YouTube going full thought police.

[Jaundiced]

I was listening to a Sam Harris podcast this morning about him deleting his patreon account because they are taking down users with no notice for similar reasons.

Dark times for freedom of thought

[Jaundiced]

Guess you haven't thought that through much - the internet is not a country, how would the first amendment apply to the internet?

It would easily apply to the companies based in the U.S.

[RaoBurning]

Having been born into a generation that Didn't have internet, and watching how damaged the world has become... I'm glad.

At first I was pissed off, but after thinking and experiencing shit... I hope they regulate the fuck out of the internet.

The Internet is a medium, not an affliction. You can no sooner blame it for social ills than books, papyrus, or the spoken word.

[Doctor Amadeus]

For example, why wouldn't you want from average citizen to hear his personal review about the product?

He isn't an average citizen he is vlogger, which is fine, but over all he is reviewing food products to no ultimate benefit to your average advertisers. Maybe say like Taco Bell if he is specifically working with them, but they aren't going to pay for that if they can validate any of his claims.

Keep in mind I gave him as an example, his channel is successful and he does already get some endorsements, but by in large I can't see Best Buy advertising him or other business's that might even compete with those he is reviewing.

He is just like you but he likes the same little things. Sure, I find it retarded to review a pizza but like it or not, when someone sees that "passion in his eyes" about that Little Caesars pizza, someone would usually go "What did I watch that today on youtube....oh yeah, I could get one" and buy that pizza. That's how you could get payed without youtube monetization. If you have lot of viewers, someone would pay you to mention their product on your channel.

He isn't like me at all, I can't actually eat a tiny portion of that otherwise I assure you I wouldn't be here anymore, and I don't mean on the forums. He also doesn't add anything useful or helpful in his reviews, not for me, not someone who doesn't spend the majority of my time, consuming fast food.

Of course I am talking about me, I have nothing against him, but others like me and not also not watching him not clicking on his videos or actively avoiding his videos I am not going to be clicking on his advertisers either.

Again he seems like he is doing fine and next to as much as I can tell he isn't really saying much about YouTubes new policy, but if he did, I can see why as NICE as he is, why he might not be able to sell his show.

That said, I am not happy nor Frothing at the mouth about people impacted by this lots of people probably make great content and work really hard. It sucks that some fuck that up for others though, and cashed in while they could for as long as they could.

Maybe in the end this will clear out those that make just crap, and promote those that do make quality content, and don't rely on controversy.

If someone has a style of making pizza videos all the time, why not monetizing his videos when people (if content is done well) would come back to check if there is something new?

So would I, hell I would go into my pocket book for anything I value, and I would support the content however the ones yelling the loudest are the ones who cashed in. They aren't doing this for the little guy, they are doing it because despite what they say, views based on click bait, and boob shots is not content most are going to pay for.

I mean, you get payed for fully viewed ads, not fully viewed videos. If your channel brings lot of viewers in, ads that you are going to see on video is related to your searches and not to the videos of the channel. For example, I can come to see that particular video you have linked but ad that I get, it is related to C# programming.

You don't have to be legitimate at all to talk about things that you like.

You are right, and that WAS the appeal of YouTube. Now it's just a sewer with fake Pranks, Click Bait, and Drama. Which is fine, but, I avoid it, and if I ever click on it, then it was by accident. I am ok if Advertisers don't want to pay for views based on that.

[unfilteredJW]

The Internet is a medium, not an affliction. You can no sooner blame it for social ills than books, papyrus, or the spoken word.

Heh, agreed.

It's like getting mad at a hammer. It's a fucking tool.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I was listening to a Sam Harris podcast this morning about him deleting his patreon account because they are taking down users with no notice for similar reasons.

Dark times for freedom of thought

Oh Wait so it's a dark time when advertisers and business cut their losses and don't want to sacrifice themselves for other peoples content that those who do, aren't paying for, and don't want to.

You pay 14.95$ a month, for WoW others can pony up or content providers can pitch their content to advertisers themselves.

[helebelemon]

I was listening to a Sam Harris podcast this morning about him deleting his patreon account because they are taking down users with no notice for similar reasons.

Dark times for freedom of thought

Wow, Sam Harris said that? I'm surprised as Sam Harris tends to be an intellectual that cares to do his research. If he did indeed say that, his basic understanding of the market would have made him realize that his viewers don't click ads and don't really help revenue much outside of bringing the speaker (entertainer) popularity and direct income. Such users are no different from forum users, who largely suffer from ad-blindness.

[Elba]

I was listening to a Sam Harris podcast this morning about him deleting his patreon account because they are taking down users with no notice for similar reasons.

Dark times for freedom of thought

You mean deleting the Patreon account of literal pirate Lauren Southern? Lol.

Right wing pretend centrism, this time Harris, strikes again.

[smooshtheman]

And then you link videos you dislike and feel shouldn't be monetized here, which give them views and monetization.

So much for walking the talk. Backpedaling fits the scenario better.



If that were truly the case, you would be permabanned for making a comment like this. But you are not, among others who cry foul whenever they clearly break the rules outlined on this site that they agreed to abide before joining.

give it 24 hrs

[Slant]

https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/...-to-fight.html

We all know how people who say the wrong things (read: don't peddle SJW bullshit) on YouTube have most of their videos demonetized... Philip Defranco, H3H3, PewDiePie, Dave Rubin, etc... People who don't say anything even remotely hateful or extremist, but merely disagree with regressive bullshit...

Well YouTube is taking it to the next level with their new policy:



Now we can all agree that terrorist videos should be taken down, that is not an issue at all...

But as we have already seen in the last six months, with all of the advertiser controversy on YouTube and all of their initiatives to remove "terrorist" and "extremist" content... All that has really happened is that many of these 'deviant' channels (by that I mean, not social justice channels) have been labeled extremist, hateful, controversial, etc., and had most of their videos demonetized.

Now, not only will that keep happening and happen even harder... But in addition to having their ad revenue taken away, their videos will essentially be hidden, all of the features on them will be disabled, AND searches for their videos will redirect to a YouTube curated social justice playlist...

This is only the beginning by the way, as YouTube is merely one platform in the "Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism", which includes Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, and many other companies who will all implement similar policies to curb speech they disagree with.

Alex Jones is going to run into problems on Youtube. Good.

[Speaker]

Wait, wait, wait. When it comes to YouTube and silencing conservatives these people are all for private companies and their right to do what they want. But when it comes to the ISPs it is totally not okay for them to what they want, and the government must intervene!

[Elba]

Alex Jones is going to run into problems on Youtube. Good.

Sadly, Alex will be fine. Guy makes millions off of his products. John Oliver's latest episode was about that.

[The Penguin]

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

Fine I'll say what you said in reverse and lets see if Endus bans me for it. Most Liberal views are stupid. .

[Elba]

Wait, wait, wait. When it comes to YouTube and silencing conservatives these people are all for private companies and their right to do what they want. But when it comes to the ISPs it is totally not okay for them to what they want, and the government must intervene!

Actually I support both. Go private companies! Down with net neutrality! Hurray!!

- - - Updated - - -

Fine I'll say what you said in reverse and lets see if Endus bans me for it. Most Liberal views are stupid. .

Fair enough. Agree to disagree?

[The Penguin]

Fair enough. Agree to disagree?

You sir have a deal.

[Super Kami Dende]

Not surprising. Idiots needing Safe spaces is becoming common place. Instead of just avoiding things they don't want to watch they cry about the possibility that others might see them as well and are trying to "protect" them from other ideas. laughable really.

[Elba]

Not surprising. Idiots needing Safe spaces is becoming common place. Instead of just avoiding things they don't want to watch they cry about the possibility that others might see them as well and are trying to "protect" them from other ideas. laughable really.

So, you read the headline and decided to comment right away?

[Ravenblade]

It's a private company which runs on ads, advertisers themselves are those setting the standards these days. It is no different in the physical world where companies try to dissociate themselves from certain groups whilst others don't really care. Usually companies care a lot about exposure however and they also care where they get exposure and by whom. A lot people seem surprised that companies practise social hygiene but they have been doing so since ages. In the 50s and 60s racist ads were a-ok, these days companies need to be careful when talking about genders of inanimate objects even. In general I don't see a lot issues with it, a lot sites have a strict policy about what goes and what doesn't. I have seen religious sites having a clientele with stringent moral requirements about the content published. Now if Youtube were publicly funded then I'd agree with the concerns in general. In general I agree it is annoying to some but if your channel is worth the content and has a wide-ranging followership you could easily charge 2 €/mth. via Patreon or transparent sponsorship. It's what this whole model has been steering towards for the last 2-3 years already.

[Deleted]

As long as it's right wing opinions getting moderated it's OK.
When left wing opinions get moderated. Be weary.

- - - Updated - - -

Wait, wait, wait. When it comes to YouTube and silencing conservatives these people are all for private companies and their right to do what they want. But when it comes to the ISPs it is totally not okay for them to what they want, and the government must intervene!

This. Fucking hypocrites.

[Super Kami Dende]

So, you read the headline and decided to comment right away?

I read the Article as well. "When people search for sensitive keywords on YouTube, they will be redirected towards a playlist of curated YouTube videos" Which was exactly the point I just made.