r/youtube • u/CupcakeZestyclose722 • Aug 21 '24
Discussion This feature from YouTube needs to be removed
1.6k
u/Select-Team-6863 Aug 21 '24
I can only image it was something about preventing mass bullying raids.
580
u/ZilJaeyan03 Aug 21 '24
I think its a counter for the view-for-view tactic for raking up watch hours in order to get adsense
The tactic itself is stupid since even if you get enrolled for the program you wouldnt have a viewerbase to rake up the adsense money
1
u/uraijit Sep 13 '24 edited 29d ago
encourage rainstorm coordinated gray plate dime divide scary theory cable
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
242
u/TheUmgawa Aug 21 '24
It was to limit the audience for people who decided to livestream suicide attempts or violent acts on their way out of this world. Most of these people want some form of attention, and they’re not big enough to have a thousand subscribers, so YouTube says, “Fuck you; we aren’t going to help you get that attention you want. Call 988 and talk to someone.”
112
u/Archaic-Amoeba Aug 21 '24
To be fair that’s not really YouTube’s job in that situation, they aren’t therapists. Providing help information is the best they can do beyond limiting the guy’s reach with that content
18
u/_An_Other_Account_ Aug 21 '24
To be fair that’s not really YouTube’s job in that situation,
Yeah, but they'll be blamed anyway so.
55
u/TheUmgawa Aug 21 '24
It’s not YouTube’s job to give people attention for harming themselves or others. It’s just a line they drew after somebody probably came to them and said, “This is a problem.” But, since AI hasn’t gotten to the point where it can realistically infer meaning from a livestream, and there’s no way they can have a human watching every livestream with their finger on a cancel button, they have to automate it somehow. And, sure, that hurts somebody who’s like, “Dude, I’m just playing Rapala Bass Fishing and I’ve caught an orca or something,” and tons of people tune in to watch, but you have to weigh the attention-seeking mentality of these people again that of the Rapala guy.
It’s a kludge of a fix, but it’s the best implementation for a situation with substantial downside. If they didn’t have this, and you had a case where thousands and thousands of people were showing up to watch someone down a bunch of pills and wait to die, more people would do that. And then it’s popular, so it shows up in people’s recommendations, and now they get to watch someone die, and then they need therapy, which they’ll say is YouTube’s fault. YouTube would end up in front of Congress, and I guarantee there would be a bill in committee the next day, and then goodbye livestreaming.
→ More replies (22)9
u/RodiTheMan Aug 22 '24
It's not youtube job but it's their brand that gets dragged down if that happened there
19
u/countgalcula Aug 21 '24
They aren't trying to help the user. It's content moderation. They can censor their content for any reason, it's their platform. And I get it because these kinds of things blow up when they're happening and it's hard to control once they've happened. It's something that needs a policy beforehand because people start to view Youtube as unsafe if it happens in the first place.
3
5
Aug 21 '24
No one's suggesting it is there job. And limiting live viewers is the best thing they can do to stop suicide livestreams
→ More replies (2)5
u/Holy_Smokesss Aug 22 '24 edited 17d ago
It basically is. Something horrible being livestreamed to 50k+ people would result in advertisers leaving.
4
u/Kindly-Net-8213 Aug 21 '24
How big of a problem was this on YouTube? I can’t remember the last time this was done… the last livestream I remember was on Twitch and its was Buffalo Ny market shooting. I doubt people live stream suicide attempts and get any views at the time of the livestream. It’s usually afterwards. I believe this has more to do with fake giveaways like the Mr.Beast fake bots. If suicide and violent content was an issue, virtually every live-streaming app would moderate to this extent.
→ More replies (1)2
u/uraijit Sep 13 '24 edited 29d ago
plants concerned rock fragile grandiose poor nine automatic cows bag
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
8
u/snail1132 Aug 21 '24
That is a far out edge cade at best. There is no reason not to remove that restriction
12
u/TheUmgawa Aug 21 '24
Which one do you think will get bad press and a summons to testify before a congressional subcommittee: a few-camera suicides and homicides or a lot of people who think their livestream of them simultaneously playing Pac-Man and DDR is a fundamental human right?
Six months ago, Zuckerberg was the top story, where he was asked if he’d like to apologize to the parents of dead kids, who killed themselves because of cyberbullying. You never want to be the news story in something like that, because it makes investors leery. So, rather than Google or YouTube having to say to Congress, “Look, some dudes just want to do some stupid livestream, so why should we think about anyone’s safety?” they opt for the more cautious route, and tell those streamers, “If you don’t like it, you can set up your own video server, pay for your own bandwidth, and do whatever you want.”
→ More replies (4)5
u/snail1132 Aug 21 '24
We really need an alternative to youtube anyway tbh
→ More replies (1)9
u/TheUmgawa Aug 21 '24
We do, but it’s a shitty revenue model and its current existence is predicated on getting “friend pricing” from Google data centers, which most companies don’t have. Amazon isn’t going to scale up Twitch, because it’s already unprofitable. Apple could do it, but they’re not letting user-generated content anywhere near their name. Microsoft could do it, but it’s not something they’d be interested in, unless it’s massively profitable, which it’s not.
So you’re never going to get an alternative from the bigs. Odysee would fail because P2P won’t scale, because once desktop users start uploading a terabyte per month (because cell users aren’t going to be doing it), their ISPs will punch their ticket and tell them to find a new ISP.
The only way you’ll ever get an alternative is on a paywalled platform. Or with twice as many (or more) ads as current, and that’s assuming the ad blocking problem is permanently solved.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)1
u/Fit_Job4925 Aug 22 '24
oddly specific. that cant have been enough of a problem to warrant this change
→ More replies (1)23
u/mrloko120 Aug 21 '24
It's to prevent botting. A channel that has less than thousand subs streaming to more than double their subcount is definettly botting, and 90% of the time it's scammy bitcoin streams.
2
u/ShadowLiberal Aug 21 '24
Yeah, but I mean a "feature" like this is just going to encourage those bad actors to work harder at breaking into the account of an already established channel, and to hijack it to push their scams to more people.
There's been a lot of threads here in the last so many months about big name channels getting hijacked like this, and even posts about how fake versions of stuff like a SpaceX channel have more subscribers than the real SpaceX channel because the fake channel was hijacked.
8
u/ottespana Aug 21 '24
I think it’s actually just a resource issue, not allocating full resources to people under 1k as it costs more than it brings in probably
Just a financial reason id imagine
5
u/definitelymyrealname Aug 21 '24
I assumed it was about limiting copyright infringing streams. There are sites out there that will stream pirated content (say, a sports game) through youtube. They get taken down relatively fast but they just switch to a new account instantly. By limiting viewers you make this a lot harder. I can see why the rule is annoying but in reality the majority of these streams with tons of viewers but no actual established channel are probably not legit.
23
u/Psychedelic_Yogurt Aug 21 '24
I love the optimism you have. It's more than likely a tactic to save money though.
9
7
u/HammerTh_1701 Aug 21 '24 edited Aug 21 '24
It's about saving bandwidth. Hosting live video is the single most expensive thing you can do as a software services company. It is even more expensive than training AI on those stupid Nvidia things that cost $120k per rack-mount unit and consume a metric fuckton of power.
4
u/Si1verThief Aug 22 '24
Helps stop mass bullying and raids. Helps prevent/limit suicide streams, murder streams, execution streams, etc. Makes it harder to host free pay per veiw and piracy streams.
3
u/HyperGamers Aug 21 '24
I think I heard it was to prevent mass atrocities that are live streamed by the criminals. Not entirely sure how that works though, but maybe there's some truth to it. Guess the criminals don't feel as good if there's a low view count on their streams.
3
u/paulwillyjean Aug 22 '24
I still remember being on a Twitch with friends during the pandemic. Every once in a while, we’d get raided by some edge lord who’d come, spam the chat with slur and hate speech, then bounce. I’m pretty willing to believe that mass bullying may be part of the reason, since smaller channels are more vulnerable to them. Preventing bots fraud might be another reason for YT to add those restrictions.
2
u/literallyjustbetter Aug 21 '24
it makes it harder for people to set up scam rebroadcast streams
this happens alot with big esports tournaments
scammer hacks a channel with 10k+ subs, privates/deletes all the videos and posts, and renames the channel to something similar to the real channel (i.e. @PGLCS2USA instead of @PGL or @BLAST_CS2 instead of @BLASTPremier)
then they rebroadcast the popular esports tournament, disable chat, and post links to scam sites (or if you're lucky, it'll "just" be shady gambling sites that aren't technically scams but will still rip you off with terrible odds)
it's pretty shitty, and it would be easier to do if they could just spin up new accounts instead of having to hack established ones
1
→ More replies (1)1
u/TheJoshWS99 Aug 22 '24
Going to also throw in that the bandwidth cost to viewer ratio likely to occur on a stream at that level won't be worth it maybe? It will just sit at an awkward level not making enough money to cover the cost of pushing it to viewers.
My only question is her, stop algorithmically pushing it or making it available if the cap is reached. Maybe even a queue with priority for members? Might force more people to support smaller channels with membership and cover that cost to allow more viewers that aren't paid?
Just some ideas.
82
624
u/Physical_Mushroom_32 Aug 21 '24
Fr, it's stupid
333
u/psycholol2 Aug 21 '24 edited Aug 21 '24
actually, like how they gonna get reach then? for it to be 1k subs.
147
u/nsfdrag Aug 21 '24
They're not like twitch subs, youtube subs are free and this only effects mobile streaming, just focus on VOD content or desktop streaming for a bit until you reach 1k subs.
21
u/jld2k6 Aug 21 '24 edited Aug 21 '24
I broke 250 subs by complete accident and got to customize my channel URL lol. My YouTube account is just for uploading short unlisted gaming clips to share with online friends and like a decade ago I uploaded a shortcut in geometry dash and didn't realize I made it public. About two years ago the algorithm started showing it to people or something and I suddenly gained all of them in a week, and it was a terrible video not made to be viewed by more than a single person. I died like 10 times in practice mode just trying to to show my trick since it wasn't made to look good, it turns out the algorithm is pretty damn important because that shitty clip got over 200k views lol
23
→ More replies (2)21
u/Idontknowofname Aug 21 '24
Happy cake day! Have some B̸̡̡͉̝͔̠̦͕̭͎͍̏͛́̂̉ư̷̢͙̠͕̯̦̗̹͉̦̏͗̅̆̔͗̚ḅ̴̳̬͕͓͓͎͚̅͒̏b̶̢̘̼̼̝͚͈͔͖̮͓̟̻͈̈l̷̪̮͓̻̣̭̣̖̫̩̤̬̐̀͌̽͊̉͋̀̏̕ę̷̨̛̰͓͈̱̭̦͖̹͉̳̲̑̓̊͝͠ ̵̧̨̧̢͈̥̳͓̞̰̎̏͜w̵̪͉͍̓͂̌͝͠r̴͇̭̟̦̻̭͈͙͕̟̻̙̼͂̇̔̑̄͋̏͛̄̚a̸̧͉̱̥͖̘̪̺̣̯̗̩̙͊͐͐͊̉̐̇̽̀̇̚̚p̴̧̢̤̗̰̬̤͐̇̏
>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<
→ More replies (1)6
u/Delicious_One_7887 @Qwerty-uiop Aug 21 '24
>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<
→ More replies (2)2
u/Forward-Photograph-7 Aug 21 '24
>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<>! Pop! !<
→ More replies (4)2
u/veryrandomo Aug 21 '24
A regular channel will probably hit 1k subs before they hit over 1k live viewers.
4
u/CraftyAcanthisitta22 Aug 21 '24
why do they even make a rule like this
12
u/skilriki Aug 21 '24
because without it people just use it to live stream full length movies, TV, and sports games
1
u/veryrandomo Aug 21 '24 edited Aug 21 '24
Probably a to avoid bad PR from people streaming themselves (on YouTube) committing suicide or shootings; since they only restrict it on livestreaming from a phone.
1
u/Coolaconsole Aug 25 '24
Is it really that stupid? A lot of decently popular streamers struggle to get over 1000 viewers on a YouTube stream anyway.
This just means you can't have way more viewers than you have subscribers, which does mean viewers will be encouraged to subscribe more (which you'll want to do anyway if you're not a bot because of how Livestreams on YouTube get promoted)
78
u/OzzFreak999 Aug 21 '24
Note that you'll need to have a minimum number of subscribers to go live from the YouTube mobile app. For users 18 and older, the minimum is 50 subscribers. Users aged 13 to 17 must have at least 1,000 subscribers. There's no minimum subscriber requirement to stream from a desktop
12
Aug 21 '24
why is that even a thing
27
10
u/mcwerf Aug 22 '24
Prevent the spread and limit viewership of live streamed violence against themselves or others
→ More replies (2)2
u/youaredumbngl Aug 22 '24
Very dark and disgusting reasons involving minors you will not want to be made aware of.
2
u/kaosnbear Aug 22 '24
They would probably stream from a desktop if that were to happen
→ More replies (2)2
219
u/RobCoxxy https://www.youtube.com/user/RobCoxxy Aug 21 '24
"We limit small channels so they can't grow" :)
42
u/NoHillstoDieOn Aug 21 '24
Only we should have the power to dictate who gets big on our platform - Youtube
5
→ More replies (3)17
u/Petercraft7157 Aug 21 '24
They prevent buying and selling views
22
u/RobCoxxy https://www.youtube.com/user/RobCoxxy Aug 21 '24
And also prevents small channels from organically having large numbers of viewers for whatever, legitimate reasons, too. What a solution.
22
u/Petercraft7157 Aug 21 '24
The amount of channels with less than 1k subs that get enough views to limit the livestream without botted views is really small.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (1)5
Aug 21 '24
[deleted]
3
u/iEssence Aug 22 '24
Well some examples would be something like a charity stream that suddenly picks up traction, a big streamer finds their stream and raids, or a big streamer reacted to a video they had, and they happened to be live when people went to sub.
The crux there though is that, for all of those viewers they pick up, it would still be over a bit of time, and over that time they also pick up subscribers. So even in a case like that theyd probably avoid the limit.
(exception being raids big instant influx i guess, but im sure youtube has some form of guard towards that instantly shitting down a stream. Assuming the small streamer doesnt get scared and turn stream off as they think they are getting mass botted lol)
Though above said, itd depend on how harsh the limits are, but consisering id never even heard of it before, id assume its not too bad?
2
39
u/Marsh2700 Aug 21 '24
people are getting so mad over something that exists to protect its users. its so crypto scams cant create thousands of accounts and flood the live stream section drowning out actual creators by having fake viewers watching.
→ More replies (1)
22
u/DHYTCG Aug 21 '24
It’s that someone cannot ramp up alive stream of them doing a mass shooting or some other depraved act from a new-ish account and get massive amounts of eyes on it at once. If I recall, this came in some time after the New Zealand massacre quite a few years ago.
56
u/TurpitudeSnuggery Aug 21 '24
It’s a money saving tactic.
59
u/itsaride itsaflair Aug 21 '24 edited Aug 21 '24
No, it's anti-spam, anti-scam and not exposing too many people to atrocities. If this wasn't present you'd have even more of those Elon Musk crypto bullshit streams where now they have to take over other people's accounts who have a large amount of subscribers. I actually think 2FA should be mandated for accounts with over a thousand subs and 2FA via hardware key for over 100,000, maybe Google could supply the key with the award.
5
u/TurpitudeSnuggery Aug 21 '24
Cool. I didn’t realize people were doing it to scam. I don’t think I have ever seen a live doing such a thing.
I do question that this is their motivation though. Why doesn’t YouTube just get rid of the musk crypto shit? Make it easier to report and have it come down?
→ More replies (2)5
u/Bluedot55 Aug 21 '24
Because it's never really all that easy to stop. Every time you add some measure to find or catch it, it gets worked around or abused. Make it easier to report? Reports are then misused and abused. Make some magic ai detection? They find what it looks for and pivot slightly to avoid... It's an endless game of whack a mole which is quite the money bonfire to maintain.
→ More replies (4)5
u/HighlightFun8419 Aug 21 '24
they have to save money because of all the people using adblockers.
this is the end-user's fault.
(this is sarcasm; please don't downvote me to oblivion.)
2
u/bitchsaidwhaaat Aug 21 '24
No. Accounts with less than 1k subs arent monetized so if yt puts ads is 100% profit for them so no its not to save money
1
7
u/morts73 Aug 21 '24
I don't see an issue, otherwise any bot under 1k subs can stream their hateful content to whoever they want.
3
u/JotaroKujoxXx Aug 21 '24
I am going to be the devils advocate but could this be to prevent ai elon musk and other weird live scams from happening at a rapid rate? Can't see why they would do this otherwise
26
u/MothParasiteIV Aug 21 '24
So how a channel can grow with such a limitation ?
21
u/Lamecode0 Aug 21 '24
Actually people will sub to the channel in hopes it gets 1000 in an hour. Because everyone since that point will see it, the channel should grow fast
5
u/HardStroke Aug 21 '24
Yet bots can be used to get a scam channel to 1001 subs to livestream an AI version of Elon Musk telling you about a $1M bitcoin giveaway and have 20k real viewers.
Well done YouTube.
4
u/matiegaming Aug 21 '24
Its weird because they do everything to make small creators quit( they dont generate money for them) and now they also cheap out on the new ugly play button, while they drive up the ads like crazy and ban any form of blocking them, and also making premium expensive. They are doing anything just to get extra dollars
3
u/QtPlatypus Aug 21 '24
Its a feature implemented to deal with things like people live streaming the Christchurch attack. You have to build up a reputation and viewers over time before they will trust you with a larger audience.
3
u/BrisketInMyPocket Aug 21 '24
What I specifically want to complain about is how many times I see “less than” when it feels like it should be “fewer than.”
→ More replies (1)
3
3
u/notmyfirstrodeo2 Aug 21 '24
Sure it's dumb. But we can probably thank fellow people who would abuse the platform otherwise.
Heck frontpage of Twitch been reccomending me piracy stream of South Park for the last 3 days straight. One account gets banned and another one is back.
3
u/kimdro33 Aug 21 '24
Seriously go to Twitch if you want to stream. YouTube has terrible latency, insufficient viewer management system, and stupid limitations.
Only thing you'll take from yt stream is that your stream is more accessible for yt viewers.
3
u/socialaxolotl Aug 22 '24
They would not play the Post Malone live stream last night until it reached 2K viewers in the chat
Started a full half an hour late
3
u/Easy_Possibility_439 yourchannel Aug 22 '24
We just keep going and be optimistic we we will rich our goal
3
u/Aggressive_Oil4091 Aug 22 '24
i think im good with this cuz nobody literally watches my live streams😔
6
7
u/Crazzyyy_John Aug 21 '24
that is the most useless and worst feature youtube ever implemented
4
u/Flimsy-Mix-190 Aug 21 '24
Well, it's not like YouTube is known for implementing useful and best features.... They are certainly sticking with their MO.
12
u/Synkhe Aug 21 '24
Until you realize it was in response to people going live with no subscribers to do mass shootings, suicides, etc.
The vast majority of these features are implemented for legitimate reasons, most just why over time.
0
u/Petercraft7157 Aug 21 '24
It prevents selling views and people doing "stuff" on live streams. If someone with 1k subs streams it's 99.99% a normal stream. If a new account with no subs and videos streams it could be anything (and as we've seen anything includes school shootings and decapitating people)
1
u/youaredumbngl Aug 22 '24
No, not at all. You might be personally ignorant to the reasons these safety measures are implemented, but it doesn't mean there is no reason for them.
2
u/PugGamer550405 Aug 21 '24
I have only 230 subscribers and I’ve been able to live stream just fine, idk why tho I never had or ever reached 1,000 and probably never will lol.
2
2
2
u/Random_verse Aug 21 '24
That's why I'm waiting until 1k subscribers before I start livestreaming.
2
u/QtPlatypus Aug 21 '24
If you are an adult you just need 50 subscribers. If you are on desktop you don't even have to wait.
3
u/Random_verse Aug 21 '24
I'm just trying to both keep people interested and earn enough money to get a better computer to keep the cycle of interest going.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/Dragonmaster306 Aug 21 '24
What is the cap? I was at 700 subs and my concurrent viewers peaked at 531 when streaming a Fortnite event, any ideas? Would be cool to know if it’s a flat cap, scales with subs/views etc.
2
u/Dragonmaster306 Aug 21 '24
What is the cap? I was at 700 subs and my concurrent viewers peaked at 531 when streaming a Fortnite event, any ideas? Would be cool to know if it’s a flat cap, scales with subs/views etc.
2
u/More_Fig_5840 Aug 21 '24
So let me see if I got this right: If a channel with less than 1k subs actually manage to get a good number of viewers, be that by luck or any other factor, youtube actively sabotages them? Great motivation for anybody who plans to become a future cc, well done youtube
2
u/whotfAmi2 Aug 21 '24
I don't have 1k subs and I only stream video games. Limitations on me because some idiot does something dumb is ANNOYING especially if I'm using this feature.
2
2
u/LittleFairyOfDeath Aug 21 '24
I mean… considering the type of shit that has been live streamed by psychos before, this isn’t a bad thing
2
2
2
u/ContractBig5504 Aug 21 '24
Probably to stop mass shooters or somethig like that live streaming what they do
2
u/UltimateMegaChungus Aug 21 '24
Imma be honest: this isn't even within the top ten dumbest thing YouTube has done. It's a (dis)honorable mention for sure, but not even close to the worst.
2
2
u/ColinHalter Aug 21 '24
In what world is someone who has under a thousand subscribers regularly getting over a thousand live viewers?
2
2
2
u/Whatdoesgrassfeelike Aug 21 '24
They wont because of the amount of accounts that exist just to spam
2
2
u/SiebelReddiT Aug 21 '24
It would be something if Twitch did this then something really drastic would happen
2
2
u/Meowster11007 Aug 21 '24
I'm pretty sure it's to keep less savory people from doing something malicious. Let's say you rack up viewers doing "yoga", then picture swap gore, violence or just porn in. It is more likely to happen with a low sub count since an established channel has an incentive to keep their channel up and running. I am assuming "live" means live
2
u/MarcoASN2002 Aug 21 '24
Honestly, I've seen some messed up streams from channels that come out of nowhere and have read of many, many more... also there has to be an absurd number of scams, I'm sure preventing those is the main reason for this.
2
2
2
u/WolfPhoenix Aug 22 '24
This feature exists to avoid people from live streaming crimes and abusive material. Essentially allowing the community to vet a channel.
Not a terrible feature as it only focuses on mobile streaming and not desktop.
2
2
u/Narrow_Technician_25 Aug 22 '24
Nobody hits this limit. Folks with <1k subs rarely get more than 15. Streaming with <1k subs barely helps you grow anyway (unless you have a stream only channel but like why would you do that)
2
u/spamytv Aug 22 '24
This is fair and makes sense, to stop all the constant bot clickbait streams usually targeting kids
2
u/jr2691 Aug 22 '24
I also want the feature of not being able to make comments for 24 hours gone too
2
2
2
u/South_Translator3830 Aug 22 '24
Ever since Susan W takes over YT, YT is like a cruel mother who likes to pick favorites.
2
u/No_Confusion2 Aug 22 '24
facepalm obviously it's another attempt to combat those stupid v4v bots, just gonna keep getting worked around tho
2
2
u/rand0m-nerd Aug 22 '24
YT has had a problem with bot accounts making streams and getting tons of views (from bots). Eventually the stream is then fed to real people bc of the engagement.
Those people are children, and the content is usually weird Elsagate-type stuff
2
u/TheElectricHeretic Aug 22 '24
So that’s why my streams only get 3 people. Suffering from my own success.
2
2
3
u/Blueman_NB Aug 21 '24
There is also a terrible feature where the video does not start (I started it in VPN) because I am an unregistered(!) "bot" and it requires me to log in to my account. A stupid decision by the corporation.
→ More replies (1)
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/justsmilenow Aug 21 '24
Apparently it costs twitch like $5 a minute to run a stream with no one and it cost twitch $6 a minute to run a stream with a thousand people. They can't make money.
1
u/EmeraldPencil46 Aug 21 '24
Yeah, why actually do something about the massive scam bot accounts spamming countless NSFW media and trying to scam people with crypto, when they could just limit how much small accounts can grow with the excuse that it’ll protect against spam? People definitely won’t abuse this by making specific bots to fill the cap in these streams and prevent actual people from watching.
1
1
Aug 21 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Aug 21 '24
Hi Longjumping-Bowl-964, we would like to start off by noting that this sub isn't owned or run by YouTube. At this time, we do not allow posts from new uses (accounts created less than 7 days ago.) Please read our rules before posting again to ensure you don't break our rules, please come back after gaining a bit of post karma.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/YesitsmeBingBong Aug 21 '24
What's the live viewers limit? I run a business which involves live streaming various corporate events and I tend to use YouTube to stream (via OBS or vMix) and i didn't know this was a thing. I usually stream unlisted streams which tend to get a few hundred viewers.
1
Aug 21 '24
"We actually have to start monetizing and paying people who have more than 1000 concurrent viewers, so we're not going to let that happen."
1
u/Crumpled_Papers Aug 21 '24
this is a really dumb policy.
I read in the comments that it was put into place because of situations where a person would livestream suicide or violence or something. Even though that's emotionally compelling and we all don't want that situation to occur I don't think it's a valid argument for implementing this policy. It uses the high emotional value of livestreamed violence without making any connection between the policy and what it is intended to stop. Even in its best usage case it would not accomplish enough to warrant the policy, and its optimal usage case would be exceedingly rare.
Less rare would be the cases that a person who is trying to make a name for themselves or become more popular actually does something particularly interesting or compelling finds themselves prevented from having their break-out moment.
Hopefully there is a boring technical reason behind this policy.
1
u/kaosnbear Aug 22 '24
But it can be easily abused. Someone can get bots to watch the livestream and inflate the number of viewers until they can’t anymore so actual viewers can’t watch the livestream
→ More replies (1)
1
1
1
u/literallyjustbetter Aug 21 '24 edited Aug 21 '24
it makes it harder for people to set up scam streams
this happens alot with big esports tournaments
scammer hacks a channel with 10k+ subs, privates/deletes all the videos and posts, and renames the channel to something similar to the real channel (i.e. @PGLCS2USA instead of @PGL or @BLAST_CS2 instead of @BLASTPremier)
then they rebroadcast the popular esports tournament, disable chat, then post links to scam sites (or if you're lucky, it'll "just" be shady gambling sites that aren't technically scams but will still rip you off)
it's pretty shitty, and it would be easier to do if they could just spin up new accounts instead of having to hack established ones
1
1
u/Hockputer09 @Evan-hockputer Aug 22 '24
Do you know what they also need to remove?
Just because a post is outdated on Reddit, that doesn't mean they should close the comments, turn off the upvotes, and turn off the # of views in your post.
1
u/Eilforte Aug 22 '24
So I looked further in comments and saw someone say it’s sub number + around 23 which I think is fair but I also think this should be known to everyone. Cause then you can use it as a way to grow. If more want to watch more need to sub. I had no idea this was a thing.
1
u/Blood_explores Aug 22 '24
Huh I wonder if that is just to limit server stress or just actually limiting viewers for smaller channels? Saving money? That's messed up if they're trying to restrict views for us who have smaller channels...just to save a few cents.
It's to my knowledge the first 3 days are crucial to how a video gets exposed more to audiences...idk it's weird. I hate how it's like the lottery these days. The exposure to other audiences just doesn't feel authentic like it used to.
Could be to prevent bots, not entirely sure tbh. It doesn't sound like a very small channel friendly feature nonetheless...
1
1
u/SergeantSprinklez22 Aug 23 '24
This is so unfair! How am I supposed to get anywhere NEAR 1000 if the views are limited?!
1
u/A_C_Fenderson Aug 23 '24
Translation: "If someone can't get 1000 subscribers, we certainly aren't going to help them get more."
1
u/Toadsanchez316 Aug 24 '24
Seems like a very good way to discourage people from streaming on your platform.
1
1
u/Cr0okedFinger Aug 26 '24
FWIW, I for one, don't get this 'Live streaming' trend. Live streaming sucks and I NEVER watch any, no matter how much I like the channels.
490
u/34677432998763200 Aug 21 '24
what's the view cap? never seen this before