- So as of the making of this video in September 2020,
YouTube has a new major change to the platform.
Now, while this isn't necessarily a YouTube policy change,
YouTube is expanding the way that its machine learning,
its algorithm actually categorizes
mature content on YouTube.
And so this is going to involve age restrictions
for mature content that is suited to an audience over 18.
And as usual, whenever these major platform issues happen
and there are changes,
content creators get a little bit nervous.
So today we're gonna answer all your questions
about these new changes
and how mature content is handled on the platform,
what these age restrictions mean for you.
And so let's jump into the video.
Hey everybody, this is Roberto Blake
helping you create something awesome today.
Welcome back to the channel.
So for the new people here, my name's Roberto Blake.
I'm a creative entrepreneur, public speaker,
and here on YouTube I teach you how to monetize
and market yourself.
So if you're into that, make sure you subscribe.
Today we are talking about a new change to YouTube,
yes, another one in 2020,
and this one is around the concept of age-restricted content
and how things have changed on YouTube.
And there are some specific ways this could impact you
as a content creator.
So I want to answer the main questions
I know you're gonna have.
Is this going to affect your views
and your video performance?
How is this going to affect YouTube monetization
and how you get paid as a content creator?
How can you appeal this if the YouTube algorithm manages
to get it wrong somehow
and flags your video incorrectly?
How is age-restricted content different from COPPA
and what we saw with children's programming on YouTube?
And then of course finally
what does this mean for the future of the YouTube platform?
I'm gonna take these one at a time,
so let's go ahead and get to the first one.
How does this affect you and your video performance
as a YouTube content creator?
When it comes to these age-restricted videos
it's talking about content that it feels isn't suitable
for people under 18 on the platform.
Typically this is your usual suspects.
It's your usual suspects in terms of extreme profanity,
nudity, suggestive topics,
anything that is overly sexual in nature,
and anything that might be also realistic violence
rather than fantasy violence.
I think most people,
at least people who aren't making
bad faith arguments can agree that this is content
that you probably would want to make sure
that people under the age of 18
that, you know, minors probably aren't watching on YouTube.
And with a very large portion of the viewing audience
of YouTube being people under 18,
it means that content
that fits this criteria would simply get less views.
It would get less distribution.
Age-restricted and age-gated content is
a little bit of a mystery on YouTube.
Now while I do believe
the community guidelines aren't really that vague
and a lot of people disagree with me on this,
but I would say that they're a lot more clear
and a lot more lenient than most of the HR policies
at any place I ever used to work at.
They're probably more lenient
than the student code of conduct
at any school you've probably attended.
So I really don't think
that YouTube's overall policies are that bad
when I compare it to what it'd be like
to look at a regular employment contract.
A lot of those things are really strict
and you'd be shocked
what's in most people's employment agreements.
It seems like a topic for another video.
But my point is that the age-restricted content,
we don't know a lot about how that content is treated
currently in YouTube systems
but we do know that results in less views on the platform.
I do know that when I've talked to some of my clients,
I have coaching clients that I've done
YouTube channel reviews with them.
When we've looked at content that has been age restricted
that we know doesn't show up
in restricted mode in YouTube,
when we've looked at the impressions
and distribution of that content,
whenever it gets hit with that, we've seen it flatline.
And I've seen that time and time again
and it's been pretty consistent.
Now some people have asked
why can't YouTube just put a warning label
or put kind of like one of those like PG-13 ratings
or something like that across the videos.
And while I think that would be great,
I don't think it actually addresses a lot of the main issues
because a lot of times YouTube doesn't just do these things
because it wants to.
I actually feel that a lot of this is trying to comply
with certain regulations or laws that have come forward.
And so when you're in that situation,
sometimes those kinds of solutions just aren't going to meet
the legal mandate.
Another thing that's gonna happen to these videos
that are restricted is they won't be viewable
in embedded websites without someone logging in
and verifying their age.
And the verification aspect of it is
the really interesting thing that leads me to believe
that this has to do with some of the regulations
that we see coming forward with social media as a whole.
I think that we're in for more of this.
I've alluded to this before
whenever we've talked about COPPA here on YouTube,
and I've just talked about my general concerns
about government regulation of the social media platforms.
You saw a lot of what happened
with the involvement with the government and TikTok.
And so here we are again.
Let's talk about YouTube monetization.
When it comes to YouTube monetization,
this is how a lot of content creators make their living
here on the platform.
So there's a lot of concerns that this will be impacted.
And according to the policy changes that we see,
if you are age restricted in terms of this content,
you're likely going to receive limited or no ads
which means essentially you're going to be demonetized
on those particular videos.
And this is very concerning because of the fact
that content creators make a living
usually off of their YouTube ad revenue.
Another reason a lot of content creators are concerned
about this is because they tend to rely on their ad revenue
if not for the majority of their income,
from a sizable chunk if it
particularly if they are doing what can be considered edgy
or borderline content
just because they don't have as many revenue streams
for that content.
They don't have sponsors as easily lined up
and so on and so forth.
So this really feels like a crackdown
for those type of content creators,
and those feelings are valid
but I don't think that's really the intent here.
I just think that it's an unintended consequence.
There'll be people who will argue
that it's a feature, not a bug.
I think that those are bad faith arguments.
I think that the more hands off these platforms could be
the more they would like to be.
I don't really think
that anybody relishes micromanaging that much.
In my opinion, the bottom line here is
that edgy and borderline content is just going to be less
and less profitable as time goes on
because we're going to see more platform crackdowns.
We're gonna see the platforms become a lot more
risk adverse and conservative.
And we also are probably going to see more regulations
influence social media platforms as times go on.
And this is not gonna be limited
to larger publicly-traded companies.
It's gonna be across the board
because it's gonna come from governments,
whether it's the U.S or whether it's anybody else
in the international community,
you're going to see this happen as a trend now
that the boomer generation takes social media seriously
and recognizes its legitimacy.
Now with regard to the appeals process,
what do you do when YouTube gets this wrong?
And make no mistake,
they're anticipating mistakes happening
and I think that they should.
In general, machine learning is
never going to be 100% reliable.
And when it does become 100% reliable,
well, it's probably gonna get rid of all of us.
And on that day I just want our robot overlords
to remember my loyal service to the empire
and that I've been on their side this entire time.
Skynet be praised.
But in all seriousness,
the appeals process for this is something
that is really important to take note of.
Now, YouTube has said that in the case of these appeals
that they will be done by human reviewers and not bots,
not the algorithms,
but the initial flagging is going to be done
by the algorithm.
So just kind of keep that in mind
and take that with a grain of salt.
And also a human reviewer doesn't necessarily guarantee
a better outcome.
You're still relying on that person's individual judgment
and sense of nuance.
A lot of creators have argued
that they want and insist upon absolute human reviewers
and moderators for everything.
That's not realistic.
There are 500 hours of content uploaded to YouTube
every minute of every day,
I think is the statistic we're seeing.
So I'm really not seeing how that's possible.
500 hours of content uploaded every minute of every day.
That's not possible.
That's not scalable.
There are too many people on this platform
to make human reviewers a realistic thing
for every issue that creators have.
And I know why people think that that would be an answer,
but also human beings are flawed and they can be biased.
Or sometimes you could just get somebody
who's having a bad day
or someone who's not good at their job.
In a weird way, to be honest with you,
I trust machines more. (laughs)
Again, you hear that, Skynet?
I trust machines more.
What I would like to see YouTube implement is
if you're going to have human reviewers and moderators
at some point in the process,
I would like them to also leave their operating number
so that there's a way to trace this
and tie back accountability
and so we as content creators can actually feel
like there was a human being involved in the process
and that we have some method of recourse
when we say hey, this wasn't right
or we still don't agree with this review.
Could you look into and check this
with reviewer number 55187?
I think just having
a reviewer operating number would be good.
This is actually standard operating procedure
at a lot of companies
and a lot of call centers where customer service is done,
so I don't see a reason they can't implement that.
And I think that it would just be
one more layer of transparency with the community.
I understand that they don't want to reveal
the overall process for reviews and moderation.
They feel that bad actors could abuse that.
I'm trying to figure out in what ways they could
and if there's any way to just be transparent
about the process without revealing proprietary information
'cause I just feel like that would go a long way
with the community.
There's a lot of distrust.
And so I think when you can be transparent,
it eliminates a lot of those problems or assumptions.
Not all of them, but enough of them.
I do want to point out that I think it's important
to also protect employee privacy for a lot of reasons,
but the reality is that there are people in the community,
hopefully not in my community
but maybe some people who don't typically watch the channel
who are subscribed here and those people know who they are,
there's a lot of trash people who go onto Twitter
and harass YouTube employees at every turn
every time they have an issue.
And if you're doing that, my opinion,
you're a piece of garbage.
Yeah, I said it.
Sorry, not sorry.
So how is this different than COPPA?
Well, COPPA, the Children's Online Privacy
and Protection Act, that had to do with children under 13.
This is pertaining to individuals under 18.
And one of the key differences here is
that this content would be restricted from people under 18
whereas any content that's classified
as children's programming under COPPA is still accessible
to everyone on the platform.
It just loses some features.
The thing that these both have in common however is
the fact that they would be negatively impacted
in terms of views and discoverability
but in very different and specific ways.
And the thing is, again, any content creators
that are either creating children's programming
or programming that is explicitly for an audience over 18
for the reasons that we talked about earlier,
I think these content creators obviously are going to see
a significant drop in views,
a significant drop in ad revenue,
and that will feel disproportionate and unfair.
And those feelings from those creators are valid.
So what are my final thoughts on all this?
I don't think there's a single content creator
who is cheering for this decision,
but I also think the majority
of content creators aren't going to be affected by it.
The people who are affected by it have every reason
to be upset about this.
And also we'll have to wait
and see how accurate the system plays out.
I know a lot of people have a bad taste in their mouth
about the YouTube AI, the algorithms,
but ultimately the machine learning on YouTube
at least from a viewer's perspective gets more right
than wrong when it comes to the viewers,
and the viewers come first more than anything.
On top of that, for most content creators
it's not been this negative crucible
when it comes to YouTube.
It is specific content creators that this ends up impacting.
And it ends up being a large number of them,
but percentage-wise, not so much.
And this still matters.
I'm not saying it doesn't matter
because it is a smaller percentage of creators.
That's still thousands upon thousands of creators
affected by this.
Some people, it's their livelihoods.
I don't believe in relying on this platform.
I don't believe in relying on any of the platforms.
The platforms aren't loyal.
Why are you?
So I really think from a business perspective,
always diversify and never rely
on a single stream of income period.
I also don't see a future
where these platforms become more open, more free,
and less restricted,
and I don't see that in a world
where the federal government actually cares
about social media.
In the days gone by, the wild, wild West,
it was largely because people ignored us that were older
and of that generation.
And so it wasn't taken seriously.
Social media was considered a fad that would go away,
a trend that wouldn't last,
and so no one really bothered
to try to come up with legislation for it.
That has since changed in the last few years.
And so I think that the creators who can adapt
to that reality and a reality where these restrictions
and laws and rules are going to happen,
I think that those creators will survive
and ultimately find a way to win, find a way to thrive.
I think people who feel alienated
and disenfranchised by some of this tightening
of the rules and being forced to color within the lines,
I think that they're gonna feel more constricted
and more restrained as time goes on
in terms of what they can and cannot do
and still be profitable on the platforms.
There will be a place for them on these platforms.
There will be a demand for that content.
There will be viewers who want those things.
It's just not necessarily going to be as practical
or profitable to make those things.
And I don't really see an answer to it.
I do know that there are other platforms that are coming up,
but when it comes to the idea
that eventually it's gonna be regulations
just like any other industry, I don't know
that creator-first platforms have any advantages.
If anything, I would argue they have disadvantages
because they wouldn't have the ability to lobby legislators
the way that a conglomerate does.
Anyway, that's just kind of my thought
from the business side of it.
But what do you think is going to happen?
Do you think that this is going to be a nothing burger
or do you think that this is serious?
Do you think it's the end of the platform?
Let me know in the comment section.
Anyway, like this video if you like it.
Don't forget to subscribe.
Check out the other awesome content here on the channel.
As always, you guys, thanks so very much for watching.
And don't forget, go out there
and create something awesome today.
Hopefully it doesn't get age restricted.
Take care.
(hip hop music)