YouTube going full thought police.

[Zmaniac17]

Are you paying anything, pretty sure that is a requirement to be a "customer".

If you want to be technical about it I am the product, which gives me even more control over the company. I am being sold to advertisers. A rule of thumb, "if something is free, you are the product".

[baskev]

Extremes on either end is bad, but it sure as hell feels like regardless of which side we're all heading towards Totalitarian [which heavily censors everything]... which is what the EU is becoming.

?????what has this to do with the subject matter about Youtube censorship and the correct use of liberal??

And yes extreme's are bad on either side.

And btw if you look at the EU...its going more conservative...But depending on country its not as bleak as you make it out to be..( from my perspective)

[Antiganon]

That young lady was in that scene for whole 10 seconds. They didn't cut the episode out. Just that "unfortunate" scene.

10 seconds or 10 hours, it doesn't matter. If you can't confirm the rights, the legal liability is not worth it. The girl in that scene, upon finding out that she was in it and didn't give express permission, could turn around and sue Disney and Netflix, demanding royalties for every time that episode was viewed on Netflix. Much easier (and more prudent) for the content owners to edit out the portion in question. Assuming it was a more substantial portion of the episode, they would have pulled the entire episode rather than risk the legal backlash.

The bigger problem here is that Viacom or whoever owned the rights back in the 90s apparently sucks at writing release forms. You need to have something in there like:

"ACTOR appearing in PRODUCTION gives any and all rights to their performance in PRODUCTION over to PRODUCTION COMPANY, including any and all derivative works, in perpetuity. These rights may be transferred to a third party at the sole discretion of PRODUCTION COMPANY, at any time, with or without notice to ACTOR."

[Deleted]

10 seconds or 10 hours, it doesn't matter. If you can't confirm the rights, the legal liability is not worth it. The girl in that scene, upon finding out that she was in it and didn't give express permission, could turn around and sue Disney and Netflix, demanding royalties for every time that episode was viewed on Netflix. Much easier (and more prudent) for the content owners to edit out the portion in question. Assuming it was a more substantial portion of the episode, they would have pulled the entire episode rather than risk the legal backlash.

The bigger problem here is that Viacom or whoever owned the rights back in the 90s apparently sucks at writing release forms. You need to have something in there like:

"ACTOR appearing in PRODUCTION gives any and all rights to their performance in PRODUCTION over to PRODUCTION COMPANY, including any and all derivative works, in perpetuity. These rights may be transferred to a third party at the sole discretion of PRODUCTION COMPANY, at any time, with or without notice to ACTOR."

They could have cut out her scene, it wasn't even that important. They decided to cut out the whole scene.

[baskev]

YouTube is a private company. Their business idea is to sell advertisement space to other private companies. If those they don't want to buy their advertisement space because they don't want to be associated with some content, that is their choice. Which is what happened, so Google is adjusting their business so that their advertiser will come back so that they can make more money. Freedom of speech ≠ entitled to any stage or megaphone you want.



First of all, SJW is notthing but a pejorative term. It's meaningless as anything but a slur used by socially conservative folks these days to anyone whose socially liberal views oppose theirs, if it ever was it is no longer tied to or addresses in any meaningful way the real issues that exists within some left-wing groups of people concerning cultural relativism and that sort of thing.

That is just it. It may be a pejorative term...But they make no difference between liberal and SJW. They are used as the same word. While liberal is not that left. Putting people into those kinds of boxes only fuels the bad information. Its like calling all republicans nazi's....or all trumps idiots, or all ( insert race/religion)( insert stereotype) .

Second of all, are you talking about the people the OP mentioned? The only one of them that I know much about is definitely not a "REAL liberal". Dave Rubin that the OP mention for example, his whole deal is that he invites like 90% reactionaries to a "discussion", where basically he sits backs and nods, let's them peddle their nonsense without ever challenging them, only complains about "the Left", mischaracterizes himself as a "classic liberal" because he has no clue what classical liberalism means despite working as a political pundit (somebody who describes themselves as "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" would most likely fall in the classic liberal category, and I think it's safe to assume Rubin not to be socially liberal considering the degree to which his commentary and bitching focuses on social issues where he disagrees with liberals). Basically his job is to aid and abet the Dark Enlightenment, which is the opposite what a classic liberal, one whom adheres to the ideology born out of the Enlightenment, would do. And he seems completely oblivious to the wave of far-right politics that has swept the West in recent years, including Donald Trump. I find it very easy to understand why a company wouldn't want to be associated with his channel, as is their choice. On rare occasions he will let on non-reactionaries, like Maajid Nawaz who is an actual liberal and the guy who first came up with the term, which Rubin of course loves to use, "regressive left" (which of course made sense the way Nawaz used it but which has unfortunately been completely hollowed out by the right-wing and the far-right as they now use it as a slur for "the Left" in general). But I guess that's only because reactionaries likes him for his outspoken and focused opposition to the ideology of Islamism, which I guess they, being the reactionaries they are, easily mistakes for the religion of Islam, allowing for them to oppose Muslims, which Nawaz ironically is one of, in general, although they should know that Nawaz has said that nationalism hinders the fight against Islamism and that liberalism is the cure of both of these far-right ideological sets of identity politics. Dave Rubin and others are free to continue to speak their mind as they see fit though, and YouTube are free not to pay them to do it.

So i was wrong about 1 person i stand corrected. My point is still valid tough. The post that i was reacting to put them in a other political spectrum then where they should be. And sadly in this day and age that means everything. It changes how you bring your info, how you are open to discussion ( witch most extreme left or right are not) etc etc. And that was my point :P

[Faroth]

They talk about controversial political topics all the thing. That stuff is not ad friendly any more. Shocking.

And yet there are more ads on mainstream news sites than the avg porn site these days.

[melodramocracy]

And exactly how much effort would it take you to switch to Vevo if you decided Youtube wasn't working well for you? None. Popularity is fleeting. Popularity is not a business model. Do you remember Blockbuster video? How about AOL? What about Kodak?

Well, lets wait and see what the fallout from this is. If fringe videos have as much of a following as some in this thread indicate, Youtube will be marginalized in a few years.

[Antiganon]

They could have cut out her scene, it wasn't even that important. They decided to cut out the whole scene.

You've seen the original unedited version of the episode then? You know beyond any shadow of a doubt that there would be no odd continuity issues if you removed only the frames depicting her? I assume you have some sort of formal training as a video editor to back that assertion?

Putting this out there: I do have formal training as a video editor. When you shoot content for anything serious (network TV, movies, etc) you shoot about 3 times as much content as you will actually use. You then spend a lot of time in post production cutting down every scene to the bare minimum needed for it to flow properly, so as to contain all the relevant content, with an absolute minimum necessary downtime for proper pacing.

When the original show creators edited the episodes for TV, they already did that. Generally speaking, cutting smaller portions of a scene after the fact heavily detracts from the original. For a clear example of this, watch some episodes of Sesame Street. When HBO bought the rights, they got the rights to all previous content, as well as the IP, characters, etc. To lower production costs, and because the target demo has such a narrow age range, they reused a lot of older skits. The new HBO episodes are only 30 minutes, as opposed to the 60 minutes of the older PBS episodes.

You can immediately tell in the newer episodes where the rough cuts are, and there are some things that simply don't make sense as a viewer. Sesame Street can get away with this because preschool age children won't pick up on minor continuity details, but tweens (the target demo for Bill Nye) certainly will.

[Sky High]

Lib-tards first ruined marvel comics, and now aim to ruin YouTube. And when they get rid of anyone who offends them, they will turn on each other.

Gee how to spot the guy not paying the least bit of attention in 5 seconds or less.

[Noxx79]

Upset? Check dislikes, nobody likes libtards. Nothing to do with being upset. More like disgusted.



That young lady was in that scene for whole 10 seconds. They didn't cut the episode out. Just that "unfortunate" scene.

10 years ago? Wow, you conservatives really believe in time travel don't you.

In addition, how can you possibly defend an educational show giving incorrect information? It's as if you all don't want kids to actually be informed.

You also have absolutely no idea how licensing works, apparently.

[Deleted]

You've seen the original unedited version of the episode then? You know beyond any shadow of a doubt that there would be no odd continuity issues if you removed only the frames depicting her? I assume you have some sort of formal training as a video editor to back that assertion?

Putting this out there: I do have formal training as a video editor. When you shoot content for anything serious (network TV, movies, etc) you shoot about 3 times as much content as you will actually use. You then spend a lot of time in post production cutting down every scene to the bare minimum needed for it to flow properly, so as to contain all the relevant content, with an absolute minimum necessary downtime for proper pacing.

When the original show creators edited the episodes for TV, they already did that. Generally speaking, cutting smaller portions of a scene after the fact heavily detracts from the original. For a clear example of this, watch some episodes of Sesame Street. When HBO bought the rights, they got the rights to all previous content, as well as the IP, characters, etc. To lower production costs, and because the target demo has such a narrow age range, they reused a lot of older skits. The new HBO episodes are only 30 minutes, as opposed to the 60 minutes of the older PBS episodes.

You can immediately tell in the newer episodes where the rough cuts are, and there are some things that simply don't make sense as a viewer. Sesame Street can get away with this because preschool age children won't pick up on minor continuity details, but tweens (the target demo for Bill Nye) certainly will.

I would agree with that, however, there are rough cuts in the new, edited version. You can clearly see that. So this didn't bother them that much. Something else was the problem and I think I know what it was. Especially since their new episodes are "gender is a spectrum" themed bullshit.

Teens are no longer their target. Middle aged people watch it for nostalgia reason. Or at least they would watch it, because me personally, I couldn't watch more than 15 minutes.

- - - Updated - - -

10 years ago? Wow, you conservatives really believe in time travel don't you.

In addition, how can you possibly defend an educational show giving incorrect information? It's as if you all don't want kids to actually be informed.

You also have absolutely no idea how licensing works, apparently.

They didn't give incorrect information. Defects represent only 0.4% (or is it less?) of the whole population. It's not even worth to mention it, but making a whole show about it? Give me a break.

[Noxx79]

I would agree with that, however, they are rough cuts in the new, edited version. You can clearly see that. So this didn't bother them that much. Something else was the problem and I think I know what it was. Especially since their new episodes are "gender is a spectrum" themed bullshit.

Teens are no longer their target. Middle aged people watch it for nostalgia reason. Or at least they would watch it, because me personally, I couldn't watch more than 15 minutes.

- - - Updated - - -



They didn't give incorrect information. Defects represent only 0.4% of the whole population.

So deficits exist, and that doesn't excuse your belief in time travel and your ignorance about licensing.

[Zmaniac17]

Well, lets wait and see what the fallout from this is. If fringe videos have as much of a following as some in this thread indicate, Youtube will be marginalized in a few years.

Let's be clear I'm not talking about this decision. I'm talking about a general trend toward censorship and control on popular media. If it gets out of hand then maybe you'll see an impact. I however do not disagree with this particular move. It's the trend that worries me. I am more upset with Youtube's monetization model and how it takes advantage of it's creators. I think the market is wide open for disruption in this area. The advertising model is dying.

[KrazyK923]

And yet there are more ads on mainstream news sites than the avg porn site these days.

I agree that's stupid, but that's an entirely different conversation I think. Old media vs new media.

People expect to hear about these topics on "news" sites. They've been that way for, at least, 30 years since Reagan.

[Queen of Hamsters]

Pretty sure these new terms have affected plenty of "SJW"-channels as well.

In this case, "SJW" merely translating to people valuing respect to ones fellow man and informed opinions rather than the far-rights mental gymnastics.

[Deleted]

Not really, it is much weirder than that. This a right vs capitalism thread.

It is roughly equivalent to socialists complaining about free healthcare.

or arguing for the free market like so many fascists in this thread?

[Faroth]

I agree that's stupid, but that's an entirely different conversation I think. Old media vs new media.

People expect to hear about these topics on "news" sites. They've been that way for, at least, 30 years since Reagan.

Maybe YouTube should try other things, like... I dunno... better categorizing videos. Or even making YouTube divisions where creators will set their channels up.
YouTube News
YouTube Entertainment
YouTube Gaming
YouTube Celebrity Gossip
YouTube Sports

Etc. etc.

I know when the first "adpocalypse" happened, I saw people asking why YouTube doesn't just give advertisers the option of what type of content they advertise on and I think I recall later seeing something along those lines was implemented.

Creators should probably also be given a rating system they can select to identify what they fall under. Not perfect, and sure people can select family friendly for their offensive video, but those get dealt with via reporting and can have harsh penalties for misrepresenting.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

OMG, someone took down a video I posted on Youtube. THOUGHT POLICE!!!

OMG, someone told me not to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. THOUGHT POLICE!!!!!!!!

OMG, I told a judge to go fuck himself and he threw me in jail for contempt of court. THOUGHT POLICE!!!!!!!!!!!!

OMG, someone pointed out that I'm a fucking moron who doesn't know what 'thought police' means. THOUGHT POLICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Faroth]

Pretty sure these new terms have affected plenty of "SJW"-channels as well.

In this case, "SJW" merely translating to people valuing respect to ones fellow man and informed opinions rather than the far-rights mental gymnastics.

Really?

Because coordinating attacks on a 13 year old girl to push her to attempted suicide over how she drew a cartoon character is valuing respect to their fellow man?

[GennGreymane]

lol companies are SJWs now. Which boogie man you gonna blame next for companies doing what companies do?