YouTube is not a church approved broadcast service?

[Jacobdaviddean]

I received an email a little bit ago regarding "New Tools and Guidelines for Managing Local Broadcasts" and I am confused by a statement in it:

"YouTube and other services are currently being reviewed but are not approved as official tools for broadcasting Church events."

This is rather confusing considering it has been offered as an option to be used in previous official notifications, help docs, and how-to guides.

Here are a few examples:
- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/too ... w?lang=eng
- viewtopic.php?t=37514
- https://tech.churchofjesuschrist.org/wi ... l_Meetings

It's confusing for them to state that it's not an approved service when there are official help docs for it.

While Zoom is great for specific scenarios and can be used for broadcasts, it is not ideal for areas with poor Internet and can be more difficult to use for the elderly than a basic YouTube stream.

Any ideas what's going on and if it truly is, and never had been approved for use, why is there so much documentation mentioning it and detailing it's use?

[BrianEdwards]

I'd expect it may be a transition from what was (and still is) supported, to what is now officially approved. The communication states "Zoom has been approved as the tool for conducting local broadcasts...", and that "YouTube and other services are currently being reviewed but are not approved as official tools for broadcasting Church events." My takeaway is that instead of waiting for all the ducks to line up in a row, the Church is taking this first step from Zoom just being supported to now being officially approved, with the understanding that hopefully YouTube and perhaps other services will eventually also become approved. I don't think this removes anyone's ability to use YouTube as needed, just the awareness that it currently still hasn't gone through the entire approval process.

[russellhltn]

The big issue in my mind is "what about Stake Conference"? Last I knew, Zoom had a limit on the number of connections that was far short of allowing members to see stake conference at home. Not all buildings can accommodate everyone that meets there in a single meeting.

[Jacobdaviddean]

The big issue in my mind is "what about Stake Conference"? Last I knew, Zoom had a limit on the number of connections that was far short of allowing members to see stake conference at home. Not all buildings can accommodate everyone that meets there in a single meeting.

Exactly. We routinely have over 700 viewers for Stake Conference.

The wording in the notice makes it seem as if it is, and never was, approved for use, which would generally mean not allowed for use, right?

I don't like the gray area here.

[russellhltn]

We routinely have over 700 viewers for Stake Conference.

Reading the Handbook, there's another issue.

29.3.1

More than one Sunday general session may be held if there is not room for everyone in one session.
...
If necessary, conference sessions may be streamed to meetinghouses or other locations in the stake. Some members may need the conference to be streamed to their homes. For more about streaming meetings, see 29.7.

29.7 Streams and virtual meetings are not meant for the convenience of those who could reasonably attend in person.

It seems the criteria for watching Stake Conference from home has tightened up from what it used to be. In the past, Stake Conference was an exception. Now , it seems to be playing by the same rules as Sacrament.

Two sessions of stake conference. I know it was done in the past, but there's going to be resistance to returning to that. I predict alternate interpretations by those holding the keys at the local level.

[lajackson]

The wording in the notice makes it seem as if it is, and never was, approved for use, which would generally mean not allowed for use, right?

I believe that "never was approved for use" is not the same as "not allowed for use". In this case there seems to be no restriction on using YouTube. There only appears to be a set of preferences (mostly Zoom) that have been approved officially.

There still are other ways of doing things that have not been officially approved but are not restricted from use either. In fact, the help and support information tells us exactly how to use them.

As of the statement today, there is another consideration. The preference appears to be to use Zoom because it will interface with the Church broadcast page. It appears that those who use YouTube or some other solution will have trouble getting their events synced to that page, if it is even possible at all.

And there is one more consideration now. In our stake, most wards no longer webcast their sacrament meetings except on special occasions. The Notice dated today seems to take the position that most wards are still webcasting regularly. Is there an official position on that?

Should we be? Asking the bishops in our stake will return as many different answers to that question as there are bishops to ask.

[lajackson]

Two sessions of stake conference. I know it was done in the past, but there's going to be resistance to returning to that.

Will a general authority authorize an afternoon session of stake conference, knowing that means he will not be able to fly home on Sunday due to lack of an available flight?

So many things to consider nowadays.

[barkeraj]

I'm curious on the stream limit too, as we sometimes wouldn't fit within the limit for our stake conferences.

We are currently using Mevo cameras for ward streaming, which can send directly to YouTube without an intermediary. To the best of my knowledge from past attempts, Zoom doesn't allow you to use it without using the full Zoom client (like an RTMP stream), so now this means the need for something like a mobile device that can have the app or a laptop and external camera. Right?

[lajackson]

We , , , can send directly to YouTube without an intermediary. . . . Zoom doesn't allow . . it without using the full Zoom client . . .

To switch our stake center to Zoom will require the addition of more equipment and parts that we do not have, along with the expertise to run both the equipment and the laptop programs and interfaces. That would complicate our webcast process exponentially.

[russellhltn]

The Notice dated today seems to take the position that most wards are still webcasting regularly. Is there an official position on that?

Yes, it's in the Handbook, 29.7. If you've got "shut-ins", that's a valid reason to webcast. This exemption was part of the "return to church" after the pandemic.