4 ms·

No, the problem is that a lot of good content got flagged while a lot of garbage is still monetized.

MBCook 9y ago
It will all be sorted out (to some degree). I don’t understand how YouTubers expected to never have advertisers try to scrutinize what they’re supporting or putting their name next to. And yes, good people are getting dragged down by association because there are other things on YT that are toxic to advertisers like the weird copyright infringing kids content or the seemingly abusive kids content. But if YT is going to host that stuff (they are), and you’re going to use their site too, then you’re going to get lumped in. It’s the same problem as the dark web. Yes, there are a handful of legal sites that may be useful. But when a huge chunk of what it’s actualky used for is horribly illegal things you’re going to to get lumped in. I’m kind of surprised YTers weren’t pushing YT to clean up a lot of this stuff earlier so this wouldn’t have happened.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >I don’t understand how YouTubers expected to never have advertisers try to scrutinize what they’re supporting or putting their name next to. For one, because they shouldn't have a say. They should pay for views, and that's it. If they don't like a specific program, they can not sponsor it -- but not try to affect regular ad rotation through all kinds of videos a users sees through their ad money. Because with the latter way, advertisers also get censorship power over content providers. Which is something only the public should have (view or not view).
  - MBCook 9y ago
    > Because with the latter way, advertisers also get censorship power over content providers. But they’ve always had that over ad-sponsored content. That’s what makes it ad-sponsored, that they choose who to pay and thus can pull funds for any reason. Again, why should YT be different than other mediums with ad sponsored content?

It will all be sorted out (to some degree). I don’t understand how YouTubers expected to never have advertisers try to scrutinize what they’re supporting or putting their name next to. And yes, good people are getting dragged down by association because there are other things on YT that are toxic to advertisers like the weird copyright infringing kids content or the seemingly abusive kids content. But if YT is going to host that stuff (they are), and you’re going to use their site too, then you’re going to get lumped in. It’s the same problem as the dark web. Yes, there are a handful of legal sites that may be useful. But when a huge chunk of what it’s actualky used for is horribly illegal things you’re going to to get lumped in. I’m kind of surprised YTers weren’t pushing YT to clean up a lot of this stuff earlier so this wouldn’t have happened.

coldtea 9y ago
>I don’t understand how YouTubers expected to never have advertisers try to scrutinize what they’re supporting or putting their name next to. For one, because they shouldn't have a say. They should pay for views, and that's it. If they don't like a specific program, they can not sponsor it -- but not try to affect regular ad rotation through all kinds of videos a users sees through their ad money. Because with the latter way, advertisers also get censorship power over content providers. Which is something only the public should have (view or not view).
- MBCook 9y ago
  > Because with the latter way, advertisers also get censorship power over content providers. But they’ve always had that over ad-sponsored content. That’s what makes it ad-sponsored, that they choose who to pay and thus can pull funds for any reason. Again, why should YT be different than other mediums with ad sponsored content?