Does anyone have more context? Or a link to a video showing this issue? This Reddit thread only seems to have a screenshot (though I didn’t scour the entire comment section).<p>I’ve never seen this in the wild, and technically without a link I still haven’t seen it live at all. I’m wondering if the channel triggered some sort of anti-spam mechanism.<p>EDIT: The only source I can find is from screenshots of right-wing Twitter accounts suggesting something about YouTube censoring anti-vax protests: <a href="https://m.imgur.com/dh1kU1q" rel="nofollow">https://m.imgur.com/dh1kU1q</a> Until someone can link to an actual video showing this issue, I’d approach this with an extremely high degree of skepticism.<p>EDIT 2: Appears to only apply to live streams from new accounts. Seems like a reasonable limitation to clamp down on the spread of copyrighted material rebroadcasting (people live streaming sports and such from throwaway accounts) and cryptocurrency scams.
From other [dupe] thread:<p>I think the answer is still related to censorship. Streamers with lots of history also got throttled.<p>So, ask yourself, why would YouTube need to throttle in the first place? Who is giving all these protest-streamers their first 300 viewers, making them rise in the live-streaming rankings and exposing millions to anti-mandate protests?<p>I think YouTube is under attack. I think they learned from live-streams during George Floyd protests, which, incidentally, I also was exposed to, even though not caring too much about that. I think throttling is an attempt to avoid the artificial boosting of divisive and polarizing content.<p>I really do not want to turn this into a conspiracy theory, though Mark Zuckerberg did offer for Facebook to make some changes, with the rest blacked out under "secret weapon" technology. After experiments done on Facebook on emotional contagion, surely, they must have ways to, instead of rile up an entire populace, calm them down. We are at an age where a single out-of-context video of alleged police brutality can shut down the economy.<p>Edit: copyright - and ad fraud make little sense to me, since the videos could still be viewed when subscribing to the channel or logging out. If detected as fraudulent, the stream should go offline without warning.
From Google support...<p><a href="https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9228390" rel="nofollow">https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9228390</a><p>>Requirements
To live stream on mobile, you’ll need:
At least 50 subscribers.
No live streaming restrictions within the last 90 days on your channel.
To verify your channel.
To enable live streaming. You may need to wait 24 hours before you can start your first live stream.
An Android 5.0+ device.<p>>Why is my mobile live stream’s audience limited? To help aspiring creators while protecting the community, we've created safeguards to limit the spread of potentially harmful content.<p>Will they implement the same rate limiting for apps in the Play Store or sending emails from new Gmail accounts?<p>New support articles coming soon...<p>Why is my app's audience limited?
Why is sending emails from Gmail limited?
Why is sharing my Google Doc limited?
First off, I'd like to see some additional proof that this isn't a hoax. There's other people in that thread claiming it's real, but I have yet to see anything other than the image posted.<p>Assuming it is real however, this is another baffling decision Youtube has made in recent months. I assume the thought behind this is to try maximize their walled garden in some way, but unlike other sites Youtube has such a long history of being embedded in external sites that they can't block all external access all at once. However, the main continued success of Youtube is arguably the emergence of new viral videos that boost new blood into a position of becoming a long-term profitable creator. This is being done in the name of "small creators" but it seems apparent this will have the opposite effect.
I read a streamer from the Truck protest in Ottawa was getting hit by this.<p>Hope Youtube doesn't become just another mouthpiece for only government approved narratives like TV.
I always loved YT as this immense archive. Twenty year old videos are still up.
Anyone can upload anything regardless if it makes Google money.<p>It is inevitable that YT is changing. Shareholders need to be payed.
Do we have any numbers on how many subs does the channel have and how much is the viewer limit?<p>I have a small YT channel for local OSM chapter with 15k views & 300 subs, good to know they could fuck me over if I ever try to make a live stream that would blow up... Not that I ever had more than two dozen viewers, but social media engagement has proven to me to be very unpredictable in both upside and downside.
This is fine. This is YouTube trying to curb antivax bullshit, which is a good idea<p>> protests, since they were organized by truckers opposed to Covid vaccine mandates.<p><a href="https://reclaimthenet.org/youtube-capping-viewer-limits/" rel="nofollow">https://reclaimthenet.org/youtube-capping-viewer-limits/</a>
That would be so much abusive from youtube that I don't believe it.
And since I use yt-dlp I don't think I'll be able to see the text of such blockade.
If this is about people broadcasting sporting events unauthorised, I wonder if the fact that the Olympics are currently happening is making this worse.
> "Due to limited creator history we're limiting the number of views. Subscribe to this channel to help the creator"<p>Better yet, do so on peertube.
I see negative comments on this on here and (mostly) reddit.<p>But the reality is this is simple and yet brilliant approach to stop misinformation and policy violators. May be even lazy approach to avoid doing the hard work. What does any policy offenders usually do? Create new accounts and post the same misinformation slightly modified.<p>Between Youtube and PlayStore, google has seen enough of this trends. I am surprised it even took them this long to limit virality of new accounts.