatformings.

Blogger Section 8A November 13, 2019 6:22 AM  

As an UATV subscriber I'm even more satisfied now. I've got most of my videos on Bitchute as well. I started using Bitchute 18 months ago and I like it a lot. Anything to get off the platforms that hate us.

Blogger urthshu November 13, 2019 6:27 AM  

YouTube is last century's news anyway.

Blogger Lovekraft November 13, 2019 7:09 AM  

For one reason or another, people are still using twatter and fakebook. Perhaps they need to in order to reach a broader audience.

But apart from them, anyone active on these sites are pretty much actively assisting their enemies. The 'blue checkmark' effect has almost reached critical mass.

Now, with yt following suit, anyone still on there will receive the same type of derision. Not to say it cannot be reversed, but to this writer, it would only reattain legitimacy if their TOS were 'de-converged'. All of this is partly designed to clear out the dark webbers from participating in future public discourse

Blogger FrankNorman November 13, 2019 7:19 AM  

So if one does just want to post videoclips of animals being cute or whatever, where to go?

Blogger Shane Bradman November 13, 2019 7:35 AM  

UATV has hours of free content every day. Youtube has millions of hours of free content every day, none of which is good for you. The smaller size of UATV is to its benefit.

Blogger The Lab Manager November 13, 2019 7:43 AM  

Shane Bradman wrote:UATV has hours of free content every day. Youtube has millions of hours of free content every day, none of which is good for you. The smaller size of UATV is to its benefit.

What are you saying? I've found a number of really good older movies posted on Youtube. I also enjoy some of the documentaries and fix it videos.

It is a shame though that Google was able to gobble up all these smaller companies over the years though. I guess the libertardians did not account for a private companies owners hatred of freedom.

Blogger David Ray Milton November 13, 2019 8:25 AM  

I’ve been working on a YouTube channel for a few months now(under an alias), so with all of the chatter I thought I would read the doomsday terms of service that everyone has been talking about it. I didn’t find anything in there that was particularly menacing, but then again, I’m a newb in this arena.

The logic would seem to be that if 95% of YouTube does get wiped out, then that will level the playing field for YouTube’s competitors... BitChute, Unauthorized, etc.

Blogger David Ray Milton November 13, 2019 8:33 AM  

Also, there would seemingly have to be change in YouTube’s partnership program if they chose to wipe everyone out. Otherwise, there could be no new channels. Currently, to partner with their ads or receive money from subscribers I believe you have to 1) Have a channel going for a year. 2) Have 1,000 subscribers. 3) Have 4,000 hours of material watched.

I did not see any changes mentioned in this area. Of course, they could stop allowing new channels or prop up ones that they chose to, but that would be a fairly big deviation from their current practices and would result in a lot of push back even from the GloboHomos.

Blogger Gregory the Tall November 13, 2019 8:37 AM  

Does anybody know if a monetized Justin Timberlake song with 30 million views and similar stuff is commercially profitable for Google or not?

Blogger matism November 13, 2019 8:40 AM  

The way of the tribe. Why pretend to be surprised???

Blogger Eincrou November 13, 2019 8:47 AM  

YouTube is not going to delete all channels that have been demonetized on December 10. And they are definitely not going to delete "95% of [channels on] YouTube."

YouTube channels, like most accounts in all forms of social media, are intrinsically both for viewing content and for sharing content. If someone creates a YouTube account so they can subscribe to their favorite channels, or comment on their favorite videos, they inherently have the ability to also post videos. Every YouTube account is a "channel," even if it has no videos.

YouTube deleting demonetized channels and other channels would immediately destroy the supposed "commercial viability" of the remaining "commercially viable" "50,000+" channels, since nobody would be able to comment, rate OR subscribe.

Of course, YouTube could remove the ability for these millions of channels to post any videos, turning them from channels into just viewer accounts, like a Netflix or Disney+ account, where you obviously have no privileges to post anything onto the service. This would be an unprecedented change, since YouTube does not, and has never, just removed the ability for a channel to post regular videos, yet retain all other features. If they don't want you posting videos, the account is terminated in its entirety.

I can't say they'll never make a move like this one day. But if that's what they were going to do in the next month, and this 8Kun anonymous poster had authentic and specific information on YouTube's plans, he would have said this instead of the absurd claim that demonitized channels will be deleted, and 95% of YouTube channels will be deleted.

I really, really hate it when people who are knowingly speculating present their imaginary scenarios with confidence, leading people to believe that they have legitimate information on what is going to happen. Admitting that you're just guessing doesn't reduce the ego boost if you turn out to be right, and in the (much more likely) case that you're wrong, it will limit the shame that comes from being mocked for having pretend to know the future. This guy is anonymous, but even people with names do it all the time.

Blogger Ska_Boss November 13, 2019 9:03 AM  

You know, YouTube was commercially viable before Google acquired it and turned it into a walking corpse. Maybe they will terminate themselves.

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( LeMoron James loves knife murder ) November 13, 2019 9:06 AM  

in light of the fact that YouTube itself is not, and has never been, commercially viable.

this is the salient.

it has always struck me as absurd that various Youtubers squeal about Youtube cutting their rates or demonetizing them or whatever causes them to not 'make' as much money as PewDePie.

how can you complain about Youtube paying you *less* when Youtube itself hemorrhages money every quarter? does even PewDePie sell more in ad revenue than they pay him? let's assume he does ... how many more content creators can you say that of? a dozen people? a hundred?

out of the tens of thousands to millions of channels hosted by Youtube.

and what is all of that bandwidth and server space costing Youtube ...

this is clearly unsustainable in any moderately sane world.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan November 13, 2019 9:11 AM  

I'll save you the Sunsets' essay, Free money + Sillycon Valley = youtube. Karl of InRange the gun channel pontificated basically the same, dooooooom comes our way.

FTR the documentary I want to see is a documentary producer wandering about the wreckage of Silly Valley Taj Mahals occupied by California's finest Social Allies taking a huge runny #2 on Jack Dorsey's desk.

Blogger Damelon Brinn November 13, 2019 9:19 AM  

We knew from their reaction to 2016 that Big Social would do their best to make sure their services couldn't be used to help Trump again in 2020. They think their big brains give them the right to choose our leaders, and they intend to exercise that right. The only question was how much it would disrupt their services to do so. It looks like they're prepared to suffer major disruption, if they decide that's what it takes.

Blogger The Cooler November 13, 2019 9:28 AM  


The only way this makes sense in my mind is if it is done significantly prior to the election with a predetermined, roll-back oopsy daisy soon thereafter. Such a scheme would surely be leaked, however.

Blogger Unknown November 13, 2019 9:41 AM  

I subscribed to unauthorized very recently and cancelled Netflix. Why does Jordanetics not load? Is there certain content you don't have access to at the basic $5 level? Any help would be appreciated

Blogger VD November 13, 2019 9:45 AM  

Is there certain content you don't have access to at the basic $5 level?

No. All subs currently provide access to all content. I'll look into it later today.

Blogger Maniac November 13, 2019 9:49 AM  

I wish Nasim Aghdam had had better aiming skills.

Blogger Sologamer November 13, 2019 10:02 AM  

Bitchute has increasingly good content, but something about it does not inspire confidence. There's little transparency or communication from its owners, and it's just as clunky as it was two years ago. All the more reason for yet more alternatives such as Unauthorized.

Blogger Nikolai Collushnikov November 13, 2019 10:20 AM  

They will kill their fan base.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 November 13, 2019 10:27 AM  

Maybe, just maybe, people shouldn't depend on YouTube for money. Maybe it should be extra income that wouldn't affect your bottom line.

Blogger Jeroth November 13, 2019 10:29 AM  

Unless they are really panicked, I doubt they are going to take such a heavy handed approach. My guess is that they plan to continue refining AI until they can keep everything in a controlled chaos, giving the illusion of creator freedom, while making any numerically significant badthink outbreaks statistically impossible. But who knows. Last night Josh Hammer, Ben Shapiro's editor, claimed "Jew-hatred is inherent in the European DNA". So maybe panicked stupidity isn't entirely off the table.

Blogger buzzardist November 13, 2019 10:36 AM  

You know, YouTube was commercially viable before Google acquired it and turned it into a walking corpse. Maybe they will terminate themselves.

Huh? If by "commercially viable," you mean living off investor money until an IPO, after which it could continually raise money to offset losses by releasing more and more stock (Twitter), or until one of the big tech players bought it out, yes, YouTube was viable. On it's balance sheet, though, YouTube was a disaster in any conventional sense. There was barely even any revenue, let alone profits. In that initial year-and-a-half before Google bought them out, YouTube was entirely focused on building a massive user base, not on monetizing videos. There was virtually nothing "commercial" about the startup at all.

Google pairing YouTube with its AdSense services has made YouTube less of a money drain, but the site still doesn't seem to make money on its own. What it does give Google is massive amounts of information about what people watch, which allows AdSense to be more effective everywhere else. Gathering data in order to target ad messaging and providing platforms on which to serve ads are essentially the functions o all of Google's "free" services. When you upload or view content on YouTube, you're not the customer. You're the product.

Blogger BriarRabbit November 13, 2019 10:37 AM  

"YouTube is wiping out 95% of it's videos!" - Response: "Good! Do it! It will speed their significance and give rise to other platforms.

"The publick skewl is teaching my first grader about anal sex!" - Response: "Good deal! Take your kid home and teach him where he can get a decent education and not marxist-satanist programming!"

- Response: "Good deal! PERSECUTION IS CLEANSING. God never loses. Anyone on his side doesn't need YouTube. We have eternal life. And Unauthorized! We have a general roadmap of this trip to redemption. Take the grace God offers, accept Jesus, pursue logos, and GET SOME BOOMER DUCKS for the sake of your family and God.

Love the reality check I get here.

We just acquired two horses and this next year we will be getting the equipment to learn how to plough and plant without a gas engine.

Satan can go to hell and take YouTube with him.


Blogger Rhino Bear November 13, 2019 11:05 AM  

I've got a small channel where I live stream my painting process. I do it because I'm a loudmouth and love talking to the bears that show up while I struggle through the innumerable failures. It's fun and we usually have some great conversations. The channel is small so I really don't care what youtube does, but I'm wondering if any of you have other recommendations for live streaming. Twitch is pretty crappy and bitchute doesn't have live streams. There's dozens of others, so I'd appreciate any input from those who have experience with these other sites. Thanks.

Blogger FrankNorman November 13, 2019 11:09 AM  

So Youtube is costing them more to run than they are getting from all the adverts?

And I thought the era of the crazy Internet company that measured itself by it's negative profits was over.

Blogger Wario's Mart November 13, 2019 11:21 AM  

Can we upload stuff to unauthorised? What I'm concerned about is Catholic material. The sensus fidelium channel and the Fulton Sheen sermons. If we download material be uploaded to you?

Blogger VD November 13, 2019 11:24 AM  

Can we upload stuff to unauthorised?

No, that's what BitChute is for.

Blogger Damelon Brinn November 13, 2019 11:33 AM  

If there's content on Youtube that you want to help preserve, download it with a tool like youtube_dl. It'll download entire playlists, which is handy. You can upload to Bitchute or to any file storage later if it's appropriate, but at least if you have a local copy it won't be disappeared on you in the meantime.

Blogger riffer73 November 13, 2019 11:38 AM  

Politics is one thing, but what I'm going to miss are all those how-to videos with 500 viewers. Every time there is some friggin thing that I can't install or put together there is a video.

Blogger Gen. Kong November 13, 2019 12:31 PM  

Gregory the Great wrote:

Does anybody know if a monetized Justin Timberlake song with 30 million views and similar stuff is commercially profitable for Google or not?

That's a crapshoot. It depends on what they have to pay the owners of the Timberlake song for 30 million views. To add video to a copyrighted song - synch rights (not cheap) are collected, and they have to pay for the 30 million on-demand streams of the song on top of the synch rights. Since they allow the views at no charge, there is a very high chance they are losing money. That's for just one song by the way. How many hundreds of thousands of copyrighted songs are used in YouTube videos? It's true that ASCAP, et al haven't been terribly effective at forcing Google to pay to the extent they probably should, but you're still talking about a lot of money here.

Blogger Steb November 13, 2019 2:28 PM  

It all depends on how much their subscriber base had grown. There must come a point when they decide to shed the money losing pary of their business and trust that they'll retain enough residual traffic to operate as a kind of Hulu.

Some people go to YouTube every day as their main source of entertainment. If all the cat videos disappeared over night, would they follow them to BitChute, or would they pull out their credit cards and start paying for whatever's still there?

It might not be on the 10th but it's got to happen one day

Blogger Daniel November 13, 2019 5:37 PM  

CIA will pay whatever money google needs

Blogger Assis Chateaubriand November 13, 2019 9:01 PM  

We are going to delete channels that are no longer commercially viable.
How do you define "no longer commercially viable"?
Channels that have been demonetized.
Why were they demonetized?
Because they were making a great deal of money saying "wrong" things.

Blogger Boaty Bear November 15, 2019 1:29 AM  

If this were the case, they wouldn't feel the need to put something out every other day!
I know consistency is key and all that, but quite frankly with BB & VD crushing daily, there just simply isn't time for all the Hwhinging and Hwhining from those who think pontificating is a viable main income.
(Enough of those types in the Enemedia)
I've tried pointing out to some of them that Q and BB are sucking watch hours from across the platform, and that their numbers dropping may just be a result of that, they just call me a Qtard...
Larf.... more BB = Less Cuckservatives...

THE Crushin' Collusion.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts