Class action lawsuit?

If they are active, then allow the clause sure.

Also let's point out, that during the News in many's of our countries ad's play after "sensitive" topics are reported on.

YouTube did this censorship because they were simply desperate to retain advertising companies and to cover up the fact they f'ed up time and time again.

There's a case here somewhere for sure, but we'll need the funds, correct backing & for it not to be in California where YT's based.

Where'd you get that figure from?

Anyways apparently, YT lost 2BN dollars last year.

Very interesting to hear about this man, look forward to reading the published version. As it's something people would prob want to hear about.

YT, answered a reply to that on "Creator Insider" with "It's for future ecosystem on YT". Ironically this is helping to actually kill it off, given how they deleted a billion possible dollars off.

As for the out costs, apparently they have been spending it on either has been/famous people to make shows for them(like Netflix for example). Or burn money on trash like this it seems for it's failed YT Red system.


So that might answer part of the question and yes mismanagement is another reason.

Just one more question, how many partners roughly are there above the monetization threshold, while we're on the topic of it?

Some points here for consideration -
As far as I'm aware, a class action law suit or its like, would require proving a loss / harm had been done. Considering that all YT users have agreed to the terms set out by YT upon creation of a channel, this would pretty much throw out the idea, as no loss could likely be proven, and no harm is being done (YT doesn't harm anyone physically as far as I'm aware).

Non monetised channels have no loss, as they weren't promised anything, and de-monetised channels, have simply had their agreement revoked by YT - something that YT clearly stipulates it can and will do, that every YT channel creator has already agreed to upon "applying" for partnership / a YT channel. Proving any loss here would be highly difficult in my opinion of it.

From the YT partnership agreement FAQ, they clearly stipulate that such things are completely at their discretion, by use of wording like  - "If it's determined that your channel is no longer eligible for monetisation, your channel will lose access to all monetisation tools and features associated with the YouTube Partner Programme."

YT has made no claim to offer your channel to the public in a non-biased way, in the YT Partnership agreement, there is no stipulation or clause that grants such things to you, thus currently, they simply do not have to - and you've already agreed to this by agreeing to the terms of the agreement.

One YT channel is not equal to the other - regardless of stats for that channel. One creator will offer content that will be absorbed by millions of people, another will offer content that will be absorbed by nobody. This is akin to posting your advertisements on a main-street billboard, or a bathroom wall. They have every right to make this distinction and act accordingly. It is a fallacy that all YT channels are created equally, and as YT is currently only answerable to the people whom pay them (not the people whom get paid by them), the private companies wishing to utilise the YT platform as a tool to market and advertise - choose to place their advertisements on the billboards, not the bathroom walls, and fair enough too.

If I was a company wishing to use an advertising company (Google), I would expect my money to be well spent, and not ripped off.

The current reality is - that YT / Google does not work for you, it works for money - for profit - and you aren't paying them anything, they are paying you (if you are getting some).

That all being said - I'm completely for renegotiating the partnership agreement with YT in to a form that will best suit all parties for the future to come, just that I don't reasonably expect YT to behave as if they have done something wrong - end of the day, it was each and every creator's responsibility to read their agreement, then choose to agree to it - if people didn't like the terms that they were explicitly agreeing to - they should have spoken up before agreeing, rather than agreeing then complaining as if they never agreed to it!

So yes, I think the current partnership agreement, leaves creators out in the cold for their efforts, however, if I was a company wishing to advertise on the platform (pay your revenue), I would expect my advertisements placed on the channels with the most potential to be seen by my target audience, not just any old channel lucky dip style. Considering that they (the companies advertising) - pay you, and if they weren't there, you wouldn't be getting paid at all, then I would consider them more of a priority than any given channel creator - as I presume YT does as well.

In short -
Unbiased placement of advertisements on all channels equally - I highly doubt it.
Class action suing for loss - I highly doubt it.
YT becoming less strenuous about whom they monetise - I highly doubt it.

Creators negotiating a slightly better agreement (at least better than the current) - I sure hope so.