Phil DeFranco (sxephil) / SourceFed Part 2
-
- True Gossiper
- Posts: 1126
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 8:33 am
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 3 times
- Contact:
Re: Phil DeFranco (sxephil) / SourceFed Part 2
I understand the whole YouTube demonetising videos is a huge problem for a lot of channels (especially smaller ones) but I don't think making more videos is going to do anything? You pretty much have to boycot them to get any reaction or improvement.
-
- Master Gossiper
- Posts: 2644
- Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 7:44 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Phil DeFranco (sxephil) / SourceFed Part 2
I don't really understand why Casey and Phil are so upset about this. Arent they the same people who say they don't want to profit off a tragedy? If that's so, why do they care if the video was demonitized? It was a 4 minute video to inform people that they could donate to the cause. Am I being to naieve about this? Am I missing something here? Why is he focusing more on his pay check from one video instead of focusing on the reason for the video. They way that Phil called Casey YouTube's gold boy was so funny, you could hear the resentment in his voice.Merpedy wrote:I understand the whole YouTube demonetising videos is a huge problem for a lot of channels (especially smaller ones) but I don't think making more videos is going to do anything? You pretty much have to boycot them to get any reaction or improvement.
-
- Master Gossiper
- Posts: 3600
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2016 3:14 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 3 times
- Contact:
Re: Phil DeFranco (sxephil) / SourceFed Part 2
I feel the same way. I don't know if anyone feels like this but I find it hard to empathize with people complaining about their videos getting demonetized. YT doesn't owe them anything and they're the ones who chose an unstable platform to make a living and career out of it, down to quitting their full time jobs for it. Yeah it sucks but idk, that's just how I feel.Lilly_paddycake wrote:I don't really understand why Casey and Phil are so upset about this. Arent they the same people who say they don't want to profit off a tragedy? If that's so, why do they care if the video was demonitized? It was a 4 minute video to inform people that they could donate to the cause. Am I being to naieve about this? Am I missing something here? Why is he focusing more on his pay check from one video instead of focusing on the reason for the video. They way that Phil called Casey YouTube's gold boy was so funny, you could hear the resentment in his voice.Merpedy wrote:I understand the whole YouTube demonetising videos is a huge problem for a lot of channels (especially smaller ones) but I don't think making more videos is going to do anything? You pretty much have to boycot them to get any reaction or improvement.
- Presence
- Master Gossiper
- Posts: 2707
- Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 3:19 pm
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 3 times
- Contact:
Re: Phil DeFranco (sxephil) / SourceFed Part 2
Or here's the better question, why monetize it in the first place?Lilly_paddycake wrote:
I don't really understand why Casey and Phil are so upset about this. Arent they the same people who say they don't want to profit off a tragedy? If that's so, why do they care if the video was demonitized?
I'm sure it was a surprise for Casey to see that YT made the switch, but if he's all about bringing attention to the victims, then why not keep the whole thing to himself? No, no. Instead he tells the world so that, now, attention is taken away from the tragedy and everyone is coming to the defense of poor Casey Neistat and debating about YT policy.
And then you have Phil whom, in this video, looked more giddy than annoyed. He just loves being on Casey's radar, while, at the same time, taking jabs at him.
And what was that laughable remark Phil made? "Whenever I come across as situation like this when I am incredible aggravated, I try to come up with a way...with the person I'm angry at...their not evil or bad for doing it."
LOL! Even though that quote made little sense, I think what he's trying to say is: when someone gets him angry he tries to see things from their perspective. LOL! Well, we all know that's a bunch of shit.
- squirtlessquad
- Gossiper
- Posts: 763
- Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 9:23 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Re: Phil DeFranco (sxephil) / SourceFed Part 2
Yeah you are missing the point. He was going to donate all the profits from the videos adsenseLilly_paddycake wrote:I don't really understand why Casey and Phil are so upset about this. Arent they the same people who say they don't want to profit off a tragedy? If that's so, why do they care if the video was demonitized? It was a 4 minute video to inform people that they could donate to the cause. Am I being to naieve about this? Am I missing something here? Why is he focusing more on his pay check from one video instead of focusing on the reason for the video. They way that Phil called Casey YouTube's gold boy was so funny, you could hear the resentment in his voice.Merpedy wrote:I understand the whole YouTube demonetising videos is a huge problem for a lot of channels (especially smaller ones) but I don't think making more videos is going to do anything? You pretty much have to boycot them to get any reaction or improvement.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Presence
- Master Gossiper
- Posts: 2707
- Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 3:19 pm
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 3 times
- Contact:
Re: Phil DeFranco (sxephil) / SourceFed Part 2
Or so Casey said. Just because he makes that public declaration doesn't automatically mean he'll do it. He would have been better off not monetizing the video at all so that, right from the get-go, there would have no questioning of him profiting off the video.squirtlessquad wrote: Yeah you are missing the point. He was going to donate all the profits from the videos adsense
-
- Extreme Gossiper
- Posts: 1576
- Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 2:07 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
Re: Phil DeFranco (sxephil) / SourceFed Part 2
Plus, he could just donate money. He doesn't need that specific adsense.
- squirtlessquad
- Gossiper
- Posts: 763
- Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 9:23 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Re: Phil DeFranco (sxephil) / SourceFed Part 2
Yeah I'm sure he could and there's no proof he was going to donate it anyway BUT if he's going to make a video and get this many views anyway why not have it monetized to donate extra money.idontknowwhoiam wrote:Plus, he could just donate money. He doesn't need that specific adsense.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: Phil DeFranco (sxephil) / SourceFed Part 2
exactly. besides, its not the first time he raise money for a good causesquirtlessquad wrote:Yeah I'm sure he could and there's no proof he was going to donate it anyway BUT if he's going to make a video and get this many views anyway why not have it monetized to donate extra money.idontknowwhoiam wrote:Plus, he could just donate money. He doesn't need that specific adsense.
and its not about making money off tragdy, its about youtube monitizing everything even videos like this but not doing it for big companies
even Ethan from H3H3 made a video where he said even CNN had ads every 5min when they covered the Vegas shooting live and some of the ads were from companies that pulled their ads off youtube
its a confusing setuation and youtube needs to speak to the creators and connect with them more
why not complaine when youtube says youre a "partnered creator" who gets a cut from ads on their website ? they should keep their end of the bargain or be clear from the start and stop monetizing videos all together and lets see if the website will survive after thatrai1234 wrote:I feel the same way. I don't know if anyone feels like this but I find it hard to empathize with people complaining about their videos getting demonetized. YT doesn't owe them anything and they're the ones who chose an unstable platform to make a living and career out of it, down to quitting their full time jobs for it. Yeah it sucks but idk, that's just how I feel.
Vine died because they refused to pay creators, and if yourubers started going to other websites like Twitch its just a matter of time
- monak
- Master Gossiper
- Posts: 3898
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 6:47 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Re: Phil DeFranco (sxephil) / SourceFed Part 2
I can confirm that CNN had a large amount of ads during the coverage of the shooting. It was so distracting that I had to change channels. MSNBC had zero ads for at least 2 hours.
- HippoFriend
- Gossiper
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 2:52 am
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
- Contact:
Re: Phil DeFranco (sxephil) / SourceFed Part 2
YouTube is right, though. Phil and Casey don't work for them so the company doesn't owe them shit. Why monetize a tragedy, even when you are going to donate all the money? It's tasteless, you take something horrible and make it your content. Even if it's meant well, it's not about you.
He could have talked about how YouTube demonetizes harmless LGBT videos but of course he only jumps into action when another white boy doesn't get his money.
Not saying that traditional media is always in the right, but there are good reasons to put videos by professional tv shows into trending. TV shows have some form of quality control (mostly by the channel they air on), so YouTube can be sure that it's not offensive. I also get the feeling, that while Youtube enjoys the creator culture, they hate the "lolol random drama" youtubers and would rather not feature videos like this, even if the video doesn't feature anything offensive. It makes the whole side look like garbage (that's already what people think about internet videos) when there actually is some quality content.
He could have talked about how YouTube demonetizes harmless LGBT videos but of course he only jumps into action when another white boy doesn't get his money.
Not saying that traditional media is always in the right, but there are good reasons to put videos by professional tv shows into trending. TV shows have some form of quality control (mostly by the channel they air on), so YouTube can be sure that it's not offensive. I also get the feeling, that while Youtube enjoys the creator culture, they hate the "lolol random drama" youtubers and would rather not feature videos like this, even if the video doesn't feature anything offensive. It makes the whole side look like garbage (that's already what people think about internet videos) when there actually is some quality content.
Re: Phil DeFranco (sxephil) / SourceFed Part 2
he did, when it happenedHippoFriend wrote:He could have talked about how YouTube demonetizes harmless LGBT videos but of course he only jumps into action when another white boy doesn't get his money. .
- squirtlessquad
- Gossiper
- Posts: 763
- Joined: Fri May 29, 2015 9:23 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Re: Phil DeFranco (sxephil) / SourceFed Part 2
But I caseys defense the video wasn't talking about the shooting or covering it or speculating or anything regarding specifics. It was talking about the charity/gofundme for the victims. He's not really making content with subsistence. It's just a "hey there's this thing we're setting up if you wanna donate".HippoFriend wrote:YouTube is right, though. Phil and Casey don't work for them so the company doesn't owe them shit. Why monetize a tragedy, even when you are going to donate all the money? It's tasteless, you take something horrible and make it your content. Even if it's meant well, it's not about you.
He could have talked about how YouTube demonetizes harmless LGBT videos but of course he only jumps into action when another white boy doesn't get his money.
Not saying that traditional media is always in the right, but there are good reasons to put videos by professional tv shows into trending. TV shows have some form of quality control (mostly by the channel they air on), so YouTube can be sure that it's not offensive. I also get the feeling, that while Youtube enjoys the creator culture, they hate the "lolol random drama" youtubers and would rather not feature videos like this, even if the video doesn't feature anything offensive. It makes the whole side look like garbage (that's already what people think about internet videos) when there actually is some quality content.
He also didn't make it about him at all.
sometimes people on GG just get so caught up in hating the youtuber that they disregard any detail that is on the youtubers side.
I think Phil is a shithead and Casey creeps me out but I think they're right on this one.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
- Master Gossiper
- Posts: 3600
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2016 3:14 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 3 times
- Contact:
Re: Phil DeFranco (sxephil) / SourceFed Part 2
Yeah. A lot of people are jumping on the "Jimmy Kimmel's video was monetized. How come?!". Kimmel's show is also under FCC regulations which are way stricter than any YT regulations, so it's already deemed advertiser friendly for TV, which makes it advertiser friendly for YT. Also, the Jimmy Kimmel channel on YT runs 3rd party ads that ABC gets them, not ads through YT's Adsense program, so Casey and Phil really can't compare Casey's video to Kimmel's. They're different situations.HippoFriend wrote:YouTube is right, though. Phil and Casey don't work for them so the company doesn't owe them shit. Why monetize a tragedy, even when you are going to donate all the money? It's tasteless, you take something horrible and make it your content. Even if it's meant well, it's not about you.
He could have talked about how YouTube demonetizes harmless LGBT videos but of course he only jumps into action when another white boy doesn't get his money.
Not saying that traditional media is always in the right, but there are good reasons to put videos by professional tv shows into trending. TV shows have some form of quality control (mostly by the channel they air on), so YouTube can be sure that it's not offensive. I also get the feeling, that while Youtube enjoys the creator culture, they hate the "lolol random drama" youtubers and would rather not feature videos like this, even if the video doesn't feature anything offensive. It makes the whole side look like garbage (that's already what people think about internet videos) when there actually is some quality content.
Also, of course YT will not put videos complaining about YT on their trending list. They're a marketing company first and foremost, and "creators" like Phil and H3H3 seem to forget that. Phil is a businessman above everything else, he should get it.
-
- Master Gossiper
- Posts: 2644
- Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 7:44 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Phil DeFranco (sxephil) / SourceFed Part 2
It doesn't matter that he didn't show any footage of the shooting. The fact is that he was raising money for the Vegas Shooting victims, involved in the tragedy. So technically he was still going to profit off the tragedy, even if he was going to donate the profits from adsense.squirtlessquad wrote:
But I caseys defense the video wasn't talking about the shooting or covering it or speculating or anything regarding specifics. It was talking about the charity/gofundme for the victims. He's not really making content with subsistence. It's just a "hey there's this thing we're setting up if you wanna donate".
He also didn't make it about him at all.
sometimes people on GG just get so caught up in hating the youtuber that they disregard any detail that is on the youtubers side.
I think Phil is a shithead and Casey creeps me out but I think they're right on this one.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I didn't read any comments that people wrote that weren't seeing Phil or Casey's side because they just don't like them. Everyone seems to have legit reasons why they think they are wrong. Also in Phil's video today he even explained that Jimmy s video had ads because those were partner ads and not associated with YouTube. So Casey and Phil can continue to bitch about being demonitized but YouTube told them why and haven't bent the rules for anyone else.
As someone else said really what it boils down to is YouTube doesn't owe these creators anything. If Philip Defranco or Casey Neistat left the platform, there would be a dozen up and comers that would take their place.
- Presence
- Master Gossiper
- Posts: 2707
- Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 3:19 pm
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 3 times
- Contact:
Re: Phil DeFranco (sxephil) / SourceFed Part 2
LOL! Don't tease me like that!Lilly_paddycake wrote: As someone else said really what it boils down to is YouTube doesn't owe these creators anything. If Philip Defranco or Casey Neistat left the platform, there would be a dozen up and comers that would take their place.
Phil brings zero value. Casey has already used the platform to secure a lifetime of financial security and garner Internet fame. Yeah, they can both take a bow...
-
- Master Gossiper
- Posts: 3600
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2016 3:14 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 3 times
- Contact:
Re: Phil DeFranco (sxephil) / SourceFed Part 2
Adding to this, he already had a fundraiser going on for the victims, why the extra "I'll donate the money from this video"? He can easily donate that same amount of money out his own pocket and it wouldn't make a dent in his bank account. Phil and Ethan made such a big deal out of it when Casey only got mildly pissed when it was demonetized. It boggles my mind that YTers become millionaires making mediocre content (maybe except Casey puts in some effort) and then feel entitled to that money, when it's not an employer-employee relationship. Youtube truly doesn't owe anyone anything. They'll protect their own asses and advertisers before those creators.Lilly_paddycake wrote:It doesn't matter that he didn't show any footage of the shooting. The fact is that he was raising money for the Vegas Shooting victims, involved in the tragedy. So technically he was still going to profit off the tragedy, even if he was going to donate the profits from adsense.squirtlessquad wrote:
But I caseys defense the video wasn't talking about the shooting or covering it or speculating or anything regarding specifics. It was talking about the charity/gofundme for the victims. He's not really making content with subsistence. It's just a "hey there's this thing we're setting up if you wanna donate".
He also didn't make it about him at all.
sometimes people on GG just get so caught up in hating the youtuber that they disregard any detail that is on the youtubers side.
I think Phil is a shithead and Casey creeps me out but I think they're right on this one.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I didn't read any comments that people wrote that weren't seeing Phil or Casey's side because they just don't like them. Everyone seems to have legit reasons why they think they are wrong. Also in Phil's video today he even explained that Jimmy s video had ads because those were partner ads and not associated with YouTube. So Casey and Phil can continue to bitch about being demonitized but YouTube told them why and haven't bent the rules for anyone else.
As someone else said really what it boils down to is YouTube doesn't owe these creators anything. If Philip Defranco or Casey Neistat left the platform, there would be a dozen up and comers that would take their place.
And omg, Phil today mentioning that Gizmodo's "lousy" reporting on the situation made him happy because it gave him and his videos "more legitimacy" and tweeted a couple days ago that he's happy his platform is replacing them and traditional media, and shitting on them because they never apologized for falsely reporting something: a) there are always retractions and corrections in articles as big as NYT articles but they rarely apologize, b) this MF NEVER apologizes or corrects anything when he falsely reports something, and ignores every bit of criticism when he's gathering comments for his Friday show. Biggest hypocrite. There are so, so many examples of his hypocrisy I can write a freaking book about it.
Re: Phil DeFranco (sxephil) / SourceFed Part 2
^
^
weird, he gets his news from traditional media
its not like he is a reporter who risks his life to get the footage and write them down, he reads what other reporters spent hours on including research alone
this guy is a joke
^
weird, he gets his news from traditional media
its not like he is a reporter who risks his life to get the footage and write them down, he reads what other reporters spent hours on including research alone
this guy is a joke
- DaylightAmy
- Master Gossiper
- Posts: 2330
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 3:07 pm
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 29 times
- Contact:
Re: Phil DeFranco (sxephil) / SourceFed Part 2
To an extent I understand the concept of "donating the money the YouTube video makes" because it lets people basically "donate for free" (not everyone has "that $2 you were gonna spend at Starbucks" that so many YouTubers whinge about) but with that said, there are other ways to do that, other platforms where monetization would not have been against the platform's policies. Just off the top of my head YouNow comes to mind, hell even some kind of Twitch event, if you want to enable people to "donate for free" YouTube ads are not the only way to do that.
At face value I would say they're in the right because it SOUNDS like YouTube plays favourites, but in reality the facts show that that's not true... and this was either a very POORLY thought out action... or a very WELL thought out one. You either get traffic generated to your channel for that charity video where the proceeds go to the Vegas victims - or you DON'T get that extra traffic and they can call YouTube the Big Bad once again.
I'd love to think they're not that calculated and I'm just bitter. I just don't really believe in YouTubers their size (in terms of following and ego) doing anything that isn't thoroughly calculated. Phil and Casey are both trying to put brands on the map, their content is thought through from the first to the last second with the prospect of growth of the brand and channel in mind. I don't see how you CAN'T foresee this happening when YouTube is your every day all day job where you have constantly been confronted with demonetization over the past 6 months.
At face value I would say they're in the right because it SOUNDS like YouTube plays favourites, but in reality the facts show that that's not true... and this was either a very POORLY thought out action... or a very WELL thought out one. You either get traffic generated to your channel for that charity video where the proceeds go to the Vegas victims - or you DON'T get that extra traffic and they can call YouTube the Big Bad once again.
I'd love to think they're not that calculated and I'm just bitter. I just don't really believe in YouTubers their size (in terms of following and ego) doing anything that isn't thoroughly calculated. Phil and Casey are both trying to put brands on the map, their content is thought through from the first to the last second with the prospect of growth of the brand and channel in mind. I don't see how you CAN'T foresee this happening when YouTube is your every day all day job where you have constantly been confronted with demonetization over the past 6 months.
Shredder. Master Splinter. Jackie. Boss. Pancake.