Till now, making money from the social media platform used to be as simple as uploading great content, garnering millions of views and earning a share of the advertising revenue. Now, YouTube has started placing curbs on the monetisation of some videos purportedly disseminating false/incorrect content. However, questions remain about the guidelines being used
By Dr Swati Jindal Garg
Taking strict steps against the spread of allegedly false information and profiting from it, YouTube has started placing curbs on the monetisation of some videos that are purportedly disseminating false/incorrect knowledge. The step comes only months after YouTube started adding additional context under videos pertaining to the efficacy of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), and it means that creators will not receive their share of advertisement revenue generated from such content.
At least two creators who have suffered are Meghnad and Sohit Mishra, an independent journalist. Both were recently alerted by YouTube about the monetisation limits placed on some of their videos related to EVMs and Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) machines. The social media platform cited its advertiser-friendly guidelines for this decision, stating that videos containing demonstrably false information are not eligible for ad revenue.
This call will have a tremendous impact on the earnings of both YouTubers as while Mishra’s YouTube channel, Sohit Mishra Official, has over 3.68 lakh subscribers, Meghnad’s channel is subscribed by over 42,000 subscribers. Mishra, in fact, had even approached the online giant for a review following which only one out of the four of his livestream videos on the subject of EVMs—which were placed under “limited monetisation”—was restored.
One of Mishra’s three videos that has been penalised is the one where he speaks to a software expert, a senior journalist and commentator, a political leader, and another creator about EVMs. This hour-long discussion video titled: Questions over the EVM, one-sided Election Commission, and a weak democracy was uploaded on March 8 and had garnered over 94,000 views in less than a month! Another affected video titled: Will there be free and fair elections in India? had also amassed thousands of views. In this particular video, Mishra raised questions on whether free and fair elections can truly be held in India in the light of the fact that the central agencies act against Opposition leaders and parties, and concerns about EVMs have not been addressed by the poll panel.
The third video of Mishra on which curbs were placed is about BJP members appointed as independent directors of Bharat Electronics Ltd, one of the two PSUs that manufactures EVMs. In this video, Mishra also cites a letter written by a retired IAS officer to the Election Commission of India, asking for its intervention in the matter. Mishra’s grievance is that while the video was uploaded in the beginning of the year, the monetisation was limited recently. He has also raised a concern that at a time when the Supreme Court had issued notice in the case of 100% counting of VVPAT slips, his videos talking about the concerns over EVMs and VVPATs had been placed on limited monetisation by YouTube, and hence “by not allowing monetisation on such videos, creators will stop making videos on EVMs”.
YouTube has also placed curbs on Meghnad’s earnings from advertisements for four of his livestream videos, each of which were approximately two-three-hour long and featured Meghnad answering audience’s questions on EVMs, coupled with sharing updates on the Supreme Court hearing on 100% VVPAT-counting and discussing electoral bonds, among other things. “I have applied for review and am yet to get a response. I have no clarity as to why this has happened,” he reportedly said when asked about why his videos were put under restrictions. YouTube, on the other hand, has clarified that advertisements on the videos of Mishra and Meghnad were blocked as they were “violative of the advertiser guidelines”. These violations include promoting demonstrably false information about public voting procedures, political candidates’ eligibility based on age or birthplace, election results and census participation that contradicts official government records.
A YouTube spokesperson has even reportedly said that “All channels on YouTube must comply with our community guidelines. Creators who wish to monetise their videos with ads are held to an even higher bar and must also comply with our advertiser-friendly guidelines. Any claims that are demonstrably false and could significantly undermine participation or trust in an electoral or democratic process are in violation of our policies. These guidelines are enforced consistently, regardless of the creator, their background, political viewpoint, position or affiliation.”
From the beginning of this year, YouTube has started adding “context panel” to videos on EVMs along with highlighting the “safeguards” in place to ensure “free and fair” elections. The context panel, placed right below the EVM-related videos, also includes a link that directs viewers to FAQs released by the Election Commission of India about the voting process and voting machines. This was introduced following a request from the Election Commission of India.
As per rules, in order to be eligible to earn ad revenue from YouTube, the minimum requirement for a channel is to have at least 1,000 subscribers with 4,000 valid public watch hours in the past 12 hours or 1,000 subscribers with 10 million valid public shorts views in the last 90 days. The advertiser-friendly guidelines shall apply only once a creator switches on monetisation. The earnings of a creator are dependent on a number of factors, including:
- the subscribers,
- the number of ads that can be placed in the length of the video and
- the type of content.
Further, YouTube’s advertiser-friendly content guidelines also state that videos where the focal point is violence, profanity, adult content and other sensitive topics may not be suitable for advertising at all. There are various ways in which such content is monitored. “During the upload process, we use machine learning to figure out if a video meets our advertiser-friendly content guidelines. We also check scheduled livestreams. Before the stream goes live, our systems look at the title, description, thumbnail, and tags,” a YouTube officer reportedly said.
If a video is on limited monetisation, the creator may not get any ad revenue that YouTube makes on it, but will be able to earn from the YouTube Premium paid service, memberships and superchats, which can be substantially less than the ad revenue. However, for live videos, the revenue from superchats can be more depending on the level of engagement.
There is no denying the fact that till now making money from YouTube used to be as simple as uploading great content, garnering millions of views, and earning a share of the advertising revenue. Content creators have access to multiple ways to monetise their content. In addition to advertising, this can include corporate sponsorships, fan funding, or merchandise sales. In fact, any content creator can join the YouTube Partner programme after accumulating 1,000 subscribers and 4,000 hours of watch time. This gives the creator access to monetisation features such as advertising, fan funding and merchandise sales.
As per current statistics, top YouTube stars make close to $55 million a year; however, most make far less or nothing at all. YouTube monetises videos via pre-roll, display, and other advertising formats wherein the advertisers pay based on clicks and impressions. YouTube gives the content creator 55% of this revenue and takes 45% for itself; however, the catch is that the content creators must adhere to advertising guidelines and keep in mind that any content that contains foul language, adult content, violence and other subjects will not have ads placed against them. This can include discussion of sensitive news events.
The monetisation curbs on the two YouTubers show that content that is uploaded is now under strict scrutiny, especially if it relates to political views or questions about EVMs as India prepares for a crucial general election.
—The writer is an Advocate-on-Record practicing in the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and all district courts and tribunals in Delhi