willtheorangeguy/2018-WAN-Show-Transcripts

text stringlengths 14 502
[1154.18 --> 1156.08] I think it's basically all the Late Show hosts.
[1156.34 --> 1164.14] Because they, a lot, okay, this is super generalizing, but a lot of the Late Show TV programs put snippets and clips onto YouTube.
[1164.36 --> 1164.58] Yes.
[1164.62 --> 1165.32] It's really popular.
[1165.52 --> 1166.42] Seth Meyers does it.
[1166.46 --> 1167.16] They get quite a few.
[1167.22 --> 1167.98] Kimmel does it, I think.
[1167.98 --> 1168.70] Does he still do it?
[1168.70 --> 1170.10] John Oliver does it very occasionally.
[1170.38 --> 1171.16] I don't know, man.
[1171.68 --> 1173.38] But they get a lot of views.
[1173.58 --> 1173.78] Yep.
[1174.18 --> 1176.34] And they're really heavily promoted by the platform.
[1176.66 --> 1179.16] And they're not strucken down in any way.
[1179.32 --> 1179.52] Right.
[1180.34 --> 1180.74] Okay.
[1180.84 --> 1183.74] So that's been a big part of the problem.
[1183.74 --> 1190.26] Then there was the whole issue that was kind of tied into monetization slash preferential treatment,
[1190.62 --> 1196.42] where Logan Paul posted that extremely controversial video in the Suicide Forest in Japan.
[1196.42 --> 1206.40] And the perception among the community, I'm not going to make a judgment call here because I wasn't sitting in the war room that I'm sure existed at YouTube when they were trying to figure out what to do about this.
[1206.54 --> 1206.78] Yep.
[1206.78 --> 1208.16] I wasn't present there.
[1208.92 --> 1209.96] Those have got to be crazy meetings.
[1209.96 --> 1216.00] Nor was I present with Logan Paul when he was thinking about how he was going to react to the community's reaction.
[1216.50 --> 1219.76] And I wasn't sitting in the rooms of the people who are watching those videos.
[1219.88 --> 1220.74] I'll be honest with you guys.
[1220.78 --> 1221.64] I haven't watched it.
[1221.64 --> 1251.62] I haven't seen it.
[1251.62 --> 1258.32] removing this content or dealing with, presumably, what would have been a fair number of community reports.
[1258.96 --> 1268.24] And in fact, at first anyway, had appeared to not penalize the channel or the user in any meaningful way.
[1268.26 --> 1269.32] For like many days.
[1269.44 --> 1271.76] For days, not just for like a couple hours.
[1271.76 --> 1285.76] And then making matters worse, there were instances of YouTube pulling down re-uploads of the original video because they violated community guidelines while the original was still live.
[1287.10 --> 1287.82] Okay.
[1288.74 --> 1296.24] So this blog post is sort of about how 2017 was a tough year.
[1296.32 --> 1299.26] In fact, let's just sort of discuss some excerpts from it.
[1299.26 --> 1301.62] 2017 was a tough year.
[1302.34 --> 1303.28] What do they got here?
[1304.02 --> 1308.68] Despite the issues, more creators than ever are earning a living on YouTube, blah, blah, blah.
[1308.92 --> 1312.68] Major focus is protecting our creator ecosystem, ensuring your revenue is more stable.
[1313.46 --> 1317.50] We want to prevent bad actors from harming the inspiring and original creators.
[1317.64 --> 1318.18] We want to do this.
[1318.24 --> 1318.98] We want to do that.
[1318.98 --> 1335.52] So basically what they've done seemingly as a response to these issues is they have changed the previous eligibility requirements for the YouTube Partner Program, which going way back.
[1335.88 --> 1337.22] So should I do another history lesson here?
[1337.26 --> 1337.52] Yes.
[1337.52 --> 1340.06] I think it's important for this section.
[1340.36 --> 1346.84] So when I first started out on YouTube, it was either – I think it might have been pre-monetization.
[1347.52 --> 1349.10] I think I was pre-monetization.
[1349.24 --> 1349.78] I'm not sure.
[1349.78 --> 1358.68] So when I started out on YouTube, it was either pre-monetization at all or it was shortly after the Partner Program had been introduced.
[1359.22 --> 1362.78] And the only way to get into the Partner Program was by specifically being invited.
[1362.94 --> 1368.52] So really early guys like Phil DeFranco were in it well before I had access to it.
[1368.62 --> 1368.74] Yeah.
[1368.74 --> 1372.32] After that, there was an application process.
[1372.82 --> 1375.90] That was when I got in through the NCIX Tech Tips channel.
[1375.98 --> 1379.74] I'm not sure if Linus Tech Tips existed yet, although actually I think it did.
[1380.52 --> 1382.12] So that was when I got in.
[1382.26 --> 1382.72] Actually, no.
[1382.80 --> 1392.92] I'm actually quite certain that it did because there was already revenue to show for the YouTube program back at NCIX when Linus Tech Tips was created because I remember negotiating a bonus around it or something.
[1393.26 --> 1393.42] Okay.
[1393.42 --> 1393.70] Okay.
[1395.14 --> 1397.60] Then YouTube basically opened up the floodgates.
[1397.60 --> 1403.40] And they went, okay, we're just going to put monetization on all the things because we've got this inventory of videos.
[1403.70 --> 1407.14] And anywhere there's eyeballs, Google wants to put an ad.
[1407.46 --> 1407.60] Yeah.
[1407.82 --> 1408.76] That's their MO.
[1409.14 --> 1409.90] That's how it works.
[1410.82 --> 1413.66] So anyway, fast forward quite a bit.
[1413.86 --> 1419.14] In April of 2017, they set an eligibility requirement of 10,000 lifetime views.
[1419.14 --> 1430.98] The idea was to have some kind of a history to look back at for a given channel to make sure that it wasn't just blatant re-uploads of copyright TV shows, for example.
[1431.34 --> 1431.90] Which is?
[1432.94 --> 1434.06] Still all over the platform.
[1434.16 --> 1434.52] Oh, yeah.
[1435.16 --> 1437.86] And lots of other issues like music and movies and whatever else.
[1437.86 --> 1438.04] Yeah.
[1438.16 --> 1448.04] But the idea was so that they could have at least 10,000 views worth of time to weed out the ones that were just blatantly not real content.
[1449.08 --> 1451.42] And then here's the follow-up.
[1451.64 --> 1456.38] That threshold provided more information to determine whether a channel followed our community guidelines.
[1456.38 --> 1458.96] But it's been clear over the last few months that we need a higher standard.
[1459.92 --> 1463.66] So starting on the 16th of January, which was three days ago.
[1463.94 --> 1465.78] And the blog says starting today.
[1465.98 --> 1467.18] Like they're like effective now.
[1467.18 --> 1468.98] There's a little aggro in that regard.
[1469.06 --> 1469.20] Yeah.
[1469.40 --> 1478.08] They changed the eligibility requirements for monetization to 4,000 hours of watch time in the past 12 months and 1,000 subscribers.
[1478.08 --> 1491.30] So basically, it appears as though if you're a one-hit wonder who doesn't have any subscribers, you might not be able to monetize.
[1491.84 --> 1500.84] And if you run your channel as kind of like a hobby and you don't actually get a ton of views or a ton of hours of watch time,
[1500.84 --> 1506.02] but you actually have a decent number of subscribers who wait for your videos that you may be published very infrequently,
[1506.66 --> 1513.20] you could be affected by YouTube's attempt to crack down on potentially inappropriate videos from monetizing.
[1514.46 --> 1520.54] Now, right off the bat, I'm not actually working off of my notes here, but right off the bat, I can identify a couple of problems here.
[1520.60 --> 1526.64] Number one is that that whole Spider-Man-Elsa thing was going on for over a year?
[1527.12 --> 1527.28] Yeah.
[1527.28 --> 1532.28] Like, for a freaking long time, and these requirements would have done absolutely nothing to stop.
[1532.28 --> 1532.82] Not a thing.
[1533.60 --> 1536.08] They got way more hours and way more subscribers than that.
[1536.14 --> 1538.70] The issue with the Suicide Forest vlog.
[1539.22 --> 1540.02] Wouldn't have stopped that.
[1540.14 --> 1541.06] Wouldn't have stopped that.
[1541.60 --> 1550.68] What I'm trying to figure out right now is what this move has to do with anything the community is upset about.

[1154.18 --> 1156.08] I think it's basically all the Late Show hosts.

[1156.34 --> 1164.14] Because they, a lot, okay, this is super generalizing, but a lot of the Late Show TV programs put snippets and clips onto YouTube.

[1164.36 --> 1164.58] Yes.

[1164.62 --> 1165.32] It's really popular.

[1165.52 --> 1166.42] Seth Meyers does it.

[1166.46 --> 1167.16] They get quite a few.

[1167.22 --> 1167.98] Kimmel does it, I think.

[1167.98 --> 1168.70] Does he still do it?

[1168.70 --> 1170.10] John Oliver does it very occasionally.

[1170.38 --> 1171.16] I don't know, man.

[1171.68 --> 1173.38] But they get a lot of views.

[1173.58 --> 1173.78] Yep.

[1174.18 --> 1176.34] And they're really heavily promoted by the platform.

[1176.66 --> 1179.16] And they're not strucken down in any way.

[1179.32 --> 1179.52] Right.

[1180.34 --> 1180.74] Okay.

[1180.84 --> 1183.74] So that's been a big part of the problem.

[1183.74 --> 1190.26] Then there was the whole issue that was kind of tied into monetization slash preferential treatment,

[1190.62 --> 1196.42] where Logan Paul posted that extremely controversial video in the Suicide Forest in Japan.

[1196.42 --> 1206.40] And the perception among the community, I'm not going to make a judgment call here because I wasn't sitting in the war room that I'm sure existed at YouTube when they were trying to figure out what to do about this.

[1206.54 --> 1206.78] Yep.

[1206.78 --> 1208.16] I wasn't present there.

[1208.92 --> 1209.96] Those have got to be crazy meetings.

[1209.96 --> 1216.00] Nor was I present with Logan Paul when he was thinking about how he was going to react to the community's reaction.

[1216.50 --> 1219.76] And I wasn't sitting in the rooms of the people who are watching those videos.

[1219.88 --> 1220.74] I'll be honest with you guys.

[1220.78 --> 1221.64] I haven't watched it.

[1221.64 --> 1251.62] I haven't seen it.

[1251.62 --> 1258.32] removing this content or dealing with, presumably, what would have been a fair number of community reports.

[1258.96 --> 1268.24] And in fact, at first anyway, had appeared to not penalize the channel or the user in any meaningful way.

[1268.26 --> 1269.32] For like many days.

[1269.44 --> 1271.76] For days, not just for like a couple hours.

[1271.76 --> 1285.76] And then making matters worse, there were instances of YouTube pulling down re-uploads of the original video because they violated community guidelines while the original was still live.

[1287.10 --> 1287.82] Okay.

[1288.74 --> 1296.24] So this blog post is sort of about how 2017 was a tough year.

[1296.32 --> 1299.26] In fact, let's just sort of discuss some excerpts from it.

[1299.26 --> 1301.62] 2017 was a tough year.

[1302.34 --> 1303.28] What do they got here?

[1304.02 --> 1308.68] Despite the issues, more creators than ever are earning a living on YouTube, blah, blah, blah.

[1308.92 --> 1312.68] Major focus is protecting our creator ecosystem, ensuring your revenue is more stable.

[1313.46 --> 1317.50] We want to prevent bad actors from harming the inspiring and original creators.

[1317.64 --> 1318.18] We want to do this.

[1318.24 --> 1318.98] We want to do that.

[1318.98 --> 1335.52] So basically what they've done seemingly as a response to these issues is they have changed the previous eligibility requirements for the YouTube Partner Program, which going way back.

[1335.88 --> 1337.22] So should I do another history lesson here?

[1337.26 --> 1337.52] Yes.

[1337.52 --> 1340.06] I think it's important for this section.

[1340.36 --> 1346.84] So when I first started out on YouTube, it was either – I think it might have been pre-monetization.

[1347.52 --> 1349.10] I think I was pre-monetization.

[1349.24 --> 1349.78] I'm not sure.

[1349.78 --> 1358.68] So when I started out on YouTube, it was either pre-monetization at all or it was shortly after the Partner Program had been introduced.

[1359.22 --> 1362.78] And the only way to get into the Partner Program was by specifically being invited.

[1362.94 --> 1368.52] So really early guys like Phil DeFranco were in it well before I had access to it.

[1368.62 --> 1368.74] Yeah.

[1368.74 --> 1372.32] After that, there was an application process.

[1372.82 --> 1375.90] That was when I got in through the NCIX Tech Tips channel.

[1375.98 --> 1379.74] I'm not sure if Linus Tech Tips existed yet, although actually I think it did.

[1380.52 --> 1382.12] So that was when I got in.

[1382.26 --> 1382.72] Actually, no.

[1382.80 --> 1392.92] I'm actually quite certain that it did because there was already revenue to show for the YouTube program back at NCIX when Linus Tech Tips was created because I remember negotiating a bonus around it or something.

[1393.26 --> 1393.42] Okay.

[1393.42 --> 1393.70] Okay.

[1395.14 --> 1397.60] Then YouTube basically opened up the floodgates.

[1397.60 --> 1403.40] And they went, okay, we're just going to put monetization on all the things because we've got this inventory of videos.

[1403.70 --> 1407.14] And anywhere there's eyeballs, Google wants to put an ad.

[1407.46 --> 1407.60] Yeah.

[1407.82 --> 1408.76] That's their MO.

[1409.14 --> 1409.90] That's how it works.

[1410.82 --> 1413.66] So anyway, fast forward quite a bit.

[1413.86 --> 1419.14] In April of 2017, they set an eligibility requirement of 10,000 lifetime views.

[1419.14 --> 1430.98] The idea was to have some kind of a history to look back at for a given channel to make sure that it wasn't just blatant re-uploads of copyright TV shows, for example.

[1431.34 --> 1431.90] Which is?

[1432.94 --> 1434.06] Still all over the platform.

[1434.16 --> 1434.52] Oh, yeah.

[1435.16 --> 1437.86] And lots of other issues like music and movies and whatever else.

[1437.86 --> 1438.04] Yeah.

[1438.16 --> 1448.04] But the idea was so that they could have at least 10,000 views worth of time to weed out the ones that were just blatantly not real content.

[1449.08 --> 1451.42] And then here's the follow-up.

[1451.64 --> 1456.38] That threshold provided more information to determine whether a channel followed our community guidelines.

[1456.38 --> 1458.96] But it's been clear over the last few months that we need a higher standard.

[1459.92 --> 1463.66] So starting on the 16th of January, which was three days ago.

[1463.94 --> 1465.78] And the blog says starting today.

[1465.98 --> 1467.18] Like they're like effective now.

[1467.18 --> 1468.98] There's a little aggro in that regard.

[1469.06 --> 1469.20] Yeah.

[1469.40 --> 1478.08] They changed the eligibility requirements for monetization to 4,000 hours of watch time in the past 12 months and 1,000 subscribers.

[1478.08 --> 1491.30] So basically, it appears as though if you're a one-hit wonder who doesn't have any subscribers, you might not be able to monetize.

[1491.84 --> 1500.84] And if you run your channel as kind of like a hobby and you don't actually get a ton of views or a ton of hours of watch time,

[1500.84 --> 1506.02] but you actually have a decent number of subscribers who wait for your videos that you may be published very infrequently,

[1506.66 --> 1513.20] you could be affected by YouTube's attempt to crack down on potentially inappropriate videos from monetizing.

[1514.46 --> 1520.54] Now, right off the bat, I'm not actually working off of my notes here, but right off the bat, I can identify a couple of problems here.

[1520.60 --> 1526.64] Number one is that that whole Spider-Man-Elsa thing was going on for over a year?

[1527.12 --> 1527.28] Yeah.

[1527.28 --> 1532.28] Like, for a freaking long time, and these requirements would have done absolutely nothing to stop.

[1532.28 --> 1532.82] Not a thing.

[1533.60 --> 1536.08] They got way more hours and way more subscribers than that.

[1536.14 --> 1538.70] The issue with the Suicide Forest vlog.

[1539.22 --> 1540.02] Wouldn't have stopped that.

[1540.14 --> 1541.06] Wouldn't have stopped that.

[1541.60 --> 1550.68] What I'm trying to figure out right now is what this move has to do with anything the community is upset about.