TubeTalk: Your YouTube How-To Guide

The Real Reasons YouTube Demonetizes Channels

• vidIQ

Share episode

Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.

0:00 | 35:40

Send us Fan Mail

Get vidIQ Boost for an exclusive price! https://vidiq.com/podcast

Want a 1 on 1 coach? https://vidiq.ink/theboost1on1

Join our Discord! https://www.vidiq.com/discord

Watch the video: https://youtu.be/_kUOrWhNynw

We react to YouTube’s latest attempt to clarify the monetization rules behind the phrase many creators fear, and we test where the explanation actually helps versus where it stays muddy. We break down the three “buckets” YouTube uses to judge YPP eligibility and what they imply for AI tools, template channels, and content that viewers find distressing. 
• why YouTube seems to be retiring the “inauthentic content” label while keeping the underlying policy 
• how generic and repetitive template formats can block monetization even with “transformative” edits 
• what “unsatisfying or off-putting” content means and why repetition changes the context 
• why AI personas become a problem around finance, legal, and medical advice 
• why AI itself is not the reason channels get demonetized and how scale changes everything 
• the “easy monetization tutorial” trap and why flooded formats start to look like a pyramid scheme 
• why mass flagging does not decide YPP outcomes plus what the 21-day appeal and 90-day reapply windows mean 
• the help page examples that finally make the rule clearer than the interview did 
If you’re listening to the audio only podcast, you probably actually don’t need to see the YouTube channel, but if you want to be able to watch the video, uh there’ll be a link in the show notes. 
If you feel good about it, let me know in the comments below. Do you like this format? If so, uh great, we’ll do more of it and also tell us what you think about what YouTube has done. If you’re new here, feel free to feel free to hit that subscribe button. 


Cold Open On AI And Monetization

SPEAKER_00

Ultimately, the takeaway from that is you can use AI, it's fine. That's not the reason why these things are happening. It's not the reason why a video or channel might be demonetized. That's a really good takeaway from this video. It's very specific, it's very clear, and it's telling you if you make this type of content, you probably won't get monetized. I take my hats off for being so uh transparent about that.

SPEAKER_02

It's almost like a bit of a pyramid scheme. As that topic or format is completely flooded, the channel never gets monetized or is

Why We’re Revisiting Inauthentic Content

SPEAKER_02

demonetized.

SPEAKER_00

Hey, welcome back to the only podcast that's more authentic than any other podcast out there. I'm Travis and I'm here with Rob today. We got some really breaking news, kind of, sorta. Uh Rob, I'm excited to talk about inauthentic content again. Are you?

SPEAKER_02

You are excited? No. Let me tell you, Travis, I've never been so prepared for a podcast in my life.

SPEAKER_00

Yes, exactly. Little do you know how little preparation has gone into this podcast. I'm actually really excited about it because we actually have had Renee Ritchie from YouTube on the podcast before talking about inauthentic content. And we made a a clip of the podcast from it too, and people still seemed confused. Well, turns out Renee Richie uh on one of the YouTube channels talked to um, I think he's a VP of like um, let me make sure I let me get this up here. Trust and privacy? Yeah, yeah. VP of trust and safety is what they're calling it.

SPEAKER_02

Safety, all right.

SPEAKER_00

Uh, which actually has everything to do with um, you know, being monetized in the uh for the inauthentic content. And they break down like the reasons. So what we're gonna do is we're gonna watch bits and pieces of this video, and then we're gonna just give our feedback of what we think is happening in this video. I think it's the best way to kind of do it so that uh you don't you guys don't miss context and we can uh all be on the same page. If you're listening to the audio only podcast, you probably actually don't need to see the YouTube channel, but if you want to be able to watch the video, uh there'll be a link in the show notes. Let's get into this thing here.

SPEAKER_02

I guess just to give a bit of background here, uh Travis, like over the last 12 months,

The New Wave Of Demonetization

SPEAKER_02

uh there seems to have been what many creators feel uh like a new wave of demonetization around this wording called inauthentic content. And a lot of people have been trying to explain it over the last 12 months, ourselves included. And I think finally YouTube have registered the fact that maybe they need to further clarify what this word is or try and, I guess, regain possession of what that word actually means to be able to communicate to the creators.

SPEAKER_00

Because a lot of people still don't know. So maybe this will help answer.

SPEAKER_03

But let's find out. Matt, thank you so much for joining us, and I'm so glad we have a chance to talk about this because we have a lot of questions from creators who were just they're trying to better understand our policies. Previously, what we were calling inauthentic content, and we want to break it down. Oh, pause there, pause there, pause there, pause there.

SPEAKER_02

Don't you think it's interesting that they're saying it was previously called inauthentic content?

SPEAKER_00

Huh.

SPEAKER_02

I didn't catch that. So is this like uh uh the PR version of saying uh let's ditch this uh this word, like not not even try and reclaim it to understand it. Let's try something different.

SPEAKER_00

But I don't think they end up recall calling this anything else. I uh in a way, I feel like this is just context, maybe.

SPEAKER_02

I I did quickly check the support pages on this, and now I need to skim over it again, but I don't think there's any mention of inauthentic content now. I think I think they're trying to erase that phrase from the the YouTube lexicon, I think. I was like, I've just realized that when I'm when you know I'm watching this

YouTube Quietly Drops The Label

SPEAKER_02

through this for the second time, and that's just cropped up in my head. That's very interesting. Well, let's see what they say here.

SPEAKER_01

So, first of all, just to say out loud, like um there's no change in our underlying policy at all. I'm not here today to announce any kind of a new policy. Uh, we haven't made any changes. I'm here just to try to uh break it down in a little more details to help creators understand what we allow and don't allow uh as it relates to YPP. There's kind of three buckets we'll talk about today. One is generic and repetitive, like content that is sort of the same uh and repetitive. It's made with templates and there's not much variation uh from video to video. Like that's that is not something that our viewers wish to see a lot of and that we want to provide an incentive for people to make.

SPEAKER_00

So, I mean, this one I think we've kind of always figured out, but I think um having them say it in uh more clear words, I hope, helps because we all know what this is without actually even giving an example. You know what I mean? But maybe we need examples.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah,

Bucket One Generic Template Content

SPEAKER_02

you see, the the I was so tempted after I'd watched this uh video to say, really appreciate the the clarification and such, but I think the inevitable thing that's going to be said by creators is well, but what about me? You know, this is my set of circumstances. How does this fit into that bucket that you're broadly describing? And yeah, I think as you say, like we all I think we all understand this idea of templatized content, but to be honest, Travis, you may interpret that in a s in a bit of a different way to I do, like how far can you temp templatize something? And my tolerance for it might be lower or higher than yours. And so again, we're going back into YouTube's I guess Veloker, which is still locked, and we we don't see the the strict examples on it.

SPEAKER_00

So here's the one question that I don't think will be answered in this e in this video, which is at what point does it become where they go, okay, that's too much? And then is it everyone after that that doesn't get monetized, or is it everyone before that as well that gets demonetized? What about the person who came up with the template in the first place that was original for them? Do they also get demonetized? I don't think any of this gets answered.

SPEAKER_02

I I think that that kind of briefly gets discussed, but like in another section of this video, from what I recall.

SPEAKER_00

I I remember there is another section where he kind of talks about, but he I don't think he answers this. Well, we'll see. Let's let's let's see what bucket two is.

SPEAKER_01

Um, the

Bucket Two Distressing And Manipulative Themes

SPEAKER_01

second is content that we might call, you know, off-putting um or you know, uh distressing. That's the type of content that we say, like, you know, look, if you're trying to uh just get views by doing something emotionally manipulative or make distressing content, um, that's not something that we want to encourage either.

SPEAKER_00

Well, we do this all the time just by putting Dan on the screen. Um very distressing whenever I see Dan. Um but I I think uh the weird one he said it was uh emotionally manipulating. What what do you think that means? Because you could argue that like a Hallmark TV show is emotionally manipulating. They want you to cry, right? Like, what does that mean? That is like the more they try to clarify things, the more they make them blurry, I feel like.

SPEAKER_02

Uh again, I think they they try and give you the example here here of uh things that could be potentially perceived as vulnerable. So that might mean uh an animal that has been tortured, but then is rescued and brought back to uh uh and it is brought through recovery, or uh, you know, a vulnerable minor or something stories along those types, I think it's but I'm not even sure because there's documentaries about that that are perfectly fine.

SPEAKER_00

I'm so confused by this now. This one actually confused me. It seems obvious on the surface, but you only have to scratch it a little bit, and now I don't know. And by the way, I'm not trying to like slam dunk on this. I legitimately am confused about this particular section. I thought I understood. The first time I heard thread, I'm like, oh, it makes sense. But now that we talk about it, I don't know. And when you just described a couple of uh options, I'm like, wait a minute. I can think of documentaries that do that, but are like really good. Well, they'll take like, you know, uh abused animals and then they'll find them a new home. I I would rather see the the good ending of that. But is that being manipulated? I don't know.

SPEAKER_02

Well well, what if it's AI generated? But I'm kind of I'm kind of asking that question, and he is gonna answer that very question, I think, in a few moments'

Bucket Three AI Personas On Sensitive Topics

SPEAKER_02

time.

SPEAKER_01

Yeah, uh bucket three. And then the third bucket that we'll break it down into is something called AI personas. Uh, and this is where you may have um uh created a persona that's AI, and if they're talking about sensitive topics, so like AI personas may be fine overall, but if you have AI personas that are talking about finance or legal issues or healthcare, medical issues, uh, we don't want to provide an incentive for that right now either. And so any of those three buckets are things that we uh will not allow into YPP if a channel has too much of those things. Now that's interesting.

SPEAKER_02

I want to know is does YouTube education fall under that uh bracket? Because ultimately I do want to download myself to the best AI tool there is so that I can retire. Um, but if I can't because of this rule, then that concerns me.

SPEAKER_00

I do this is an interesting thing, it's probably the most clear thing that they talk about. They're like, they don't want an AI persona telling you important things. That's an interesting line to draw. Uh, I'm not saying I disagree with it at all, but it's interesting. I feel like um I don't understand where this comes from. Is there like larger channels that are using AI personas for maybe they are for like news and stuff, I guess. Maybe that's what they're talking about. Like I've never seen that, no, I have seen some AI personas that are doing like uh medical stuff. I think it's like animation stuff. So do they mean any kind of animated, even like hand-drawn things that talk about medical things? They only want people on the screen?

SPEAKER_02

I don't think it's animated. I think it's a case of anything that could be perceived as real and is be supposedly an authority, let's say an a human realistic AI avatar of a doctor or a lawyer or of a finance expert giving you financial or medical advice, or I think a lawyer was another one, with when there are actually no credentials behind this this person. So I think if maybe maybe the the line is if the advice being given is coming from what is perceived to be an authority that could have life changing consequences, that may be the line. If it's somebody who's uh like just trying to educate you on something and like the facts are wrong, then maybe that is more uh I guess admissible or or acceptable. But again, I uh Travis, as I'm trying to explain this, because we can't we don't have core examples, we we just it just feels so muddy, doesn't it?

SPEAKER_00

The minute you start to go, okay, does it mean this? You go, wait a minute, that's done, right? Does it mean that it's funny the way that is? Um again, I think that they're being as clear as they can be without showing examples, and you can't really show examples because then you're like pointing out people on the platform. And again, this isn't what you can and cannot upload. Um, there's a whole section we're not going to watch where it talks about the difference between um, you know, YPP and then like uh things you can actually upload on on YouTube, and that's not what we're just talking about

What YouTube Claims Viewers Want

SPEAKER_00

monetization. Um, so let's real quick look at what the YPP, the YouTube partner program, their expectations are, and then maybe we can speak to that.

SPEAKER_01

Anyone can upload a video, uh, but not anybody can be in the YouTube partner program.

SPEAKER_03

Creators all start off as viewers. One of the reasons we want to be creators is because we love YouTube so much as viewers. And when we look at our own feeds, that's what we want. We want content that we know what channel it comes from. It couldn't be on a hundred other channels.

SPEAKER_01

Be original, uh authentic. Like users and viewers want to see original content, authentic content, content that's you know engaging, uh entertaining, educational. Um, it's not off-putting. I mean, that's what they want to see, and that's what we want.

SPEAKER_00

I gotta be honest. This is a bunch of generic words that in the end mean nothing. Um, but I understand why they say them because it is the answer. But it puts us right back to where people are like, well, what about my stuff? I'm authentic. I I edit, they think that authenticity maybe means that they edited it or something. Like, and that's not what he's saying, but it's a hard they are trying. Really? I'm gonna take my hat off that they actually got this guy on to actually ask and try to answer this. And in watching the video, you immediately think you understand. But the the minute you start to go, but does it mean this? I'm unsure. I'm unsure again.

SPEAKER_02

There is no TLDR version of this, unfortunately. And you do have to, and and I know we're kind of picking out the the nuances and the specifics here, but uh you do have to try and appreciate this from uh YouTube side, whereby there are billions of viewers, millions, possibly tens of millions of creators, uh billions of videos being uploaded on a what is it now? Probably a yearly basis. I think it's 20 20 million videos a m a day that are uploaded. How can you funnel every single one of those videos into uh uh monetizable or not monetizable?

SPEAKER_00

No, it's it's crazy.

SPEAKER_02

So I I appreciate the the difficulty that these two gentlemen have in trying to make something uh so layered and individualized to each creator mean sense to all of us at the same time.

SPEAKER_00

Yeah, I just be happy that I'm not the one working for YouTube trying to explain this to anyone because I would not do as good of a job as they do.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, yeah, you're absolutely right. Like I I think Rene does an incredible job. Oh, really? Um trying to communicate the corporate side of these decisions being made to the average creator who can have, I guess, uh some understanding of it and maybe a little bit of empathy as to why YouTube do it. Although I think very often that a patience runs out quite quickly.

SPEAKER_00

Yeah, it's um but I respect it. Let's let's see what they

The Animal Rescue Example Problem

SPEAKER_00

say. Here's some real world examples of off-putting content. So maybe this will be helpful.

SPEAKER_01

And that's what we want to uh monetize and provide an incentive for. When we say something is off-putting, what do we mean by that? Sure. I mean, we talk about unsatisfying or off-putting. Um, and maybe we give an example, yeah. Um, and or a couple examples. Like some of these videos you see and they show an animal in distress. And maybe uh there's this little story to it, but the core of the story is an animal in distress, and then someone comes and saves the animal. And if you have a channel that is uh, you know, has a lot of that content is sort of dedicated to that kind of emotionally distressing, manipulative content. Um, you know, we've heard from our viewers that that's I guess all the yeah, what if you have a dog rescue channel?

SPEAKER_02

What is it talking about? Emotionally distressing and manipulative. I guess who is the arbiter of that emotion? I and I I guess it's there must be a playbook, a rule book on this for YouTube internally to determine whether it is something that is just trying to gather up as many views as possible, or as you say, Travis, actually has some some core meaning and message and value to it for the viewer.

SPEAKER_00

Yeah, I I don't like this example. Um let me let me see what he how he finishes this.

SPEAKER_01

It's not something that they like, they find out putting, they don't want to come back to that channel, or maybe even the platform after seeing a number of those videos in the same channel.

SPEAKER_00

Okay, that part, that part I get. So what he's saying here is like maybe after a viewer seeing enough of these videos, they wouldn't want to come back. I disagree with that example because if you have a dog rescue channel, it that's exactly what it you just described, the dog rescue channel. And the end result is it gets a new owner, and that's great. What are you talking about? I would want to see more of that. So I I think maybe that example is poor, but the idea behind it, that that explanation at the end makes sense to me. It's video content that makes people want to leave YouTube and maybe not even come back to YouTube at all again, because maybe so gross or or so distressing or something like that.

SPEAKER_02

I I think you mentioned something there that's important. You know, we're we're we're predominantly looking at this from a creator's perspective, but I think what he described there was the viewer's interpretation, and he was saying things like, uh, this is off-putting, it's unsatisfactory, and after I've watched a few, I don't want to watch any more. I guess a thing there is that we will never see how that's measured. You know, presumably it's measured by filling out the what is it, a survey cards, a feedback cards, but also a lot of internal signals in terms of session watch time, like maybe a viewer watched five of these unsettling videos in a row, and then they didn't come back to the platform for an entire week. And and that could be a signal to YouTube that that particular content was not suitable for monetization.

SPEAKER_00

Again, that like on the surface, all this stuff makes sense. The way he said it makes sense. But the minute you think deeply about it, it's like that I don't get it. Um, let's see how he continues this conversation. Because this last part does make sense to me. Like, you make content that makes people not want to come back to the pro platform. That makes sense. That's like saying, um, come rent my house, uh, but make sure that no one ever wants to live there ever again. No, I don't want you to rent my house then, right? So it's the same idea. That totally makes sense. Um, but the example he gave, I don't think was a good one. Let's see.

SPEAKER_01

We'll remove that from YPP. We see the same thing with uh putting minors in distressing situations. They end up they might want to see it once, or they might follow the end of the video, but they don't want to see it over and over again. And so if we have channels that are doing that, uh, we'll remove them from YPP. Also Okay.

SPEAKER_00

That's a better example, I think. And I think more so the last thing he said was like, you might want to see it once, but then after that you're done. And I I understand that type of content. I actually get that. Um, there's movies like that, like the Saw series. I watched them, I'll never watch them again. I totally get it. That was the example that finally connected with me. That's the part I start to understand, like an invol like a type of video that might not be monetized or a channel that might not be monetized.

SPEAKER_02

I'm curious

AI Tools Are Not The Issue

SPEAKER_02

when he gives these examples, if um there is these are strongly evidenced videos from long form or short form. Because I feel as if sometimes, Travis, I've fallen into these um rabbit holes where I have seen some of these um it's for me, it's often connected to uh soccer stories, you know, like Ronaldo and Messi, who have just been AI generated to the empty group at this point. But they're they're either ill in bed or they're they're helping uh uh again an animated child get out of some situation of poverty or or or or realness, like and again, those can be just made so quickly for shorts. I I just don't know if that extends itself to long-form content and if the same examples could be used in that space.

SPEAKER_00

Well, what's interesting is that a lot of people think authentic inauthentic content is uh exclusively AI, and they kind of talk a little bit about this. And by the way, uh Rennie Richie, when he was on the podcast, pretty much said that's not the case. Let's get more details here.

SPEAKER_01

One thing I would say is that we are we're agnostic to where any tools that are used to create the content. Like if you make it with Gen AI, great. If you make it without Gen AI, that's great too. Any, you know, or any other tools in there, uh the our policies are independent of how the content is made.

SPEAKER_03

AI is revolutionizing so many things, including the scale, the volume, the velocity of how videos can be created. Is that part of the reason why you're clarifying these policies?

SPEAKER_01

Look, any new technology um creates all kinds of great opportunities, but can also create uh things that are you know not as great. And uh AI in particular, like, yeah, you can create a lot of content, you know, inexpensively and really fast. Um, and in the past, you know, we've looked at you know, mass production is usually kind of content farmy. Now uh AI can actually allow people to make a lot of videos. Sometimes those videos are great leveraging these tools, and it it really enhances creativity and you can create a higher volume of high quality content that we want to encourage and have in YPP.

SPEAKER_00

So, and now they're gonna show on YouTube, and I'll I'll let people watch the full video for that, where the example is they're putting they're using AI to like put these guys in these silly outfits and stuff, which is kind of funny to prove a point. But ultimately the takeaway from that is you can use AI, it's fine. That's not the reason why these things are happening. It's not the reason why uh a video or a channel might be demonetized specifically. Like that's not just the the only reason. It's these other reasons that they're talking about, and it just so happens that a lot of those channels are using AI. Is that the way you interpret that, Ron?

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, uh from my perspective, uh it it allows bad actors to do what they want to do more efficiently, a lot faster, and with no expense to themselves.

SPEAKER_00

Let's there's another really good thing here where they talk about the um the wrong tutorials. Oh, go ahead.

SPEAKER_02

First of all, I think we need to address this, uh Travis. If you just play for a moment and then and for the people who are watching the uh YouTube. Visual podcast, we can see what's going on here.

SPEAKER_01

Okay. But that exact same new tool can allow you to make lots of videos really quickly that are very similar. They're very generic and don't really have a narrative arc and don't really show your creativity.

SPEAKER_02

All right. So uh for audio listeners, uh, they just use Gen I uh they used AI to put themselves in lots of different fruit costumes, I think. And uh that makes me think, hang on, surely there's been some AI used

Confusion Over AI Disclosure Labels

SPEAKER_02

there. And if you just scroll down a little bit here on the uh the video, uh Travis, I'm not seeing an AI label here.

SPEAKER_00

Hey, that's good, you know.

SPEAKER_02

Hey, they were supposed to check mark the AI, I think we should definitely take that box. I'll message uh or did you need to tick that box? That's a that's a bit of a confusion with that tool. Like, if if any part of a video has AI in it, does that mean that the the entire video needs to be labeled as AI?

SPEAKER_00

Well, yeah, it's supposed to. Um it says that did you make something seem like it happened, it didn't happen. But then the question is realistic, didn't it? It did look as if they were just changing costumes. But then the question is this conversation, everything did happen, but they weren't actually wearing this, I guess. So then they should have they should have checked marked it, which I think is ironic that they did not.

SPEAKER_02

Go on, um, post a post a comment right now.

SPEAKER_00

Yeah, I know. Like, uh, did you check the AI?

The “Make This Trend” Tutorial Trap

SPEAKER_00

I'll probably just text uh Renee Richie on it. Um the tutorial thing I want to I want to go into this because this is an interesting subject that they talked about. Let's take a listen.

SPEAKER_03

Whether you use AI or not, whether you use CGI or not, conventional stock, any of those things, you still want to tell a great story. I mean, that's the essence of being a creator. You're sharing your personal voice, your personal vision. Uh, you're sharing hopefully an arc of stories over videos where there's a progression of your talent, your ability as a storyteller, and you can see the channel, you can become invested in the channel. And uh, I think that's the part that sometimes people feel is missing. There's suddenly 300, 3,000 identical videos, like cookie cutter videos up there.

SPEAKER_01

You know, sometimes we see tutorial videos uh on YouTube, and they'll say, Hey, there's this new trend, and it's a banana and it's a strawberry, and they're talking about stuff. And here, let me show you how to make that, and then you'll get in and make a bunch of money in YPP. And it's like, you know, if there's already a bunch of it out there, making the next one or the next channel that's making all the same kind of stuff is just, you know, it's generic, it's repetitive, um, and it's just too little variation and creativity within the channel, then the channel won't end up staying in YPP or it won't get in in the first place.

SPEAKER_00

And that's important because there are a lot of videos out there that go, this is the easiest way to get a monetized channel, just do this, this, this, and this. And they're now telling you pretty specifically, don't make it, because it probably won't get monetized. If it's if it's something that's super big, he actually says it in this interview, just don't even bother making it. So that's a really good takeaway from this video. It's very specific, it's very clear, and it's telling you if you make this type of content, you probably won't get monetized. I I take my hats off for being so uh transparent on that.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, I'm I'm gonna give you like I I don't know if you class this as an example or not, but what Dan and I have been seeing recently in channel audits is the emergence of uh these uh ranking uh compilation shots whereby it's uh funny moments of a basketball um exploding or pop in. And so they'll take five clips and then may they may put like uh a little bit of a clip in between the compilations so that there's quote unquote transformation going on there. Uh and I think we've seen at least two or three of them uh recently. And there must be a trend.

SPEAKER_00

It is, they haven't seen that does this.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, so so like you there are people who are maybe um suggesting that this is a good trend, this is a good format. There's probably going to be tutorials on that specific type of YouTube video to make. But then it sounds like what they're describing here is almost like a bit of a pyramid scheme. Like the people who were first and at the very top are gonna see some success uh with it. But then as that topic or format is completely flooded, then there's gonna be very quickly diminishing returns to the point where you get no return on investment because your channel never gets monetized or is demonetized.

SPEAKER_00

Yeah, that's that's an interesting takeaway because you're right. Uh I've actually been at been told that hey, that's what you should do, like on the side. Uh make a ranking shorts channel. And um, I mean it's it is transformative if you do it correctly, but it is just kind of it's kind of farmed content in a way. Um and it's very it's I wouldn't want to say it's low effort because you do have to put the edits in correctly and you do add sound effects and all these other things typically to make them. But by the same token, it's a it's a it's a money grab for sure. Like that's why you're making the content, you're not making it to be creative, you're making it to make money. Um and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that on the surface, but yeah.

SPEAKER_02

I'm trying to I'm trying to stay neutral. Uh uh other than like saying I've noticed this this emergence of this style of content, and then this person is basically saying, hey, if you see tutorials about a certain type of content making, you probably want to be cautious of it because um that's that's an area that's probably uh already been saturated.

Ranking Shorts And Pyramid Scheme Dynamics

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, one or two creators may have been really successful with this, but they're maybe offering an opportunity that no longer exists.

SPEAKER_00

Yeah. Yeah. Very interesting. The last part I want to go into that they cover is the mass flagging that we heard about uh a couple months ago. Let's let's take a listen to this.

SPEAKER_03

Sometimes creators also think that their competitors or just an upset viewer might hit that flag button over and over again and that will demonetize them or that will take their channel down.

SPEAKER_01

You know, that is one of many myths. Uh, and I can say, you know, with a 100% conviction, uh it's just not true. The number of flags that uh a video or a channel may get has nothing to do with how uh an evaluation is done of that channel. In this case, we're talking about YPP. You know, when we're when uh we look at a channel, um, we are literally comparing the content in the channel and the behaviors and the creative responsibility policy. We're comparing it to what is our guidelines are. And it doesn't matter if one person has flagged it or a thousand people have flagged it or our scale detection uh flagged it. It's it just doesn't matter. And you know, sometimes we make mistakes. And so there's an appeal avenue uh for creators. They have 21 days to appeal a suspension decision. Um, and then if it turns out no, you know, I've appealed, but we've decided it's still the right thing to do is to suspend based on the current content of the channel, people can reapply. Creators can reapply 90 days later. Uh, you know, we we hope that uh the creator will have uploaded new new content that is the kind of content that we want in the uh YouTube partner program. Uh and then maybe they've gotten rid of some of the content that they uh know is probably un you know undesirable for that program. And we evaluate with a fresh set of eyes. And I can tell you, people reapply um after nine days all the time, and lots of them get back in, and we're happy to have them back in.

SPEAKER_03

And this new language is supposed to help creators.

SPEAKER_00

I like that um they kind of because there's always been this myth like, oh, people are are coming after we see this in the live stream sometimes. I've seen people come in the live stream and say, Oh, these people are flagging my content, so now I don't get views, and now I'm being uh demonetized. And now we're hearing that. I mean, it's not to say that the flagging doesn't go to a team, obviously it does, otherwise it wouldn't exist, but they don't necessarily go, oh, this person got 10 flags, we gotta demonetize them. They look at it and say, Is this content uh of the the stature that they want? And if it is, all right, it doesn't matter if it has 10 flags

Mass Flagging Myth And Appeals

SPEAKER_00

or not. At least that's what I took away from that.

SPEAKER_02

Yeah, it sounds like it's not as weaponizable as copyright claiming and striking, which still seems to be under a lot of scrutiny as to how people use that. I'm not aware, I'm I'm sure that people have probably done tests on this to see if they can um uh exploit this. So it doesn't feel like a um a problem. Uh just going in into a little bit more of that conversation, uh you did mention about appealing and what I have again just seen anecdotally from the videos that have been published on YouTube is that people are are appealing and they never they they're not let back in, but as we've talked about so often already, Travis, like they're never given a clear reason as to why it's kind of going back to those broad um lines of dialogue as to why what inf inauthentic content is, not necessarily how that has been applied to my specific video or channel.

SPEAKER_00

And I have a uh help page here um that talks about because again, all this is about monetization and demonetization and all this other stuff. There's a help page for all this channel monetization policies.

SPEAKER_02

Um

The Help Page Examples That Clarify

SPEAKER_02

so I ask you to bring this up because uh if you look at the very top here, July the 15th, 2025, uh it it's talking about we are also renaming this policy from re repetitious content to inauthentic content, right? So that is when the when this phrase was first introduced. Yeah, almost a year ago to the day.

SPEAKER_03

Pretty much it's crazy. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02

So if you do control F for me, please, which is fine, hopefully on your computer. And then type in inauthentic. And hopefully it should be. I think we're already there, right? Just scroll back up a little bit. Uh, for those of you who are audio listeners, we are scrolling to a point in this document that says just a little bit further up. A little bit further up. Uh so now where it used to say inauthentic content, it's now uh these buckets, it has these three buckets instead, like generic or repetitive content, and then the one about um uh manipulative content, you know, uh um things in distress. Reuse content has been there for a while. And the next one is unsatisfy so that that I think I've not seen this wording before. Unsatisfying or off-putting content. It's probably been in this document uh in one sense or another, but it's not had its own section and it's been, I guess, you know, codified here in some examples which uh the VP went through as part of a discussion.

SPEAKER_00

Well, but there's examples here and stuff. So what is allowed to be monetized is important. What's important is the substance of the video feels original and pretends and provides satisfying experience for the viewer. Examples of what's it is allowed to be monetized, content with a cohesive storyline, it doesn't rely surely on shock value. Content that showcases your authentic perspective when building on a popular video format or theme, like a short that puts your own personalized spin on a trend. Content expresses again, here we go, unique creative voice. It utilizes creative tools to assist in delivering a unique, they like the word unique, well researched or creative narrative. Um, and they're even saying using AI and stuff, it's fine. But content that violate violates this guideline repeatedly uses a disturbing theme like violence or loss without a cohesive narrative. Now, here it's saying without a cohesive narrative. It's not saying you can't have things with violence or loss, it just says without building a cohesive narrative. So this is different than what he's doing. Yeah, that's what I was saying. Channels that rely heavily on generic templates or uh emotionally manipulated themes like a series showing repetitive scenarios of animals in exaggerated stress or peril. This is again different than what he said, because what he said was that at the end they get like rescued or something. That feels okay to me, but only showing them in the excess of distress or peril makes sense to me. Like you don't end it in like a happy way. Like it's not, I mean, I'm not saying you should always bring people up and down, but again, you could literally have a channel about pet rescue, which I think is a very substantially important um thing to have out there, and it would match that, but it wouldn't necessarily match this. This is showing like just destroy. See, this is actually a better explanation than I think we even got in the video. And then content that lacks a clear narrative or logical progression, such as videos that stitch together unrelated or inconsistent AI clips to surprise or shock viewers. Interesting. And then content that uses deceptive or misleading imagery or narratives, such as realistic visuals, tricking viewers and then believe in a fake celebrity death or a natural. Yeah, we know that one. We'll leave a link for this uh in the

Wrap Up And Viewer Questions

SPEAKER_00

in the description. I hope that y'all like this uh format.

SPEAKER_02

I think this is a cool format where we we dive deeper into something because I know you'll you'll probably make a video about this anyway, but like we can actually have a conversation in real time and go, what figure I'm worried about is um was this transformational enough, or did we just play too much of the uh clips without reaction reacting to the show? I think it is.

SPEAKER_00

I've talked to enough copyright lawyers, I feel good. I feel good about it. I feel 100% about it. Um, and if you feel good about it, let me know in the comments below. Do you like this format? If so, uh great, we'll do more of it and also tell us what you think about what YouTube has done. We'll leave a link uh for that video in the description as well. Um, thank you, Rob, for joining me today. If you're new here, feel free to feel free to hit that subscribe button. I got another video for you right here. We'll see y'all in the next one.