RWBY IX: Fractured Fairy Tales

[Reddish Mage]

I take it these suggestions are made in good faith and serious and all that. What I don't take is where the content went:

For RNJR, basically you push some of the content to post-Haven. They arrive and Leo sends them out on missions. The problem with putting things this way, unless you actually CUT something, all you are doing is changing the context in how RNJR experience things. RNJR is about half the content of Vol 4. I don't see how you accomplish real compression without eliminating significant elements. So my question is, what are you actually cutting? Some travel talking scenes? That's not enough.

Can you combine Leo's office visit in Vol 5 with these other missions? Not really.

90% of Blake's content is establishing the situation for the Faunus, what the White Fang is doing, her history, and then a lot of fighting. You can cut out a lot of exposition but cutting her story down to the bones (and cutting away som of those) doesn't serve. It just tells me you are just not interested in this story.

What you are giving isn't a way to tell a rich fully developed story that happens to be different, its just cutting things to the bone.

Also you mention getting down to "under 20 episodes" that's not eliminating enough! Two season of 10 episodes is certainly doable but that's more like two short seasons than a single extra long season (RWBY season range from 12-16 episodes, with most being 12 and the first season having some very short episodes).

[Lethologica]

For RNJR, basically you push some of the content to post-Haven. They arrive and Leo sends them out on missions. The problem with putting things this way, unless you actually CUT something, all you are doing is changing the context in how RNJR experience things. RNJR is about half the content of Vol 4. I don't see how you accomplish real compression without eliminating significant elements. So my question is, what are you actually cutting? Some travel talking scenes? That's not enough.

The structural elements being cut are most of RNJR's volume 5 scenes, as stated. Any travel-talking trimming would be a side bonus.

Can you combine Leo's office visit in Vol 5 with these other missions? Not really.

Sure I can.

90% of Blake's content is establishing the situation for the Faunus, what the White Fang is doing, her history, and then a lot of fighting. You can cut out a lot of exposition but cutting her story down to the bones (and cutting away som of those) doesn't serve. It just tells me you are just not interested in this story.

On the contrary, I am so interested in Blake's story that I want the White Fang's story to be part of her story rather than merely following it in the next volume. I want Blake's struggle with the weariness and fear and shame that she took with her when she ran to parallel her struggle with the White Fang in Menagerie, and I want her to overcome those struggles together instead of separately. Establishing the situation shouldn't take a whole bloody volume, and would be a terribly meager view of Blake's personal arc anyway.

What you are giving isn't a way to tell a rich fully developed story that happens to be different, its just cutting things to the bone.

When the fat reaches down to the bone, cutting the fat will look like that. I remember roughly how many times I used the phrase 'reading from their character notes' when going over volumes 4-5. That's not rich development, it's shallow and strung-out and flavorless. Richness comes from weaving things together so that each scene is a tapestry and not just a thread. And when you take a series of threads and weave them together, the result is shorter, too.

Also you mention getting down to "under 20 episodes" that's not eliminating enough! Two season of 10 episodes is certainly doable but that's more like two short seasons than a single extra long season (RWBY season range from 12-16 episodes, with most being 12 and the first season having some very short episodes).

I was up-front about the fraction of the show I thought I could cut and the resulting target episode count. Feel free to change your mind about whether that's 'enough', as if the difference between 16 and 19 is so much greater than the difference between 19 and 26, but I'm more interested in the resulting story than the resulting number of cours.

[Reddish Mage]

I don’t see how you accomplish your cutting, even by your low desirable number. RNJR still has to have its plot scenes which you didn’t cut. I don’t see what of substance you actually remove from the plot. Instead, you accomplish the couple episode cut you want for your goals out of the RNJR scenes by how? Synergy by having these new missions and the maiden discussed in one awarkadly combined. You seem to think that removing a great deal of travel and talking scenes...so I guess we don’t replace them by actually bothering to show the Academy and Haven and the missions?

Without cutting something substantial out, which I have asked what scenes and given a wide pick. You aren’t really cutting much. Just moving the locus of the action doesn’t do much, RNJR still goes to Onigiri, still sees other wrecked villages, and maybe goes looking for the maiden, since that gets pushed forward. Not to mention there still has to be Qrows introduction, he has to join up and deliver the backstory, and before RNJR confronts Lionheart.


There’s something else about your criticism that belies your project to suggest something constructive. The phrase “reading from the character notes” is not only extremely insulting, its pretty incoherent as a critique.

What is not reading from character notes? Is Ruby’s story in season 1 a read of pre-made character notes? Pyrrha’s selection as maiden in season 3? How about key scenes in Spider-Man movies or other Marvel movies that closely resemble the comics? What are “character notes” and what does it mean to “read” from them. Also, who is doing the “reading,” the writers, animators, actors or all of the above?

The term “character notes” sounds like your playing a D&D game and have a bunch of things hastily scrawled on the back of the character sheet you didn’t put much thought to. Then, when its time for some interaction you literally just read off those notes with your head in the paper, rather than try injecting some life to the character or being responsive to what’s going on in-game.

Applied to the first two seasons post-Monty, when we know the remaining writers had only a sketchy idea of where to take the story, is quite a stretch. All signs are that the writers were not only filling in the backstories of the characters, but creating those stories, while advancing the post-fall of Beacon story-lines.

So.... you are applying the image of a lazy neophyte gamer with no acting background to a story produced, written, animated and acted by a group of professionals backed by big media financing.

If that’s not being disaffected with the series, I don’t know what is.

I don’t think your suggestions accomplish this “weaving” you are talking about, its more like pulling at the seams and seeing what happens....except you insist that you are putting something together but instead of illustrating what it looks like, which is all I’m calling for, you just tell me things are not as I have seen.

Tell me more of this story, and then tell me how cutting accomplishes not being a “character note” read, when the first failed.

[Lethologica]

I don’t see how you accomplish your cutting, even by your low desirable number. RNJR still has to have its plot scenes which you didn’t cut. I don’t see what of substance you actually remove from the plot. Instead, you accomplish the couple episode cut you want for your goals out of the RNJR scenes by how? Synergy by having these new missions and the maiden discussed in one awarkadly combined. You seem to think that removing a great deal of travel and talking scenes...so I guess we don’t replace them by actually bothering to show the Academy and Haven and the missions?

Well, the goal was to avoid removing substance from the plot, so thank you for the compliment.

As for what scenes I've removed, well, I thought my original comment was pretty clear, but to recapitulate, a rough summary of the structural removals would be:
-90% of Blake v4 (the v5 content might be extended, but not by more than ~25%).
-80% of RNJR v5 after episode 1 and before the finale. (Leave room for some extremely judicious exposition, Qrow discovering what happened to Huntsmen, some form of the Yang-Weiss scene. Consider shifting ~1 of the training beats to the Journey to Haven content.)
-30-50% of Yang v4.
-50% of Cinder v4 (which I guess amounts to her scenes after v4c1).
-An uncertain but probably low percentage of Weiss' v4 content, and restructure her v5 content depending on logistics.

Any scene-level cuts to be considered later. (Oh, and I forgot about Oscar Alone arc, not sure how much I'd cut there. Would have to go and look at it again.)

There’s something else about your criticism that belies your project to suggest something constructive. The phrase “reading from the character notes” is not only extremely insulting, its pretty incoherent as a critique.

What is not reading from character notes? Is Ruby’s story in season 1 a read of pre-made character notes? Pyrrha’s selection as maiden in season 3? How about key scenes in Spider-Man movies or other Marvel movies that closely resemble the comics? What are “character notes” and what does it mean to “read” from them. Also, who is doing the “reading,” the writers, animators, actors or all of the above?

I use the expression solely to refer to a particular form of bad and/or wasted dialogue, so everything you said is not reading from character notes. As for what is reading from character notes...well, example:

Blake: "Have you ever met somebody and thought to yourself, they are the personification of this word? <30 seconds of diagnosing the main cast before returning to actual topic of conversation>"

No, I don't think that about real people. I think that when I'm writing a character and decide to build them or their plot around a particular concept, or when I'm reading a story and can see how the writer developed the character around certain key concepts. And I can get that in a better way by watching how the character behaves. Making the characters dialogue about it when it doesn't serve anything else is, to me, a waste of time, and feels to me like the writers laying bare the characters' design principles rather than simply having the characters behave as designed. Hence, reading from character notes. And this happened all the bloody time in v4-v5.

Fixing that is sometimes just a matter of writing better dialogue. Other times it's a matter of replacing words with actions - illustrate characters by giving them things to respond to. Still others should just be excised entirely. When this occurs often enough over an entire structural period, as with Blake v4 or RNJR v5, then it shows up in the structural edit. Otherwise, they're scene-level changes - for example, how I would plan to address Blake's personal arc in her v5 content.

If that’s not being disaffected with the series, I don’t know what is.

So what? One may be disaffected and still have constructive criticism to offer. Exhibit A: what I am actually doing right now, literally offering my ideas on how to restructure the narrative for stronger and more concise storytelling. This doesn't 'bely my project to suggest something constructive' in any way.

[Reddish Mage]

I use the expression solely to refer to a particular form of bad and/or wasted dialogue, so everything you said is not reading from character notes. As for what is reading from character notes...well, example:

Blake: "Have you ever met somebody and thought to yourself, they are the personification of this word? <30 seconds of diagnosing the main cast before returning to actual topic of conversation>"

No, I don't think that about real people. I think that when I'm writing a character and decide to build them or their plot around a particular concept, or when I'm reading a story and can see how the writer developed the character around certain key concepts. And I can get that in a better way by watching how the character behaves. Making the characters dialogue about it when it doesn't serve anything else is, to me, a waste of time, and feels to me like the writers laying bare the characters' design principles rather than simply having the characters behave as designed. Hence, reading from character notes. And this happened all the bloody time in v4-v5.

I think, like your belief of all this extraneous dialogue you can cut, there isn't that much there.

You can quote Blake for precisely one conversation that may laid bare what the creators were thinking when they designed Adam. However, just as likely they were having Blake engage in a silly exercise that fits her character. Blake is romantic, reads a lot and is given to overthinking things.

Taking Blake as speaking the literal truth would imply that the writers literally have a one description of several main characters in mind as their singular guiding principle. That's just silly.

Since at least season 1 the characters have engaged in dialogues that don't serve to advance the plot so much as to give new insight into the characters. However, Weiss telling Ruby she made her coffee with "blasphemous amounts of cream and sugar" in a line before Weiss tells what she thinks about Ruby's off-camera revelations about the nature of their mission was not a "reading off the character notes" dialogue. This was just one line in a conversation that was otherwise about how Weiss reacts to learning about the world-shattering things about Ruby. This was followed by Weiss and Yang having a meaningful interaction (which they never did before).

Similarly Yang mopes, she is supposed to mope, but she also interacts with her ex-teachers which leads her to finally put on the robo-arm and start training. That's doing a lot more than reading off her character notes.

You can't find many examples (or really any) for the sort of thing Blake said in Vol 4 and 5 where you can interpret the character as literally having a discussion on something that is (allegedly) a detail on the character sheet.

[Lethologica]

I think, like your belief of all this extraneous dialogue you can cut, there isn't that much there.

That's nice.

You can quote Blake for precisely one conversation

That's not how this works. When I give an illustrative example of something to explain the concept, it's not time for you to presume that's the only instance I can provide. Please to be using the good standards of argumentation, yes? If you want to ask whether I can provide further examples because you think one is insufficient to establish the pattern, then ask, by all means.

that may laid bare what the creators were thinking when they designed Adam. However, just as likely they were having Blake engage in a silly exercise that fits her character. Blake is romantic, reads a lot and is given to overthinking things.

Taking Blake as speaking the literal truth would imply that the writers literally have a one description of several main characters in mind as their singular guiding principle. That's just silly.

It isn't a 'silly exercise', because it's supposedly how Blake developed her very serious views about Adam which she is expressing in this conversation. (Of course, Blake is never going to refer to someone as the personification of a word again.)

It absolutely is about the writers. They couldn't think of a better way to portray Blake's evolving view of Adam from justice to passion to spite than to have her literally say it, and that's not outright bad, but in order to soften it they had her run through their words for the main cast first. Which is why, for example, Weiss is 'defiance' despite that being neither her foremost trait nor a trait she personified in v1-3 when Blake had the chance to observe. Weiss is 'defiance' because that's what the writers had in mind after Weiss' volume 4 arc, so that's what they went with. It is quite clear that these words come straight from the design process.

And that's not at all silly as a writing principle, as long as one keeps in mind that such things are only one perspective on writing the characters. Which means, for example, not embedding them in character dialogue for the sake of it.

Since at least season 1 the characters have engaged in dialogues that don't serve to advance the plot so much as to give new insight into the characters. However, Weiss telling Ruby she made her coffee with "blasphemous amounts of cream and sugar" in a line before Weiss tells what she thinks about Ruby's off-camera revelations about the nature of their mission was not a "reading off the character notes" dialogue.

That's right, and I don't call all non-plot-critical dialogue "reading from character notes," and it doesn't fit how I described "reading from the character notes" previously, so you're not actually disagreeing with me at all here. Please to be dispensing with the men of flax.

Do you have anything to say on the subject of the structural cuts, or are we just moving on to reading from character notes as the main topic of conversation now?

[Reddish Mage]

I'm not sure there's anymore to say. You speak as if "reading from their character notes" is something that the writers did all the time in Vol 4/5. Then you deny you are saying that they are doing so in the only other examples I can think of that sound like something close to Blake's line.

The way you analyze it, its a transparent 4th wall breaking exercise meant to give us a look into what the writers are thinking. That doesn't seem to me something the writers have been doing most of the time, and if you deny the only situations I can think of, and won't give more than a single "illustrative example," there's nothing to discuss about this.

Similarly, if you won't give an example of a re-narrative combining two or three events from Vol 4-5, I can't say more about your restructuring of the narrative then that I'm skeptical you can accomplish your goals.

[Rawhide]

RWBY Volume 7 returns Nov 2, that is all.

[Rater202]

RWBY Volume 7 returns Nov 2, that is all.

I still gotta finish volume 6.

Did we get a RWBY Chibi after last season?

[LaZodiac]

*wakes up from my age long slumber*

I've been busy making my own content and improving my life so I never got around to watching the rest of Volume 6. Sorry to those who were expecting it. My next three day weekend I'll get through em and write my thoughts here, if there's still any interest, and then I'll follow volume 7 live with you all.

[Ramza00]

What is that Star Wars line again?

Come closer, child.
So much strength.
Darkness rises, and light to meet it.
I warned my young apprentice that as he grew stronger, his equal in the light would rise.
Ozpin... [laughs] I assumed.
Wrongly.

-----

My bad Star Wars show will return in Nov powered by Dust, Aura, Semblance, whatever magic system we are now using...plus bad jokes and dialogue!

But rejoice for the show is also powered by Corgi Puppy Power and Emo Cat Girls.

[Delicious Taffy]

Is RWBY still going? I thought Season 5 was the last one. I can't find it on YouTube anymore.

[LaZodiac]

Is RWBY still going? I thought Season 5 was the last one. I can't find it on YouTube anymore.

They don't upload it to Youtube anymore, because it's too hard.

[Lord Raziere]

They don't upload it to Youtube anymore, because it's too hard.

honestly with how much youtube is being a jerk about its content control, I wouldn't blame them. Rooster Teeth got their start making machinima of Halo after all, and youtube of late has gotten flack for taking down any video that has reused anything even if its legal, particularly if it involves anime, so they'd sympathize with the content creators on there, since 'member, rooster teeth got a show on crunchyroll so they're clued in to anime community issues.

[Reddish Mage]

They have complained that YouTube makes things too hard on monetized content. We've talked about this before but I'm not sure about the details. RWBY being taken down, when it's their own unique product seems odd. Red v. Blue is more likely, although it's licensed because Microsoft continues to be good to RT.

I seem to remember the problems cited included videos not running, problems with personalizing channels, and no control over how ads pop up (this last one doesn't seem like a particular problem to me).

YouTube by its nature isn't the best place for a maker to show off their work. They can follow an episode of RWBY with a critic or something inappropriate or link to someone who puts up unauthorized copies. I recall vaguely that someone complained they needed to take their own channel offline to get the unauthorized copies removed.

[Lord Raziere]

They have complained that YouTube makes things too hard on monetized content. We've talked about this before but I'm not sure about the details. RWBY being taken down, when it's their own unique product seems odd. Red v. Blue is more likely, although it's licensed because Microsoft continues to be good to RT.

I seem to remember the problems cited included videos not running, problems with personalizing channels, and no control over how ads pop up (this last one doesn't seem like a particular problem to me).

YouTube by its nature isn't the best place for a maker to show off their work. They can follow an episode of RWBY with a critic or something inappropriate or link to someone who puts up unauthorized copies. I recall vaguely that someone complained they needed to take their own channel offline to get the unauthorized copies removed.

They might just not want to take the risk anymore. RWBY looks very anime, has similarities to Soul Eater, is a digital animation (which isn't above getting taken down, there animated parodies of dragon ball z that get taken down just because its dbz.) I know TFS has moved to a more Twitch-based model with edited versions of what they stream being put on youtube as something secondary, gaijingoomba has moved to a more twitch-based thing, a big part of it is that youtubes censoring and taking videos down is that its all algorithm and automated, you don't know what will actually set youtube's flagging off.

as for those problems, I guess they just want to make sure the experience of viewing their videos is good by their standards. and I can see people like RT not wanting to do anything with youtube out of principle or at least because its harder to make money with youtube interfering. like the reasons I hear from other people who make similar online content is that youtubes actions are very interfering and the content creators don't like people doing that when what they do is their livelihood. I could see it being a problem RT would relate to, see that they were in a similar position at one point and not stand for it.

[Reddish Mage]

They might just not want to take the risk anymore. RWBY looks very anime, has similarities to Soul Eater, is a digital animation (which isn't above getting taken down, there animated parodies of dragon ball z that get taken down just because its dbz.) I know TFS has moved to a more Twitch-based model with edited versions of what they stream being put on youtube as something secondary, gaijingoomba has moved to a more twitch-based thing, a big part of it is that youtubes censoring and taking videos down is that its all algorithm and automated, you don't know what will actually set youtube's flagging off.

The idea that RWBY is similar enough to an anime to get flagged and taken down for impersonating anime seems so far out there as to be insulting.

I cannot see RWBY as being "Soul Eater", nor can I watch Soul Eater past a few episodes, but I'm pretty sure a computer won't conflate the two.

That said, I'm not sure what YouTube "algorithms" are or what they do. I'd imagine they just compare videos uploaded to other copyrighted content, and remove them based the video looking pretty much identical to the copyrighted content.

If YouTube instead tries to figure out what from features of the videos itself, then RT is in trouble. Long highly animated or SFX laden videos are going to be almost always lifted from copyrighted material, so original content producers would have a big problem.

I hear from other people who make similar online content is that youtubes actions are very interfering and the content creators don't like people doing that when what they do is their livelihood. I could see it being a problem RT would relate to, see that they were in a similar position at one point and not stand for it.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "interfering." These words make me envision YouTube suggesting how content makers cast their show and making decisions about the script and execution. Seriously though, Does Youtube put in length limits? Do they actively censor lots of content? Does YouTube hit content with lots of labels and analytics in order to figure out who to show that content and then allow content-makers to view what YouTube is doing? That last one is practically what Google does when you do a search, but I suppose it would work IRL to encourage YouTube producers to alter their videos to attract more audience.

I haven't actually read what these content makers say so I'm in the dark about what big YouTube is doing to them. However, I'm no stranger to bad websites that are buggy and don't work right, so that sounds a bit like what could be going on with these fancy paid features.

[Rawhide]

The issue isn't being taken down, it's monetisation. They need to make money from their shows, and YouTube has been randomly demonetising videos of all creators for ineffable reasons that have nothing to do with copyright.

[Ramza00]

The issue isn't being taken down, it's monetisation. They need to make money from their shows, and YouTube has been randomly demonetising videos of all creators for ineffable reasons that have nothing to do with copyright.

Yes and remember RWBY / RoosterTeeth has alternative revenue streams from other sources besides their RT membership. For example the 6 volumes of RWBY are now on crunchyroll. In addition this week it is announced RT is partnering with DC for some RWBY and genLock comics.

Pretty much RoosterTeeth is now big enough that they can play with other partners for distribution besides Youtube if Youtube is being difficult or is giving subpar Ad rates. It stinks for the users not having a single video portal but this is better for the community long term if content creators can make more money and have less hassle due to having multiple suppliers for video distribution and monetization.

[Lord Raziere]

The issue isn't being taken down, it's monetisation. They need to make money from their shows, and YouTube has been randomly demonetising videos of all creators for ineffable reasons that have nothing to do with copyright.

Yeah, that problem to. if its not one, its the other.

[Celestia]

The problem is twofold. First, monetization, as has been stated. However, the reason for this is not "ineffable." It's because RWBY looks like a video game. In the past few years, YouTube has been demonizing gaming content across the board to appease advertisers that still think video games are "fringe" (despite games being the number one form of media consumed).

Second, YouTube has an internal content rating system, similar to how movies are rated by the MPAA. However, these ratings do not exist for the benefit of the audience (who can't even see them) and, instead, serve as a way for YouTube to restrict types of videos it doesn't like. If your video gets rated as adult content, then it won't appear in the recommendations and won't even be easy to find in the search bar. And naturally, violence is a big no-no for the platform.

In short, RoosterTeeth was having trouble keeping the videos monetized, and was getting throttled on the views. It was only starting to happen at the time, but they were smart to jump ship when they did. If they had stuck around, the problem would have only gotten worse for them.

[Reddish Mage]

Basically, YouTube is trying to become a destination for mainstream cable TV-like content and attract bigger ad $. Problem: YouTube’s open platform lack the sort of editorial censorship and filtering that happens on cable. Comments sections are also a free-for-all. The result is stuff advertisers don’t want their ads associated with happens.

YouTube’s response, described as “the adpocalypse first and second” includes using a variety of means to redirect ad $ and filter out perhaps the vast majority of paid content (assuming most of the paid stuff is small dollar content that only ever received a marginal amount from YouTube).

Makes a lot of sense, YouTube can manually delist their “preferred” video providers (essentially their A-list), but cannot manually police every video. So their steps included...mass demonetizing the smaller providers, new ad policies such as removing profanity from videos, and putting up opaque filtering algorithms that by their nature are going to overfilter.

The end result is that YouTube artists, probably majority, have found ads getting redirected away from their videos (the article describes 50/60 percent away from the stuff that’s still getting monetized) and lots of yellow $ videos getting no ads at all. The marginal content producers also no longer qualify to monetize their videos.

Since the sort of content YouTube is trying to filter only exists on a small minority of its videos, it seems like removing so many videos is overkill, but that is one way to make an appreciable dent in the numbers objectionable. I’d imagine someone could think YouTube is also taking the opportunity to simply pay fewer dollars to fewer accounts, as all those videos making $2.50 a month add up.

RT would not be among the “marginal content providers” and could be among those on the “preferred” list, but still has to deal with YouTube’s seemingly random ad redirects as well as its increasingly stingy payouts.

Also, while RWBY is RTs biggest breadwinner and is made to appeal to a mainstream PG-13 audience, other RT videos run the gamut and can include profanity and adult themes.

[Rawhide]

However, the reason for this is not "ineffable."

YouTube has an internal content rating system, similar to how movies are rated by the MPAA. However, these ratings do not exist for the benefit of the audience (who can't even see them) and, instead, serve as a way for YouTube to restrict types of videos it doesn't like.

Basically, YouTube has an internal system that is entirely opaque, no one can see, no one can understand, no one can work with, and they change at their own discretion? How is that not ineffable?

[Reddish Mage]

Basically, YouTube has an internal system that is entirely opaque, no one can see, no one can understand, and no one can work with? How is that not ineffable?

Ineffable literally means something like not to be mentioned or “cannot be questioned.” People are questioning it.

Alternatively, ineffable can be something too great to reduce to words. That fits these formulas nicely, as they are probably AI-driven and so even the programmers don’t know how they work.

My guess is, they are heavily biased against small developers, certain genre, and anything identifiable fringe. AI is well known to develop prejudices and biases easily when given great breadth to screen things based purely on whether stuff correlates to (but doesn’t necessarily cause) the undesired effect, and whose to say the programmers aren’t suggesting these criteria themselves? If YouTube wants to look mainstream that means favoring more mainstream looking content.

[Rawhide]

YouTube is essentially a deity with a great plan which is beyond the understanding of mere mortals. We can reduce it to simplistic terms, but can't put the steps of the plan or how it works into accurate words (it's both beyond our current understanding and some of it is legally unutterable). Fiction is littered with works of heroes and villains questioning, challenging, or attempting to thwart various deities' ineffable plans.

[Celestia]

YouTube is essentially a deity with a great plan which is beyond the understanding of mere mortals. We can reduce it to simplistic terms, but can't put the steps of the plan or how it works into accurate words (it's both beyond our current understanding and some of it is legally unutterable). Fiction is littered with works of heroes and villains questioning, challenging, or attempting to thwart various deities' ineffable plans.

Wow, no it's not. It's a company. Their goal is to make money. They do so by contracting advertising. Advertisers are the clients; we are the product. YouTube makes logical business decisions based on their goals and desires and these factors. There is no supernatural or deific plan beyond mortal comprehension.

[Rawhide]

Wow, no it's not. It's a company. Their goal is to make money. They do so by contracting advertising. Advertisers are the clients; we are the product. YouTube makes logical business decisions based on their goals and desires and these factors. There is no supernatural or deific plan beyond mortal comprehension.

Please explain to me the algorithms they use, and how it will or won't be changed in the future. Thank you.

There is a massive power imbalance between YouTube and content creators, and YouTube is far from transparent in its processes. Content providers have become increasingly frustrated with apparent double standards, internal processes and policies changing without warning, and difficulty in resolving any issues.

It’s this lack of transparency, and how quickly the policies change, which frustrates content providers far more than the policies themselves. You can't work to a standard when the standard isn't clear and keeps changing.

[Celestia]

Please explain to me the algorithms they use, and how it will or won't be changed in the future. Thank you.

That's irrelevant. It's like claiming that Chinese sweatshops are beyond comprehension because we don't know their exact hiring practices or claiming that we can't comment on their abuse of employees without knowing the policies behind their working conditions. It just doesn't matter. That we don't know the specifics of how the algorithms work doesn't change the results they create nor the intentions that built them.

There is a massive power imbalance between YouTube and content creators, and YouTube is far from transparent in its processes. Content providers have become increasingly frustrated with apparent double standards, internal processes and policies changing without warning, and difficulty in resolving any issues.

It’s this lack of transparency, and how quickly the policies change, which frustrates content providers far more than the policies themselves. You can't work to a standard when the standard isn't clear and keeps changing.

No, I'm fairly certain that a policy which is currently destroying one's YouTube career is just a bit more distressing than the possibility of future changes.

[Rawhide]

That we don't know the specifics of how the algorithms work doesn't change the results they create nor the intentions that built them.

The final overall intention on the ecosystem as a whole is irrelevant. My entire point is that they don't (and can't) know how these algorithms work, or how they will change. Monetised one day, gone the next.

No, I'm fairly certain that a policy which is currently destroying one's YouTube career is just a bit more distressing than the possibility of future changes.

You seem to have misunderstood me. I'm not just talking about some hypothetical future change, these changes have already happened. I'm talking about those very policy changes you mentioned which are affecting what people have based their careers on. They created content to one standard, and the standard has changed.

---

Edit to add: Ok, I think I may have tracked down the misunderstanding. When I said reasons, I didn't mean "reasons they're demonetising videos as a whole", I meant "reasons for each specific video to be selected for demonetisation".

[Reddish Mage]

And these programs are known to be extremely complex and to rely heavily on opaque processes like AI. Such programs are ineffable in several definitions of the term. Even the programmers don’t know how the program selects a particular video for demonetization, and its impossible to query the program for reasons.