YouTube going full thought police.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Scenario 1 actually has already been proven to be in effect for a while now..

By whom I am afraid you are going to need to be more specifics and please don't copy pasta to try to get out of articulating yourself what you just claimed. I don't care how badly you think you'll do.

Because where you got that information and claim very much matters because it relates to how the information was collected. I don't care about ideology, just the facts. If you mean it is proven just by someone else's argument, WELL then OK. I appreciate your opinion.

Marketing and manipulation are for sure factors in suggestion which directly relates to thought. But that isn't new, and people are well aware of this, there is also so much access now to information the real threat you seem to imply is that the over deluge of information or the right information that stays what you want it to.

Guess what anybody at all interested in doing any research has to already have certain things establish before they begin and while they engage in it. If they don't know that there are multiple sources for information and not all of it from a qualified body, then they aren't liking to reach a reasonable or logical conclusion anyways.

[I Push Buttons]

You can still upload your content, you just won't get paid for it.

Nobody is censoring anything.

Nobody will see it (it will be scrubbed from searches and recommendations) and won't be able to engage with it, likes and comments will be disabled.

Yeah no censorship here.



They already don't get paid friendo, they haven't for months... YouTube is taking it to the next level with this new policy.

[Elba]

Not specifically, no.

Then what endears you to him as a liberal? Is it the whining about SJWs? The whining about post modernism? Guy is pretty far from lefty views.

For real, how can anybody take this man seriously?

[Zmaniac17]

You can still upload your content, you just won't get paid for it.

Nobody is censoring anything.

This is indirect censorship. Content that can't be monetized will not be produced. The question of where to draw the line is a discussion and should not be dictated by a media conglomerate. There is already indirect censorship in the form of the Youtube algorithms. These are required but they cannot be dismissed as harmless either.

There are no solid black or white answers here. In trying to perfect a system we may inadvertently prevent it from evolving into anything unexpected or new. If Youtube had set out to narrowly define itself when it was created it may never have grown into the successful company it is today.

I'm guessing most people are not against the idea of limiting platforms for hate speech. But where the line is drawn is incredibly important. There will be collateral damage; unintentional censorship.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Nobody will see it (it will be scrubbed from searches and recommendations) and won't be able to engage with it, likes and comments will be disabled.

Yeah no censorship here.



They already don't get paid friendo, they haven't for months... YouTube is taking it to the next level with this new policy.

Um that is why people spend a fortune on promotion, how is the lack of an audience you need to build yourself censorship, because the one place you can get it the easiest is on YouTube where you have to substantiate an audience to get people to pay you for the content?

A far as the comments section, I'll go with you yes that is for sure censorship, hell IMDB just recently removed their comment sections altogether, Amazon now removes buyer feedback, Yelp now requires extra steps for identification for reviews or they get removed.

That is censorship but maybe not all for the same reasons and guess what it is their property and platform.

[Lokryn]

Then what endears you to him as a liberal? Is it the whining about SJWs? The whining about post modernism? Guy is pretty far from lefty views.

For real, how can anybody take this man seriously?

Again, you should actually watch some of his videos (he has over a hundred uploaded) before coming to a conclusion based on other people's opinions. If you do and still can't appreciate his point of view, then so be it. I just get tired of people generalizing and immediately placing someone in a box just because his viewpoints are different.

[Tziva]

As much as people find censorship repugnant, this policy is 100% about advertiser confidence which is vital for creators being able to make content in the first place. I think most channels would probably rather be forced to avoid extremely controversial/offensive topics than to not be able to have a voice at all.

If advertisers don't feel comfortable with their brands being shown on YouTube because they can't be sure their ads will be matched with videos reflecting their company ideals and worldview, they won't buy ad time.. If they don't advertise, not only can creators no longer profit from YouTube, but YouTube as a platform would cease to exist because it wouldn't be able to fund the enormous amount of storage and bandwidth the site requires.

People who think this is some kind of "social justice" thing or political ideology are grossly misunderstanding how the advertising world works. This is completely a reaction to the situation in April where a ton of major companies pulled out of advertising on YouTube because their ads were being shown on content they found misaligned with their brand ideals or outright inappropriate. For many creators, revenue dropped over 50% when this happened. Creator profit is a percentage of YouTube profit so it's reasonable to conclude that YouTube itself as a whole had a very similar drop in revenue. YouTube tried to react quickly and threw out a bunch of new policies that were hasty, poorly communicated and shoddily implemented, and they've spend the last few months readjusting and reaffirming all that to find the balance being what makes brands and creators happy.

/works on YT
//but not for YT

[Zafire]

I wonder if they're going to take "The Late Show" off Youtube. I watch it every weekday.

[The Penguin]

What are you even rambling about?

I was about to ask you the same thing. :-)

[Elba]

Again, you should actually watch some of his videos (he has over a hundred uploaded) before coming to a conclusion based on other people's opinions. If you do and still can't appreciate his point of view, then so be it. I just get tired of people generalizing and immediately placing someone in a box just because his viewpoints are different.

Other people's opinions? Err, those are direct quotes from him.

And btw, not you, but to the other guy, when Peterson whined that his account was gone ... err no his vids were still up. Grampa apparently forgot his password.

[I Push Buttons]

As much as people find censorship repugnant, this policy is 100% about advertiser confidence which is vital for creators being able to make content in the first place. I think most channels would probably rather be forced to avoid extremely controversial/offensive topics than to not be able to have a voice at all.

If advertisers don't feel comfortable with their brands being shown on YouTube because they can't be sure their ads will be matched with videos reflecting their company ideals and worldview, they won't buy ad time.. If they don't advertise, not only can creators no longer profit from YouTube, but YouTube as a platform would cease to exist because it wouldn't be able to fund the enormous amount of storage and bandwidth the site requires.

People who think this is some kind of "social justice" thing or political ideology are grossly misunderstanding how the advertising world works. This is completely a reaction to the situation in April where a ton of major companies pulled out of advertising on YouTube because their ads were being shown on content they found misaligned with their brand ideals or outright inappropriate. For many creators, revenue dropped over 50% when this happened. Creator profit is a percentage of YouTube profit so it's reasonable to conclude that YouTube itself as a whole had a very similar drop in revenue. YouTube tried to react quickly and threw out a bunch of new policies that were hasty, poorly communicated and shoddily implemented, and they've spend the last few months readjusting and reaffirming all that to find the balance being what makes brands and creators happy.

/works on YT
//but not for YT

You mean like how they were fine advertising on these kinds of videos for the last 12 years and only just now took exception when SJWs started contacting them directly and lying about what kinds of videos their ads were running on?

[Doctor Amadeus]

I wonder if they're going to take "The Late Show" off Youtube. I watch it every weekday.

Why would they, I would say something like this actually clears the way for Stephan Colbert, or Glenn Beck to clean up, They already have an audience and advertisers who can go to YouTube and be like we want to place an ad.

[Elba]

I was about to ask you the same thing. :-)

I said most conservative views are stupid. And you gave me the Evelyn Beatrice Hall spiel.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean like how they were fine advertising on these kinds of videos for the last 12 years and only just now took exception when SJWs started contacting them directly and lying about what kinds of videos their ads were running on?

They started caring when it started to cost them money. Businesses don't give a shit about political agenda. They care about the bottom line.

[Doctor Amadeus]

You mean like how they were fine advertising on these kinds of videos for the last 12 years and only just now took exception when SJWs started contacting them directly and lying about what kinds of videos their ads were running on?

You mean like how the people bitching about SJW, and people having the freedom right to do so now excercising that in the form of removing their ad according to you they don't want to pay for making you kind of an SJW, and a hypocrite.

Tit for tat right, as long as it maintained the the illusion in your mind?

I guess it's too much to ask for consistency from those demanding it.


Just because someone offers you something for free or invites you over, doesn't mean at some point they can't ask you to leave or in this case pay your own rent.

[Serpha]

So YouTube is turning into leftist propaganda machine. Fuck them.

[Jinpachi]

I don't see what's wrong with a private company choosing what can be posted on their platform. If you don't like it then go use another one.

You can guarantee a competitor will arise from this bullshit.

[Doctor Amadeus]

You can guarantee a competitor will arise from this bullshit.

I guarantee they won't unless they want to go broke. Yes let's make a free upload service with no money, and force advertisers to pay for content that hurts their product or increases no actual revenue.

[Tziva]

You mean like how they were fine advertising on these kinds of videos for the last 12 years and only just now took exception when SJWs started contacting them directly and lying about what kinds of videos their ads were running on?

My initial reaction is [citation needed] on the claim that this has anything to do with SJW contacting companies and companies listening to some internet randoms calling them.

But ultimately, I don't think it matters what alerted the company to the matter. If Walmart decides it doesn't want to sell ads on YouTube as long as YouTube is hosting, say, videos with hatespeech because they don't want their ads shown in conjunction with those messages it matters absolutely not at all how they found out their ads were playing on that kind of content.

Finally, it is absolutely worth pointing out that YouTube of today is not remotely analogous to YouTube of the past. Probably not even to a couple years ago, much less 12 years ago. There are vastly more creators putting up videos, more brands using it as an advertising platform (and in extremely different ways than they did years ago), the way ads are sold and served has changed dramatically, the mobile market and YouTube itself has also completely changed the way that advertising is created, viewed and watched (in a not insignificant way). The platform is different, the ad market is different, and the way the internet funds itself is different, all in a way that is extremely relevant to this situation. To put it in plain terms, there were less of those videos years ago, and brands were advertising on far less channels, far less frequently, and were invested in YouTube as a valid advertising platform far less.

For sure, people's feelings about that content is relevant, since viewer perception impacts the brand. If there are people who are more (or less) accepting of certain topics than brands are going to be more (or less) willing to align their brand with those topics. But it's not a matter of some guy who makes a moral drama out of every little thing whining to Walmart that his feelings were hurt over some YouTube video their commercial appeared on and then deciding to react by pulling off of the platform entirely. That's absurd to the point of laughability.

I know it is simpler to just sort this into some kind of us vs them debate where folks can point to particular people or ideology and just blame them for this whole situation, which is human nature... but it's also just simply not the way any of this has worked.

[Elba]

I guarantee they won't unless they want to go broke. Yes let's make a free upload service with no money, and force advertisers to pay for content that hurts their product or increases no actual revenue.

Yup. Good summary why these things don't work so well:

[Jawless Jones]

Why the fuck advertisers think anyone gives a shit about their crappy ad I have no idea.

If I saw an ad for coke on a channel advocating killing all humans I wouldn't think coca-cola advocates killing all humans.
Basically advertisers think people are stupider than they actually are, and think that the advertisers condone what the videos content is.